Built on AU primary regulatory research
The Australian Accountant's Guide to Advising on Offshore Solutions
30-minute read • AU Edition • May 2026
INTRODUCTION
A practitioner-oriented framework for the advisory conversation no firm currently holds
Across 15 offshore staffing providers, all four Big 4 firms, seven mid-tier practices, and three professional bodies, not a single published resource addresses the accountant as an advisor to clients considering offshore staffing. Every guide, toolkit, and whitepaper in the Australian market addresses accounting firms buying offshore services for their own operations. This guide does not.
Who this guide is for
This guide is for partners and senior managers at mid-tier accounting practices who advise medium-tier business clients ($20M to $500M revenue) across five sectors: financial services, real estate, mining, construction, and healthcare. It assembles, for the first time, how general offshoring obligations under the Privacy Act, Fair Work Act, and APES standards interact with sector-specific regulators including APRA, ASIC, state trust account authorities, WHS regulators, and the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission. It assembles publicly available regulatory research into a practitioner-oriented framework. It is not legal advice.
Guide roadmap
Sections 1 and 2 establish the advisory opportunity and your entry pathway. Sections 3 and 4 build the regulatory foundation, from cross-sector compliance through to sector-specific overlays. Section 5 addresses your personal liability. Sections 6 through 9 provide the analytical toolkit: decision framework, business case methodology, conversation frameworks, provider evaluation, and the downloadable advisory toolkit. Section 10 bridges advisory to execution.
What this guide covers:
Why this guide exists now (3 min)
How medium-tier business decides (3 min)
The regulatory foundation (4 min)
Sector-Specific Compliance (5 min)
Your liability as an advisor (2 min)
The Decision Framework (2 min)
Building the Business Case (2 min)
Having the conversation (3 min)
Evaluation, governance and the advisory toolkit (3 min)
From advisory to execution (3 min)
1
Why This Guide Exists Now
Recognise the structural advisory opportunity that no firm, professional body, or provider has filled.
Five forces are converging to create an advisory gap that no Australian accounting firm, professional body, or offshore provider currently occupies.
Margin erosion
The national wages and salaries bill has risen 21% since 2022 (ABS Business Indicators), while company gross operating profits have declined 15.6% from their 2022 peak. KPMG’s 2025 Australian Mid-Market Business Review found 65% of mid-market executives cite cost and margin pressure as their primary concern, yet sentiment remains “reasonably optimistic,” meaning these businesses are looking for solutions, not retreating.
Talent crisis
Approximately 4 in 5 Australian employers report difficulty finding workers with the skills they need (Hays). In accounting specifically, more than 90% of firm leaders identify talent shortages as the primary constraint on growth. The pipeline is thinning: accounting enrolments have declined while demand accelerates.
Regulatory convergence
APRA’s CPS 230 has been in force since 1 July 2025, replacing CPS 231 and 232 and bringing the material service provider framework live. AML/CTF Tranche 2 takes effect 1 July 2026. The Pascua v Doessel ruling landed in 2024. ASIC conducted its first dedicated offshore outsourcing reviews in October 2025. The regulatory environment is tightening, not loosening, and businesses that offshore without sector-specific compliance frameworks face escalating penalties.
Advisory gap
No mid-tier Australian accounting firm markets outsourcing advisory as a named service. No professional body publishes guidance for accountants advising clients on offshore staffing decisions. The gap is structural.
Informal procurement.
Medium-tier businesses make offshore staffing decisions remarkably informally. CEO, COO, or CFO decides after conversations with two or three providers. No formal RFP. No procurement department involvement. Accountants are absent from every step of the current discovery chain.
Advisory Demand Signal
70% of accountants want to offer more advisory services but lack time. Nearly 9 in 10 practices report clients expect advisory beyond compliance. 61% of Australian accounting firms now outsource overseas (up from 47% in 2024), meaning partners have direct operational experience with offshoring. Yet this knowledge remains siloed: firms apply it to their own operations but do not extend it as advisory to clients. No mid-tier firm markets outsourcing advisory. The opportunity is demand-validated and experience-supported, not manufactured.
2
How Medium-Tier Businesses Make Offshore Decisions
Understand the informal procurement reality and identify advisory touchpoints in your existing engagements.
The Informal Procurement Reality
Medium-tier offshore staffing decisions bear no resemblance to formal procurement. The CEO, COO, or CFO decides after conversations with two or three providers. There is no formal RFP and no procurement department involvement for offshore staffing, even in businesses with 200 to 1,000 employees. The discovery hierarchy runs: peer referrals through executive networks (Vistage, YPO, EO) first, direct provider marketing second, online research third. Accountants are absent from every stage.
Medium-tier procurement decisions generally involve 10 to 13 stakeholders across a cross-functional buying committee. But for offshore staffing, the entry conversation is still one-on-one with the CFO during an existing advisory engagement. Provider testimonials confirm the peer-referral pattern: recommendations from trusted contacts consistently outweigh provider marketing in driving initial conversations. An estimated 35 to 50% of Australian medium-tier businesses have already adopted some form of offshore staffing, with 61% of accounting firms themselves now outsourcing overseas.
Six Advisory Touchpoints
Six existing advisory engagements create natural entry points for the offshoring conversation:
Cost benchmarking and margin analysis (strongest entry)
when your margin analysis reveals above-benchmark administrative costs, the offshoring question is an analytical extension of work you are already presenting.
Restructuring and turnaround advisory (second strongest)
workforce cost is typically the largest addressable expense. Major mid-tier firms explicitly offer restructuring initiatives to preserve profitability.
M&A due diligence
post-acquisition integration frequently includes offshoring of acquired entity back-office functions.
Finance function transformation
modernising finance operations often reveals functions suitable for offshore delivery.
Annual budget reviews
forward-looking budget conversations naturally surface cost reduction opportunities.
Business health checks:
whole-of-business reviews identify operational inefficiencies that offshore solutions can address.
The Unoccupied Channel
Only BDO and Grant Thornton have operational consulting divisions that could credibly house offshoring advisory. No mid-tier firm currently markets this capability. The absence is an unoccupied channel.
Medium-tier offshore staffing decisions are remarkably informal. CEO, COO, or CFO decides after conversations with two or three providers. No formal RFP. No procurement department involvement. And accountants are absent from every step.
The cost benchmarking you already perform for clients is the diagnostic that reveals the offshoring opportunity. You do not need new client relationships or new meeting types. The existing advisory engagements already create the contexts.
