Background: Debate remains over the core activities of infection control (IC) programs. Differences in stakeholder opinions must be considered if consensus panel guidelines and recommendations are to be broadly applied. This article describes a survey of administrators and clinicians employed in hospitals in New South Wales, Australia. Respondents self-reported their levels of agreement with affirmative statements regarding the role of the infection control practitioner (ICP) and the essential requirements and infrastructure of IC programs. Method: The study population included administrators and clinicians in each public, private, and freestanding day hospital in New South Wales. Respondents reported the intensity of their agreement with 16 affirmative statements relating to IC program infrastructure and resources and the ICP’s role and responsibilities. Results: The overall response rate was 62.1% (587/945). Clinicians (349/587) and administrators (238/587) accounted for 59.5% and 40.5% of the response rate, respectively. Overall, administrators and clinicians reported greatest levels of agreement for those elements not requiring additional resources. Conclusion: The extent of divergence between administrators and clinicians is not so great that it can not be resolved. Our findings demonstrate the degree of administrator support that clinicians can expect for each element. We advocate better communication between clinicians and administrators in conjunction with objective strategic planning. Our findings provide a guide for ICPs to either establish or negotiate the core components of their IC program.