Figure 17: image description
This chart demonstrates the difference in delivery confidence of projects that have newly entered oversight in 2025 compared to 2026.
- In 2026, 8 projects entered oversight, with a total budget $0.3 billion.
- In 2025, 28 projects entered oversight, with a total budget $3.7 billion.
- 2025 High delivery confidence - 1 project, $0.03 billion total budget
- 2025 High delivery confidence – 5 projects, $0.3 billion total budget
- 2026 Medium-High delivery confidence - 3 projects, $0.08 billion total budget
- 2025 Medium-High delivery confidence – 16 projects, $2.2 billion total budget
- 2026 Medium delivery confidence - 3 projects, $0.2 billion total budget
- 2025 Medium delivery confidence – 5 projects, $0.6 billion total budget
- 2026 Medium-Low delivery confidence - 1 project, $0.05 billion total budget
- 2025 Medium-Low delivery confidence - 2 projects, $0.6 billion total budget.
This year, half of new Tier 1 and Tier 2 projects entering oversight have a High or Medium-High delivery confidence, down from 75.0% in 2025. These projects also have smaller budgets than Tier 1 and Tier 2 projects entering oversight with Medium or lower delivery confidence, which have larger budgets. This is similar to last year, when the ratio of projects starting out with a Medium or lower delivery confidence was 3.5 times larger than projects starting out with High or Medium-High delivery confidence.
Large, complex projects often carry more uncertainty and risk. Their size and complexity make them harder to plan and execute, so they are more likely to start with lower confidence ratings. Smaller projects often have clearer scope, fewer dependencies and shorter timelines, making them easier to plan and deliver.
When projects enter oversight with Medium or lower delivery confidence, this indicates some risks or challenges have been identified as needing attention. Over half of the Tier 1 and Tier 2 projects entering oversight with Medium or lower delivery confidence in 2025 reported improved delivery confidence in 2026.
A common trend among projects entering oversight with Medium or lower delivery confidence is a need to improve planning – with unclear scope, scheduling and budget forecasting leading to funding shortfalls and poor visibility of progress. There has been a recent emphasis on ensuring mature planning is in place before projects start. However, the results for projects newly entering oversight indicate the need for continued focus on strengthening digital project design processes.
Reforms supporting success: Stronger planning for government digital investment
From July 2025, Digital Investment Plans (DIPs) were introduced to strengthen agency planning for digital investments. DIPs support short, medium and long-term strategic planning. This promotes a culture that is future-focused and enables more effective digital investment outcomes.
Agencies have begun embedding DIPs within their operational and strategic contexts. This improves alignment between technology and policy, contributing to improved digital services for Australians in line with the Data and Digital Government Strategy.
Early adoption has shown promising signs of more integrated planning, with agencies beginning to map out pathways for emerging technologies and innovation. While still in the early stages, DIPs are laying the groundwork for more coordinated and transparent investments.
These investment plans create a positive feedback loop for government to map a comprehensive view of digital projects. DIPs are now being used to identify shared challenges across agencies and opportunities to share solutions and resources.
The next phase will focus on strengthening whole-of-government strategic planning, improving cross-agency visibility, and supporting more agile, data-informed decision-making.
Continued refinement of DIPs will help ensure digital investments are responsive to the evolving needs of Australians as well as emerging technological opportunities.
More information is at: Digital Investment Plans (DIPs) | digital.gov.au.
Continuing projects experienced some changes in delivery confidence
Figure 18: image description
The sankey chart depicting the flow of delivery confidence ratings for projects continuing under oversight from 2025, indicating starting delivery confidence ratings, to their delivery confidence ratings in 2026, with numbers of projects and total budgets ascribed to each delivery confidence category.
- High delivery confidence: 8 projects with total budget $0.5 billion had high delivery confidence in 2025. In 2026, 2 projects remained at high delivery confidence, 3 reduced to medium-high, 1 reduced to medium and 2 were not required to report delivery confidence due to reclassification.
