DERWENTPVT00001.DOC COMPULSORY
22/11/2005 pp.00001-00020 EXAMINATION
COPYRIGHT
INDEPENDENT COMMISSION AGAINST CORRUPTION
THE HON JERROLD CRIPPS QC, COMMISSIONER
COMPULSORY EXAMINATION
Reference: E05/2027
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
AT SYDNEY
ON TUESDAY, 22 NOVEMBER 2005
AT 2.07 PM
Any person who publishes any part of this transcript in any way and to any person contrary to a Commission direction against publication commits an offence against section 112(2) of the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act 1988.
This transcript has been prepared in accordance with conventions used in the Supreme Court. Whilst the transcript is not a verbatim record, every effort has been made to ensure accuracy of evidence. Please advise the Commission of any significant inaccuracy.
THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, Mr Waldon?
MR WALDON: Commissioner, this is a compulsory examination to take evidence from Mr Lee Price. Mr Price is present with his counsel, Mr Andrew Lonsdale.
THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Price is here today. This is a compulsory examination that I am having today for the purpose of investigating the allegations or complaints that have been made, being an allegation of confidential government information relation to costs associated with the relocation of the Cross City Tunnel ventilation stack was provided to employees or agents of the Cross City Motorway consortium. It's Mr Price, is that right, who is here today. Are you appearing for Mr Price.
MR LONSDALE: Yes.
THE COMMISSIONER: Your name?
MR LONSDALE: Andrew Lonsdale.
THE COMMISSIONER: I will grant you leave to appear. I have determined that it's in the public interest to establish if confidential information that could provide the Cross City Motorway consortium of an unfair commercial advantage was leaked and if so by whom and for what reason. I am doing that at this stage because I think it's necessary to have a compulsory examination rather than a public inquiry to maintain the integrity of the investigation, and of course to protect reputations from anticipated but perhaps unverified allegations. Yes, Mr Waldon?
MR WALDON: Commissioner, do you want to make a s.112 order in relation to him?
THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, I will make an order pursuant to s.112 of the legislation and I direct that the evidence about to be given at this compulsory examination and the contents of any documents that might be produced and information that might enable the person who has given this evidence to be identified or located and the fact that he has given evidence here shall not be published and shall not be published except in such manner and to such person as I later might specify. I've given the above direction because I am of the opinion that it is desirable in the public interest to do so. Accordingly, as your client will understand and anyone else who is here, that the person shall not make a publication in contravention of this section under quite severe penalty. Do you understand?
DIRECTION PURSUANT TO S.112 - SUPPRESSION ORDER IN RESPECT OF THE EVIDENCE ABOUT TO BE GIVEN AT THIS COMPULSORY EXAMINATION AND THE CONTENTS OF ANY DOCUMENTS THAT MIGHT BE PRODUCED AND
INFORMATION THAT MIGHT ENABLE THE PERSON WHO HAS GIVEN THIS EVIDENCE TO BE IDENTIFIED OR LOCATED AND THE FACT THAT HE HAS GIVEN EVIDENCE HERE SHALL NOT BE PUBLISHED AND SHALL NOT BE PUBLISHED EXCEPT IN SUCH MANNER AND TO SUCH PERSON AS I LATER MIGHT SPECIFY.
THE COMMISSIONER: Have you been given legal advice concerning your obligations and entitlement under the legislation, Mr Price? Just take a seat. I will just run through it just in case. I'm sure it hasn't been overlooked by your counsel but in the event that it might have been. You must remember that you are obliged to answer all questions that are asked of you and, of course, to answer them truthfully. Do you understand that?
MR PRICE: (Indistinct).
THE COMMISSIONER: The legislation also provides that you may not decline to answer questions on the grounds that the answers might have a tendency to incriminate you because that entitlement which people ordinarily have, in common law, has been removed by statute. Do you understand that?
MR PRICE: Yes.
THE COMMISSIONER: Do you also understand, however, that if you do object to answering questions although you still have to answer the questions and also the answers can be used by me the fact that you have objected would mean that those questions and those answers could not be used in subsequent, criminal proceedings or disciplinary proceedings. Did you understand that?
MR PRICE: (Indistinct).
