5.15 The Infrastructure Australia Council has the statutory role of providing advice to the Minister on infrastructure matters, including the development of priority lists. In turn, the Infrastructure Coordinator (a statutory office holder) has the primary function of supporting the Council in the performance of its functions. The Office of the Infrastructure Coordinator supports the Infrastructure Coordinator with these staff engaged under the Public Service Act, through the DITRDLG.
5.16 Under the legislative arrangements, the Council was empowered to decide which projects should be included on the Final Priority List. The Council was not obliged to accept the recommendations of officials within the Office of the Infrastructure Coordinator or of the Infrastructure Coordinator. There was also no legislative requirement for the Council to document the nature and extent of any inquiries undertaken, or caused to be undertaken, to satisfy itself about which projects should and should not be included on the Final Priority List, or to record any reasons for the decisions taken. Nevertheless, documenting the basis for any significant decisions that are taken is recognised as aiding transparency and public accountability and, as noted at paragraph 5.14, it is a goal of Infrastructure Australia that infrastructure funding decisions will be taken following careful planning and rigorous assessments that are based on sufficient evidence.139
5.17 The overall evaluation framework envisaged by the Office of the Infrastructure Coordinator for developing recommendations on the Final Priority List was consistent with the published Prioritisation Methodology. Similar administrative arrangements were also proposed, with the Prioritisation Evaluation Committee to be re‐convened (with the same members), the Profiling Advisory Team and Appraisal Advisory Teams to be re‐established and input sought from external advisors on the economic appraisals.
5.18 In addition, the Office of the Infrastructure Coordinator commenced updating the Evaluation Plan that had been approved for the development of the Interim Priority List. However, the draft updated Evaluation Plan was not finalised and approved by the Infrastructure Coordinator.140
5.19 The Prioritisation Evaluation Committee within the Office of the Infrastructure Coordinator again had a central role in advising the Infrastructure Coordinator and, in turn, the Council on the composition of the Final Priority List. However, rather than the Prioritisation Evaluation Committee developing recommendations for the Infrastructure Coordinator to then take to the Council,141 the Council took a leading role in guiding the evaluation process, and there was significant engagement with proponents for certain projects that the Council expressed particular interest in. In this respect, in February 2010, the Office of the Infrastructure Coordinator advised ANAO that:
The assessment of proposals was an interactive one between Infrastructure Australia and the proponents. All proponents had an opportunity to present additional material against the Minimum Information Requirements which were available on the Infrastructure Australia website, and were encouraged to submit updated information where it became available.
5.20 Similarly, in June 2010, the Chair of the Infrastructure Australia Council informed ANAO that:
It is the Council that has the advisory responsibilities under the Infrastructure Australia Act 2008, not the Infrastructure Coordinator or the Office of the Infrastructure Coordinator.
It is true to say that the Infrastructure Australia Council gave the Office of the Infrastructure Coordinator guidance on its overall approach and tested the Office of the Infrastructure Coordinator's conclusions in relation to specific projects. The Council also asked for further information on some projects, particularly those of demonstrable national importance or projects with particular sensitivities, to ensure that their own understanding of the projects was complete.
This iterative process enabled Infrastructure Australia to refine its understanding and assessment of the proposals that had been submitted for its consideration. This is appropriate for an advisory body of twelve infrastructure experts who were appointed to ensure the development of robust policy.
___________________________________________________________________________________________
139 However, as outlined in Chapter Four, the Minutes of the Council's 12 December 2008 meeting did not record that:
• the Council had not accepted the results of the Office of the Infrastructure Coordinator's evaluation that had seen a list of 28 initiatives recommended to be included on the Interim Priority List; but, instead
• had requested that additional information be sought for all 94 projects that had been shortlisted for evaluation in November 2008 with the Office of the Infrastructure Coordinator to report back to the Council in January 2009 with its recommendations on the Final Priority List.
140 The draft located by ANAO within the Office of the Infrastructure Coordinator records has an issue date of 15 January 2009.
141 For example, the draft Evaluation Plan for the Final Priority List had outlined that the closing date for the submission of additional information was set as 16 January 2009 with evaluation of material already held to have commenced on 5 January 2009 and to be completed by 20 January 2009 with the evaluation report to be provided the following day to the Infrastructure Coordinator. This plan further proposed that the recommended Final Priority List would be provided to the Council at its 30 January 2009 meeting.