A Gateway Review is not a surprise exam and it is not a substitute for the Senior Responsible Officer’s (SRO) own accountability. Done well, it is a short, intensive look at whether a major project or program is set up to deliver, and where corrective action is needed before the next decision point.
For Commonwealth non-corporate entities, the Department of Finance describes the Gateway Review Process as a way to strengthen governance and assurance and to help entities deliver major projects and programs. Reviews sit at critical points across the implementation lifecycle. Their purpose is independent assurance and advice for the SRO, including early identification of issues that need fixing.
That framing should shape how teams prepare. You are not writing a second business case for the review panel. You are making it easy for experienced reviewers to understand the current delivery confidence, the risks that matter, and what you plan to do next.
When Commonwealth Gateway may apply
Finance may recommend to Government that a high-risk New Policy Proposal be subject to Gateway when it meets financial thresholds, including:
- projects with a total estimated cost of $30 million or more for procurement or infrastructure
- projects with a total estimated cost of $30 million or more that include an ICT component of at least $10 million
- programs with a total estimated cost of over $50 million
Defence Capability Plan projects assessed by Cabinet under the Kinnaird two-pass approval process are outside Gateway.
Gateway also sits alongside other approval processes. Finance notes that the ICT Investment Approval process informs Cabinet before an investment decision, while Gateway helps the delivery entity during development and implementation. Where a proposal is subject to both Gateway and either ICT Investment Approval or the Two Stage Capital Works Approval Process, Gate 0 and Gate 1 reviews are not mandatory; Gateway then focuses on implementation after Government approval.
State and territory frameworks use the same idea with different triggers. Victoria requires Gateway for High Value High Risk investments and complements it with Project Assurance Reviews. Western Australia mandates Gateway for defined infrastructure and ICT value bands. Queensland recommends Gateway for major infrastructure above stated thresholds and encourages it where risk or complexity is high even below those bands. If you work across jurisdictions, confirm the local mandate: do not assume Commonwealth thresholds travel unchanged.
What a review actually looks like
RMG 106 describes Gateway as principles-based, time-limited (often around five days), and forward-looking. It is a point-in-time assessment of delivery confidence, not an audit of every historical transaction. Reviews can recur at key decision points: “gates” for projects and “stages” for programs, so the SRO gets advice shortly before a decision, with enough time to act on recommendations.
For projects, RMG 106 sets out six gates:
- Gate 0: Business need: Is the need clear, aligned to strategy, and are benefits identified?
- Gate 1: Business case: Is the proposed approach robust, resourced and benefits-led?
- Gate 2: Delivery strategy: Is the procurement/delivery strategy clear, and is the project ready to invite proposals or tenders?
- Gate 3: Investment decision: Are supplier selection and contract controls likely to meet the business need?
- Gate 4: Readiness for service: Is the solution robust before go-live, and is the organisation ready?
- Gate 5: Benefits realisation: Has the project delivered its objectives so far, what is expected next, and what remedial action is needed for remaining risks?
Program reviews follow a staged path rather than the same gate labels. The constant across both is benefits: reviewers look for whether benefits are defined, owned and still connected to the work being delivered.
The evidence pack that saves the review week
Teams that struggle in Gateway week usually do not lack slides. They lack a coherent, current pack that answers the gate questions without contradiction. Build the pack early, keep it version-controlled, and make one person responsible for “single source of truth”.
A practical Commonwealth-oriented pack for most gates includes:
- SRO brief (2–4 pages). Purpose, scope, current status, top risks, decisions needed, and what “good” looks like at this gate.
- Approved business case or equivalent investment documentation, plus a short note on what has changed since approval.
- Benefits management approach. Benefits statements, measures, owners, and how benefits are tracked, not a list of outputs re-labelled as outcomes.
- Governance map. Board/steering committee terms, decision rights, escalation paths, and how advice reaches the SRO.
- Integrated schedule and dependencies. Critical path, external dependencies, and contingency that is more than a hopeful percentage.
- Risk and issue registers that are live, owned, and linked to treatments, not frozen at first draft.
- Procurement and commercial status where relevant: strategy, approach to market, evaluation status, contract levers, and probity arrangements proportionate to risk.
- Resourcing and capability. Named roles for delivery, commercial, technical and change; gaps and backfill plans.
- Stakeholder and change readiness, especially approaching readiness-for-service.
- Previous assurance findings and actions. Gateway recommendations, internal audits, or other reviews, with status, not silence.
For ICT-heavy work, add architecture decision records, security and privacy treatments, and how Essential Eight or entity security policy obligations are being met in delivery, without turning the pack into a full ICT and cyber redesign document.
How to behave in the review (and after)
Reviewers work fast. They will test consistency between documents and interviews. Contradictions between the SRO, the project director and the vendor manager are more damaging than a known risk with a clear treatment.
Useful habits:
- Send the pack on time and keep a clean index. Do not drip-feed 40 emails during the week.
- Nominate interviewees who can speak to facts in their lane. Brief them on the gate focus, not on “selling” a green rating.
- Separate facts from hopes. If a milestone moved, say so and show the recovery plan.
- Treat recommendations as work. After the review, assign owners and dates, report them through governance, and bring the action log to the next gate. Gateway’s value compounds when lessons travel with the program.
- Do not outsource accountability. Finance is clear that Gateway does not replace the entity’s responsibility for implementing decisions and delivering the program or project.
Common preparation failures
These patterns show up repeatedly in delivery environments and are avoidable:
- Treating Gateway as a communications exercise rather than a delivery-confidence check.
- Benefits that are still output lists (“system live”) with no measures or owners.
- Procurement strategy written after Gate 2 language is already in the calendar, leaving commercial and project delivery teams misaligned.
- Risk registers that never change between gates.
- No single owner for the evidence pack, so reviewers receive conflicting versions.
- Ignoring related assurance. If ICT Investment Approval or capital works processes already covered early gates, say so and focus the pack on implementation evidence.
A calm way to start
If a proposal near the Finance thresholds is heading to Government, or a state HVHR/Gateway mandate already applies, start with three questions in the next steering committee:
- Which gate or stage are we actually facing, and what decision does it precede?
- Who is the SRO, and is the evidence pack assigned to a named owner?
- What are the three delivery risks we would be embarrassed not to brief reviewers on?
Answer those honestly, build the pack around them, and Gateway week becomes a structured conversation instead of a scramble.
If your program needs help shaping governance, benefits, commercial strategy or an evidence pack before the next assurance point, contact Anaiwan Advisory. We support government teams to steady delivery without adding theatre, including the practical work that sits between planning and the next gate.