svict4

Right, so there's probably a discussion that needs to be had with your enterprise architecture team on why said stack was used (irrespective of skill sets available) when certain features are available "for free" (e.g. the DesignSystem)

I'll have a wild stab in the dark in saying that if the stack is really tightly coupled, that there's extra labour required by the dev team to meet the Digital Service Standard. Which is, really speaking, unnecessary public expenditure.

So you should always play to the skills in your team, agreed. But in this case, it gives consistency across Government. If your Department/Agency is rolling their own components, why not add them back into the Design System for others to use? Less repeated effort, cheaper for the tax payer.

Centrelink/DHS and myGov went through separate projects to redesign and use some parts of the design system.

Probably just a bad oversight. But this serves as another reminder, especially for the millennial target market who are new to the industry, to DYOR.

The CEO, Paul Bennetts, sent an email to investors today and here's a snippet:

"ASIC raised some concerns around a portion of content on our website. After hearing their concerns, we quickly saw that we should have been clearer about our investment decision process and we amended our website. We are proud that we acted immediately to address their concerns.

There has been some press yesterday and today in relation to this and we are a little disappointed that the coverage seems to be throwing rocks at the new kid on the block rather than holding a discussion about portfolio transparency and investment decision making across the entire superannuation industry."