//
[2007] VCAT 1988
General information, not legal advice.
Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal
2007-11-05
Mr P, Ms J
Original judgment source is linked above.
General List - Freedom of Information Act 1982, s.28(1)(b) - Public Sector Comparator for Mitcham Frankston Freeway Project - whether prepared for the purpose of submission for consideration by Cabinet.
1 The question for determination is whether the Mitcham-Frankston Freeway Project - Final Public Sector Comparator Report ("Document 3") is exempt pursuant to section 28(1)(b), (ba) or (d) of the Freedom of Information Act 1982 ("the Act").[1] If Document 3 is found to be exempt, the respondent's decision on 28 February 2005 refusing to release it will be affirmed.
**2 The Mitcham-Frankston Freeway Project ("the project") was a project that was to be undertaken in accordance with the "Partnerships Victoria" policy of the Victorian Government which was launched in June 2000. Typically, such a partnership involves agreement by a private sector entity to construct and maintain an item of public infrastructure in return for a right to operate that item for reward for a specified term. It is government policy that a benchmark and formal evaluation process is to be used for all Partnerships Victoria projects to assist in assessment of whether bids made offer better value for money than if the government itself financed the project. As a general rule, the policy requires the construction and use of a public sector comparator ("PSC").[2] The PSC estimates the likely cost of public procurement of the project to enable comparisons with the likely private cost, and assists the government in negotiating with bidders for a particular project.[3]
3 The preparation of the PSC for the project was initially the responsibility of the Department of Infrastructure. In around May 2003, the Victorian Government decided that the project would proceed as a privately funded project, and would be developed and implemented via the Partnerships Victoria policy and process. The Government then invited Expressions of Interest from those interest in submitting proposals to construct and operate the project. In July 2003, the government established the South Eastern Integrated Transport Authority ("SEITA") to manage the project, to prepare the PSC, to assess the bids, select the best proposal and make a formal recommendation to the Government about which bid represented value for money.
4 At a meeting of the Expenditure Review Committee of Cabinet ("ERC") on 22 July 2003, SEITA was instructed by the ERC to finalise a PSC for the ERC's consideration at its meeting to be held on 22 October 2003.
5 In early October 2003, the Government released a Request for Proposals ("the project brief") to the ConnectEast and Transurban consortia, which had each expressed interest in submitting proposals to construct and operate the project.
6 Document 3 was completed in February 2004 by PricewaterhouseCoopers ("PWC").
7 The ERC met on 25 February 2004 and considered a submission concerning the PSC for the project.
8 Bids were submitted by the two consortia in March or April 2004. In October 2004, the contract for the project was awarded to the ConnectEast consortium.**
**9 Document 3 is the Final Public Sector Comparator Report produced by PWC. It contains the calculation of what is referred to in it as the "final PSC" by reference to a number of assumptions and updated assumptions since an earlier draft document ("the Draft PSC").[4]
10 Each page of document 3 was marked by PWC as "Cabinet in Confidence".
11 I have examined document 3 closely. Its content establishes that it was prepared at the request of SEITA for use by SEITA and the Department of Treasury and Finance in considering the Final PSC for the project in accordance with Partnerships Victoria policy and guidelines.**
**12 For reasons which will become clear below, it is necessary only to consider the exemption claimed under section 28(1)(b) of the Act.
13 Section 28(1)(b) of the Act provides that a document is an exempt document if it is a document that has been prepared by a Minister or on his or her behalf or by an agency for the purpose of submission for consideration by the Cabinet.
14 Section 28(7) of the Act provides that "Cabinet" includes a committee or sub-committee of Cabinet.[5]
15 Section 28(3) of the Act provides that sub-section (1) does not apply to a document referred to in a paragraph of that sub-section to the extent that the document contains purely statistical, technical or scientific material unless the disclosure of the document would involve the disclosure of any deliberation or decision of the Cabinet.
