5.7 Neither the Interim Priority List nor any of the associated material promulgated by Infrastructure Australia flagged that there would be opportunities to submit new candidates for inclusion in the Final Priority List. Rather, the 19 December 2008 report to COAG had stated that:
The Infrastructure Coordinator has made an interim analysis of the projects submitted to Infrastructure Australia. This analysis has directly informed which projects will be subjected to further analysis and these projects are outlined in Table 5.129 [ANAO emphasis. Table 5 was the list of 94 projects shortlisted in November 2008 for detailed evaluation]
5.8 Whilst no further public submissions were sought or received, four projects from different State and Territory governments were submitted and considered. In particular, as a follow‐up to meetings between Premiers and the then Prime Minister, in March 2009 the Office of the Infrastructure Coordinator provided advice to the Council on 25 projects raised by the Premiers. The majority of these projects had been included on the Interim Priority List and Infrastructure Australia was proposing that they be included on the Final Priority List. In the December 2008 assessment by the Office of the Infrastructure Coordinator, two of the projects had been assessed as not meriting inclusion on the Final Priority List.130
5.9 There were also three projects that had not been previously submitted to Infrastructure Australia for consideration, and so had not been evaluated. These were:
• the Redcliffe Railway in Brisbane to provide a rail link initially from Petrie to Kippa Ring;
• the Adelaide O‐Bahn Track Extension;131 and
• the Ipswich Motorway in Queensland.132
5.10 The Ipswich Motorway project was included in the table of Infrastructure Priorities published in the report outlining the Final Priority List as a freight road project under the theme 'A national freight network', but was neither a priority project nor a pipeline project (see further at paragraphs 5.51 to 5.53). The other two projects were not included in the Final Priority List document but another project that had not been included on the Interim Priority List (the Moorebank Intermodal Terminal), was included on the Final Priority List.133 This was the only project in the Final Priority List that had not featured in the Interim Priority List.
5.11 In April 2010, the Office of the Infrastructure Coordinator advised ANAO that:
Reflecting the desire to produce the highest quality list of national infrastructure priorities, proponents contacted were not restricted to providing additional information for projects on the Interim Priority List but were allowed to bring forward additional information for other projects. In addition, the Office of the Infrastructure Coordinator also allowed other project proponents who contacted the Office to bring forward additional information consistent with the Minimum Information Requirements template.
5.12 Similarly, in June 2010, the Chair of the Infrastructure Australia Council informed ANAO that:
All projects considered for, or included on the Final Priority List were subjected to the same scrutiny, including the strategic merit test and appraisal assessment. When a proponent submitted information for the first time, or submitted revised information, at any stage in the process, the same tests were conducted against the same standards.
5.13 This approach meant that not all projects were being required to pass through all assessment filters so as to both demonstrate their strategic merit and perform well in the detailed appraisal undertaken in November 2008 (see further at paragraph 3.7 and Figure 3.1). In particular, appraisal assessments were not undertaken for 13 of the pipeline projects because a BCR had not been submitted for appraisal. In respect to the remaining 15 pipeline projects, the Office of the Infrastructure Coordinator's assessment had been that there was insufficient evidence to support the economic viability of the project.134 In addition, the approach taken was not consistent with the published material given:
• as noted at paragraph 5.7, the report to COAG published on 19 December 2008 had stated that further analysis would be undertaken on the 94 projects included on the Interim Priority List, with no public statements made advising that new projects could be submitted for consideration;
• the report to COAG had further advised that any further or better information in respect to projects that had previously been submitted but had not been included on the Interim Priority List would be considered on their merits in future assessment processes, with no public statements that such projects could still be considered for the Final Priority List;135 and
• the Minimum Information Requirements document had stated that 'to underpin its further analysis of these projects Infrastructure Australia now requires comprehensive and detailed information on the appraisal and deliverability assessments, to provide robust evidence to support the headline or summary results so far presented', with the document explicitly referring to the list of 94 projects included on the Interim Priority List.
___________________________________________________________________________________________
129 Infrastructure Australia, A Report to the Council of Australian Governments, December 2008, p. 67.
130 Namely: the Northbridge Rail Link in Western Australia (which had been one of the 22 potential candidates recommended by the Office of the Infrastructure Coordinator on 1 December 2008 for the Interim Priority List but the Office of the Infrastructure Coordinator was not satisfied with the robustness of the claimed BCR because of the unconventional approach that had been taken), and the Mornington Peninsula Connector Road in Victoria (which had been one of the six priority candidates recommended by the Office of the Infrastructure Coordinator for inclusion on the Interim Priority List. The principal concern raised in the Office of the Infrastructure Coordinator's further evaluation of this project was that the project would result in a slight decrease in public transport use and that the BCR analysis used a capital expenditure figure that was below the range of concept estimates.)
131 The May 2009 Budget included $61 million for this project over four years towards dedicated tracks and associated improvements for the final 4.5 kilometres of Adelaide's high speed O-Bahn corridor.
132 The May 2009 Budget included $884 million for the construction of eight kilometres of the Ipswich Motorway between Dinmore and Goodna, and 2.5 kilometres between Wacol and Darra; and planning for the Ipswich Motorway between Darra and Rocklea.
133 During the 2007 election, the then Opposition had committed $300 million towards an intermodal terminal at Moorebank. In a letter dated 10 December 2008 the Minister directed the Infrastructure Coordinator (pursuant to section 28(2) of the Infrastructure Australia Act) to assume lead responsibility for various processes aimed at facilitating development of an intermodal terminal on the current School of Military Engineering site at Moorebank and associated logistics arrangements. At its 30 January 2009 meeting, the Council was advised of the Ministerial direction with the Minutes of that meeting recording that 'it was agreed to include Moorebank in the prioritisation pipeline list.'
134 In some instances, this was because the BCRs were assessed as out of date by the Office of the Infrastructure Coordinator. In other instances, the economic analysis was assessed as preliminary or inadequate.
135 Specifically, the report to COAG stated that: 'Finally, it should be noted that many projects submitted to Infrastructure Australia do not appear in Table 5. Projects with a comparatively low Benefit-Cost Ratio (BCR) or with no cost-benefit assessment evidence have not been included in this table. It is stressed that if the BCR rises following more detailed analysis, or if analysis is provided in due course, Infrastructure Australia will consider these projects on their merits in future assessment processes.' Source: Infrastructure Australia, A Report to the Council of Australian Governments, December 2008, p. 67.