3
The Regulatory Foundation: What Applies Across Every Sector
The compliance framework builds on standards you already work with daily.
Privacy Act and APP 8
Section 16C of the Privacy Act 1988 creates strict liability for cross-border data disclosure. When an Australian entity transfers personal information to an overseas recipient, the entity remains fully liable for any Privacy Act breach by that recipient, as if the breach were committed by the entity itself. Contractual safeguards with the offshore provider reduce operational risk; they do not transfer legal responsibility.
APP 11.3 (Technical and Organisational Measures, or TOMs) has been live since 11 December 2024. APP 11 now requires that the “reasonable steps” to protect personal information include specific technical and organisational controls. For offshore arrangements this raises the bar on what counts as adequate compliance: documented access controls, device management, data residency assurances, and breach notification pathways are now expected components of an APP 11-compliant program. The TOMs framing aligns directly with the eight-item controls used in Section 9 for provider evaluation.
Privacy Act Tranche 2 reforms are progressing. Attorney-General Rowland confirmed at Senate Estimates on 10 February 2026 that the reform programme remains on track. From 1 July 2026, the small business exemption narrows, bringing approximately 100,000 entities into the Privacy Act's reach. Most medium-tier clients sit above this threshold; flag where smaller related entities or subsidiaries may be brought into scope.
The practical implication for your clients: the business cannot contract away responsibility for how offshore personnel handle personal information. Every offshore arrangement involving access to customer, employee, or supplier personal information triggers APP 8 obligations.
Employment Classification: Pascua v Doessel
Pascua v Doessel [2024] FWC 2669, the first case of its kind, established that a Philippines-based remote worker was an employee, not a contractor. The Fair Work Commission identified nine employment indicators: subordination to the business, control over how and when work was performed, non-specialist Award-covered work, sub-Award remuneration ($18/hour versus $27.17 minimum), wage-like payment structure, integration into business systems (company email, PBX phone), no right to delegate, ongoing indefinite engagement, and internal contract contradictions mixing “contractor” and “employee” terminology.
The August 2024 Fair Work Act amendments introduced section 15AA, the “whole of relationship” test, which reverses the previous contract-primacy approach from Personnel Contracting and Jamsek. Sham contracting penalties now reach $469,500 per contravention. Criminal wage theft provisions took effect January 2025.
Three Engagement Models: The Structural Advisory Question
The engagement model is the structural advisory question where the accountant’s value is highest. Post-Pascua, three distinct engagement models carry materially different compliance profiles:
Model 1
Direct Contractor Engagement
Highest Risk
The Australian business engages an overseas individual directly as an independent contractor. Post-Pascua, this carries the highest classification risk. If the Fair Work Commission determines the relationship exhibits the nine employment indicators identified in Pascua, the individual is an employee regardless of what the contract says. Sham contracting penalties reach $469,500 per contravention. Criminal wage theft provisions carry imprisonment. Direct contractor engagement is the model Pascua demonstrated is dangerous, and it is the model your clients are most likely to default to without advisory guidance.
Model 2
Shared BPO or Employer of Record
eliminates classification risk
A third-party employer stands between the Australian client and the offshore worker. The BPO or EOR entity is the legal employer; the worker is not engaged by the Australian business. This eliminates the employment classification risk Pascua illustrates. However, the shared-service model introduces its own trade-offs: staff serve multiple clients, institutional knowledge is fragmented, and attrition in Philippine BPO environments runs at 30 to 45% annually (CCAP/Willis Towers Watson). The compliance benefit is clear; the operational trade-offs require assessment.
Model 3
Dedicated Employment Through a Provider Entity
cleanest structure
A staffing provider formally employs the offshore worker through its own legal entity (typically a Philippine corporation). Each staff member is dedicated exclusively to one client, building institutional knowledge within that relationship. The provider handles employment compliance, payroll, facilities, and HR. The Australian client directs the work without bearing employment classification risk. This is the cleanest structure for both compliance and workforce stability: the legal employer relationship is unambiguous, the dedicated assignment builds knowledge depth, and the provider’s employment infrastructure handles Philippine labour law compliance.
The engagement model is the structural advisory question where the accountant’s value is highest. The choice between direct contractor engagement, shared BPO, and dedicated employment through a provider entity determines both the compliance risk profile and the operational stability of the arrangement.
AML/CTF and Modern Slavery
AML/CTF Tranche 2 commences 1 July 2026, bringing accountants and real estate agents into the AUSTRAC reporting regime as reporting entities. For clients using offshore staff, AML/CTF program requirements will need to address the risks introduced by offshore processing of customer due diligence data. Suspicious matter identification requires judgment that offshore staff must be specifically trained to exercise. Tipping-off offences carry 2 years’ imprisonment. AUSTRAC enrolment opens from 31 March 2026 for real estate agents, making Tranche 2 readiness an immediate advisory conversation for property clients.
The Modern Slavery Act 2018 (Cth) reporting threshold currently applies to entities with consolidated revenue of $100 million or more. The threshold is likely to decrease to $50 million following the McMillan Review. The Australian Anti-Slavery Commissioner was established via 2024 amendment, signalling intensifying oversight. Offshore staffing arrangements fall within the entity’s operations (not just its supply chain), requiring due diligence on working conditions, recruitment practices, freedom to terminate employment, and wage payment practices.
The Universal Principle
You already operate under Privacy Act, APES standards, and Fair Work Act every day. The offshoring overlay builds directly on this existing knowledge. You already know 70% of this framework.
Across every sector-specific regulator (APRA, ASIC, Safe Work Australia, state trust account authorities, the ACQSC), one principle applies universally: activities can be offshored but obligations cannot. The Australian entity bears the same legal responsibility for work performed offshore as for work performed in-house. This principle is the foundation on which every subsequent section builds.
4
Sector-Specific Compliance: What Your Client’s Industry Demands
No resource assembles sector-specific compliance overlays for offshore staffing. What can be offshored, what absolutely cannot, and what requires specific safeguards differs materially across five sectors.
The general regulatory foundation from Section 3 applies across all sectors. This section maps the additional layer that each sector’s regulator adds. Three categories apply consistently:
Absolute prohibitions: cannot be offshored under any circumstances
Safeguarded functions: can be offshored with specific controls
Routinely offshored functions: proven, lower-risk with standard controls
Sector 1 of 5
Financial Services
APRA-regulated entities face the most prescriptive framework. CPS 230 (effective July 2025) requires entities to classify offshore staffing providers as material service providers (MSPs), notify APRA within 20 business days of entering any material offshoring arrangement, and include mandatory contract terms covering APRA audit rights and fourth-party notification. CPS 234 requires independent assessment of the offshore provider’s information security capability, with 72-hour APRA notification for material security incidents.
