At the November round of meetings, I was deeply disappointed that not one councillor supported Part B of my Notified Motion to push for better accountability and transparency in the council’s use of consultant and contractor expenditure. That is, a report to cost the feasibility of Developing of a Framework to Evaluate Outsourcing Effectiveness.
Perhaps I was optimistic, hoping this would be the moment to gain traction on something I’ve been advocating for over two years – better accountability, greater transparency, and full disclosure of outsourcing expenditures.
While I was told at the meeting that there’s still an opportunity to raise this as a budget initiative, I made it clear that I won’t wait for the right moment. I will continue to raise and fight for this at every opportunity.
The Notified Motion I moved had two parts:
A detailed review of the Noosaville Foreshore Project, which received majority support (5:2); and
A report on the cost and feasibility of developing a framework to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of hiring consultants and outsourcing, i.e., value for money, service quality, procurement and contracting practices, and internal versus external resourcing, which was not supported by any councillor (6:1).
While I was pleased that Part A was endorsed, I believe Part B was critical to ensuring public funds are spent responsibly and with full transparency. This wasn’t just about reviewing expenses – it was about ensuring every dollar of ratepayers’ money is spent wisely, transparently, and on what matters most to the community.
For years, I’ve called for a consultancy register – a publicly accessible record showing who we engage, for what purpose, and at what cost – or a framework to evaluate the effectiveness of outsourcing arrangements. These are not bureaucratic hurdles but essential tools to ensure ratepayers have clarity and confidence in how their money is spent.
I said in the meeting that without these measures, important questions remain unanswered:
– Are we achieving measurable value for money from consultancy and contractor expenditures?
– How are outcomes and return on investment being evaluated?
– Are we over-relying on external consultants, potentially sidelining our staff?
– Could investing in additional staff and training deliver more cost-effective results?
Transparency builds trust.
It demonstrates respect for the community’s trust in us to manage their money responsibly. My motion aimed to introduce tools to improve governance and provide clear accountability.
This isn’t about undervaluing consultants or contractors – their expertise is often essential. It’s about ensuring that their expenditures are justified, measured, aligned with the community’s priorities, and provide value for money.
By rejecting Part B, I believe we missed an opportunity to show our commitment to better accountability. The cost of inaction isn’t just financial – in my opinion, it risks eroding the trust ratepayers place in us.
While standing alone on this issue was disappointing, it won’t deter me. After two years of advocating for greater transparency and accountability in consultancy and outsourcing expenditures, I view this as a minor setback. As one resident told me after the meeting: “Persistence beats resistance. Keep it going”.
Despite my disappointment, I remain optimistic and steadfast in my commitment to keep pushing for better. As councillors, we serve the people who trust us to ensure their hard-earned money is spent wisely—a responsibility I take seriously.
(Please note this is my personal opinion and does not represent the position of Noosa Council.)
