Current and former employees at the Australian Taxation Office's outsourced call centres are speaking out about what they describe as extremely inferior working conditions compared to their counterparts employed directly by the ATO.
Shocking Staff Turnover and Working Conditions
Rob*, one of sixteen workers hired by a private operator to handle ATO customer service calls, witnessed an alarming pattern of staff departure. After completing training, his cohort began taking calls, and three colleagues resigned immediately. Within just six months, only four members of the original group remained.
"I was just shocked about what goes on in these places – it's unbelievable," said Rob, who worked for Probe Operations, the ATO's largest outsourced call centre provider, which is owned by private equity firm KKR. He described an environment of intense pressure where every minute is monitored, and staff are immediately reprimanded for exceeding call time limits.
An official report from the Tax Ombudsman released last month revealed that outsourced workers, half of whom possess less than a year's experience, now answer more than 85% of all calls to the ATO, including those from professional tax agents. The report identified the massive staff turnover at these for-profit operators as a core problem.
In the 2024-25 period, staff turnover across the outsourced centres reached a staggering 125%, a figure that was not broken down by individual operator. This compares dramatically to just 31% for the ATO's internal staff. Effectively, this means the entire workforce at these private companies turned over within a year, plus an additional quarter of the staff left.
Significant Pay Disparity and Problematic Incentives
Workers like Rob typically earn approximately $26.70 per hour, equating to a base annual salary of around $52,800. Team leaders see their pay rise to just above $60,000. In stark contrast, ATO employees performing the same duties on identical phone lines generally earn over $72,000 per year.
Outsourced staff argue that despite having identical responsibilities, system access, and security obligations as direct ATO employees, they face extreme disparities in pay, training quality, and overall working conditions compared to the public service.
Rob explained a bonus system at Probe where he could increase his pay by $2 per hour if he maintained an average of 25 calls per day over a fortnight. However, this bonus could be voided if other staff monitoring the calls issued a "strike" for what they deemed an inadequate response.
Denise*, another Probe employee, described the incentive schemes as so vague that she "genuinely doesn't know how they work." She also noted that training, while organised by ATO staff, is delivered by private contractors and is "woefully bad."
"We do the best we can when it comes to vulnerable taxpayers," Denise said. "It's hard on outsourced staff as we get little to no support which feeds into our turnover rate. Vulnerable taxpayers mean longer phone calls which we are monetarily incentivised against."
Service Quality Deterioration and Industry Reaction
The consequences of this model are being felt by those on the other end of the phone. The Tax Ombudsman has received numerous reports of deteriorating service quality from tax agents, who frequently encounter call staff unable to provide informed answers.
According to analysis of government tenders, Probe (owned by KKR), the Nasdaq-listed Concentrix Services, and the British multinational Serco share ATO call centre contracts worth $316.5 million.
Susan Franks from Chartered Accountants Australia and New Zealand stated that while the ATO's online services require significant investment, "the phone system just doesn't work."
"We would prefer the ATO's phone calls to be answered by somebody with experience in tax and a deep knowledge of tax, rather than contractors that are changing … and haven't got tax experience," Franks said.
Emeline Gaske, National Secretary of the Australian Services Union, urged the government to focus on procurement policies that deliver secure jobs and fair pay. "The federal government should be a model employer" and ensure its outsourcing arrangements don't "drive a race to the bottom on pay and conditions," she argued.
Blair*, a former Serco employee in Box Hill, Melbourne, described a system failing both workers and the public. "You get what you pay for; it's not a good system for staff retention or the caller," he said, characterising the training as basic and the rest as learning on the job with insufficient support.
When approached for comment, Probe declined to respond to questions about worker experiences, pay rates, staff turnover, and bonus systems. Serco also declined to comment, while Concentrix referred inquiries to the ATO. The ATO itself declined to answer a series of questions regarding high staff turnover, pay and conditions, and incentive schemes at the outsourced centres.
*Names have been changed to protect confidentiality.