ASIC’s October 2025 review found 3 of 10 advice licensees had no formal offshore outsourcing policies, and none had real-time alerts for provider access violations. Claims handling now requires AFSL authorisation; the Cbus enforcement action resulted in a $23.5 million penalty for outsourced claims handling failures. The Financial Accountability Regime (FAR), effective March 2025, creates personal accountability for senior executives overseeing offshore arrangements.
Where the client falls within APRA's CPS 230 material service provider scope or carries CPS 234 flow-down obligations, ISO 27001:2022 is functionally required of the offshore staffing provider. Two things to verify: that the cert is to ISO 27001:2022 specifically (the :2013 version was superseded on 31 October 2025), and that the Statement of Applicability scope covers the services your client is engaging. Outside that scope, for non-APRA-regulated entities and for support-layer engagements that sit alongside rather than inside the regulated activity, ISO 27001 functions as a trust accelerator that reduces due-diligence friction. PCI DSS is required for any payment card data processing. CDR data (Consumer Data Right) requires that any offshore access comply with Privacy Safeguard 8; the entity remains liable for breaches by offshore sub-contractors.
Industry adoption is well documented. One of Australia’s largest mortgage broking aggregators runs approximately 300 Manila-based support staff through an offshore provider, demonstrating medium-tier adoption at scale. The wealth management subsector has seen an 8% reduction in administrative support roles and a 9% drop in paraplanning resources across practices, described as an irreversible outsourcing evolution.
What accountants should ask:
Has your entity classified the offshore staffing provider as an MSP under CPS 230, and has APRA been notified?
Do your contracts include all CPS 230 mandatory terms, including APRA audit rights?
Have you assessed the provider’s information security capability under CPS 234?
Does your AFSL cover claims handling, and are offshore staff operating under proper authorisations?
Do you process CDR data, and have you mapped Privacy Safeguard 8 compliance for offshore access?
Sector 2 of 5
Real Estate
Trust account authorisation is a non-delegable function across every state. In NSW (Property and Stock Agents Act 2002), only the licensee-in-charge may authorise trust account withdrawals. In Queensland (Agents Financial Administration Act 2014, s 136), trust account operation is restricted to the agent or an employee “authorised by the agent.” Offshore staff can perform preparatory work (data entry, reconciliation, arrears management) but must have role-based access controls preventing authorisation privileges.
AML Tranche 2 (1 July 2026) will make real estate agents reporting entities under AUSTRAC, with enrolment from 31 March 2026. An estimated 80,000 to 90,000 new reporting entities will enter the regime. PEXA subscriber requirements restrict digital signing and Verification of Identity to licensed practitioners. Tenant data privacy is tightening: NSW’s 2025 Bill introduces penalties to $49,500 for corporations breaching tenant data requirements.
ASIC’s October 2025 offshore review directly affects property groups holding AFSLs for funds management or mortgage origination. ASIC found that 6 of 10 responsible entities did not consider jurisdictional risks, 5 did not consider contingency arrangements, and none considered concentration risk.
The sector’s institutional adoption of offshore support is well established. Leading providers have consulted over 8,000 agencies. Property management roles show 35% annual turnover (Macquarie Bank FY2023), with 4,000+ PM jobs advertised on SEEK at any given time. Agencies using offshore teams have reduced rent roll labour costs from up to 60% to as low as 25 to 40% of revenue.
What accountants should ask:
Which states do you operate trust accounts in, and do your platforms enforce role-based access preventing offshore authorisation?
Do you hold an AFSL? Have you reviewed ASIC’s October 2025 offshore outsourcing findings?
Have you mapped your AML Tranche 2 readiness timeline?
How do you handle tenant identification documents processed by offshore staff?
Do offshore staff interact directly with tenants on matters that could constitute unlicensed property management?
Sector 3 of 5
Mining
WHS non-delegable PCBU duties (s 19) extend to all workers whose activities are influenced or directed by the PCBU. Officers face personal due diligence obligations under s 27. Offshore staff can process safety data entry and historical records, but incident investigation, real-time safety decisions, and notifiable incident reporting must remain onshore.
The JORC Code 2012 requires the Competent Person (AusIMM, AIG, or RPO member with five years’ relevant experience) to take full responsibility for resource reports. Offshore geologists can compile databases, run geostatistical models, and draft reports under Competent Person supervision. The 2024 exposure draft introduces a formalised “Specialist” role. Competent Person sign-off cannot be offshored.
ASX continuous disclosure creates acute risk. Pre-release exploration results and resource estimates are confidential under Listing Rule 3.1A. Offshore staff with access to unreleased assay results or production data represent insider trading risk under s 1043A of the Corporations Act. If confidentiality is breached, the carve-out falls away and immediate disclosure is triggered. FIRB Guidance Note 8 identifies critical minerals extraction as a national security concern; FIRB conditions on approved investments frequently restrict who can access operational data.
Indigenous cultural heritage data should not be offshored under any circumstances. Post-Juukan Gorge, Aboriginal heritage data carries existential reputational and legal risk. Sacred site information may be gender-restricted, clan-restricted, or subject to cultural protocols precluding any offshore access. Indigenous Land Use Agreements frequently contain specific data handling provisions.
Union consultation obligations under mining enterprise agreements (MEU, AWU) may apply to significant offshoring of functions previously performed in-house. Corporate head office functions (finance, IT, HR) not covered by mining enterprise agreements carry lower union risk.
What accountants should ask:
Do you hold FIRB-conditioned approvals restricting data access by non-Australian personnel?
Are offshore staff accessing pre-release exploration data before ASX announcement?
Does your organisation hold ILUAs or cultural heritage agreements with data handling restrictions?
Which enterprise agreements cover your workforce, and do they contain major workplace change consultation clauses?
What quality assurance processes govern offshore-processed safety documentation?
Sector 4 of 5
Construction
Safe Work Australia guidance states that SWMS for High Risk Construction Work must be reviewed and adapted on-site by a competent person with site-specific knowledge, with worker consultation. Offshore staff can prepare initial SWMS templates, but sign-off and site-specific risk assessments must remain onshore.
Security of payment timeframes create operational risk: payment schedules typically within 10 to 15 business days. A missed payment schedule deadline means the full claimed amount becomes due. Time zone differences and handoff delays between offshore processors and Australian decision-makers could cause missed deadlines.
