Taxpayers are expressing outrage over the Bureau of Meteorology’s (BoM) recent $96.5 million website redesign, which technology experts have criticized as a “premium price for a downgrade.” The controversy adds pressure on the agency and its new chief executive, Stuart Minchin, amid a significant cost overrun.
Since the redesigned website’s launch in October, users have consistently complained about its difficult navigation and the illegibility of place names on the radar map. The project, which took nine contract extensions to complete, ended up costing 23 times the original estimate, leaving taxpayers to bear the burden.
Website Redesign Under Fire
The BoM’s website is one of Australia’s most visited, with approximately 2.6 billion page views annually. However, experts argue that the redesign should have cost only a fraction of the $96.5 million spent. Sam Cust, managing director of digital platform firm Hyper, emphasized the need for transparency regarding the project’s expenses.
“If this is just a website, it’s wildly overpriced. If it’s actually a national-scale infrastructure rebuild, it’s been poorly explained,” Cust stated. “Either way, the public deserves clearer answers.”
Cust noted that enterprise-grade public websites typically cost between $2 million and $5 million. He explained that costs exceeding this range usually indicate a broader technology transformation program, which should be clearly communicated and managed.
Expert Criticism and Alternative Solutions
Ben Flint, founder of Melbourne-based Supernormal Systems, revealed that his team used AI-assisted development tools to rebuild the website’s front-end interface in just a few hours, demonstrating what could be achieved at a much lower cost.
“When I saw the final cost, I had the same reaction as most Australians: disbelief,” Flint remarked. “There are 30 years of research on weather interfaces. You don’t need to reinvent anything.”
Geo George, co-founder of Mayfly Ventures, who has experience with a $21 million government project, also questioned the cost, even when considering a full back-end rebuild.
“Even with five to 10 years of work, 30 to 60 specialists, infrastructure, security, testing, cloud, compliance, and procurement overhead, a serious rebuild of a web plus API platform should land in the low to mid-tens of millions,” George explained.
BoM’s Defense and Breakdown of Costs
A spokeswoman for the bureau defended the website redevelopment, describing it as part of a larger effort to enhance the security, stability, and resilience of critical Bureau services. She detailed the cost breakdown, stating that the website redesign itself cost $4.1 million, while the primary channels platform and website build accounted for $79.8 million.
Additional features, security testing, and preparations for the website launch cost $12.6 million, which included building, testing, and deploying features, as well as performance and load testing to handle peak traffic during severe weather events.
Concerns Over User Experience
Jasmin Hyde, a corporate communications expert, criticized the redesign for prioritizing the wrong aspects. She emphasized the importance of intuitive and user-friendly navigation for a national organization like BoM.
“Large digital builds often disappoint when they optimize for internal stakeholders instead of real users,” Hyde said. “Big budgets don’t guarantee strong outcomes if scope is not tightly controlled.”
Cust echoed these sentiments, highlighting the disconnect between user needs and the new website’s design.
“People don’t go to BoM for a content experience – they go for instant, high-trust decisions,” Cust explained. “The old site wasn’t pretty, but it respected user intent. The new one appears to prioritize internal stakeholder wishes over real-world user behavior.”
Implications and Future Steps
The $4.1 million figure initially disclosed by the bureau covered only the front-end redesign. It did not include a $78 million contract with consulting firm Accenture, which expanded across nine extensions. Flint described this as a classic case of “underquoting to win the work, then expanding scope until you’ve built a dependency that’s impossible to unwind.”
Cust pointed out that government agencies are particularly vulnerable to such financial blowouts, as the risk and cost are often absorbed by the system rather than individual decision-makers. This makes them attractive to large consultancies.
New chief executive Stuart Minchin, who has been in the role for just two weeks, stated that much of the spending was necessary to secure the bureau’s systems following a 2015 cyberattack linked to state-sponsored hackers. An update addressing user complaints was postponed last week due to Severe Tropical Cyclone Fina.
As the BoM navigates this controversy, the agency faces increased scrutiny over its spending practices and the effectiveness of its digital services. The outcome of this situation may influence how future government technology projects are managed and communicated to the public.
