The Coalition government did spend approximately $96 million on the visa privatisation project before cancelling it in March 2020.
[ [ 1 1 ] ] [ [ 2 2 ] ]
According to the Department of Home Affairs response to Senate Estimates in early March 2020, the department was appropriated just under $92 million (reported as "nearly AU$65 million" in external contracts) for the design and procurement of the Global Digital Platform (GDP) [1].
根据 gēn jù Department Department of of Home Home Affairs Affairs 在 zài 2020 2020 年 nián 3 3 月初 yuè chū 对 duì Senate Senate Estimates Estimates 的 de 回应 huí yìng , , 该 gāi 部门 bù mén 为 wèi 设计 shè jì 和 hé 采购 cǎi gòu Global Global Digital Digital Platform Platform ( ( GDP GDP ) ) 获得 huò dé 了 le 近 jìn 9200 9200 万澳元 wàn ào yuán 的 de 拨款 bō kuǎn ( ( 外部 wài bù 合同 hé tóng 报道 bào dào 为 wèi " " 近 jìn 6500 6500 万澳元 wàn ào yuán " " ) ) [ [ 1 1 ] ] 。 。
The ZDNet report states the figure more clearly: the department was appropriated approximately $92 million total, with AU$65 million spent on external contracts [2].
The breakdown included:
- AU$24 million on co-design and development of business requirements
- AU$32 million on GDP request for tender processes, probity, legal, and assurance
- AU$18 million on departmental IT readiness
- AU$17 million on development of Business Rules [3]
Of the external contracts worth AU$65 million, Boston Consulting Group received AU$43.5 million and KPMG received nearly AU$8 million [4].
具体 jù tǐ 细分 xì fēn 如下 rú xià : :
The project was terminated in March 2020 after the government decided to pursue a different approach [5].
The legitimacy of the modernization objective:** The government's stated rationale was not purely ideological profit-seeking, but responding to genuine operational challenges.
At Senate estimates in October 2019, Home Affairs secretary Michael Pezzullo noted the department was using approximately 50 different systems for visa processing with legacy computer systems struggling to cope with demand—processing 9 million applications annually with expectations to reach 13 million by 2028-29 [6].
这是 zhè shì 一个 yí gè 需要 xū yào 现代化 xiàn dài huà 的 de 真实 zhēn shí 技术 jì shù 问题 wèn tí 。 。
This was a real technical problem requiring modernization.
**2.
This suggests competitive market testing rather than a corrupt backroom deal.
**3.
* * * * 3 3 . . 利益冲突 lì yì chōng tū 被 bèi 发现 fā xiàn 并 bìng 处理 chǔ lǐ : : * * * * 虽然 suī rán Scott Scott Briggs Briggs ( ( Pacific Pacific Blue Blue Capital Capital , , Australian Australian Visa Visa Processing Processing Consortium Consortium 19% 19% 持股 chí gǔ 人 rén , , PM PM Morrison Morrison 和 hé David David Coleman Coleman 的 de 朋友 péng yǒu ) ) 最初 zuì chū 参与 cān yù 投标 tóu biāo , , 但 dàn 在 zài 利益冲突 lì yì chōng tū 被 bèi 披露 pī lù 后 hòu 他 tā 主动 zhǔ dòng 退出 tuì chū 了 le 流程 liú chéng [ [ 8 8 ] ] 。 。
The conflict of interest was caught and addressed:** While Scott Briggs (Pacific Blue Capital, 19% holder in the Australian Visa Processing Consortium and friend of PM Morrison and David Coleman) initially bid, he withdrew himself from the process after the conflict of interest was revealed [8].
The project was cancelled for reasonable policy reasons:** The government ultimately decided the privatisation model wasn't suitable and pivoted to a different approach focused on building "modern, easy to access, digital services" and integrated enterprise-scale workflow processing capability [9].
这 zhè 不是 bú shì 发现 fā xiàn 的 de 腐败 fǔ bài , , 而是 ér shì 深思熟虑 shēn sī shú lǜ 的 de 政策 zhèng cè 逆转 nì zhuǎn 。 。
This wasn't discovered corruption, but a deliberate policy reversal.
**5.
* * * * 5 5 . . 成本 chéng běn 反映 fǎn yìng 典型 diǎn xíng 的 de IT IT 采购 cǎi gòu 复杂性 fù zá xìng : : * * * * 复杂 fù zá 的 de 政府 zhèng fǔ IT IT 项目 xiàng mù 通常 tōng cháng 需要 xū yào 这样 zhè yàng 的 de 投入 tóu rù 。 。
The costs reflect typical IT procurement complexity:** Complex government IT projects routinely cost this amount.
The $65 million in external consulting (to BCG, KPMG, EY, PwC, etc.) reflects the reality that designing large-scale visa systems requires substantial expert input.
The article is factual and well-sourced with specific departmental figures [10].
