Periodically we review the extent to which agencies have implemented the recommendations they accepted from our earlier audits. This gives Parliament and the public an update on the extent of progress made.

Major development and infrastructure projects may have significant environmental, social and quality-of-life impacts. The purpose of environmental impact assessment is to ensure that major projects are environmentally and socially sustainable and integrated with State, regional and local planning.

The Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources (DIPNR) manages the assessment of major infrastructure proposals and coordinates whole of Government involvement. In November 2001 we audited this process, then undertaken by the Department of Urban and Regional Planning. (In July 2003 the new Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources assumed responsibility.)

In this follow-up audit, we examine DIPNR’s implementation of the recommendations of the 2001 audit.

Parliamentary reference - Report number #129 - released 1 February 2005

The decision to seek development of Walsh Bay without a Master Plan and/or detailed study as to the state of the precinct presented significant problems throughout the life of the project. Now, four years later, negotiations still continue on the details of the final scheme. Based on the latest estimates, it will not provide a financial return as was originally expected. The audit found no evidence to indicate why the former Government wished to expedite Walsh Bay, but it is aware that there was an election due. Many of the problems which have been encountered could have been avoided with more careful and more extensive consideration at the start, particularly in the light of Property Services Group's recommendations.

Parliamentary reference - Report number #58 - released 17 December 1998

This audit examines the processes which led to the Government’s decision to demolish and sell the East Fairfield (Villawood) housing estate at a cost of nearly $32m gross ($17m net). In doing so, the audit focuses on whether the decision process demonstrates that it is an efficient and effective use of government funds.

The audit raises a number of concerns about the decision-making process. Although demolition and redevelopment may have been the most efficient and effective outcome, The Audit Office is not able to confirm this from the evidence presented. Audit found that the process used to arrive at this decision was not transparent, nor was it adequately justified by available evidence.

Parliamentary reference - Report number #46 - released 29 January 1998