CORRECTED TRANSCRIPT REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE JOINT SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE CROSS CITY TUNNEL INQUIRY INTO THE CROSS CITY TUNNEL ——— At Sydney on Friday 3 February 2006 ——— The Committee met at 9.00 a.m. ——— PRESENT Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile (Chair) Legislative Council Legislative Assembly The Hon. A. R. Fazio Mr M. J. Brown The Hon. G. S. Pearce Mr A. J. Constance Ms L. Rhiannon Mr P. E. McLeay The Hon. Dr A. Chesterfield-Evans CORRECTED TRANSCRIPT CHAIR: Welcome to the sixth public hearing of the Joint Select Committee on the Cross City Tunnel inquiry. At the hearing on Wednesday 1 February I made detailed statements in relation to commercial in confidence issues and the sub judice convention. I do not propose to repeat those words at today's hearing. Copies of those comments are available on the table near the entrance to this room if you wish to be reminded. The Committee has previously resolved to authorise the media to broadcast sound and video excerpts of its public proceedings. Copies of guidelines governing broadcasting of proceedings are available from the table at the door. In accordance with the Legislative Council guidelines for the broadcast of proceedings, a member of the Committee and witnesses may be filmed or recorded. People in the public gallery should not be the primary focus of any filming or photographs. In reporting the proceedings of this Committee, the media must take responsibility for what they publish or what interpretation is placed on anything that is said before the Committee. Witnesses, members and their staff are advised that any messages should be delivered through the attendants on duty or the Committee clerks. I advise that under the standing orders of the Legislative Council, any documents presented to the Committee that have not yet been tabled in Parliament may not, except with the permission of the Committee, be disclosed or published by any member of such Committee or by any other person. The Committee prefers to conduct its hearings in public. However, the Committee may decide to hear certain evidence in private if there is a need to do so. If such a case arises, I will ask the public and the media to leave the room for a short period. We are aware that people hold strong and diverging views concerning the cross-city tunnel. I wish to emphasise that although this is a public hearing it is not an open forum for comment from the floor. Only questions from the Committee and the evidence of the witnesses are recorded in the transcript; uninvited interruptions are not recorded and may make it more difficult for witnesses to express their views fully. Finally, would everyone please turn off their mobile phones for the duration of the hearing and not switch them on at any point during the hearing because it affects the equipment in this room. CRAIG JOHN KNOWLES, sworn and examined: CHAIR: In what capacity are you appearing before the Committee? Mr KNOWLES: I was invited here as the former Minister for Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources. CHAIR: Are you conversant with the terms of reference of this inquiry? Mr KNOWLES: I am. CHAIR: If you should consider at any stage that certain evidence you wish to give or documents you may wish to tender should be heard or seen only by the Committee please indicate that fact and the Committee will consider your request. Would you like to start by making a short statement? Mr KNOWLES: I would. Thank you, Mr Chairman. It is a brief statement. First of all, thank you for the opportunity. By way of general introduction, I note in the Hansard record of the Internet of this inquiry that evidence has been given already by a number of witnesses about the financial and environmental assessment procedures that led up to, and occurred during, the consideration of the cross-city tunnel. Whilst I was not the consent authority in either of the first or second EISs, including the supplementary EISs, for the cross-city tunnel and, therefore, had no involvement in the environmental assessment or consequent approvals for the cross-city tunnel, it is clear to me, based on other similar projects and the evidence given, that the procedures adopted for the environmental assessment for the cross-city tunnel generally were the same as other similar road projects and other CROSS CITY TUNNEL COMMITTEE 1 Friday 3 February 2006 CORRECTED TRANSCRIPT part 5 matters under the EP and A Act: that is, simply, that it is my view, based on the evidence given, that the environmental assessment was carried out in accordance with the provisions of the EP and A Act. In fact, it would seem to me, based on Mr Forward's evidence, and, indeed, the evidence of countless others before this inquiry, that the RTA attempted to go beyond what was the strict necessary statutory requirements in order to extend the range of consultations and exhibitions regarding this proposal. There are one or two things, which, I think, are equally apparent, which I would like to put on the record. First, based on the evidence given, at the time this project was proposed and, indeed, throughout the assessment process and the assessment period there was considerable support for a transport solution that would remove the motor vehicles from the CBD, seek to improve urban amenity, and increase opportunity for public transport use and efficiency. The long tunnel option, as I think it is commonly known, was widely supported as being capable of achieving those results. I note that there has been a lot of evidence, which I do not propose to canvass again, by the Premier and others giving detailed accounts of the various media coverage, the consultations, et cetera, in that regard. The second point is an important one, and it was made, I think, by both Mr Forward and others, but principally by Mr Forward in his evidence as I have read it, that unless what I will call the freed-up new capacity of CBD road space was quickly reinforced for public transport use then it would be inevitable that private motor vehicles quickly would fill it up again and you would end up causing more congestion, not less and, of course, go counter to the principal objective of the tunnel proposal. That, based on the evidence given here, clearly has been the experience in previous projects. The third point is an obvious one, but worth making, and that is in that making such changes there always will be controversy. The truth really is, only time will tell whether there is a net public benefit or not. Based on the evidence—I do not propose to put myself forward here as an expert, but based on the evidence by those who do—the time needed to test this project properly is somewhere between 18 months to 2½ years. But even then at the different rates of ramp-up, as the experts seem to call them, which are experienced historically on other road project will create a risk profile, which the Government has made clear should not be a risk borne by the taxpayer. As Nick Greiner said in his evidence very recently, and I quote Greiner from page 41 of the transcript, "Whatever happens, the private sector has taken the patronage of risk so the public has a piece of infrastructure and whether it is used sufficiently or not, that risk is taken by the providers of the equity and, indeed, by the providers of the debt." That clearly is also the Government policy position. I think it is incumbent on this inquiry, if I may, to suggest to you that if you believe it should be different to that principal then you should say so explicitly in your final report. My personal view is that this project inevitably will be of considerable future value in continuing to ensure that the Sydney CBD remains a viable, functioning employment and business hub that it has worked very hard to become—Australia's only true global city. Keeping it that way is essential for the economy of this nation. Like the Eastern Distributor before it and, indeed, other toll projects, the cross-city tunnel is controversial. It has disrupted local traffic patterns. It has created opportunities to score political points, and I would just suggest, particularly in light of some of today's media that I am hearing on the radio coming in, inevitably there will be ongoing changes as the numbers change and as the people who are in charge of these things are learning more about how the network will work more efficiently with a major new piece of infrastructure in the centre of our city. Nonetheless, it is equally undeniable that the removal of somewhere between 20,000 to 30,000 vehicles a day from the CBD reduces congestion from city streets already, that there is a consequent liberation of much-needed road space that can and should be dedicated for public transport use and there is now a real opportunity to improve places and spaces around the city, and they are all in the public interest. Finally, if I might say, because I know it will be an issue here—it has been, from what I have been reading—with regard to the issue of the ventilation stacks and the allegations of leaked documents, I wanted to just say this, if I may. There was an issue about the final location of the stack, which was clearly anticipated in the conditions of consent issued by Andrew Refshauge, as Minister.