I certainly can.
It comes up in a number of areas, not only from our union colleagues but also when we talk to military members who are on base managing budgets. We often hear that they have money in a pocket for contractors, but they'd rather have employees. In some cases it's vice versa: They can't find employees, but they can get contractors. Therefore, we are reinforcing with those who manage budgets on bases that there are ways to move money into the most efficient place.
One of the commitments we have made around value for money is that any time a new idea for outsourcing or taking public service work and using contractors is being put on the table, we demand a business case. There are no active discussions around any of that right now, so I have no business cases to share, but that is a requirement we have shared with our management team.
Equally, where there are more efficient ways to do business by moving away from contractors and using public servants, we are also encouraging people to look at that. We've had an interesting experience with one of those recently, as you would be aware. There are active discussions where the labour force exists, where we can turn contractors into public servants when we know it's long-term work. Typically, it's actually more efficient for us to use public servants in that scenario.
We have other scenarios where the skill set doesn't exist in the public service, so contractors will continue to play a role, but there's nothing explicit here. On the reallocation exercise that we were talking about a few moments ago, that is actually driving a lot of conversations around what the right model is to deliver a service. If it's cheaper or more efficient to use public servants, we are certainly open to those discussions. In some cases, the labour force does not exist.