Queensland explicitly permits offshore drafters under licensed supervision. The QBCC fact sheet states that an appropriately licensed designer can engage “an offshore designer” who “is not required to hold a QBCC Design licence.” This is the clearest regulatory statement permitting offshore construction design work in any Australian jurisdiction. The licensed designer retains full responsibility.
NSW’s Design and Building Practitioners Act 2020 creates personal liability for design declarations on regulated designs (fire safety, waterproofing, structural elements) for Class 2 buildings. Penalties reach $330,000 for corporations and $220,000 plus 2 years’ imprisonment for false declarations. Offshore drafters can assist under the registered practitioner’s direction, but the declaration and compliance responsibility cannot be delegated.
The Modern Slavery Act captures offshore staffing arrangements as part of the entity’s operations. Construction is explicitly identified as a high-risk sector. Major constructors already include offshore business support services in their modern slavery risk mapping.
What accountants should ask:
Who reviews and site-adapts SWMS that are initially drafted offshore?
What is your process for managing security-of-payment timeframes when documentation support is offshore?
In which states do you operate, and are offshore drafters working under appropriately licensed practitioners?
Does your entity meet the Modern Slavery Act revenue threshold?
Are offshore staff preparing BAS or tax invoices under the supervision of a registered BAS agent?
Sector 5 of 5
Healthcare and Aged Care
My Health Records Act s 77 is an absolute prohibition with no exceptions. Section 77 prohibits holding or taking MHR data outside Australia. No consent override. No contractual workaround. Criminal penalties include 5 years' imprisonment; civil penalties reach approximately $2.48 million for bodies corporate at current penalty unit values. Offshore staff cannot access any system connected to the My Health Record infrastructure, even read-only. Critically, this prohibition applies only to MHR system data. Other health records follow the APP 8 framework.
Health information is “sensitive information” under the Privacy Act, requiring consent for collection (APP 3) and directly-related purpose for secondary use (APP 6, a higher threshold than non-sensitive data). Section 16B removes the small business exemption for all health service providers regardless of turnover.
NSW imposes the most restrictive state-level cross-border rules. The Health Records and Information Privacy Act 2002, HPP 14, explicitly restricts transfer of health information to any person outside NSW unless the recipient is subject to substantially similar protections. This creates a higher bar than the federal APP 8 framework. Victoria’s Health Records Act 2001 similarly requires safeguarding health information that travels outside Victoria. Multi-state health organisations must comply with the most restrictive applicable standard.
The Aged Care Act 2024 (effective 1 November 2025) creates an “associated provider” regime capturing any entity that engages in conduct “relating to the provider’s delivery of funded aged care services.” Registered providers have a non-delegable duty of accountability for all services delivered on their behalf. Penalties of 500 penalty units ($165,000) apply for conduct causing death or serious injury.
Clinical coding is not a regulated health profession under AHPRA and can be offshored. Medicare billing administration can be offshored; the clinical service cannot. The NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission has published no specific offshore guidance, creating a regulatory gap.
What accountants should ask:
Does your organisation interact with the My Health Record system? Can you confirm no offshore staff have any access to MHR-connected systems?
Do you operate across multiple states? NSW and Victoria impose additional cross-border restrictions.
Have you mapped the “associated provider” regime under the Aged Care Act 2024 to your offshore arrangements?
Are NDIS participants’ personal information accessible to offshore staff?
Are offshore staff involved in Medicare billing, and who has oversight of the claiming process?
Three-Category Summary
| Sector | Absolute Prohibitions | Safeguarded Functions | Routinely Offshored |
|---|---|---|---|
| Financial services | CDR data (without CDR-accredited recipient) | Loan processing, claims handling (under AFSL), credit assessments | Data entry, document verification, compliance checklist management |
| Real estate | Trust account authorisation, PEXA digital signing, VOI | Tenant data processing, AML/CTF CDD | Lease admin, maintenance coordination, listing preparation |
| Mining | Competent Person sign-off, Indigenous heritage data | Pre-release exploration data (with information barriers), safety documentation (under PCBU oversight) | Geological data entry, procurement admin, environmental data compilation |
| Construction | SWMS site-specific sign-off, design compliance declarations (NSW) | Safety documentation drafting, security-of-payment document preparation | CAD drafting (under licensed supervision), estimating, project admin |
| Healthcare | MHR system data access (s 77), AHPRA-restricted clinical acts | Health records (under APP 8 with consent), aged care services | Clinical coding, billing admin, scheduling, NDIS intake processing |
A mining company faces JORC, FIRB, WHS, ASX disclosure, and Indigenous heritage constraints that a real estate group does not. No resource assembles these sector overlays for accountants. Until now.
5
Your Liability as an Advisor
The most personal question: what happens to you and your practice if this advice goes wrong?
The Dual-Pathway Model
Two advisory pathways carry distinct risk profiles.
Pathway A
Informed referrer
Realistic for most accountants
The three-tier referral risk spectrum ranges from endorsing a specific provider (highest risk, with Australian Consumer Law s 18 quality representations), to recommending a category of solution (moderate risk), to introducing without endorsement (lowest but non-zero risk). The mere-referral model from the Corporations Act provides a best-practice template.
Pathway B
Advisor-facilitator
BDO/Grant Thornton calibre
Five conditions must converge.
An existing deep, multi-year advisory relationship.
Firm-level operational consulting capability.
Genuine sector expertise.
A cost-pressure trigger in the client’s business.
An advisory fee model, not just referral commissions.
Without all five, the informed referrer pathway is more appropriate.
APES 110 Navigability
Operational advisory is not among the specifically prohibited non-audit service categories under APES 110. The prohibited categories cover accounting and bookkeeping, IT systems design, recruiting for key management, and legal advocacy. An external firm can advise audit clients on offshoring provided management makes the ultimate decision. Advisory-only clients face no such restrictions. This removes a significant perceived barrier for practitioners who assumed independence rules prohibited this advisory type.
Australian professional ethics standards require that advisory recommendations are not influenced by referral arrangements. Where a referral arrangement exists with an offshore staffing provider, APES 110 independence requirements apply. The accountant’s advisory must be demonstrably independent of any commercial relationship with the provider. Disclosure of any referral arrangement to the client is a baseline requirement.
Risk Management Architecture
PI insurance verification: confirm in writing that business advisory, including operational recommendations, falls within your policy’s Professional Services definition. Clayton Utz has warned that Professional Standards Legislation liability caps may not apply if PI insurance does not respond to the claim type.