THE COMMISSIONER: Do you also understand that instead of having to make - does your client wish an order under s.38? Well, I'll ask him. Rather than make an objection to each question and to each answer that comes, I am able to entertain a request by you, but you are deemed to have objected to every question asked so that you are protected in later proceedings. The questions and the answers cannot be used against you, do you understand that?
MR PRICE: Yes.
THE COMMISSIONER: Do you want me to make that declaration?
MR PRICE: Yes.
THE COMMISSIONER: Pursuant to s.38 of the Act, I declare that all answers given by this witness and all documents and things produced by him during the course of his evidence today are to be regarded as having been given or produced on objection, and accordingly, there is no need for him to make objection in respect of any particular answer given or document or thing produced. Mr Price, I also must tell you that you have to take an oath to tell the truth. You can take an oath on a Bible or other holy book, or you can simply affirm, but you have to take some form of oath. Which do you prefer?
MR PRICE: Bible.
<LEE JOHN PRICE, sworn: [2.13 pm]
MR WALDON: Mr Price, can you state your full name?---Lee John Price.
Mr Price, the summons of which you were served to attend today also - - -
MONITOR: I can't hear the witness.
THE COMMISSIONER: And just remember also, that's for the purpose of recording. It doesn't amplify, so please keep your voice up. Yes?
MR WALDON: I might start again. Mr Price, could you state your full name?---Lee John Price.
Mr Price, the summons which required you to attend today also required you to produce documents. Do you have any documents to produce which falls within the description set out in the summons?---No.
Mr Price, in 2003, with whom were you employed?---Baulderstone Hornibrook.
And are you currently employed by them today?---Yes.
In 2003, what was your position with Baulderstone Hornibrook?---Project Director.
What's your current position?---Project Director.
THE COMMISSIONER: Is that the same as being a project manager?
---Yes
MR WALDON: Mr Price, was Baulderstone Hornibrook a member of the Cross City Motorway consortium responsible for building the Cross City Motorway?---No.
It was not a member of that consortium?---No.
Did Baulderstone Hornibrook have any relationship with the Cross City Motorway consortium?---Yes.
What was the nature of that relationship?---Baulderstone Hornibrook was part of the joint venture which was contracted by the Cross City Motorway.
THE COMMISSIONER: So you were the builder?---To carry out the design and construct works.
With who else?---Bilfinger Berger.
Did the design and construction to that also include design and construction of any ventilation stack in relation to the motorway?---Yes.
Do you recall when the original project completion date was to be?
---19 October 2005.
What was your role if any in relation to the Cross City Tunnel Motorway project?
THE COMMISSIONER: He said he was the project - - -
MR WALDON: He said he was a project director. I don't know if he was project director for this particular project?---My role was as - was the project director on behalf of the joint venture to carry out the designer construct works.
THE COMMISSIONER: Were you involved in the decision or the discussion, rather, about relocating a ventilation stack?---Yes.
What was your involvement about that?---As part of our contract, there's three ministers' conditions that had to be satisfied to allow us to proceed. One - one of those conditions, I think it was 247 or 248, required the options to relocate the stack to be explored by the proponent, and I think SHFA, and as part of - part of ongoing meetings.
THE COMMISSIONER: When you say SHFA, you're talking about the Sydney Harbour Foreshore Authority?---Correct, yes. We attended a series of meetings between September and January. September 2003 and January 2004 regarding the issue of relocating the stack.
So under the original plans the stack was located in a certain position, was it?---Yes.
You're telling me there was a condition which contemplated a relocation of the stack?---Yes.
Who discussed that?---Representatives of the RTA, CCM and Sydney Harbour Foreshore Authority and ourselves.
MR WALDON: Was one of the concerns that Baulderstone Hornibrook had in relation to relocation of the ventilation stack concerns that any relocation may add costs to the contract and may result in delay for completion of the project?---Our concerns were related to delay only. Any costs would have been considered under a change order through the change order process under the contract.
THE COMMISSIONER: I haven't seen the contract so do you mean the contract meant that if the stack had to be relocated it would delay the work you were going to do for which you would not get compensation?---No, Ministers Condition 248, I think, required prior to the Director-General signing off on the external finishes of the stack in its contractual position in the position contemplated under the contract. The issue of relocating the stack had to be considered. Now the timing of that was critical to our construction program.
