Yes you got it - the Govt lied.  See the talk page for CSELR (OK, I'm lazy and not typing current page name!).  They provided a business case summary but not a business case that the summary was created from.  I have provided the link to the index of papers produced (mainly email acceptances/rejections of meeting appointments btw) so you can confirm that the Business case was never provided.  There are no source documents for any figure contained in the Business Case Summary.  Some of the numbers are shown as incorrect from prior and post-TfNSW publications (such as with the Capacity claimed by GB on the MR for the Modification Approval yet the actual modification report states figures that are 50% lower.).

 I am one of 8 community reps for the project and am attempting to ensure the facts are put out for people to make their own minds up about.  That is why I have tried to use as neutral descriptions as possible rather than emotive language.  The minutes for the Community Rep meeting with TfNSW are sanitised and questions asked by the reps are not recorded not responses provided to the questions.  The terms of reference (open to the public to see) for the Community Rep meetings state that all questions will be answered within a time frame yet TfNSW are refusing to do this.  I have since discovered that 4 of the community reps are current employees of the State Govt and 1 is a past (self-proclaimed) senior executive of TfNSW.  So not only do they not tell the truth - they have also stacked the Community Reference Group.

http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/lc/lctabdoc.nsf/cccc870c6126b1b6ca2571ee000318a4/6e2b81f5c474172fca257cee0023c16a?OpenDocument&Highlight;=0,light*,rail* = link to index of docs produced for 1st call

 That is why there was the 2nd call for papers specifically naming the missing documents as that was the only way for the Upper House MPs to publicly state - the Govt has not provided what we asked for as they were supposedly only going to be in the 'confidential (2) boxes that the MPs could not talk about after looking at.  By making the 2nd call for papers stating the docs not provided in the 1st call they made it public.  The outcome they expected was what ended up happening.