16 It is convenient to briefly outline the principles which have emerged from the cases and authorities on the scope and application of the exemption under section 28(1)(b) of the Act which are relevant to this case. First, the application of the exemptions turns on the purpose for which the document in question was prepared.[6] Second, the actual use made of a document may be relevant in ascertaining that purpose, but is not decisive of that question[7] except perhaps in circumstances where there is no evidence of purpose[8] it is not necessary to prove that the document was actually submitted to the Cabinet;[9] nor that Cabinet actually considered the document.[10]
17 Third, a document will only be exempt if the sole purpose or one of the substantial purposes for which the document was prepared was for it to be submitted to the Cabinet for consideration.[11]
18 Fourth, in relation to reports prepared by an external consultant, the exemption is not contingent upon the author of the document in question being made aware of its ultimate use; rather the focus is on the purpose for which the document was commissioned by those who commissioned it.[12]
19 Fifth, the purpose of the preparation of the document must be for submission for consideration by the Cabinet[13] and not merely preparation for the purpose of physically placing the document before the Cabinet.**
**20 It is appropriate to consider the evidence relating to the purposes for which Document 3 was prepared. Evidence in general terms concerning the PSC and its purposes or functions is contained in Partnership Victoria Guidance Materials published by the Department. Specific evidence concerning the purpose or purposes for which Document 3 was prepared is also contained in the evidence of Mr Sammut, Mr Fitzgerald and Mr Matthews. The parties tendered a number of further documents at the hearing in September 2007. In particular, the respondent tendered four documents (in redacted form) referred to in the witness statements of Mr Matthews. The un-redacted documents were provided to the Tribunal. Finally, Document 3 has been examined.
21 The terms "Document 3", "final PSC", "PSC" and "PSC value" appear to have been used interchangeably by the witnesses and counsel, although it is clear that the policy documents refer to the "PSC" in general terms and not to the PSC of the project the subject of these reasons. When referring to the policy documents, I have followed the terminology used therein, and when describing the witnesses' evidence, I have similarly wherever possible employed their terminology.**
**22 Following the launch of the Partnerships Victoria policy, the Department of Treasury and Finance ("DTF") published a number of guideline documents for the implementation of the policy: "Overview"(June 2001); "Practitioner's Guide" (June 2001); "Material concerned with Risk Allocation and Contractual Issues"(June 2001); "A Technical Note on the Public Sector Comparator" ("Technical Note")(June 2001); and "Public Sector Comparator Supplementary Technical Note" (July 2003)("Supplementary Technical Note").
The primary purpose of the PSC is to provide a benchmark against which to form a judgement on the value for money of Partnerships Victoria bids.....The exercise of constructing a PSC allows for a more accurate costing of the project and assists in refining and clarifying the required services and the performance levels sought.
24 The document "Risk Allocation and Contractual Issues" notes at page 6:
The PSC is used to estimate the hypothetical risk-adjusted cost to government of delivering the proposed project using the most efficient form of government delivery. The PSC is then compared against private bids.
25 Section 9 of the Technical Note sets out the various stages of the procurement process and the role of the PSC in that process. At page 69, the document notes that Partnerships Victoria:
provides a solid project framework, thorough evaluation procedures and an efficient approval process.
**26 The Technical Note states that Cabinet approval is required at a number of stages: - for initial approval of a Partnerships Victoria procurement proposal;[14] prior to Expressions of Interest being sought; and again before the release of a Project Brief to short-listed bidders. Release of a Project Brief signals that government is prepared to proceed with the project provided that a conforming bid offering value for money in comparison with the PSC is received. The portfolio Minister informs the Treasurer before documentation is signed.
27 According to the Technical Note[15]:**
The stages at which particular components of a PSC are developed may vary between projects.