Do you mean because it had effected the critical path of the - - -?---It had the potential to impact our completion of the project in an appropriate time.
MR WALDON: If there were delays at the completion of the contract that could potentially cost Baulderstone Hornibrook additional money?---It became and issue that we needed to discuss with CCM.
Did you understand that CCM also needed to discuss that issue with the RTA?---Yes.
Because the CCM contract was with the RTA, is that correct?---Project, indeed yes.
Was it necessary for anyone at Baulderstone Hornibrook to attempt to calculate any figures as to the costings for delay?---No.
In the latter half of 2003 did you attend meetings with government agencies where the relocation issue was discussed?---Yes.
Was one of those meetings called "The Cross City Tunnel Project Control Meeting"?---There were a series of meetings between September of that year and January.
Do you recall that they were called the CCT Project Control Meeting or did they have some other title?---I don't recall the title on the top of the minutes.
THE COMMISSIONER: Are you now just talking about the meetings that are directed to the relocation of the ventilation stack or all other things as well?---No, just to the relocation of the stack.
MR WALDON: Were those meetings regular meetings?---They started out weekly. There were some site meetings that occurred relating to the demolition of the Darling Walk building, all relating to some of the finish requirements for the proposed stack. But generally it - generally weekly.
Apart from yourself who else from Baulderstone Hornibrook attended those meetings?---Bernard Connel, our urban design manager.
THE COMMISSIONER: That's your team?---Yes.
MR WALDON: How do you spell his surname?---C-o-n-n-e-l.
Anyone else from Baulderstone Hornibrook?---There was occasion that a Dave Russell - David Russell attended.
What's his position with Baulderstone Hornibrook?---He was seconded from our North Sydney office to assist in the process for the - for the stack location specifically.
Do you know what his position is at Baulderstone Hornibrook?---I believe design manager.
THE COMMISSIONER: If the stack was to be removed from its contractual position he would have had to design it, would he?---He was going to help manage the design process for us, yes.
Was anyone else from Baulderstone Hornibrook who attended these meetings?---I can't recall.
Do you recall if anyone from the Cross City Motorway consortium attended?---On occasion, a Felicity Finlayson.
THE COMMISSIONER: Who?---Felicity Finlayson.
MR WALDON: And do you know what her position was?---Engineering manager.
Anyone else from the Cross City Motorway consortium?---No.
Do you recall if anyone from the RTA attended these meetings?---A John Keeling. On occasions, Les Wielinga.
THE COMMISSIONER: Les Wielinga?---Yes.
MR WALDON: And his surname is W-i-e-l-i-n-g-a, is that correct?
---I think so.
Anyone else from the RTA?---Lakshme - I can't pronounce the last name, sorry.
THE COMMISSIONER: What's that one?
MR WALDON: Mulavana.
THE COMMISSIONER: Lakshme Mulavana.
MR WALDON: M-u-l-a-v-a-n-a, I think?---And Howard Penn. There was other representatives from RTA who - who attended the meetings where we were talking about the REF process. That - that would be documented - - -
THE COMMISSIONER: What does the REF stand for?---The environmental factors, Review of Environmental Factors.
MR WALDON: Was there anyone from the Sydney Harbour Foreshore who attended these meetings?---Yes, there was Ken Hinds, a Phil Allen.
THE COMMISSIONER: Phil who?---Allen. Bob Deacon, Di Talty, I think, and maybe one or two others.
MR WALDON: Was one of the issues that was discussed at these meetings the likely costs for relocation of the ventilation stack?---The costs were discussed in different forums. There was the costs of the - of the design, which was a separate change order from RTA. There's the cost of the REF, which also was a separate change order from the RTA to - - -
THE COMMISSIONER: What do you mean by separate change order?
---Under the contract, the RTA issued the CCM, three change orders relating to the relocation of the stack. One was to assist in REF process, the other one was to carry out the detailed design of the - of the new proposed stack in it's - in it's proposed location, and the third one was to carry out the investigation into the - the ground conditions, the existing services et cetera. Each - each one was paid for by the RTA down to CCM and - and to ourselves.
Just so I understand it, your understanding of the contract between CCM and the RTA, was that the RTA would bear the costs, the design costs, the REF costs and the investigatory costs, is that right?---Yes, yes.
