The Australian government’s refusal to fully comply with a Senate order for documents on the 800 million dollar aged care technology upgrades has ignited fierce debate over transparency in public procurement.
Outsourced to international firms like Accenture, Salesforce and Capgemini, these upgrades are part of a 1.4 billion dollar effort to bolster digital systems under new aged care laws. By withholding key details under the guise of administrative burden, the government is accused of shielding potential inefficiencies and overspending from scrutiny, prompting questions about whether true accountability is possible when resource constraints can be cited as an excuse to evade disclosure.
At the heart of the initiative are the Government Provider Management System (GPMS) and the business to government (B2G) portal, both heavily dependent on Salesforce software. Accenture and Capgemini have spearheaded the GPMS, which handles new reporting obligations, while the B2G facilitates connections between provider systems and government platforms.
However, the project has been plagued by issues from inception, with costs escalating and timelines slipping. By July, deadlines for care and reporting reforms had been missed and foreign tech providers had nearly depleted the budget.
This has amplified concerns over value for money, especially given the 700 million dollars in contracts for what Senator Fatima Payman described as essentially configuring a Salesforce instance.
Accenture’s Track Record of Failures in Government Projects
The decision to rely on Accenture has drawn particular criticism, given the firm’s involvement in multiple high profile failures in Australian government technology ventures, often referred to as Canberra tech wrecks.
One notable example is the Permissions Capability platform for the Department of Home Affairs, which was abandoned after two years and 16 million dollars in expenditure, marking the third unsuccessful attempt to modernise visa processing with more than 100 million dollars wasted overall.
Accenture’s failure to deliver a functional prototype on schedule led Home Affairs to scrap the project entirely.
Further scrutiny falls on Accenture’s role in the government’s security vetting system, known as myClearance. Despite a 307 million dollar investment, the system encountered severe rollout problems, forcing manual workarounds and failing to meet performance targets after seven years of development.
Ongoing issues persisted, with a 130 million dollar extension still plagued by complications.
These setbacks are part of a broader pattern at Home Affairs, where more than 500 million dollars has been spent on failed ICT outsourcing projects, including disastrous visa tech upgrades.
Such history raises alarms about entrusting Accenture with the aged care upgrades, potentially repeating costly errors at taxpayers’ expense.
Echoes of Controversy: The NDIA Salesforce Project
Similar red flags appear in the National Disability Insurance Agency’s 180 million dollar Salesforce project, which Senator Payman is also targeting for greater disclosure. This initiative, centred on the PACE customer relationship management system, has seen contracts exceed 170 million dollars amid an ongoing probe into procurement irregularities that has lasted more than two years.
A parliamentary committee has called for a broad investigation into tech companies’ use of gifts and hospitality to secure deals, following revelations that Salesforce provided NDIA officials with undeclared benefits worth more than 100 dollars on at least 45 occasions between 2019 and 2023.
The project has faced accusations of falling short of Commonwealth procurement rules, with one contract ballooning from an initial 10 million dollar estimate to more than 200 million dollars.
Despite Salesforce defending the costs and value of its contributions, the NDIA’s failure to disclose these interactions has sparked outrage, with officials described as horrified by the lapses.
This parallel case underscores a systemic issue in government dealings with Salesforce, mirroring the aged care project’s reliance on the same vendor and fuelling demands for transparency.
The Senate Order and Push for Disclosure
In October, Senator Payman secured a Senate order requiring the production of extensive documents by 21 November 2025. This encompassed value for money assessments, uptake evaluations, whole of life cost reports, tender analyses, comparative pricing from competitors to Salesforce and MuleSoft, licensing agreements, internal communications on procurement compliance and independent audit findings.
The order also extended to the integration of My Health Record with My Aged Care. Payman has signalled plans for additional motions to pinpoint value for money documents and to interrogate officials during estimates hearings.
Aged Care Minister Sam Rae has rebuffed the order as unreasonable, claiming it would necessitate reviewing at least 130,000 pages and diverting thousands of hours from critical duties like implementing the Aged Care Act 2024 and Support at Home.
In lieu of full compliance, Rae offered a private briefing to Senator Payman and pledged to provide only publicly available documents by 27 November 2025. This response, conveyed through formal correspondence, has been lambasted for effectively concealing pivotal records such as evaluation reports and ministerial briefings.
Broader Implications for Transparency
This episode exposes vulnerabilities in Australia’s oversight mechanisms for major public investments. With the aged care sector serving some of the nation’s most vulnerable, the government’s tactics risk perpetuating inefficiencies and eroding confidence.
Crucially, it begs the question: how can there ever be any transparency if the government can withhold information using the excuse that it takes too long and uses too many resources to do so? As scrutiny intensifies on aged care and disability related projects, calls grow for reforms to ensure procurement processes prioritise accountability over convenience.