**28 The various stages of the procurement process are: Stage 1 - the establishment of need. Stage 2 - option appraisal; Stage 3 - business case; Stage 4 - project development; Stage 5 - bidding process; Stage 6 - project finalisation review; Stage 7 - final negotiations/award of contract; Stage 8 - contract management.
29 During Stage 1, issues relevant to the construction of a PSC are considered. During Stage 3, the main PSC costs are developed, including evaluation of any key project risks. A preliminary version of the PSC is prepared during the development of the business case to assist with determining the budget estimate for funding approval from Cabinet but the PSC is required to be finalised prior to the receipt of bids.[16] During Stage 4, a procurement team with appropriate skills and credentials is formed to fully develop and finalised the PSC.
30 Page 72 of the Technical Note says:**
Cabinet or the relevant committee must approve the final version of the PSC before the market is approached and the bidding process commences.
**31 During the bidding process, Cabinet approval must be sought for any major changes to the PSC. This approval may be sought where the procurement team wishes to test the quality of bids by incorporating some of the bidder's key assumptions into the PSC model. During Stage 7, further changes to the PSC may be needed to reflect any changes to details of the partnership contract. Once the contract has been entered into, the "formal role" of the PSC for that project ceases. However, the detailed cost information obtained, particularly regarding risk, may be useful for the construction of future PSCs. Finally, the Technical Note says[17] that the Auditor-General may require access to the detailed PSC information.
32 The Technical Note[18] says that the portfolio Minister is**
[r]equired to sign-off on the finalised PSC and is responsible for obtaining formal approval of Cabinet or the appropriate committee before the bidding process commences.
**33 The Technical Note also says[19] that the Department of Treasury and Finance is involved in finalisation and endorsement of the PSC.
34 Part 3.1 of the Supplementary Technical Note also describes where the PSC fits into the Partnerships Victoria process. It notes that once a project is approved for Partnerships Victoria delivery and funding is allocated, the project is developed more fully before the formal tendering process is initiated. The PSC is developed in detail during this phase.... and "must be completed before the project brief is released. ....."[20]
35 According to the Supplementary Technical Note, the PSC is used as a benchmark against which to assess bids from the private sector. However, while the PSC is an important factor in making the value for money decision, it is not the only thing to take into account. It is only a quantitative benchmark against which to evaluate bids.[21] Every project will have its own evaluation criteria, which include a range of quantitative and qualitative factors. Other quantitative elements include any differential impact on the cost of delivery of any core government services, while qualitative issues include: service delivery; design amenity, sustainability and any unquantifiable risk transfer.**
**36 The respondent tendered redacted extracts of a number of additional documents referred to in the witness statements. It is unfortunate that those additional documents were not made available or tendered at the hearing in August 2005.
37 The first additional document is described as "Draft PricewaterhouseCoopers material" and is dated July 2003. The extract on page 1 of the document is in the following terms:**
This paper outlines the work required to finalise the existing Draft PSC to ensure that it represents an appropriate benchmark against which to assess the value for money offered by Proponents' Proposals.
As indicated in the submission to ERC on 22 July 2003, once finalised the PSC will be submitted to ERC for approval prior to the receipt of Proposals. In this respect it should be noted that DTF requires the finalised PSC to be submitted for approval at an ERC meeting on 22 October 2003. Accordingly this paper also provides an outline of the timeframe within which key elements of the work to be performed must be completed".
**38 At page 7 of the document, the document notes that there are 10 weeks available for completion of the key elements of the work.
39 The second document is described as an "Extract From Expenditure Review Committee Minutes (As Sent By Facsimile Transmission to SEITA)". The ERC meeting referred to is the meeting on 22 July 2003. The document notes that the ERC considered a submission from the Minister for Transport on the Mitcham-Frankston Freeway Project, and that the ERC noted, inter alia, that the approval in principle for the Mitcham-Frankston Freeway Bill 2004 "forms an integral part of the Project and has been scheduled for Cabinet consideration on 28 July 2003", and that "further work needs to be undertaken to finalise the Public Sector Comparator (PSC), with the PSC to be presented to ERC on 22 October 2003."