- Medium-High delivery confidence: 27 projects with total budget $3.0 billion had Medium-High delivery confidence in 2025. In 2026, 12 projects remained at medium-high delivery confidence, 5 improved to high, 8 reduced to medium, 1 reduced to medium-low and 1 was not required to report delivery confidence.
- Medium delivery confidence: 12 projects with total budget $1.5 billion had medium delivery confidence in 2025. In 2026, 5 projects remained at medium delivery confidence, 1 improved to high, 4 improved to medium-high and 2 reduced to medium-low.
- Medium-low delivery confidence: 6 projects with total budget $1.2 billion had medium-low delivery confidence in 2025. In 2026, none remained at medium-low delivery confidence, 1 improved to high, 3 improved to medium-high and 2 improved to medium.
- Low delivery confidence: 2 projects with total budget $0.5 billion had low delivery confidence in 2025. In 2026, none remained at low delivery confidence, 1 improved to medium-high and 1 improved to medium-low.
- Not reported delivery confidence: 1 project with total budget $0.02 billion was not required to report delivery confidence in 2025 and remained not reported in 2026.
In 2026:
- 9 projects with total budget $0.6 billion had high delivery confidence.
- 23 projects with total budget $4.8 billion had medium-high delivery confidence.
- 16 projects with total budget $1.7 billion had medium delivery confidence.
- 4 projects with total budget $0.5 billion had medium-low delivery confidence.
- No projects had low delivery confidence.
- 4 projects with total budget $0.3 billion were not required to report delivery confidence.
- Overall, there are 56 continuing projects totalling $7.8 billion budget in 2026.
Projects under central oversight are re-tiered to reflect changes in their risk profile, strategic significance or delivery context and circumstances.
Four projects from March 2025 have been reclassified from Tier 2 to Tier 3, which means they now fall outside the scope requiring regular delivery confidence information. Of these, one reported a High delivery confidence, 2 reported a Medium-High delivery confidence, and one was not reported.
Of the 52 continuing Tier 1 and Tier 2 projects that reported delivery confidence in March 2025, 20 projects either maintained or dropped delivery confidence to Medium or lower in 2026. Ten projects dropped from High and Medium-High in 2025 to Medium or lower in 2026, as they experienced key challenges such as governance and planning, risk management and readiness for next stage, which negatively affected project delivery.
However, other projects improved delivery confidence. Ten projects improved from Medium or lower in 2025 to Medium-High or High in 2026, with 2 of these projects previously reporting a Low delivery confidence now reporting Medium-Low and Medium-High delivery confidence. The common theme for delivery confidence improvement is maturing governance, improved planning and controls, strong stakeholder engagement, and demonstrated delivery progress – all contributing to higher confidence of successful delivery outcomes. Delivery confidence tends to increase as projects begin to realise intended benefits during their final stages.
All closed projects successfully delivered outcomes
A total of 18 projects were reported as closed since 2025. All closed projects were successfully delivered, achieving intended outcomes and objectives. Many of these closed projects also completed their transition to business-as-usual arrangements. Benefits realisation and tracking continues beyond project closure where necessary.
Over half of closed projects reported a change in budget since the last report
More than half (56.3%) of closed projects reported different total budgets compared with 2025. The majority of these (66.7%) reported a decrease in their total budget.
In fact, 40.0% of closed projects finished with spending below 50.0% of their total budget, due to either:
- initial discovery phase findings that identified a proposed solution was not viable and did not offer much in the way of additional benefits – leading to a decision to close the project
- savings realised from leveraging existing contracts, or
- deferral or scaling back of scope or planned enhancements.
Key lessons learnt from closed projects:
- Improve the effectiveness of governance, engagement and coordination across agencies, establishing relevant inter-agency governance structures and assurance roles where necessary. A single consistent and shared approach to project governance and accountability will ensure smoother delivery.
- Start by developing a better understanding of project requirements before designing, building and implementing projects. This allows for issues to be uncovered and properly considered.