It would be attributed to CCM and CCM would have that money to pay you people, is that how it's meant to work?---The RTA would request through - through a change order an estimate of the - of the cost to carry out a scope of work that's detailed on that bit of paper.
Was it your understanding that if that work was carried out, who paid for it?
---The RTA.
RTA?---Yes.
So you people would do it finally?---Yes.
But you'd get paid by the RTA?---We ultimately got directed by CCM.
Your contract was with CCM, was it?---Yes.
So the way it would work would be that in fact the RTA would be paying you through CCM?---Yes.
MR WALDON: And the change order operated, as I understand it, similarly to a variation of contract basically?---Yes.
During the second half of 2003, did you become aware of any information indicating estimates by any government agency of the costs associated with relocation of the Cross City ventilation stack?---We were asked for a rough order of magnitude cost by the RTA, as to the difference between the existing stack contemplated under the contract, and the new one which we had sketch designs produced.
How much more expensive if indeed to relocate?---Yes.
Did you ever become aware of any figures that had been produced by the RTA as to their estimates of the costs of relocation of the stack?---Would you just ask that question again please?
Yes, did you ever become aware of any figures or estimates by the RTA for their estimate of the cost of relocation of ventilation stack?---Well the RTA asked us for an estimate.
Yes, but did you ever become aware of any figures that they had produced to themselves as to an estimate of the costs of relocation of the ventilation stack?---No.
Did you ever become aware of any information contained in what might be described as a draft cabinet minute?---Yes.
What information was in that draft cabinet minute document?---There - there was a figure.
A figure for what?
THE COMMISSIONER: There was a figure? Your figure? When I say yours, I mean a figure from your consortium?---We - we didn't hand anything over in writing, it was a - a verbal budget - budget figure.
To the RTA?---To the RTA. The figure that was - was shown on a bit of paper to me was identical to the figure, I believe, from - from my recollection, to the figure we gave.
Sorry, I just want to get it clear. I haven't seen these contracts or anything, and undoubtedly I'll have to see them later on, but the RTA asked you people to give, however, it was just a verbal or whatever, but anyway, to give an estimate of the cost of the relocation which was the difference between the contract location and the proposed new location, is that right? You gave that to the RTA, is that right?---Verbally, yes.
Subsequently you saw a document which had that figure in it?---A piece of paper that was purported to be - - -
When you say a piece of paper, it was just the cabinet minute, was it?
---It - it was alleged in front of me, and it showed a figure.
Was it alleged to be a cabinet minute, or - - - ?---I don't remember the exact words, but - - -
Who handed it to you?---A SHFA representative. He didn't hand it to me, he showed it to me. It was a Sydney Harbour Foreshore representative.
Who was that?---Ken Hinds.
He showed you a document?---Yes.
And the document - am I right - it contained information about the precise information you'd given to the RTA concerning the difference between contract location and proposed new location, is that right or wrong?
---The only thing that was pointed out was the figure, and - and the statement made to myself was, "How did RTA get this figure?"
But you made the statement, or - - - ?---No, that was made to me.
Made to you?---Yes.
Sorry, I just don't follow that. You say Mr Hinds gave you that figure?
---Showed me the bit of paper.
Yes, with that figure on it?---With a figure asking, "Where did the RTA get that figure from?"
I see, well he was implying that you might have given it to the RTA. How did you interpret that?---I didn't.
But you must have thought he was - - - ?---I went back to the RTA and asked them how come Ken Hinds had a bit of paper with our figure on it.
I see, but anyway, we'll get to that, but when it was handed to you, from what you tell me, wouldn't you have interpreted that as meaning he was showing you a figure and asking you how did the RTA get hold of this figure?---Yes.
Well why would he think you knew anything about it unless you'd done it?
---There had been a lot of discussions between the parties with regards to the costs.
Just going back a bit, when you people were talking about this relocation was everyone agreeing it should be relocated or was some people saying, no, it shouldn't be relocated, leave it where it is. Others were saying, no it should be relocated?---I think some people were wanting to make sure that all the Is were dotted and Ts crossed because it was a fairly complex process to meet the minister's conditions.
Did everyone agree that the stack had to be changed - the location of it I meant?---No, I think there was an agreement to work towards the relocation of the stack.
