30 May 2025

Labour hire contracts set to boom across APS

| By Chris Johnson
Join the conversation
35

Labour hire contracts are set to rise across many APS agencies. Photo: Pixelfit.

Following months of uncertainty over available work in the Australian Public Service, labour hire contracts are set to balloon again as the second-term Labor government pushes ahead with its agenda.

While the Federal Government’s position is to prioritise in-house employment, sources are telling Region that there aren’t enough permanent staff to roll out the number of projects already in the pipeline.

The Federal Budget in March forecast an increase to the government’s average staffing level by 3436 jobs for 2025-26.

Labor has also committed to slashing a further $719 million in external resourcing by 2028-29, a saving that will total $4.7 billion since 2022.

But the reality is that labour hire will need to increase if the government wants to achieve everything it says it will do.

The caretaker period and federal election, along with the Coalition’s scare tactics over mass job losses in the APS, all combined to create a mini drought in job opportunities across the sector.

Recruitment and APS sources say the situation is about to change.

Although there has been an extended quiet period for recruitment agencies and talented workers, they are now poised to take up a flood of new opportunities in the Commonwealth.

Labor’s thumping election win allows it to surge ahead with its progressive policy agenda with far fewer encumbrances than last term.

READ ALSO Coalition leaders taking flak over firing talent from the front bench

Come 1 July, there will be a concerted recruitment drive across many APS agencies, with a focus on labour hire contracts.

“The government now has a golden ticket to make substantive changes and roll out loads of policies, and it is going to need white collar muscle to get the work done,” one source said.

“The workforce needs to expand, but Labor will be reluctant to further increase its permanent APS footprint.

“And as anyone in Canberra knows, to get work done in the APS, the public service relies on contractors.”

Another said there was already a labour hire recruitment push that will only increase with the new financial year.

“The ambition is so great that there are not enough staff to carry out the projects,” they said.

“Labour hire is the natural step and you will see it boom after the end of the financial year.”

An example is the Education Department, where the federal election brought little disruption for Minister Jason Clare.

He can now unleash his ambitions in the portfolio for education, higher education, early education and childcare reforms.

All these areas underwent substantial policy groundwork last term, with much of the implementation still to come.

“We will need more personnel to do this, and it will be done largely through labour contracts,” a department source said.

READ ALSO North West Shelf gas approval ‘cements a legacy of climate harm for generations’: Pocock

The same can be said for Defence, Health and a string of other big departments with huge tasks ahead of them.

“We’ve got so many vacancies to fill, but they are all temporary labour hire contracts,” one APS contact told Region.

“If you’re good at the job, though, those contracts will keep being renewed.”

The recruitment push has already begun, with contracts being advertised for public service positions across the sector.

A simple scan of vacancy opportunities reveals numerous positions available for those with skills in areas such as grants assessment, financial analysis, compliance, project management, team leadership, and change management.

They mostly talk in terms of “12-month contracts”, “potential 12-month extension”, “labour hire contract until the end of the calendar year”, “labour hire until 30 June 2026”, “possibility of extension”.

Many agencies are already advertising to fill dozens of contracts each in the new financial year.

“It’s a bit of a cloak and dagger; chicken and egg; now you see me, now you don’t situation,” one APS source said.

“The government has to have external contractors and more of them, but it also needs to be seen to be reducing them.”

Free Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? We package the most-read Canberra stories and send them to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.
Loading
By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.

Join the conversation

35
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest

I thought it said ‘Labor hire contracts” silly me. Imagine the new Government reneging on its promises.

So, Labor are happy to increase the number of contractors to replace public servants they don’t have. Which is a contradiction of their stated aim of getting contractors to become public servants.
In the meantime, they have actively discouraged above-the-line specialists who provide knowledge and skills that the APS does not have.
Labor, thus, seem to think it is OK to obliterate the SME industry in the name of ideology while being hypocritical in getting more bums on seats.
Perhaps this is done in order to fill the coffers – the SME services based companies are now forced to become Labour Hire companies with the associated compliance fees.

How do you replace something you do not have?

You fail in the first sentence. The rest is a rant.

arco: Let me try and rephrase. Labor recognises they need a certain size of workforce to achieve their outcomes. However, they don’t currently have the staff, and it seems they have difficulty in recruiting the staff. So, they are getting LH contractors to fill positions – the ‘public servants they don’t have’.
Perhaps you see the rest as a rant, but maybe you don’t want to recognise the disconnect between what Labor has said, and what it is now doing. A disconnect that is going to damage the SME environment and ultimately damage the ability for any Government to build both a smarter APS and a smart specialised SME base to help that smarter APS.

That’s two common sense outcomes from this government in two days. What’s going on ?

@Penfold
Nothing new here, Penfold. The previous Labor government never denied it would use contractors, where appropriate.

It demonised contractors just to please the lazy unions.

@Pe3nfold
No. Labor demonised the inappropriate use of contractors.

@Penfold
No. Labor ‘demonised’ the inappropriate use of contractors.

Well it begs the question JS, what’s changed ?

How are contractors more appropriate now rather than three years ago ?

@Penfold
I agree, Penfold – what has changed? Nothing.

Labor has always said that, where appropriate, contractors have a role to play in delivering outcomes.

I’m happy for you to prove me wrong, and provide evidence that any Labor minister has stated that there is no role for contractors in public service departments.

