On 14 March 2002 the then Treasurer wrote to the then Minister for Roads stating:
A key objective of the project has been its development at no net cost to Government … I note that there are a number of risks to the project's final cost outcome, including ... RTA's ability to manage and control the costs it is required to fund out of the Development Fee ... It is not certain at this time that the project can achieve a 'no net cost to Government' outcome. If the project cannot proceed without a Government contribution, any such contribution would need to be funded out of the RTA's existing forward capital program.
The Executive Director, Private Projects and Asset Management, NSW Treasury further spelt out the meaning of 'no net cost to government' in evidence at the Nile Inquiry, viz:
There is a bit of confusion about the no net cost to Government position. Treasury's position, which has been set out in writing in a number of documents, was that for this project there should be no net cost to Government, which meant that there should be no cost to other areas of Government. But if the RTA wished to put additional money into the project it was to come from within its own budget. At no time was the RTA advised not to do that. So it was an RTA decision whether it took money from its budget for this project or, indeed, from some other project that it was working on.
Despite this, the RTA has advised on several occasions that its understanding of 'no net cost to government' meant no net cost to the RTA. Our reading is that at this point the Treasurer anticipated project cost rises, and wanted the RTA to pay for them itself once the Development Fee had been exhausted.