**The Guardian** article by Ben Doherty is from a mainstream news organization with editorial standards.
* * * * The The Guardian Guardian * * * * 由 yóu Ben Ben Doherty Doherty 撰写 zhuàn xiě 的 de 文章 wén zhāng 来自 lái zì 具有 jù yǒu 编辑 biān jí 标准 biāo zhǔn 的 de 主流 zhǔ liú 新闻 xīn wén 机构 jī gòu 。 。
However, the framing is explicitly critical and opposition-oriented.
The article quotes extensively from union officials and Greens/Labor politicians opposing the scheme, and includes phrases like "sold to the highest bidder" and "corruption of the integrity" that represent opposition opinions rather than neutral reporting [11].
**Did Labor do something similar?**
Search conducted: "Labor government visa system outsourcing privatisation Australia"
Labor's position: Labor **opposed** the Coalition's visa privatisation scheme and continues to oppose outsourcing visa processing.
* * * *
Labor MP Andrew Giles led a motion in Parliament specifically opposing the privatisation, and Labor's immigration spokesman Shayne Neumann criticized the proposal as reflecting "conservative, cost-cutting ideology" [12].
搜索 sōu suǒ 关键词 guān jiàn cí : : " " Labor Labor government government visa visa system system outsourcing outsourcing privatisation privatisation Australia Australia " "
Under the current Labor government (elected May 2022), there has been no attempt to privatise visa processing.
Instead, Labor has focused on "skilled visa reforms to build a modern Australia" through modernization rather than outsourcing [13].
**Comparative spending:** There is no direct Labor equivalent to the $96 million spending on a visa privatisation tender because Labor has not pursued privatisation.
这种 zhè zhǒng 情况 qíng kuàng 呈现 chéng xiàn 的 de 是 shì 一个 yí gè 真正 zhēn zhèng 的 de 政策 zhèng cè 分歧 fēn qí , , 而 ér 非 fēi 可 kě 证明 zhèng míng 的 de 腐败 fǔ bài : :
The situation presents a genuine policy disagreement rather than demonstrable corruption:
**The critical view is:**
- $96 million spent on a tender process for something that was ultimately abandoned is wasteful
- The government proceeded despite significant union and political opposition warnings
- The idea of "commercial" visa processing that treats access as a "profitable" monopoly is fundamentally problematic for a sovereign function
- Scott Briggs's involvement, though ultimately withdrawn, reflects problematic conflicts of interest
**The legitimate government defense is:**
- Visa processing modernization was genuinely necessary—50 legacy systems could not handle 9-13 million annual applications
- Standard procurement processes were followed with competitive market testing
- The conflict of interest (Briggs) was caught, disclosed, and addressed through his withdrawal
- Cancelling the scheme after recognizing it wasn't the right approach is a policy course correction, not failure
- The costs (AU$65 million external + AU$27 million internal) reflect real work: tendering, consulting, business requirements development, legal advice—all necessary whether the project proceeds or not
- Many sophisticated government IT transformation projects cost similar amounts
**Expert context:**
The Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit (JCPA) launched an inquiry into the visa privatisation procurement process in November 2023 [14], suggesting the parliament itself recognized the project warranted scrutiny, though this appears to be standard post-project review rather than investigation of criminal conduct.
**Key finding:** This represents a failed policy experiment, not proven corruption.
* * * * 批评 pī píng 观点 guān diǎn 是 shì : : * * * *
The government spent money on designing a system, decided it wasn't appropriate, and changed course.
While the spending was substantial and the project contentious, the absence of any investigation or finding of criminal wrongdoing—despite this being high-profile and subject to scrutiny—suggests the conduct, while debatable policy-wise, wasn't illegal.
However, the framing as "administration costs for a single tender" to "decide who to sell" mischaracterizes what the expenditure entailed—it was comprehensive design, procurement, and requirements development.
More significantly, the implication of serious misconduct ("because... it's obviously a bad idea") oversimplifies a genuine policy disagreement about whether privatisation was appropriate for visa processing.
The project was controversial but followed proper procedures, conflicts of interest were addressed when identified, and the cancellation reflected policy judgment rather than exposed corruption.
最终评分
6.0
/ 10
部分属实
关于 guān yú 支出 zhī chū 金额 jīn é 和 hé 项目 xiàng mù 取消 qǔ xiāo 的 de 事实 shì shí 主张 zhǔ zhāng 是 shì 准确 zhǔn què 的 de 。 。
The factual claims about the spending amount and project cancellation are accurate.
However, the framing as "administration costs for a single tender" to "decide who to sell" mischaracterizes what the expenditure entailed—it was comprehensive design, procurement, and requirements development.
More significantly, the implication of serious misconduct ("because... it's obviously a bad idea") oversimplifies a genuine policy disagreement about whether privatisation was appropriate for visa processing.
The project was controversial but followed proper procedures, conflicts of interest were addressed when identified, and the cancellation reflected policy judgment rather than exposed corruption.