Meaning it was going to happen or you were looking at it as an option?
---Looking at it as an option.
Did people have different views about whether the stack should be relocated?---Some parties were concerned about the impact on the air quality in the surrounding area with the movement.
Who was that?---The RTA.
The RTA, yes?---Which was also a requirement for the minister's conditions. SHFA was concerned that the visual impact on the Darling Harbour area with the stack in its contracted position.
That's the Foreshore Authority?---Yes.
They had a bit of a worry about the visual impact of it, did they?---Yes, and were very much in favour of its relocation.
Did the RTA want to leave it where it was?---No, they agreed to work towards a resolution of the issue but mindful of the minister's conditions requirements.
Did it matter at all to you which view prevail, whether it was changed or not changed, did it matter at all to you?---No, providing it was done within a timely fashion.
And provided the people who were meant to pay you the extra for it, paid you?---Correct.
Anyway you've told me that Mr Hinds showed you a figure and said, "Where did the RTA get this from?" So what did you say?---I don't recall the exact words but it would have been words to the effect of, "It might have come from us through discussions." I mean it was a very informal process.
I think you were about to tell me also that afterwards you decided to take it up with the RTA?---We did it at a meeting.
Who was present at that meeting?---I think it was a weekly meeting with Howard Penn.
Howard Penn from where?---From the RTA. And it was a passing comment at the meeting.
Who passed the comment?---I did.
What did you say?---Words to the effect of, "Why has - where did Ken Hinds get that - that figure from?"
At this meeting was just you and the RTA, is that right?---And CCM, and it's a weekly meeting.
And CCM, yes, not the Foreshore Authority?---No.
So what happened then after you raised that issue?---Nothing.
Nobody responded?---Not really.
Nobody asked you how you became aware that - - -?---No, I think it was - no.
MR WALDON: You said the piece of paper Mr Hinds showed you had a figure on it. Do you recall what that figure was?---I'd have to say no, now.
That figure related to the capital costs to be incurred in relocation of the ventilation stack?---They weren't the words that I recall.
Sorry?
THE COMMISSIONER: He said they weren't the words that he recalls.
MR WALDON: What do you recall the words as being?---The words would have been along the lines of "the difference - the cost of relocating the stack. The difference between our original proposal and the new proposal.
THE COMMISSIONER: But I think what Mr Waldon might be asking you (indistinct) to know. The relocations that could have had a number, I suppose, of cost implications, one was how much more expensive was it going to be to actually put that ventilation in another position? Another issue could have been, well, when you did that what effect was that going to have on the critical part of the operation or what might have to be delayed. So was it your understanding they were just talking about the capital cost of relocation?---The first issue - the first point.
MR WALDON: Was there more than one set of figures in the document?
---I don't recall.
THE COMMISSIONER: You don't recall to the nearest million or 2 million or how much it was?---I'd have to say no at this point. That was a long time ago for me.
MR WALDON: Are you able to give an estimate?---I know the estimate we gave the RTA.
What was the estimate you gave the RTA?---It was $10 to $12 million.
THE COMMISSIONER: How much?---Ten to $12 million.
So is it your recollection and I'm not suggesting the answer, I'm just asking you if it's true. You've told me that Hinds gave you this from the - and you thought it was the figure you'd given the RTA?---yes.
So does that mean on that bit of paper was something between $10 and $12 million?---I mean if I had to say now - no, I couldn't say exactly.
What if I put it this way and I appreciate this. Correct me if I'm wrong but I understood you to infer from the conversation that Hinds was saying to you, "Where did the RTA get this figure from"?---Yes.
You knew that you'd given the RTA a figure?---Yes.
I thought you told me that that figure was the figure that was on that document?---My recollection from - from that time was that - - -
That's what it was?---Yes.
So doing the best you can now am I right in thinking that what you're saying is that on that document, at that time, you believed was the figure that you had given the RTA?---Yes.
Which was somewhere between $10 and $12 million for the capital cost of relocation?---Yes.
MR WALDON: Did the document contain any other figures for delay costs in relation to the ventilation stack?---No, I don't recall.
Do you recall when it was that Mr Hinds showed you this document?---I don't recall the exact date. It was later than the 12th -12 November though I believe.
What occurred on 12 November?---There was a meeting.