40 The third document is a 7- page Ministerial Briefing on the Mitcham Frankston Freeway Project from the Minister for Transport to the ERC dated 17 February 2004, marked "Cabinet-In-Confidence" and signed by the Minister for Transport.
41 The fourth document is a 3-page Submission to ERC dated 16 February 2004 from John Matthews of SEITA to the Minister of Transport on the subject: "ERC SUBMISSION - FINAL PSC", including a request that the Minister sign the attached document, which is a copy of the 7-page Ministerial Briefing referred to in the preceding paragraph of these reasons.**
**42 As indicated above, each page of Document 3 was marked by PWC as "Cabinet in Confidence". In addition, it is clear from the document's introduction that it was prepared at the request of SEITA for use by SEITA and the Department in considering the Final Public Sector Comparator for the project in accordance with Partnerships Victoria policy and guidelines.
43 Having examined the document closely, I am satisfied that it does not contain purely statistical, technical or scientific material. I consider therefore that section 28(3) of the Act does not operate to withdraw the exemption.[22]**
**44 In his first witness statement dated 5 August 2005, Mr John Matthews, Director, Commercial & Legal, SEITA, said he was a member of the SEITA project team which was responsible for the preparation of the PSC. He said he "always understood" that SEITA was required to prepare a PSC for the project "for the purpose of submission by the Minister for Transport to Cabinet, or, at least, the ERC for its consideration of that project". He said that SEITA engaged PWC, who had been doing work associated with project, to prepare the final report for submission to Cabinet, and that Document 3 was that final report. He said each page of the report was marked by PWC as "Cabinet in Confidence".
45 In his supplementary witness statement dated 27 March 2007, Mr Matthews said that the source of his understanding was his knowledge of Partnerships Victoria policy and also the Extract from ERC Minutes. He said the Extract was a response to queries raised by him and other members of the SEITA project team as to who was requiring the PSC to be prepared and finalised by October 2003. Mr Matthews said he was not at the meeting of the ERC on 22 July 2003 but that the Extract from ERC Minutes identified the things which needed to be done and identified that the Minister asked the ERC to endorse his recommendation that those things be done. He said that the word "noted" in the context of the Extract meant that the ERC had endorsed the recommendations listed in the Extract, including the recommendation at paragraph (f) "that further work needs to be undertaken to finalise the Public Sector Comparator (PSC), with the PSC to be presented to ERC on 22 October 2003".
46 He said that after a meeting of the ERC on 22 July 2003, he was told to finalise the PSC for a further meeting of the ERC.
47 Mr Matthews said he and others in SEITA assisted the Minister for Transport and officers of DOI in preparing a submission by the Minister, for a meeting of the ERC which was held on 25 February 2004. He had located a 3-page memorandum headed "Ministerial Briefing" and entitled "ERC Submission - Final PSC" dated 16 February 2004, which had been prepared for his signature for the purpose of briefing the Minister for Transport in relation to issues that were to be considered by the ERC at its meeting on 25 February 2004. The Ministerial Briefing had attached to it an ERC submission which he and others in SEITA had assisted the Minister to prepare. He said that the Ministerial Briefing and ERC submission did not reveal the PSC value (that is, the risk-adjusted cost of government procurement of the project). He said the ERC submission was on the agenda for the ERC's meeting on 25 February 2004, and that it drew extensively on information contained in Document 3.
48 Mr Matthews said that Document 3, which contained the PSC value, was present at that meeting of the ERC, and that the ERC discussed the submission by the Minister for Transport, which drew extensively from Document 3. He said that at the ERC meeting there was discussion about the tolls, and he was asked probing questions by some of the ministers present concerning the toll regime in Document 3. Mr Matthews said that the ERC accepted the recommendations in that submission and that there would have been another Minute of the ERC recording the approval or endorsement of the matters raised by Mr Bachelor.