- Help to manage stakeholder expectations and ensure project success by managing project scope effectively, being transparent about limitations and scope changes, and clearly defining scope upfront.
- Strengthen communication and engagement, particularly in initial stages of a project starting.
- Allocate sufficient resources throughout the project lifecycle, securing additional resources ahead of project commencement if required. Consistent and effective resource and capacity planning are essential to address resourcing gaps and ensure timely project delivery.
- Recognise that effective vendor management is critical.
Over half of closed projects changed their end date since last report
Over half (52.9%) of closed projects experienced a change in project end date. Of these, one-third (33.3%) experienced a delay in delivery.
Key reasons for schedule delays were:
- additional project scope elements being added after commencement, leading to extended scope and timeline and additional work
- procurement delays and complexity, leading to slowed progress and contract renegotiation.
Reforms supporting success: Gateway Reviews are helping government projects deliver better outcomes for Australians
When major government projects succeed, Australians benefit through improved services, smarter technology and better value for money. One of the tools supporting this is the Gateway Review process administered by the Department of Finance – an independent, practical checkpoint designed to strengthen planning and delivery and assist agencies in achieving successful outcomes. This independent assurance is a valuable input to the DTA’s advice to government on digital project performance
Gateway Reviews are collaborative and focused on successful delivery. They provide Senior Responsible Officials with expert advice at critical stages of a project’s lifecycle. Experienced reviewers act as ‘critical friends’, offering candid insights to help teams address challenges and maintain progress.
Projects that thrive share common traits:
- strong governance and clear prioritisation
- collaboration between business and technical teams
- accurate, high-quality data to inform decisions.
Why Gateway Reviews matter
Government projects are complex, often involving technology upgrades, service redesigns, and significant investment. Lessons learnt from past reviews show that success depends on:
- early governance and sponsorship – ensuring clear leadership from the start
- executive engagement at key points – actively involving senior decision-makers
- business-led, user-centred design – building services around the needs of Australians
- capability uplift and planning – equipping teams with the right skills early
- technology strategy and risk assurance – avoiding costly surprises
- proactive change management – preparing for impacts across agencies.
Capturing these lessons is critical to improving future delivery and avoiding repeat challenges.
Tier 2 and Tier 3 projects account for most of the budget of newly funded projects
| Tier | Funding amount | Percentage of total new funding |
|---|---|---|
| Tier 1 | $70.9 million | 8% |
| Tier 2 | $452.9 million | 52% |
| Tier 3 | $328.0 million | 38% |
| TBC* | $19.0 million | 2% |
*Note: The Delivery of a new National Cell Broadcast Messaging System project ($19 million) in the Home Affairs portfolio has not been assigned an investment tier. This will be determined once the oversight process commences.
A total of 19 new government-agreed investments are expected to fall under the DTA’s central oversight in 2026. The total cost for each project includes the digital budget, however the proportion of the digital budget will vary by project and is not available for publication at this time.
Most of the funding for these 19 investments is allocated to 3 APS portfolios:
- Health, Disability and Ageing – $7.9 billion across 3 investments (note while the $7.9 billion investment is large in total cost, the digital and ICT components are relatively small)
- Veterans’ Affairs – $255.6 million across 3 investments
- Finance – $193.4 million across 2 investments.
As with all major digital projects, central oversight of these newly funded projects through the IOF and Assurance Framework is essential to ensure they deliver timely benefits for all Australians. Details of these processes are in Central oversight and assurance.
The Newly funded projects table describes those projects expected to fall under the DTA’s central oversight in 2026.
Investment by sector
This section explores the projects underway across the Australian Government, broken down into 9 sectors.
Figure 20: image description
Diagram depicting the breakdown of active projects by sector, comparing the number of projects and total budgets (in billions) across 2026, 2025 and 2024.
Agriculture and trade sector:
- In 2026, had 10 active projects, with total budget $1.0 billion.
- In 2025, had 12 active projects, with total budget $1.1 billion.
- In 2024, had 6 active projects, with total budget $0.6 billion.