Was it within a couple of days of 12 November or are we talking a period of weeks?---Probably a period of weeks.
Do you recall where you were when Mr Hinds showed you the document?
---Harrington Street offices.
That's your offices?---No, that's Sydney - - -
Sydney Harbour Foreshore Authority offices. Was anyone else present?
---I don't recall. I don't believe so.
Was it actually in Mr Hinds office at Harrington Street or some other office?
---No, it was in a - in a meeting room at the conclusion of a meeting, from memory.
Was that one of the regular meetings that you attended?---I think it was, yes.
Do you recall if it was morning or afternoon?---I think it was afternoon.
You said in answer to a question the Commissioner asked you that sometime later you went back to the RTA and asked them, or mentioned to them that you've seen that figure and asked them how it came to be that the Sydney Harbour Foreshore Authority had obtained that figure. Did you get any response from anyone at the RTA to that question?---No.
THE COMMISSIONER: I mean you asked them, they were at the meeting, who was at the meeting? I think you said, is it Wielinga, was he there with you?---No.
Who was at the meeting from the RTA?---At the meeting - - -
Where you asked - - -?---Oh Howard Penn.
- - - how the Foreshore - Howard Penn?---Howard Penn.
What was his position with - - -?---Howard was the project - the RTA's project manager.
What did Howard Penn say?---He knew nothing about it, I think.
What he said, "I don't know" in effect?---Yeah.
Was there anyone else from the RTA there at that meeting?---Look, I - I don't recall.
Was there any discussion that anyone will try and find out how it happened?
---No, I mean it wasn't a significant issue at the time.
Well I'm just wondering whether you thought it was a significant issue at the time because I had the feeling, I may be wrong, that you thought Hinds was in some way blaming you for that figure being available?---Correct, it would have been a passing comment to the RTA.
You would have been interested, wouldn't you, of knowing who was responsible for doing that?---It would have been a passing comment at - at that meeting. I mean the bigger issue for us, as we've said before was to make sure that we proceeded with the stack either in its position or in its relocated position. I mean we're - we're talking post November, late - late 2003.
Incidentally, later what happened, did it get relocated?---No. We were advised in - in January, mid January.
2003?---2004 that it was to stay in its - stay in its current position.
Was CCM at this meeting where you raised the question with Howard Penn, how did the foreshore get this document?---There would have been somebody from CCM at - at that meeting.
Who would that have been, do you know?---Either Felicity Finlayson or another representative.
Do you know a Peter Sansom?---Yes.
Where's he connected?---He's the CEO.
Of?---Of Cross City Motorway.
Was he at the meeting?---No.
MR WALDON: Did you have any concerns that the Sydney Harbour Foreshore Authority had apparently obtained the figure that you had provided to the RTA?---Only to the extent of - of passing a comment to Howard Penn at the meeting.
Why when Mr Hinds asked you where the RTA had gotten that figure from, didn't you advise him that it had been provided by Baulderstone Hornibrook?---Sorry?
When Mr Hinds asked you where you thought the RTA had got that figure from, why didn't you disclose to him that it had been provided to the RTA by Baulderstone Hornibrook?---I think at the time there was a push from - we had a relationship with - with the Sydney Harbour Foreshore Authority. We had a lot of work to be carried out in - in that area. There were a lot of restrictions that were in place, or could have been put in place by - by SHFA. We also obviously had a relationship with the RTA. What we didn't want to become was the meat in the sandwich between the two authorities. So it was a fairly delicate - delicate time.
You said that Mr Hinds showed you the document, did he actually hand it to you at any stage?---No.
Do you know whether it was a thick document, or only a one page document, or a number of pages?---I don't recall the - the size.
Do you recall whether there was anything on the front of the document identifying it in any way?---No.
Would you recognise the document if you were to see it again?---Not now, no.
Mr Price, did you ever say to anyone during the course of a meeting between yourself, RTA and Cross City Motorway representatives, that you were aware of a draft cabinet minute recommendations that did not support the relocation of the vent stack, and had identified around $22 million capital cost?---I don't recall that.
You don't recall it, are you able to say whether you did not say that, or words to that effect?---I don't recall it, what date - what meeting?
A meeting on 24 November 2003?---Between?
It was a CCT project control meeting between representatives from the RTA, Cross City Motorway, and yourself?---I don't recall that.