Engagement letter requirements: separate advisory engagement under APES 305/PS-3 equivalent, specifying: nature of advice, scope boundaries, no implementation responsibility, no assurance, client due diligence obligation, PSL scheme disclosure, and limitation of liability clause.
The SAAMCO/Manchester Building Society purpose-of-duty test distinguishes information provision from advice, creating a spectrum of exposure. Information providers are liable only for the consequences of their information being wrong; advisors bear broader responsibility.
The Positive Framing
No adverse case law exists on accountant liability for recommending operational solutions such as offshore staffing. No TPB actions. No court rulings. This is legally untested territory, not proven-dangerous territory. Seven specific regulatory gaps identified in the research confirm that the landscape has not yet addressed this advisory type, rather than prohibiting it.
The territory is legally untested. But untested means no adverse precedent exists. No TPB action. No court ruling. With proper scoping, the liability is manageable.
Calibrating the strength of professional statements is everyday practice: an unqualified audit opinion carries different weight than a management letter observation. The referral risk spectrum works the same way. Choose where you position on the spectrum.
6
The Decision Framework: When to Advise Offshore
Not every client is a candidate. The criteria for excluding are as important as the criteria for proceeding.
Sector Adoption Hierarchy
| Sector | Maturity | Key Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Financial services | High, documented | Major aggregators running 300+ Manila staff, 70% of fintechs offshore |
| Real estate | High, institutionalised | 15+ specialist providers, leading consultancies serving 8,000+ agencies |
| Construction | Established, growing | "Commonplace" for drafting and estimating |
| Logistics | Established | Multiple providers (150+ companies), CargoWise certification |
| Retail | Accelerating | $1M to $20M ecommerce operations, named brands |
| Healthcare/aged care | Growing, cautious | Multiple providers, strict clinical boundaries |
| Mining | Emerging, underdocumented | Strong structural drivers, no public case studies |
| Agriculture | Nascent | Greenfield advisory opportunity |
Margin Analysis Triggers
The cost benchmarking you already perform is the diagnostic tool. Four quantifiable triggers signal a viable conversation: labour as a percentage of revenue above industry benchmark, above-benchmark administrative costs, talent vacancy duration exceeding three months, and operational bottlenecks constraining growth. When your margin analysis reveals above-benchmark administrative costs, the offshoring question is an analytical extension of the work you are already presenting.
When NOT to Advise
Explicit criteria for declining:
Absolute sector prohibitions apply to the client’s core functions (MHR data in healthcare, trust account authorisation in real estate)
Insufficient management capacity at the client (the bandwidth paradox: the businesses most desperate to offshore often lack the capacity to manage the transition)
Client culture incompatible with offshore management requirements
Functions too integrated for separation from onshore operations
Industry at nascent adoption stage without structural drivers
Not every client is a candidate. The criteria for excluding are as important as the criteria for proceeding. A mining company with insufficient management capacity is not a candidate, no matter how strong the margin case.
The decision framework applies the same engagement-risk discipline that already governs client acceptance.
7
Building the Business Case
The analytical value-add that makes the accountant credible with a medium-tier CFO.
The Honest Numbers
The headline employment cost differential is 50 to 70%. That figure does not survive scrutiny without context.
True cost additions include: vendor selection (typically 500+ management hours for proper due diligence), knowledge transfer, management overhead (McKinsey estimates 10% additional transactional costs plus 10% monitoring costs), technology infrastructure, productivity ramp-up (60 to 80% in the first three to six months), and exit costs.
Net savings range: 30 to 55% at scale (10 to 50 staff) is the defensible range for Australian medium-tier businesses. CIO Magazine’s baseline analysis found 10 to 15% for highly commoditised services. Provider marketing claims of 60 to 80% do not survive TCO analysis. On a $120,000 AUD salary, even the lower end of 30% represents $36,000 per role per year; at 55%, the saving reaches $66,000 per role. Leading with honest numbers prevents the arrangement failures that inflated expectations create.
Note on net savings range: This guide uses a 30 to 55% net savings range for Australian medium-tier businesses at scale. This reflects higher Australian salaries and greater scale opportunities in the $20M to $500M segment compared to the 20 to 40% range used in the New Zealand guide. This is a different metric from Outrun’s validated 60 to 75% cost saving figure, which compares Outrun versus local hiring costs for the same role before management overhead and TCO adjustments. The two numbers serve different purposes: the TCO figure is for the accountant’s client advisory; the 60 to 75% is a provider cost comparison.
Clients should also expect a period of reduced efficiency, and potentially some increased short-term costs, during the transition itself, particularly in the first 30 to 60 days. This is normal and should be budgeted for, not treated as an indication of failure.
Failure Rate Context
Transparency about failure rates builds more credibility than optimistic projections. Dun and Bradstreet’s Barometer of Global Outsourcing found 20-25% of offshore arrangements fail within two years, and 50% fail within five years. Deloitte’s 2024 Global Outsourcing Survey found 70% of executives had selectively insourced previously outsourced scope in the prior five years.
Staff attrition risk varies significantly by engagement model. In Philippine BPO arrangements, where workers serve multiple clients in a shared-service environment, annual attrition runs at 30-45%, with full-time workers averaging 18 months tenure and part-time agents averaging six months (CCAP/Willis Towers Watson). Dedicated staff arrangements, where a worker is assigned exclusively to one client and builds institutional knowledge within that relationship, have materially lower attrition. For any model, however, a small business relying on a single offshore team member faces the same consequence from a departure: knowledge loss and a full restart of the ramp-up cycle.
Break-even timelines vary by complexity: 3 to 4 months for routine activities, 4 to 6 months for semi-complex, 6 to 12+ months for complex. Management overhead is real and measurable: pre-launch requires 10 to 20 hours of SOP documentation and system provisioning; the first 90 days require approximately 40 to 60 total hours of supervision (declining from roughly 2 hours daily in Week 1); steady state requires 2 to 4 hours per week per offshore staff member. Well-structured providers with established onboarding processes can come in below these benchmarks, but for planning purposes, 40 to 60 hours represents a realistic management investment for the first 90 days. SOP documentation is the highest-ROI pre-investment: 20 to 40 hours to document core processes reduces management overhead by 30 to 50%.
Setting honest expectations prevents the arrangement failures that destroy both the business case and the accountant’s credibility.