49 Mr Matthews said that the PSC value had to be approved by the ERC at the meeting of 25 February 2004, so that the value could be locked in and used to evaluate bids. He said the Partnerships Victoria process required the PSC to be approved by the ERC and thereby locked in for the purpose of the evaluation of bids. He said he understood that it was not possible for the PSC to be used to evaluate proposals without ERC approval.
50 In his first witness statement dated 5 August 2005, John Patrick Fitzgerald, Director, Commercial and Infrastructure Risk Management Group of the Department of Treasury and Finance, said at paragraph 16:**
The substantial purpose of the preparation of a PSC, according to page 70 of the Partnerships Victoria Public Sector Comparator - Technical Note", is to provide documentation for the purpose of making and supporting a submission to the Cabinet or the ERC to enable either Cabinet or the ERC to make a decision in the relevant project proposal.
**51 Mr Fitzgerald said he attended the meeting of the ERC on 25 February 2004 and that at the meeting the ERC considered a submission focused on the PSC.
52 In cross-examination at the hearing on 19 August 2005, Mr Fitzgerald said that the Guidance Materials published by the Department were merely guidelines and that the Minister could take many decisions throughout the procurement process. He agreed that the steps outlined in Table 9.2 of the Technical Note provided for the finalisation of the PSC as early as possible, before the release of the project brief, and agreed that in this case the PSC was not finalised until February 2004, after the release of the project brief which occurred in October 2003. He agreed that the decision to have the project privately procured had been made by Government before the finalisation of the PSC, and therefore the PSC played no role in that decision. However, he said that prior to the selection of the preferred bidder in October 2004, the bids were assessed in the light of the PSC.
53 In his supplementary witness statement dated 27 March 2007, Mr Fitzgerald said, inter alia:**
**54 In cross-examination at the hearing in September 2007, Mr Fitzgerald said that Document 3 was present at the ERC meeting on 25 February 2007. He said that the submission from the Minister of Transport was the only thing considered at the meeting, and that there was considerable deliberation by members of the ERC concerning particular aspects of the PSC concerned with the cost of tolls. He said that where the submission recommends that something be "noted" by the ERC, and the ERC records it as "noted", this means the recommendation was adopted by the ERC. He said the ERC approved the PSC (as reflected in Document 3) on 25 February 2004 and this approval was necessary for compliance with the Partnerships Victoria process.
55 Mr Fitzgerald said one purpose of the PSC was for it to be compared by SEITA to the bids by the consortia so that SEITA could determine whether the bids provided value for money. He said the PSC had other purposes: to enable the Government to establish the cost parameters of the project before going to market; to help establish the amount of the Government's financial contribution; and to assist with any decision regarding tolls.**
**56 Each of the parties adopted their earlier submissions and made further submissions. The central submission made by the applicant was that the substantial purpose for which Document 3 was prepared was to supply a benchmark for comparison of private bids by SEITA, and that this was almost its only purpose. It was submitted that approval of the final PSC by the ERC was merely a procedural requirement under Partnerships Victoria policy or, at most, an ancillary purpose to its purpose as a benchmark. It was submitted that the purpose of the PSC in supplying a benchmark for comparison of private bids is identified in the policy documents, and that this purpose was conceded by the witnesses.
57 Counsel for the applicant was critical of the respondent for failing to produce an extract of Minutes confirming approval by the ERC of the PSC at the meeting of 25 February 2004. He submitted that the Tribunal should reject Mr Fitzgerald's evidence that the fact of ERC's approval was to be gleaned from a document noting what the minister had requested. He said that Mr Fitzgerald's suggestion that "noting" was the same as endorsing should be rejected in the light of the Minutes of July 2003 which recorded some matters as "endorsed" and others as "noted". He submitted that the ERC submission referred to by Mr Matthews should be seen merely as a report to the ERC on the progress being made by SEITA. He referred to paragraph 9 of the submission, which was in the following terms:**
The final PSC is required to be approved by ERC prior to receipt of technical aspects of the proposals on 29 March 2004 and final proposals on 27 April 2004.
