Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, , 6:02:44 to 6:06:47
Discussion on the $12.9 million budget allocation for implementing a ballot system for Working Holiday Maker visas and the in-house IT development required.
Topics: Government spending, Government IT systems
Speakers: Hon Jonathon Duniam, Stephanie Foster, Elissa Walker, Clare Sharp, Andrew Kiley
Sure, okay. And just some of the other questions I I alluded to earlier this morning. Uh there was that $12.9 million allocated in the budget to the better selecting migrants measure. And my question was going to be how much of that has been allocated to implementing the second and third year working holiday maker arrangements?
So Senator, that funding um is intended to support the system upgrades for both the ballots for working holiday maker two and three, as you've identified, as well as uh broader roll-out of ballots to certain countries for working holiday maker one as well, first year working holiday makers as well. Um I don't uh I'm not aware of the split in how they're being allocated between working holiday maker two and three and one.
I suspect it's the same underlying uh capability. Sorry, uh Andrew Kylie, uh first assistant secretary, migration citizenship and humanitarian policy division. It's probably the same underlying capability that that would be used to deliver ballots across first, second, and third years. If there's more detail uh required, we can provide that on notice.
And how much has been expended thus far of the 12.9 million?
I'd have to take on notice how much has been spent already.
Okay. Uh are you able to indicate to us broadly uh what so there's money in the budget? Uh there was an announcement in September uh of the policy change, the ballot program. Um have we gone to market yet to seek service provision or a tenderer?
Yes, Senator, um we're just seeing if our um head of technology can assist because the money is actually for changes in the system. Um so the policy team will have less visibility of expenditure. And Ms. Walker is on her way to the table.
Senator, if it assists, um this is a this is a uh IT build that we are doing ourselves. This isn't one we we're going to market for.
So that it'll be in-house expertise building the system.
Correct. So the team we currently have on the ground are working with um the migration team to uh develop those changes within our systems.
And so what does the 12.9 million dollars buy if we have a team doing this already?
It pays for the people. Um we have APS staff that continually work on projects.
Were they being paid before this money was announced, though?
Yes.
Okay.
So Senator, obviously we flex our workforce according to the priorities in this instance. We were allocated a specific amount of money, um, and that's reflected in the budget allocated to Ms. Walker this year.
So uh they're designing it from scratch, that we have existing software, hardware, whatever is required. There's no purchase of anything required. It is literally just for staff to design existing staff to design and stand this capability up.
Yes, so we have a number of applications that support our immigration processing. Um we make those changes within those existing systems.
And have there been any extra staff employed or are they all pre-existing?
Look, I would have to take that on notice. We do use contractors for surge workforce when we have things to do, and whilst um my earlier comment around having APS staff, um, I would just need to take on notice whether any additional contractors may have been hired specifically for this work.
And also as I said, um Ms. Walker's budget reflects the this allocation, and she is um recruiting staff for um the budget she has allocated to her.