Activity-Based Cost Modelling
For clients ready to move beyond role-based salary comparisons, a more granular approach examines what specific activities cost today versus what they could cost offshore. Rather than asking “what does a customer service representative cost?”, the question becomes “what does handling 500 routine customer enquiries per month cost, and what would that same output cost from an offshore team?” This activity-based cost modelling, familiar to any accountant who has built a cost allocation model, provides the most accurate basis for a business case. Section 10 introduces providers who use this methodology.
TCO Template Structure
The template should look and feel like a financial model an accountant would naturally build, not a vendor’s cost calculator. Start from the margin analysis you perform today, then add offshore-specific line items: direct employment costs, management overhead, technology, productivity ramp-up, quality assurance, transition costs, ongoing governance, and exit provisions. The full template is available in the downloadable advisory toolkit.
Real savings are 30 to 55% at scale. Provider marketing figures of 60 to 80% do not survive TCO scrutiny. Leading with honest numbers builds the credibility that inflated claims destroy.
The cost benchmarking you already perform for clients is the diagnostic tool. TCO modelling adds the offshore-specific variables to a financial modelling methodology you already master.
8
Having the Conversation
The conversation extends work you are already doing for the client.
Entry Through Cost Benchmarking
Cost benchmarking is the strongest entry point: “Your admin-to-revenue ratio is X% above industry benchmark; there may be an opportunity to explore.” The framing stays analytical. Other touchpoints (restructuring, M&A due diligence, budget reviews) work similarly. The analytical framing distinguishes advice from sales and manages the ACL quality representation risk identified in Section 5.
Conversation Framework
The adapted Van Zyl 3-Step Advisory Meeting Framework provides structure: set intention before information, translate numbers into narrative, close with clarity and commitment. Van Zyl’s principle: “In compliance, you’re paid to know. In advisory, you’re paid to ask better questions.” The toolkit provides conversation language and frameworks rather than rigid scripts. Every client conversation differs; the framework provides the building blocks, not a prescriptive template.
The SPIN methodology adapted for CFO-level engagement:
Situation
Current cost structure, staffing challenges
Problem
Above-benchmark costs, unfilled vacancies, operational bottlenecks
Implication
Margin erosion, competitive disadvantage, growth constraints
Need-Payoff
What would resolving these issues be worth?
The transparency principle throughout: be upfront and proactive about what the analysis shows, including where offshoring is not appropriate.
Objection-Handling Language
“We already looked at this.” Differentiate the analytical approach from a provider pitch. Provider conversations focus on capabilities and pricing. Your approach starts with the client’s cost structure and works backward to whether offshoring is even appropriate.
“The savings aren’t real.” The TCO methodology from Section 7 addresses this directly. Present the 30 to 55% range with all cost components visible. The honest numbers build credibility.
“We can’t manage remote teams.” Management overhead appears as an explicit line item in the TCO model. The question is whether the net benefit justifies the management investment.
In compliance, you’re paid to know. In advisory, you’re paid to ask better questions. The offshoring conversation is an analytical question: your admin-to-revenue ratio is X% above benchmark. There may be an opportunity to explore.
The conversation extends work you are already doing for the client. The cost benchmarking meeting where you identify above-benchmark administrative costs is the natural moment for this question.
9
Provider Evaluation, Governance, and the Advisory Toolkit
Equip your client with sector-calibrated evaluation criteria, establish your ongoing governance role, and access the complete advisory toolkit.
Certification expectations in AU mid-market procurement are moving. What counts as expected, preferred, or required is shifting on roughly a 12-24 month cadence. The framework in this section reflects the position as of April 2026; for each client engagement, check the current state of the requirements that apply.
Evaluation Scorecard by Sector
| Sector | What flows down to the offshore staffing provider | When ISO 27001 is functionally required | Substantive controls to verify regardless of certification |
|---|---|---|---|
| Financial services | CPS 230 contract terms (if APRA-regulated entity); APRA audit rights; CPS 234 information-security flow-down | If client is APRA-regulated and the provider falls within CPS 230 MSP scope, or where the client supplies CDR data flows | Eight-item controls (below); PCI DSS for payment card processing |
| Mining | ASX information barrier process for pre-release data; FIRB-condition compatibility; Indigenous heritage data exclusion | Generally no. Mining operators do not mandate ISO certification of their offshore staffing suppliers | Eight-item controls; ASX information barrier process; FIRB-condition compatibility |
| Real estate | Trust account role-based access controls on the platform; AML/CTF Tranche 2 readiness | Generally no. Real estate sits within mid-market commercial procurement | Eight-item controls; trust account role-based access verification; AML/CTF readiness attestation |
| Construction | Modern Slavery attestation; SWMS QA process; security-of-payment process | Generally no for ISO 27001. ISO 9001 prequalification flows down where the client is a head contractor on state government work | Eight-item controls; Modern Slavery attestation; ISO 9001 (state-government head-contractor prequalification only) |
| Healthcare and aged care | MHR system segregation evidence (s 77 absolute); state-by-state health-records compliance (NSW HPP 14, Victoria HRA) | Generally no. Healthcare procurement sits outside the four functionally-required perimeters | Eight-item controls; MHR system segregation evidence; state cross-border health-records compliance |
The four functionally-required perimeters. ISO 27001:2022 is functionally required where the client’s procurement context falls within one of four AU perimeters: DEWR Right Fit For Risk; Defence DISP above OFFICIAL:Sensitive; NSW SCM0020 ICT procurement above $150k; and APRA CPS 234 / CPS 230 material service provider flows. Where the cert is required, verify three things: that it is to ISO 27001:2022 specifically (the :2013 version was superseded on 31 October 2025); that it is currently valid (check surveillance-audit status); and that the Statement of Applicability scope covers the services your client is engaging.
Eight-item controls list. Where ISO 27001 is a trust accelerator rather than a functionally required certification, a procurement-literate buyer reviews controls directly: access controls; device management; NDAs and their enforceability under Philippine labour law; data residency and the location of any backup or replication infrastructure; BYOD policy; removable media controls; background checks; and incident response with a defined breach notification pathway. These are the questions the accountant asks the provider, reviewable without certification, with answers the accountant can score.
Realistic certification costs for providers pursuing ISO 27001 sit in the $10,000 to $50,000 range. For most mid-market commercial engagements where ISO 27001 is a trust accelerator rather than a gate, a structured security questionnaire built around the eight controls above is the practical alternative. This is what a procurement-literate buyer reviews regardless of certification status.
