5.1 Infrastructure Australia's December 2008 report to the Council of Australian Governments incorporating the Interim Priority List stated that Infrastructure Australia would continue to work with governments and relevant bodies to finalise a prioritised list.126 The report included a table of 94 projects that were to be subjected to further analysis and advised that projects not included in this table would be considered on their merits in future assessment processes.127 In terms of the process to finalise a Final Priority List, the report stated that:
In order to finalise the Infrastructure Priority List, Infrastructure Australia proposes to:
• subject the data underpinning the assessment of strategic fit to further detailed scrutiny;
• request the development of comprehensive economic analysis of selected projects, where only a rapid economic analysis is available at this stage;
• ask submitting organisations to provide comprehensive economic analysis of specified projects immediately, if currently available;
• request and scrutinise the detailed demand modelling underpinning the projects; and
• subject the economic modelling methodology to further scrutiny.
Infrastructure Australia does not propose to seek this information for all projects immediately. Infrastructure Australia intends to publish the Infrastructure Priority List in March 2009.128
5.2 Consistent with its practice of publishing information on its methodology in the interests of transparency, on 19 December 2008 Infrastructure Australia released a Minimum Information Requirements document that outlined the additional economic appraisal and delivery information that was being sought so as 'to provide robust evidence to support the headline or summary results so far presented'. In these respects:
• the economic appraisal information sought through the Minimum Information Requirements document was consistent with, and drawn from, key aspects of the 22 criteria used by the Office of the Infrastructure Coordinator during the development of its recommendations on the Interim Priority List (see Table 4.2 in Chapter Four); and
• the project delivery information sought through the Minimum Information Requirements document was similar, but more detailed, to that originally sought as part of the Interim Priority List assessment process. The Minimum Information Requirements document presented the delivery information that was being sought in terms of the seven criteria that had been used to undertake the deliverability assessments as part of the Interim Priority List assessment process (see Table 4.5 in Chapter Four).
5.3 The Minimum Information Requirements document noted that:
this information [on appraisal and deliverability assessments] will be readily available to organisations that have undertaken serious project development, in the form of the following documents which are a fundamental part of major project development processes:
• 'Strategic options' reports;
• 'Feasibility studies' including specialist engineering and environmental assessments and outline economic assessments;
• Project 'business cases', including demand modelling reports and economic methodology and results reports;
• 'Delivery' reports, including specific risk, governance and timing assessments.
5.4 Also on 19 December 2008, the Office of the Infrastructure Coordinator wrote to the States and Territories requesting robust information to inform the development of the Final Priority List. In this respect, the Office of the Infrastructure Coordinator advised ANAO in April 2010 that the Infrastructure Coordinator and his Office had contacted proponents of the 28 projects mentioned in the 5 December 2008 letter to the Minister (see paragraph 4.30) following the release of the Minimum Information Requirements document, requesting additional project information by mid‐January 2009.
5.5 The Minimum Information Requirements document did not seek any additional information for profiling purposes. Accordingly, profiling assessments were not conducted (or re‐conducted) for information received in the second round of submissions. Consistent with this approach, at its 30 January 2009 meeting, the Council was advised by the Office of the Infrastructure Coordinator that the profiling assessment results remained unchanged from those that underpinned recommendations to the Council for the Interim Priority List.
5.6 The Office of the Infrastructure Coordinator advised ANAO in December 2009 that appraisal and deliverability assessments were only conducted for projects where new or updated appraisal and deliverability information was received. In advance of the 30 January 2009 meeting, Council members were provided with short summaries of the 33 projects for which additional information had been received by 20 January 2009. In addition, summaries were provided to Council members at the meeting on four additional projects for which information had been received after 20 January 2009 but by 28 January 2009. The Office of the Infrastructure Coordinator:
• advised the Council that it was preparing summaries for the remaining projects on the Interim Priority List for which no additional material had been provided; and
• reiterated an earlier offer to provide Council members with individual briefings and access to all documentation concerning some or all of the projects.
___________________________________________________________________________________________
126 Infrastructure Australia, A Report to the Council of Australian Governments, December 2008, p. 67.
127 ibid.
128 ibid., p. 72