We’ve noticed you’re visiting from NZ. Click here to visit our NZS site.
We’ve noticed you’re visiting from NZ. Click here to visit our NZS site.
While parliamentary inquiries grab headlines and big consulting firms are asked to defend their practices, something significant is happening. On 17 November 2025: procurement rules change for the first time in two decades.
What’s changed?
What else is happening?
A parliamentary bill currently under review proposes oversight of large consulting contracts over $2 million — similar to how public works projects are scrutinised. If passed, this would add another layer of transparency to the consulting sector. The November reforms already give you better options for specialist work under $125,000; potential future oversight of large contracts would complete the accountability framework.
This isn't minor tweaking. It's the Australian Government creating structural conditions that favour transparent, specialist, locally-owned consulting firms over global giants.
This table shows when streamlined procurement is required, when it's optional, and when Division 2 rules still apply. Three thresholds matter most: $125,000 (MAS panel), $125,000 (non-panel), and $500,000 (SME exemption).
| Value threshold | Plain English summary of rules | Division 2? (open tender, 25-day minimum, public disclosure) |
Primary source (clause) |
| $10,000–$125,000 (non panel) | Must invite only Australian businesses (for 5.4 this includes NZ businesses). Apply IPP first where relevant. | No (Division 1 only) | CPRs 5.4; Appendix B note for 5.4. (Department of Finance) |
| Sub $125,000 (MAS/People/DTA standing offers) | Must invite only SMEs on the standing offer (DTA: IPP first). If no SME exists or no value for money SME submissions, may invite other panel suppliers. | No (standing offer buys are not subject to Division 2) | CPRs 5.5, 9.12; SME definition in Appendix B. (Department of Finance) |
| Under $200,000 (CCS) | CCS is mandatory for NCE contracts under $200k where a formal contract is required (with limited exceptions in RMG 420). | Depends: Yes for $125k–<$200k; No for <$125k. | CPRs 6.12; RMG 420 §5; CPRs 9.7. (Department of Finance) |
| $125,000 and above | Full Division 2 applies (open or limited tender per rules). Open tender minimum 25 days (can be 10–24 days in specific circumstances). | Yes unless Appendix A exemption used. | CPRs 9.7, 10.1, 10.22–10.24. (Department of Finance) |
| Up to $500,000 (SME) | Appendix A, Exemption 17 – may procure from an SME up to $500k; Division 2 does not apply (IPP must be satisfied first). | No (by exemption) | CPRs Appendix A – item 17; § 3.12. (Department of Finance) |
| $1 million+ (non construction) | Must consider economic benefit to the Australian economy as part of value for money (except Appendix A or standing offers). | Yes where at/above threshold and not exempt. | CPRs 4.7–4.8. (Department of Finance) |
The shift toward SMEs isn't a cost-cutting exercise disguised as policy reform. It's recognition that large consulting organisations carry structural disadvantages that no amount of brand reputation can overcome.
You can move faster on specialist work under $125,000. The requirement to approach only SMEs on the Management Advisory Services (MAS) panel, People Panel, DTA-managed standing offers, can eliminate the need for lengthy tender processes. This cuts procurement timelines from months to weeks for scoping studies, reviews, and specialist advice.
You can test quality before committing. Use smaller engagements to evaluate how firms work, whether they transfer knowledge, and if they deliver what they promise. Then scale up with confidence — or don't.
You now have explicit permission to prioritise transparency. The new rules make "ethical conduct" an official part of value-for-money assessments. That means you can (should always) ask upfront about pricing structures, conflict management, AI use policies, and knowledge transfer approaches. These aren't nice-to-haves anymore. They're procurement criteria.
Earlier this year, we ran a webinar with that deliberately provocative title. Not because we're opposed to consulting (that would be career-limiting), but because we've watched too many agencies pay for work they didn't need, delivered by people they never met, using approaches they couldn't replicate.
The response surprised us. Over 200 public sector leaders joined, and the feedback suggested we'd touched something real. One participant wrote: "Surprisingly honest session with actual tips on how to get a better deal"
Three insights from that session remain relevant as you navigate the new procurement landscape:
Commission work in phases when scope is unclear. Set budget for stage one (scoping and design) with an exit clause if you decide not to proceed. This prevents over-commitment before you understand what you actually need. Most consultants resist this because it makes them earn the full engagement. That resistance tells you something.
Demand budget breakdowns by person and require reporting. Even on fixed-price contracts, knowing how providers allocate their budget tells you whether senior expertise goes to your work or just shows up for governance meetings. If a supplier won't share this breakdown, ask why.
Build capability transfer into contracts as an explicit deliverable. Don't leave it to chance or goodwill. Specify that your team will work alongside consultants, that methodologies will be documented for reuse, and that success includes what you can do independently after the engagement ends.
The new procurement rules make all of this easier to enforce. You have structural support for these practices now, not just permission.
We created "Stop Wasting Money on Consultants" because we genuinely believe agencies should only pay for what they need. That's unusual thinking in an industry built on maximising billable hours and creating client dependency.
The November reforms create three practical advantages for working with smaller firms:
For work under $125,000, approach us directly through the Management Advisory Services (MAS) panel. Use this for scoping studies, specialist reviews, or testing engagement quality before larger commitments.
SMEs scale through trusted associate networks while maintaining quality and transparency. You get senior expertise without the overhead, and clear accountability without requiring independent oversight panels to manage conflicts.
SMEs train your team alongside delivery. Not as a separate workstream or add-on module, but integrated into how we solve problems together. Our business model depends on making you capable — if we don't transfer knowledge, we don't get recommended.
We're structured for the new rules. Locally owned across New Zealand and Australia, fewer than 200 staff, with no global overlords. We qualify for SME procurement and requirements from 17 November 2025.
This independence shapes how we work and means we can be totally transparent. Ask for a budget breakdown and we'll show you — by person, by task, with hours clearly stated. We disclose potential conflicts during procurement, not after you've signed.
We show you budget breakdowns by person before you commit — no hiding juniors at senior rates. We disclose conflicts during procurement, not after you've signed.
This isn't virtue signalling. It's how a smaller firm has to operate when your reputation depends on every project.
Government has created structural conditions favouring transparent, specialist, locally-owned consulting firms. If you've been frustrated by cookie-cutter solutions, unclear pricing, or dependency-creating models, you now have procurement tools to choose differently.
The question isn't whether to use consultants — agencies still need specialist expertise for complex challenges. The question is which consultants, under what conditions, for what outcomes.
You now have structural support for choosing quality over brand, transparency over opacity, and capability building over dependency. The procurement tools exist and we would love for you to support smaller businesses and make the most of them.
Whether you're ready to engage or just want to understand how the new rules might work in practice, we're ready to have the conversation.