RFQ language. Where your client is bidding for work in regulated-adjacent contexts and a certification is flagged as ‘preferred’ rather than ‘mandatory’ in tender documents, read the requirement as effectively mandatory. AU procurement practice in 2025-26 treats 'preferred' as effectively mandatory in evaluation scoring, particularly above ~$500k ACV where buyer sophistication is high.’
SLA and Governance Frameworks
Provider models carry different governance requirements: EOR (client manages day-to-day; provider handles payroll and taxes), managed service (provider handles HR and admin; client directs work), full BPO (provider manages the process), and Build-Operate-Transfer (provider manages initially, transitions to client over 12 to 24 months). Defined KPIs, performance dashboards, service credit mechanisms, business continuity provisions, and escalation procedures form the governance baseline.
Ongoing Financial Governance Role
The accountant’s value extends beyond the initial advisory engagement. Ongoing governance includes: monitoring cost outcomes against the TCO model, SLA compliance verification, advising on scaling decisions, and conducting annual arrangement reviews. This governance role sustains the advisory relationship and creates recurring advisory revenue. The evaluation scorecard is an analytical tool providing information, not a provider endorsement; the informed referrer model from Section 5 applies.
The Advisory Toolkit
The following toolkit assembles every framework from this guide into self-contained, practitioner-ready formats. Each tool carries Australian regulatory references and is designed to be used independently, with enough embedded context for standalone application. All tools include a master disclaimer: for educational purposes; obtain independent legal advice for specific client situations.
Ten AU-specific tools are included:
Tool 1
APP 8 Cross-Border Data Compliance Checklist
Walks through the s 16C strict liability framework step by step: the seven APP 8.2 exceptions, OAIC Chapter 8 contractual arrangements, TFN handling requirements, and Notifiable Data Breaches scheme obligations. Covers the practical compliance steps for every offshore arrangement involving access to personal information.
Tool 2
AML/CTF Tranche 2 Readiness Checklist
For clients entering the AUSTRAC reporting regime from 1 July 2026. Covers enrolment requirements, AML/CTF program obligations for offshore processing of customer due diligence data, Compliance Officer designation, suspicious matter report escalation protocols, and tipping-off controls (2 years’ imprisonment). Immediately relevant for real estate and accounting clients.
Tool 3 (5 Checklists)
Sector-Specific Compliance Checklists
This is the toolkit’s unique differentiator, with no equivalent in any competitor publication. Five standalone checklists, one per sector: Financial Services (APRA CPS 230/234, ASIC, FAR, CDR), Real Estate (trust accounts by state, AML Tranche 2, PEXA), Mining (WHS PCBU duties, JORC, ASX disclosure, FIRB, Indigenous heritage), Construction (SWMS, security of payment, Modern Slavery, NSW design declarations), and Healthcare/Aged Care (MHR s 77, state health records, Aged Care Act 2024, NDIS). Each maps absolute prohibitions, safeguarded functions, and routinely offshored functions from Section 4 into a working checklist format.
Tool 4 (Pascua Framework)
Employment Classification Risk Assessment
The nine Pascua v Doessel employment indicators as a structured assessment tool. Includes the s 15AA “whole of relationship” test, sham contracting penalty exposure ($469,500 per contravention), and the three engagement model analysis from Section 3: direct contractor (highest risk), shared BPO/EOR (classification risk eliminated), and dedicated employment through a provider entity (cleanest structure).
Tool 5
APES 305 Engagement Letter Clauses
Template language for scoping offshore staffing advisory engagements under APES 305 and APES 110. Includes PSL scheme disclosure (mandatory in Australia), the Clayton Utz PI/PSL gap warning, dual-pathway engagement variants (informed referrer and advisor-facilitator), ACL s 18 quality representation controls, and clear scope boundaries specifying no implementation responsibility.
Tool 6
Referral Disclosure Template
Documentation for the three-tier referral risk spectrum from Section 5. Covers ACL s 18 quality representations (replacing the NZ Fair Trading Act s 9 equivalent), PSL scheme requirements (Australia has statutory liability caps; New Zealand does not), and APES 110 Section 330 referral fee disclosure obligations. Three template variants aligned to the referral risk spectrum.
Tool 7
TCO Modelling Template
The financial model structure from Section 7 as a practitioner-ready template. Built to look and feel like a model an accountant would naturally produce, not a vendor calculator. Line items: direct employment costs, management overhead, technology infrastructure, productivity ramp-up, quality assurance, transition costs, ongoing governance, and exit provisions. Includes the activity-based cost modelling framework and the 30 to 55% realistic net savings range with full context.
Tool 8
Provider Evaluation Scorecard
Assessment framework with five sections weighted to 100 points, incorporating the sector-specific certification tiers from the evaluation table above. Covers engagement model structure, employment compliance, information security posture, operational capability, and pricing transparency. Sector certification overlay maps four things by industry: when ISO 27001 is functionally required (across the four AU perimeters), CPS 230 contract terms, PCI DSS for payment card processing, and the eight-item controls list. The scorecard is an analytical tool, not a provider endorsement.
Tool 9
Risk Assessment Checklist
Master synthesis tool that cross-references all other toolkit instruments. Covers APP 8 compliance, AML/CTF readiness, sector-specific regulatory overlays, employment classification risk, TCO viability, and operational risk factors. Designed as the master pre-engagement assessment: before your client proceeds with any offshore arrangement, this checklist confirms every regulatory dimension has been addressed.
Tool 10
Conversation Frameworks Guide
Synthesises Section 2’s six advisory entry points, Section 8’s Van Zyl 3-Step Advisory Meeting Framework, the SPIN methodology adapted for CFO-level engagement, and the three AU-specific objection responses into a single practitioner reference. The Australian approach focuses on analytical framing and cost benchmarking as the entry point, rather than the cultural resistance sequencing required in the New Zealand market. The toolkit provides conversation language and frameworks rather than rigid scripts; every client conversation differs.
Every tool is AU-specific. Every tool is built on the primary Australian regulatory research assembled in this guide: Privacy Act 1988, Fair Work Act 2009, APES standards, and the sector-specific regulatory frameworks mapped in Section 4.
Download the AU Advisory Toolkit
The complete toolkit, including full versions of all ten tools and the master disclaimer, is available for download at outrun.global. For practitioners ready to move from advisory to execution, Section 10 maps the provider landscape and the pathway forward.
10
From Advisory to Execution
The advisory framework is complete. The next step, for practitioners ready to act on it, is execution.