**58 He submitted that in the absence of a recommendation of approval in the submission itself and in the absence of a separate Minute of approval, no inference should be drawn from that paragraph that the ERC must have approved the final PSC as alleged.
59 It was submitted on behalf of the respondent that in order to make out the exemption it would be sufficient for the Tribunal to be satisfied that one substantial purpose, in the minds of the authors, of the preparation of Document 3 was that it would be submitted to the ERC for its consideration. In this regard, it was submitted that it was not necessary for the Tribunal to find that Document 3 was in fact present at the meeting on 25 February 2004, or that it was considered or approved by the ERC; although such findings could reinforce the conclusion that one purpose of the creation of the document was that submission and approval. However, on the evidence, it was submitted, it was open to the Tribunal to find that Document 3 was taken to the ERC meeting and was considered at the meeting by ERC members.
60 It was submitted that the introduction to the Draft PWC material clearly indicates the expectation of the authors that, once finalised, the PSC would be submitted to the ERC for approval prior to the receipt of proposals. In addition, it was submitted that there was nothing in the material to suggest there was to be a departure from the policy that the ERC would be required to approve the final PSC. The fact that the final PSC was required to be submitted to the ERC in October 2003 and was not submitted at that time did not remove the necessity for the final PSC to be submitted to and approved by the ERC. It would be sufficient to establish that the ERC required or expected the final PSC to be prepared for its consideration.**
**61 I consider on all the evidence now before me (particularly the additional documents tendered by the respondent for the first time at the hearing in September 2007 as well as the cross-examination at that hearing of Mr Fitzgerald and Mr Matthews), that one substantial purpose of the preparation of Document 3 was that it was to be submitted to the ERC for its consideration (and approval).
62 I note that the policy documents suggest that the PSC is only one quantitative benchmark against which to assess bids, and that there are other quantitative and qualitative factors against which an individual project is to be assessed.[23] Accordingly, although it appears that a substantial purpose of the construction of a PSC is to provide a benchmark for the evaluation of bids, it is not the only factor against which bids are considered.
63 More importantly, the policy documents also emphasise that the Partnerships Victoria policy provides a project framework involving "thorough evaluation procedures and an efficient approval process".[24] The policy documents note the requirement for the construction of a PSC and for approval of the final version of the PSC by Cabinet or the relevant Committee before the market is approached and the bidding process commences.[25] Without the relevant approval, no benchmark would be generated. In this context the purpose of preparation of the final PSC for that consideration and approval is in my view a substantial one. This does not prevent there being another substantial purpose for the construction of a PSC, that is, its use, once approved by Cabinet, as a benchmark for the evaluation of bids by SEITA.
64 The evidence of Mr Matthews and Mr Fitzgerald, along with the additional documents tendered by the respondent in September 2007, establishes that the ERC directed (first DOI, then SEITA) to arrange for the preparation and finalisation of the PSC for the project for consideration and approval by the ERC. In accordance with the ERC's direction, SEITA commissioned PWC to prepare the PSC for the purpose of submission to the ERC for approval. PWC prepared a Draft PSC and in July 2003 recorded (in Draft material) the ERC's requirement that the finalised PSC was to be submitted to the ERC for approval at an ERC meeting on 22 October 2003. As it turned out, however, the finalised PSC, as contained in Document 3, was not completed by PWC until February 2004. Nonetheless, it is clear from Document 3 that it was prepared consistently with the understanding expressed in the PWC Draft material. PWC marked each page of Document 3 as "Cabinet in confidence".