Is it something that you may have said?---I - I'd have to go back and look at any minutes.
Without looking at any minutes, can you tell me if that is something that is likely that you may have said?---I - I don't recall.
You've told us that the document you saw referred to a figure of somewhere between $10 and $12 million. What I'm putting to you is that at that meeting you indicted that you have seen a draft cabinet minute recommendation, first of all that did not support the relocation of the vent stack, and secondly that had identified around $22 million as being the capital cost for relocation?---I honestly don't recall that - that meeting.
Do you recall also stating at that or any other meeting that the draft document you had seen had identified $280 million in delay costs if the Cross City Tunnel stack was to be relocated?---No.
Had you ever seen any document provided by Mr Hinds indicating approximate delay costs if the ventilation stack was delayed?---No.
Apart from Mr Hinds, has anyone else at any stage shown you anything described as a draft cabinet minute relating to the relocation of the ventilation stack?---No.
I have no further questions, Commissioner.
THE COMMISSIONER: Just so I can get it clear in my mind, you say - you would have understood, the RTA would be concerned about how much money it was going to cost to physically relocate the contractual position. Would that be right?---I think the issue was who was going to pay, whether it was SHFA or the RTA for any - any relocation costs.
I thought it was the RTA that had to pay that?---In terms of the ultimate relocation, I think it was an issue of whether SHFA was going to pay for that, or whether the RTA were going to pay for that.
If it had been relocated, and you'd done it pursuant to your contract with CCM, you'd have looked to CCM for payment, I take it?---We wouldn't have relocated without a change order from CCM.
That's right. CCM told you to do it, you've done it, and then you'd have charged them, or it?---We would have - we would have agreed a price before the works were carried out.
But that's who you had the contract with?---Yes.
You didn't have one with the RTA?---No.
Or the foreshore authority?---No.
I just wanted to get it clear what your understanding is. You thought that people who might pay the consortium could be the foreshore authority as well as the RTA?---No. The change order regime would have come from the RTA to CCM, and from CCM to the D & C contractor through the blast through regime, but the ultimate issue of who was going to wear the costs ultimately between the two agencies, was a discussion between those two agencies.
Were you privy to those discussions?---No.
So that I suppose then from what you've told me, that's probably, on your understanding, the reason why Hinds was concerned about the RTA's figure?---We were aware at the time that there were discussion. It was - it was no secret between the two agencies about who was going to wear the costs.
And they hadn't agreed on it?---That hadn't been agreed at the time.
When it didn't go through, you know, the channels, what was the reason for that, too expensive?---No, there was no reason given. It was just decided not - not to proceed. We were advised, and we continued with our - with our design after DIPNA, the Director-General signed off on the condition.
I appreciate you weren't in a contractual relationship with either the RTA or the foreshore authority, so therefore you probably mightn't have known what was passing through their corporate minds at the time, but you don't know what it was that - - - ?---No.
- - - left the status quo there. Do you know whether they finally agreed on what the figure would be to relocate?---No.
Yes, do you have anything?
MR WALDON: No, nothing further.
THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Lonsdale, do you want to ask him any questions at this stage?
MR LONSDALE: One question. Mr Price, you told the Commission you were shown this document by Mr Hinds. Did you receive a copy of it?
---I've never received a copy of it.
You told the Commission you were given the document by Mr Hinds?
---That's correct.
THE COMMISSIONER: You were just shown it?---Just shown it, yes.
MR LONSDALE: Do you recall for how long you were shown it?
---Very briefly. It was just flashed virtually across in front.
THE COMMISSIONER: At that stage when you saw it flashed across, did it cross your mind that the Sydney Foreshore Authority may have itself had a document it was not entitled to have?---Yes.
Yes, well now, you may step down.
MR WALDON: And be excused from this summons, Commissioner?
THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, all right. You can step down, Mr Price. You're excused from this summons. If you're required again in the course of this inquiry, you'll be notified, but at the present time, you have no
obligation to reappear because you are excused on the summons, and thank you for coming.
THE WITNESS WITHDREW [2.52 pm]
AT 2.52 PM THE MATTER WAS ADJOURNED UNTIL 2.00 PM ON WEDNESDAY, 23 NOVEMBER 2005