In brief
- Gateway is an independent peer review at key decision points, derived from the UK process and run by the Commonwealth and several states.
- Reviews are short: a planning meeting, then up to five days of interviews, document review and report drafting, with findings going to the accountable senior official.
- The main output is a delivery confidence rating and prioritised recommendations. Gate numbers, rating scales and thresholds differ between jurisdictions.
- Readiness is about the decision at the gate: a current business case, an honest risk position, a closed-out last review, and people ready to speak candidly.
- A poor rating starts escalation under some frameworks, and what counts afterwards is a decision with an owner and a date for each critical recommendation.
What is a Gateway review?
A Gateway review is a short, independent peer review of a programme or project at a key decision point, carried out by experienced reviewers from outside it. It gives the accountable senior official a point-in-time view of delivery confidence and what must change before the next stage.
The UK Office of Government Commerce introduced the process in 2001, and in the UK it now sits with the National Infrastructure and Service Transformation Authority. In Australia the Commonwealth, New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland and Western Australia each run a Gateway process under their own frameworks, thresholds and rules.
Gateway is designed to help the programme succeed. The Commonwealth guidance states that it is not an audit and does not replace the agency's accountability for decisions and delivery. Interviews are confidential and non-attributable so people can speak frankly.
How does the Gateway review process work in Australia?
In each jurisdiction a central unit arranges the review and its team, the agency prepares, and the senior responsible official, or SRO, receives the report. The review is short: a planning meeting, then up to five days of interviews and document review.
| Jurisdiction | Framework and administrator | What to know |
|---|---|---|
| Commonwealth | The Assurance Reviews Process, administered by the Assurance Reviews Unit in the Department of Finance | Applied by government decision to high-risk proposals above financial thresholds: $30 million or more for projects, more than $50 million for programmes. Gates 0 to 5 for projects, stage reviews for programmes. Onsite reviews usually run five working days, rated on five tiers from Green to Red. |
| New South Wales | The NSW Gateway Policy (TPG 22-12), through three Gateway Coordination Agencies: Infrastructure NSW for capital projects, Digital Assurance in the NSW Department of Customer Service (formerly the Department of Finance, Services and Innovation) for ICT and digital, and NSW Treasury for major recurrent expenditure | Capital projects of $20 million and above register with Infrastructure NSW, and ICT and digital projects of $5 million or more with Digital Assurance. Gates 0 to 6, with Health Checks between them, and findings are reported to Cabinet. Infrastructure projects are rated High, Medium, Stressed or Low. |
| Victoria | The Gateway Review Process, delivered by the Gateway Unit in the Department of Treasury and Finance | Mandatory for High Value High Risk investments. Six gates, 1 to 6, from concept and feasibility to benefits analysis. A four-day review, rated red, amber or green. |
| Queensland | Gateway reviews under the Project Assessment Framework, arranged by Queensland Treasury's Gateway unit | Recommended for projects above $100 million, and not mandated. Gates 0 to 5, with a review of three to five days. |
What are the Gateway gates?
The Commonwealth model, which follows the UK numbering, runs project reviews from Gate 0 to Gate 5. Victoria numbers its six gates 1 to 6 and the NSW frameworks run to Gate 6, but the decision points are recognisably the same.
| Gate | Decision point | What the review tests |
|---|---|---|
| Gate 0 | Business need | Whether the need and scope are understood, fit the agency's strategy, and the expected benefits are identified |
| Gate 1 | Business case | Whether the proposed approach meets the need and can be delivered with the time and resources provided |
| Gate 2 | Delivery strategy | Whether the project is defined, planned and ready to invite proposals or tenders |
| Gate 3 | Investment decision | Whether the selected supplier and contract will meet the need, with controls in place for delivery |
| Gate 4 | Readiness for service | Whether the solution and the organisation are ready, and how ongoing performance will be judged |
| Gate 5 | Benefits realisation | Whether the project is achieving its objectives and benefits, and what remedial action is needed |
How is a Gateway review different from a project health check?