65 The Ministerial Briefing and ERC submission make it clear that Document 3 was to be the subject of the ERC meeting on 25 February 2004. The evidence of Mr Matthews and Mr Fitzgerald was that Document 3 was present at the ERC meeting on 25 February 2004 and that it was discussed and its approval considered. I consider that this evidence supports the respondent's contention that one of the purposes of the preparation of Document 3 was that of submission to the ERC for its consideration and approval. I need not decide whether in fact approval was given at the ERC meeting on 25 February 2004.
66 I am therefore satisfied that a substantial purpose of the preparation of Document 3 was for submission to the ERC for the ERC's consideration.
67 It follows that the exemption claimed under section 28(1)(b) of the Act is made out and is not withdrawn by section 28(3) of the Act. As the exemption has been made out under section 28(1)(b) of the Act, it is not necessary to consider the remaining claims for exemption made by the respondent under section 28(1)(ba) and (d) of the Act.**
68 It follows that the decision under review refusing access to Document 3 is affirmed. I will reserve liberty to apply on the question of costs.
[1] Secretary to the Department of Treasury and Finance v Richard Dalla-Riva [2007] VSCA 11
[2] Partnerships Victoria Guidance Document - "A Technical Note on the Public Sector Comparator" ("the Technical Note"), June 2001, p. 11 para 2.7
[3] The components of a PSC are: transferable risk; competitive neutrality; base costing (Raw PSC), and retained risk. A Raw PSC, is a base costing, without valuation of risks, of the government building, owning, maintaining and delivering the service (or asset): See the "Technical Note" at para 2.4. A Raw PSC was not developed for the project in this case.
[4] The existence of the Draft PSC was confirmed for the first time at the hearing in September 2007, when the respondent produced redacted and unredacted versions of "Draft PricewaterhouseCoopers Material" dated July 2003. Page 1 of the redacted version of that document indicates that further work was "required to finalise the Draft PSC to ensure that it represents an appropriate benchmark against which to assess the value for money offered by Proponents' Proposals"
[5] The ERC is a sub-committee of the Cabinet
[6] Ryan v Department of Infrastructure [2004] VCAT 2346 at [34]
[7] Ryan v Department of Infrastructure [2004] VCAT 2346 at [34]
[8] Secretary to the Department of Treasury and Finance v Richard Dalla-Riva [2007] VSCA 11 at
[9] Ryan v Department of Infrastructure [2004] VCAT 2346 at [34]
[10] Re Pullen and Alpine Resorts Commission; (unreported, AAT of Vic, Macnamara DP, 23 August 1996); Wilson v Department of Premier & Cabinet [2001] VCAT 663, Asher v Department of Infrastructure [2006] VCAT 1375
[11] Ryan v Department of Infrastructure [2004] VCAT 2346 at [34]; Secretary to the Department of Treasury and Finance v Richard Dalla-Riva [2007] VSCA 11 at [13]; Re Mildenhall and Department of Premier and Cabinet (No 1) (1995) 8 VAR 284; Herald & Weekly Times and Victorian Curriculum & Assessment Authority [2004] VCAT 924
[12] Honeywood v Department of Innovation, Industry and Regional Development [2004] VCAT 1657; (2004) 21 VAR 453 at [28]
[13] Ryan v Department of Infrastructure [2004] VCAT 2346 at [34] [36]
[14] This occurs after a business plan has been considered by the Department of Treasury and Finance to review the proposal's conformity to government policies, its viability and its priority.
[16] See p. 72 of the Technical Note and p. 17 of the Appendix to the Supplementary Technical Note.
[20] See p. 6 of the Supplementary Technical Note
[21] See p. 12 of the Supplementary Technical Note
[22] Mildenhall v Department of Premier and Cabinet (No 1) (1995) 8 VAR 284
[23] See p. 12 of the Supplementary Technical Note
[25] See pp.69 and 74 of the Technical Note
Richard Dalla-Riva
Department of Treasury and Finance [2007] VCAT 1988