The move is aimed at increasing transparency in procurement practices while avoiding a parliamentary-led process.
In a submission to a committee reviewing consultancy regulations, EY proposed this centralised model as a way to align with the federal government’s reform agenda. The proposal seeks practical oversight without expanding controls to all spending categories.
The federal government is under increased pressure to manage its spending on external consultants. Scrutiny has intensified around the billions paid to the big four firms - EY, Deloitte, KPMG and PwC - particularly after a breach of confidentiality by one company raised concerns and prompted regulatory action.
EY cited figures suggesting consultancy work accounts for a small part of total federal procurement. In the last financial year, $855 million was spent on consultancy across government, with only $343 million involving contracts above $2 million. EY argues that establishing a full parliamentary body would be an excessive response. Instead, a smaller independent group could adequately manage oversight.
However, academics including a former KPMG partner dispute that reasoning. In a separate submission, they argue the figures understate the problem by excluding contracting work classified outside consultancy. From 2020 to 2025, they estimate the big four firms received up to $6.3 billion, with only $900 million labelled as consulting. The remaining $5.4 billion would sit outside current regulatory definitions, casting doubt on the effectiveness of the proposed measures.
Following the 2022 election, the government committed to reducing its use of consultants. Despite this pledge, spending reached record levels in 2022 and stayed high through 2023. The path to reform may ultimately hinge on how consultancy is defined, which remains unsettled. The final version of the Public Consultancy and Services Contracts Bill is due by March 2026.