The two use similar methods and ask similar questions. They differ in who commissions them, when they happen, who reads the report and what it is for.
| Aspect | Gateway review | Project health check |
|---|---|---|
| Arranged by | The jurisdiction's central Gateway unit, under its framework | The sponsor, board or agency, whenever it chooses |
| Timing | Shortly before a defined decision point | At any point, including between gates |
| Review team | Experienced reviewers drawn from the central unit's pool or panel, independent of the programme | Chosen by the commissioner, and independent of delivery |
| Report goes to | The SRO. The Commonwealth and Victorian units receive a copy, and in New South Wales findings are reported to Cabinet | Whoever commissioned it, usually the sponsor and the board |
| Confidentiality | Confidential and non-attributable, under the jurisdiction's rules | As agreed in the terms of reference |
| Main output | A delivery confidence rating and prioritised recommendations | A delivery confidence assessment and recommendations, scoped to the question asked |
How do you prepare for a Gateway review?
Prepare the decision the gate exists to support, then the evidence for it. Documents written for the review are easy to spot, and a programme that explains its position candidly is harder to fault.
- Book early. Queensland Treasury suggests at least two months, so that suitable reviewers and interviewees are free.
- Know which gate you are at and what it tests. Gateway units publish guidance for each gate. A business case gate and a readiness for service gate ask different questions.
- Bring the core documents up to date. The business case, schedule, cost and contingency position, risk register, governance terms of reference and benefits plan should describe the programme as it is today.
- Close out the last review. Under the Commonwealth process the previous report is pre-reading for the next review team, and the agency records the action taken on each recommendation beforehand. Open recommendations with no recorded action draw early questions.
- Nominate interviewees who will be candid. Include the people who disagree. Reviewers can ask to see anyone, Commonwealth rules bar the SRO from limiting that, and they notice who is missing.
- Make the SRO available every day. The Commonwealth and Victorian processes brief the SRO at the end of each review day. An SRO who uses them to correct facts and test emerging findings gets a better report.
- Turn document requests around fast. The Commonwealth expects documents requested during the review within one business day. Slow answers read as a programme that cannot find its own evidence.
Precision perspective
What do Gateway reviewers look for?
Reviewers look for evidence that the programme can take its next decision safely: a case that still holds, a plan that is achievable, risks that are owned and governance that decides. Much of that view forms in the interviews, and in whether they tell a consistent story.
- Documents and interviews that agree. Where the schedule says one thing and the delivery lead another, reviewers follow the gap, and the finding usually sits there.
- A business case that is current. One revisited since approval, with benefits that have named owners.
- Risk ratings that move. A register whose ratings change over time is more credible than a static one.
- Decisions that stick. Evidence that governance forums decide, record the decision and follow it through.
- Readiness for the next stage. At later gates, whether the organisation, the supplier and the people who will run the service are ready.
Reviewers recognise a programme that is managing the review. The best prepare their evidence, then let the people closest to the work speak.
What happens after a Gateway review, and what does a red rating mean?
The SRO receives the report and decides the response, and the next review checks what was done. A red rating means the reviewers judge that the programme cannot succeed as currently planned, and under some frameworks it starts formal escalation.
Under the Commonwealth process, one Red or two successive Amber or Amber/Red ratings trigger Enhanced Notification, a letter from the Secretary of Finance to the agency's accountable authority; further poor ratings require an action plan, then an independent external review. A NSW infrastructure project rated Stressed or Low has up to 12 weeks to address its critical recommendations. In Victoria, every Red or Amber recommendation goes into a Recommendation Action Plan.
The SRO's response matters more than the rating. Decide whether to re-baseline, re-scope, pause or stop, give each critical recommendation an owner and a date, and brief the accountable authority before any letter arrives. A health check a few months on can show whether the actions held.
Sources and further reading
Statements about government frameworks were checked against these sources on 26 September 2026. Frameworks are revised, so read the current guidance for your jurisdiction.
- Department of Finance, Assurance Reviews Process Overview
- Department of Finance, Guidance on the Assurance Reviews Process (RMG 106)
- Department of Finance, Questions and Answers for Senior Responsible Officials
- NSW Treasury, NSW Gateway Assurance
- Infrastructure NSW, Infrastructure Investor Assurance Framework
- Infrastructure NSW, Introductory Guide to Infrastructure Investor Assurance Reviews (March 2026)
- Digital NSW, Gateway Reviews by Digital Assurance
- Victorian Department of Treasury and Finance, Gateway Review Process
- Victorian Department of Treasury and Finance, The review
- Queensland Treasury, Gateway reviews (assurance)
- Western Australian Government, Gateway Review process
- GOV.UK, NISTA assurance review toolkit