Nice try but no cigar JS. If nothing’s changed, why are contractors back in vogue ? Is it simply policy on the run, making it up as they go ?

@Penfold
Nice try, Penfold.

Perhaps you can actually address the question and show when contractors were not “in vogue”. A lot of bombastic posturing from you, but no proof.

It’s a pretty simple assignment. As I previously asked, provide evidence that any Labor minister has stated that there is no role for contractors in public service departments. Perhaps it happened at one of these ‘private meetings where things are said’ … but that does not make it policy.

What is it with you a proof JS ? That the government has sought to reduce and remove contractors since 2022 is hardly a shock, do you need links provided to every article written about it ?

Perhaps you could answer my question – what’s appropriate and inappropriate contracting ? Were you appropriate or inappropriate when you contracted ?

@Penfold
I’ll answer the really easy question first, Penfold. Proof? Because, I don’t just take your word for something … can’t be simpler than that.

Of course the Labor government has sought to reduce contractors since coming to power. They don’t believe in contractors performing ongoing line roles that public servants can do. I’ve mentioned that to you before, and you have never been able to produce anything to refute why that should continue to happen.

Coalition governments believe in “small government”. This means they pretend they’ve reduced the “size” of the public service, by ‘hiding the salary’, of these contractors performing line roles, as admin costs – i.e. the bucket from which contractors/consultants are paid. Public service managers have a staffing need, to get the job done – and if there is a curtailment of PS recruitment, ‘contractors’ are the easiest solution.

Now, to the second question, of appropriate V inappropriate contracting?
Appropriate => providing a niche or specific expert service, that cannot be covered by existing, or recruiting new, public servants.
Inappropriate => performing an (ongoing) line or processing role; such as a help desk operator or a network account administrator – roles which I saw performed, on many occasion, by relatively low skilled contractors.

Thirdly, of course, I am going to say I was ‘appropriate’ when contracting. I justify this, by knowing I worked on short to medium term projects, in various roles, in a number of different agencies, and at different times, when both Labor and Coalition governments were in power. You can do with that whatever you will – it’s history now.

Yes you’re not a very trusting soul are you JS. I’d imagine that whenever a conservative person states something totally common sense you demand evidence. But if a foreigner requested asylum, claiming to be in fear of something, you’d accept that without question. Spot on ?

@Penfold
If your definition of “not a very trusting soul”, Penfold, is that I don’t just accept unsubstantiated opinion, purporting to be facts, from an anonymous nobody, who can demonstrate no relevant qualifications on here, then I am guilty of your charge.

As for your hypothetical about asylum seekers. You do know that as a signatory to the 1951 Refugee Convention (that’s my evidence – https://www.unhcr.org/au/about-unhcr/who-we-are/1951-refugee-convention) and other human rights treaties, Australia is legally bound to protect asylum seekers and ensure they receive fair and humane treatment. This doesn’t mean asylum is automatically granted but under the aforementioned Convention, their claims must be assessed. I’ve never met an asylum seeker, but as I will never be involved in assessing their request, my opinion, as to the bona fides of their claim, is irrelevant. Kudos for trying, Penfold, but unfortunately no cigar.

Thanks JS, that’s a “yes” then. You do know there’s a large number of people who claim asylum on false pretences, but it sounds like you’re not too concerned there.

Btw opinion doesn’t have to be substantiated, it’s opinion. Sorry to hear that you struggle so much distinguishing between the two.

@Penfold
What’s a “yes”, Penfold? Yes – Australia has an obligation to protect asylum seekers and to assess their claims for legitmacy?

It’s akin to “innocent until proven guilty” – which I assume is a concept you understand and accept. Obviously, those people who claim asylum “on false pretences” will have their claims rejected … why do you have a problem with that?

I actually wrote: “opinion, purporting to be facts” – which as with any fact, does need to be substantiated. Sorry to see that, yet again, you fail the reading comprehension test.

Lol JS. Innocent before proven guilty applies to asylum seekers but not top 10% income earners. Such consistency. 🤣

@Penfold
To the best of my knowledge, the top 10% of income earners have not been charged with any tax-related offence, Penfold, so why is there a need for a presumption of innocence?

This thread also seems to have run its course of usefulness.

Hmm, i wondered if you’d address the double standard there JS. Clearly no. Perhaps i can try another example – if somebody rocked up to a Centrelink office wearing a Rolex and claimed to be homeless and jobless, would you offer them welfare ?

Am asking in the context of this sort of example:

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-03-16/centrelink-rorters-forced-to-replay-over-$40-million/9553714

@Penfold
Your puerile, hypothetical ‘what-about”isms, are becoming quite tedious, Penfold?

Nevertheless, as with many, who are legally entitled to government support, your mythical ‘Rolex wearing, homeless and jobless individual’, will have both their income and asset holdings (e.g. the Rolex) included in the determination of their claim … which I might add, just as for your mythical asylum seeker, I will not be involved in the determination of said entitlement … and, thankfully, neither will you.

So you have found an article that shows there are welfare cheats out there. So what – do you think you are unveiling some startling new revelation? You are really struggling to be relevant, aren’t you, Penfold?

PS As an aside, I know several people who wear “Rolexes” and other “high end designer watches – but they were cheap replicas purchased at one of many overseas Asian markets, for the equivalent of around A$30. Looks can be deceiving, Penfold, especially when you see what your jaundiced bias wants you to see.

Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? Every day we package the most popular Region Canberra stories and send them straight to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.

By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.