Education and employment sector:
- In 2026, had 11 active projects, with total budget $0.4 billion.
- In 2025, had 11 active projects, with total budget $0.5 billion.
- In 2024, had 12 active projects, with total budget $1.0 billion.
Government sector:
- In 2026, had 14 active projects, with total budget $1.3 billion.
- In 2025, had 12 active projects, with total budget $1.2 billion.
- In 2024, had 9 active projects, with total budget $0.6 billion.
Healthcare and aged care sector:
- In 2026, had 16 active projects, with total budget $2.2 billion.
- In 2025, had 15 active projects, with total budget $1.9 billion.
- In 2024, had 18 active projects, with total budget $0.8 billion.
Industry, infrastructure and business sector:
- In 2026, had 11 active projects, with total budget $0.8 billion.
- In 2025, had 11 active projects, with total budget $0.7 billion.
- In 2024, had 10 active projects, with total budget $0.3 billion.
Resources and the environment:
- In 2026, had 13 active projects, with total budget $0.7 billion.
- In 2025, had 20 active projects, with total budget $0.9 billion.
- In 2024, had 14 active projects, with total budget $0.9 billion.
Safety of Australians sector:
- In 2026, had 12 active projects, with total budget $1.8 billion.
- In 2025, had 15 active projects, with total budget $1.9 billion.
- In 2024, had 11 active projects, with total budget $1.4 billion.
Social services sector:
- In 2026, had 7 active projects, with total budget $0.6 billion.
- In 2025, had 8 active projects, with total budget $0.6 billion.
- In 2024, had 4 active projects, with total budget $0.2 billion.
Tax and super sector:
- In 2026, had 9 active projects, with total budget $1.0 billion.
- In 2025, had 5 active projects, with total budget $0.8 billion.
- In 2024, had 5 active projects, with total budget $0.3 billion.
From 2024 to 2026, most sectors experienced stability in the number of projects and in investment. However, the Tax and super, Government, and Healthcare and aged care sectors experienced increases in both number of projects and investment.
The Tax and super sector increased by 4 projects from 2024 to 2026, with a $738.3 million boost in investment over that time frame. The focus is on projects introducing new tax initiatives and modernisation of existing systems.
An additional 5 projects and $638.9 million investment in the Government sector from 2024 to 2026 reflect a heightened focus on cyber security improvements, and modernising legacy systems across government operations to strengthen national security and provide more accessible services to the public.
While the number of projects remain stable in the Healthcare and aged care sector, investment increased $1.4 billion from 2024 to 2026. This highlights the Australian Government’s priority in making healthcare more accessible through modernising systems and services. Another government priority is aged care, as evidenced through an increase in investment to implement the Aged Care Act 2024, and improve access to services for older Australians.
Agriculture and trade
10 Active projects, $1.0B investment
Agriculture and trade are central to Australia’s economic resilience. The Australian Government is investing $1.0 billion across 10 projects, to simplify import and export processes, in addition to supporting agricultural systems.
Producers are being supported to respond to extreme weather events with tools that help them understand future conditions and assess potential impacts on production. Knowledge and information systems are being developed to ensure insights from drought-related programs are accessible and widely adopted. This is crucial in providing the agriculture industry and government with future climate information.
Other projects are transforming border and biosecurity processes to streamline trade and improve risk management, while new models for cargo intervention are being trialled to enhance efficiency.
Export support is being scaled up through digital platforms that offer tailored guidance to businesses, helping them navigate global markets and trade agreements. Cyber security and infrastructure resilience are also being strengthened to ensure critical systems remain secure and sustainable.
Case studies
Paperless Trading Digital Verification Platform (DVP)
Agriculture and trade sector
The Australian Border Force (ABF)
Tier 3
Project status - Closed
Duration - 3 years, 2 months
Investment - $9.1M | Digital ($9.1M)
The Australian Border Force (ABF) has developed and trialled the Digital Verification Platform (DVP). This is part of an ongoing trade modernisation initiative that supports Australia’s transition to paperless trade by promoting and testing the acceptance of secure and verifiable digital trade documents.