The Advisory-to-Execution Bridge
The advisory conversation connects naturally to execution after Sections 7 through 9. The accountant’s role shifts from advisory to governance. Not all accountants will move from informed referrer to advisor-facilitator, and that is entirely appropriate. The dual-pathway model from Section 5 determines the accountant’s role in execution: some will facilitate provider evaluation, others will make an informed referral and maintain the financial governance relationship.
The Provider Landscape
The Australian offshore staffing market is dominated by the dedicated staff model, where the client selects and manages staff directly while the provider handles recruitment, HR, payroll, compliance, and facilities. The Employer of Record (EOR) model is the fastest-growing segment, driven significantly by the Pascua v Doessel ruling (Section 3), which made the compliance risk of direct contractor engagement concrete and quantifiable. India-based accounting BPO providers, historically a significant part of the Australian market, have seen cost differentials narrow as Indian wage growth accelerates; in some areas, India-based providers are approaching cost parity with domestic hiring. The Philippines remains the primary destination for medium-tier Australian offshoring, particularly for finance, administration, and customer service functions.
Outrun’s Approach
Outrun is a New Zealand-headquartered offshore staffing partner. Staff placed through Outrun are formally employed by Outrun’s Philippine entity, not engaged as independent contractors or freelancers. This is the dedicated employment model (Model 3 from Section 3): each staff member is dedicated exclusively to one client, building institutional knowledge within that relationship. The engagement structure eliminates the employment classification risk outlined in Section 3.
Outrun’s cost optimisation methodology identifies which activities can be performed at lower cost offshore, then matches dedicated team members to those activities. The methodology was systematised from managing 400+ concurrent projects, and is informed by 90,000+ activity-level data points (with 5,000 new data points collected monthly), used to continuously improve how staff are equipped, trained, and supported.
What the Outrun model includes
Activity-level data.
Outrun runs 90,000+ activity-level data points, with 5,000 added monthly, to refine how staff are equipped, trained, and supported. The data feeds methodology improvement; it is not used for client-facing productivity surveillance.
180-day re-recruitment guarantee.
Six times the industry standard of 30 days. If a placement is not working within the first six months, for any reason, Outrun re-recruits at no additional fee. No reason is required from the client.
AI baseline competency.
All staff complete foundational AI training and certification covering practical use of AI tools for problem solving, content generation (social media, websites, marketing, sales, documentation), transcription, summarisation, and privacy-aware AI selection. Staff apply AI to enhance output at the activity level.
Cost-recovery pricing.
Outrun operates on a cost recovery model plus a fixed monthly service fee. The client sees exactly what each employee is paid and sets the remuneration package with guidance on competitive Philippine market rates. No margin sits inside the salary line.
Methodology depth.
The approach was systematised from 400+ concurrent projects (9,000+ total) through the Zeald heritage, giving Outrun a documented playbook rather than a learning curve.
Dedicated Employment Model
Staff are formally employed through Outrun’s Philippine entity. Each staff member is a full employee of the Outrun entity, dedicated exclusively to one client, building institutional knowledge within that relationship. The client directs the work; Outrun handles employment compliance, payroll, facilities, and HR support.
Cost Savings
Outrun’s validated cost savings range is 60 to 75% when comparing Outrun versus local hiring costs for the same role.
Savings based on comparison of Outrun versus local hiring costs for the same role.This is a different metric from the TCO-adjusted net savings range of 30 to 55% discussed in Section 7. The 60 to 75% compares provider cost against local hiring cost before management overhead and transition costs. Both numbers are accurate; they measure different things. The TCO figures are for the accountant’s client advisory; the 60 to 75% is the provider cost comparison.
Getting Started
Four tools support the advisory-to-execution bridge:
A free tool that models potential savings for specific roles in under two minutes, using publicly available salary benchmarks. The calculator provides an initial estimate; a consultant conversation provides business-specific analysis.
A free, no-commitment, consultant-led session that works through actual business activities to identify remote-capable activity clusters and show cost savings ranges. The business owner has their own realisation moments about where costs can be optimised. This is a collaborative discussion, not a sales pitch.
Cost Optimisation (CMO) Evaluation.
A strategic audit involving organisational chart mapping, cost centre analysis, and identification of target cost centres. The output is a formal report with quantified savings and an implementation roadmap. This is the deepest level of analysis, positioned behind the Activity Analysis Session.
For clients who already know what role they need and are ready to discuss specific offshore hiring requirements. This pathway moves directly to sourcing candidates.
Outrun is one execution partner. The analytical framework in this guide applies regardless of which provider a client selects.
Action Steps
Five steps to begin:
Identify your first client using the Section 6 decision framework: look for above-benchmark administrative costs, talent vacancies exceeding three months, or operational bottlenecks constraining growth.
Verify PI coverage for advisory work, confirming in writing that operational recommendations fall within your policy’s Professional Services definition.
Draft an advisory engagement letter using the template from the toolkit, with clear scope boundaries and no implementation responsibility.
Download the advisory toolkit: sector-specific compliance checklists, TCO template, provider evaluation scorecard, engagement letter clauses, and conversation frameworks.
Initiate the conversation using the Section 8 methodology with at least one current client where cost benchmarking data already supports the discussion.
Conclusion
This guide addressed two gaps that no other Australian resource fills: the accountant-as-advisor use case and sector-specific compliance overlays across five industries. The five converging forces (margin erosion, talent crisis, regulatory convergence, advisory gap, informal procurement) are structural and accelerating. The regulatory foundation you mapped in Section 3 builds on standards you already work with daily. The sector overlays in Section 4 are the content no competitor assembles. The liability architecture in Section 5 makes the advisory role manageable. The analytical toolkit in Sections 6 through 9 makes you credible.
You have the regulatory foundation, the sector overlays, the analytical tools, and the conversation framework. The advisory window is open.
The complete advisory toolkit is available for download.
You've seen the estimate. Now see the full picture.
The calculator used industry averages and public salary data to estimate your potential savings. In a free Activity Analysis Session, our consultant works through your actual business activities, and typically uncovers opportunities the calculator can't see.
Download the Australian Advisory Toolkit
Ten Australian-specific tools built on primary regulatory research. Deploy in your next advisory engagement.
Outrun helps businesses free up their teams by restructuring how work gets done - shifting the wrong work out, and creating space for what actually drives results. Built for teams who want to do more, without adding more.
2026 © Outrun.global | Privacy Policy | Term of Service | Acceptable Use Policy | Data Processing Addendum | Modern Slavery Policy