Website redesign

Question

1. Given the reported $96 million cost of the website redesign and 'widespread backlash' from the public, who within the Bureau signed off on the final design decisions? a. What governance processes were used to approve such a major change affecting public access to critical weather and emergency information?'' 2. What evidence do you have that the 96 million dollar new website improved access to warnings and forecasts, given the widespread reports of users struggling to find critical information after launch? 3. Why was the redesigned website launched during a period of severe storms across Australia's southeast? a. Who made the decision to proceed at that time? b. Does the Bureau accept responsibility for users losing access to critical information during severe weather c. With a senior executive who was linked to the rollout now resigning, what accountability findings has the Bureau made internally about the project's failures? Weather Calendars 4. Who signed off on the $795,000 expenditure on the Australian Weather Calendar? a. Minister Watt said in November that the Bureau had been put on notice after the website redesign ballooned from $4 million to $96 million. Since that warning, why has the Bureau approved nearly $800k in spending on a glossy weather calendar project? 5. Can the Bureau explain how spending nearly $387,000 on domestic mailing and packaging services for a calendar represents value for taxpayers at a time when the agency is under scrutiny for procurement failures and budget mismanagement? 6. What internal procurement controls failed in the $96 million website redesign, and what concrete governance changes were implemented before approving these additional calendar-related contracts?

Answer

Please see the attached answer.

Documents

• Question with answer (PDF) (opens in a new tab)
• SQ26-000647.pdf (opens in a new tab)