Developed under the government’s Simplified Trade System reform agenda, the DVP aims to enhance trade efficiency and reduce the administrative burden, as well as reliance on paper-based documents.
The platform allows authorised Australian issuing authorities to create digital verifiable credentials for trade documents such as Certificates of Origin. These digital credentials can be verified by partner customs agencies in real-time, confirming authenticity and integrity of Australian issued digital trade documents.
Modernising digital verification of trade documents
In 2024, the ABF successfully trialled the DVP with the Australian Industry Group and Thailand Customs under the Thailand–Australia Free Trade Agreement. The trial demonstrated the platform’s capability and attracted interest beyond trial participants.
The initiative provides an opportunity to reduce risk, enhance security and build trust between cross-border enforcement agencies and industry, while supporting a move toward a paperless trade ecosystem.
The DVP encourages reuse — it has been designed to enable the creation of digital trade documents based on key international standards that can be tailored and expanded across many document types and stakeholders. This can reduce the cost of compliance for traders, provide better data to government for risk assessment, and accelerate the shift to a secure paperless trade environment.
Delivering the DVP involved navigating complex technical, regulatory and international engagement challenges. The trial provided valuable insights into interoperability and the practicalities of implementing verifiable digital trade credentials at scale. Future steps may include identifying additional trading partners for trials and extending the platform to other trade document types in collaboration with Australian agencies and international counterparts. The ABF will continue to explore how the DVP’s verifiable credentials capability can be reused and scaled across government to support Australia’s vision for simple, integrated and intuitive digital services.
Case study
Case study
Capital Security, Technology, and Asset Refresh (CapStar) program
Agriculture and trade sector
Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (DAFF)
Tier 2
Project status - Active
Duration - 4 years
Delivery confidence - Medium-High
Investment - $287.9 Million | Digital ($201.2 Million)
Tier 3
Investment - $9.1M
Digital ($9.1M)
Project status - Closed
Duration - 3 years, 2 months
The CapSTAR program is a strategic investment to maintain the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry’s (DAFF) operations, mitigate critical national security and economic risks, and support Australian agricultural, fisheries, and forestry production, which is valued at approximately $100 billion annually.
The project was needed to update ageing ICT systems, dependence on technologies approaching end-of-life or no longer supported and cybersecurity capability.
The transformation will refresh and maintain a sustainable and efficient technology and physical infrastructure by reducing technical debt (future costs associated with choosing quick, suboptimal solutions) and increasing cyber maturity levels. At the same time, the project will ensure DAFF meets obligations under the Australian Cyber Security Centre’s ‘Essential Eight’ mitigation strategies and the Protective Security Policy Framework. Necessary property upgrades are also happening under the program.
Strategic investment supports Australian agricultural, fisheries and forestry industries worth $100 billion a year
To deliver CapSTAR, DAFF developed a 10-year ICT Investment Plan and Property and Capital Management Plan to guide strategic investment. A multi-stream governance structure with oversight from the CapSTAR Program Board was established. The program is informed through broad stakeholder analysis and has embedded change management.
By mid-2025, after one year of operation, the CapSTAR program had delivered several early milestones including:
- enhanced cybersecurity maturity, with improved threat detection and incident response capabilities
- modernised ICT infrastructure, reducing reliance on legacy systems and improving service continuity – end-of-life firewalls, network devices and legacy hardware have been replaced through refresh activities, and internet connectivity and infrastructure has been improved at multiple sites, from airports to remote offices
- improved governance and risk management, reducing enterprise risks and aligning with Commonwealth standards – DAFF has drafted an Archival Framework for decommissioned systems, a Cloud strategy and Cloud Financial Operations framework.
‘At DAFF, our focus is on working together to achieve the best outcomes for our clients – Australian communities. The CapSTAR program is helping us achieve this by ensuring the buildings, systems and applications we use are secure, stable and ready to support our critical work into the future.’
Dark Bottom