The multi-criteria analysis framework contains 33 criteria in 13 impact categories, against which each recommendation has been assessed.
The criteria were selected through specialist input and by empowering 1,800 people and 200 businesses in a focused engagement process to prioritise criteria that are most meaningful to the community.
As shown in Table IV.1, these criteria provide a framework for qualitatively assessing impacts across:
• Service users, categorised into impacts on quality, access and affordability of services, which was the framework applied by the 2019 Audit.
• Community sustainability, assessed through a quadruple-bottom-line approach to economic, environmental, social and governance impacts for community sustainability, as outlined in Infrastructure Australia's Sustainability Principles.13
• Ease of implementation, which helps governments understand the potential delivery challenges and trade-offs across the costliness and complexity of the reform, and the capacity of government and industry to deliver it.
• Risks to success, which indicate risks for the implementation of policy recommendations across community and stakeholder acceptance, the level of confidence in the analysis of impacts, and the extent of government control over the success of the reform.
Table IV.1: Each recommendation is assessed against 33 impact criteria
| Impact themes | Impact categories | Impact criteria |
| Service users | Quality | 1. Provides a fast service that is easy to use |
|
|
| 2. Services available with minimal disruption and variance in quality |
|
|
| 3. Enhanced safety and security for users |
|
| Access | 4. Comparable services across all places |
|
|
| 5. Services on demand when users need them |
|
|
| 6. Improved access for disadvantaged groups |
|
| Affordability | 7. Pricing reflects usage and costs to deliver the service |
|
|
| 8. Affordability for an average Australian household |
|
|
| 9. Costs distributed fairly based on users' ability to pay |
| Community sustainability | Economic | 10. Improved efficiency |
|
| 11. Improved access to a higher-quality workforce | |
|
|
| 12. Increases national employment or Gross Domestic Product (GDP) |
|
| Environmental | 13. Supports waste reduction and circular economy |
|
|
| 14. Reduced harmful air and water pollution |
|
|
| 15. Reduced greenhouse gas emissions |
|
| Social | 16. Opportunities for education and employment |
|
|
| 17. Reduced anti-social behaviour and crime |
|
|
| 18. Improved health outcomes |
|
| Governance | 19. Improved planning and decision-making within government |
|
|
| 20. Transparency of decision-making |
|
|
| 21. Consideration of the needs of local communities and businesses |
| Ease of implementation | Costliness | 22. Minimises upfront and ongoing costs |
|
| 23. Minimises financial burden on the taxpayer | |
|
| Complexity | 24. Minimises time to Implement |
|
|
| 25. Minimises complexity of Implementation |
|
| Capacity | 26. Capability of government to Implement |
|
|
| 27. Capacity of Industry to deliver |
| Risks to success | Acceptance | 28. Community acceptance |
|
| Confidence | 29. Expected Impacts are clear |
|
|
| 30. Confidence that benefits will be achieved |
|
|
| 31. Confidence that reform will be successful during COVID-19 recovery |
|
|
| 32. Quality and availability of supporting evidence |
|
| Control | 33. Extent of government control over success of reform |