Thank you for that.
First on the subject of contractors, we deal with employees; our domain is staffing and employees. When there's a contractor and there's a contract, it should not have an employer-employee relationship. If it has, then you have a contracting problem. You contract for a piece of work—and I think there's a role for that kind of thing—but you're not expecting it to be substituting for an employee, because there are all kinds of obligations that come with being an employee, and rights and protections.
I can't really comment on that further, but certainly as an organization we are concerned about people who are not full-time public servants, with how they are used—and casual people. If they're really casual, it's not a problem, but if they're used in other ways, it becomes a problem. Similarly, something like executive interchange has a lot of value, but you don't want it to substitute for an employee, and if it does, and if you do delegations, then they have to be properly trained.
I can't offer much more, because it gets outside of my ambit.
With respect to the team of advisers on the public service that has been set up, I really had no input into the composition of that team. I think the question of why that team was put together that way is probably something that more appropriately goes to the Clerk of the Privy Council.