Belich CamillaCAMILLA BELICH (Labour): I'll take the call even if you didn't mean to give it to me Madam Chair—thank you very much. I did want to speak to an Amendment Paper that I have and specifically cover some grounds which I don't think have been covered to date in the questioning of the Minister. There's been a lot of talk about various projects that the Minister has decided not to exempt from the repeal of a number of these projects and I would like actually a bit more of a thorough answer from the Minister. I just had a look at the Standing Orders and the Minister is required to answer all of our questions. I'm not sure that simply saying I don't want to" or "It's not the one I picked" is a substantial enough or considered enough justification for the amount of projects which are being defunded essentially in Auckland.So the specific ones I wanted to mention—Ricardo Menéndez March: There is an expectation that he does yes.CAMILLA BELICH: Thank you. So the clause I wanted to mention is clause 7. Now the reason clause 7 keeps coming up Madam Chair as you'll be aware is clause 7 basically gets rid of an entire Schedule within the primary Act which lists a number of projects which the Minister on the whole has decided to defund for Aucklanders. The specific ones that I wanted to mention I wouldn't describe them as local projects; I would describe them as essential infrastructure decisions which have been consulted on for a number of years and are integral to Auckland as a city. The one that I think most clearly illustrates that particular point is the project number 9 which I have suggested should be exempted and one of the aspects of project number 9 was capital expenditure to support the City Centre Masterplan Access for Everyone programme. Now for those of you who aren't aware about the City Centre Masterplan Access for Everyone programme I'm sure Auckland MPs including the Minister will be well aware of it because it's existed since 2012 and was indeed in 2019 consulted on and endorsed in 2020 by the Auckland planning committee. And this is being repealed specifically in the part of the section which we are discussing at the moment.I mean that is quite different from a number of the other issues which have been discussed and I wanted to know from the Minister: has he turned his mind to this particular plan? And how does he envisage that that particular plan and its very important objectives—which look at the best utilisation of the central city which is something which is enjoyed by not only everyone who lives in Auckland but indeed visitors to Auckland—how is that going to be supported by his Government considering this is proposed to be repealed by this bill?The second area that I wanted to highlight in this particular project—which is called a project but actually it's a list of significant initiatives which won't be moving forward—is the retrofit of existing painted cycle lanes and appropriate safety barriers. We can I think all agree that we need to have safer cycling in New Zealand and this particular project was funded—2018 to 2028 was the proposal for that. That's not going forward and I think it's important that the Minister explain to the committee why was a decision that he made or that his Cabinet made to not fund that any more and to not have those safety features in Auckland cycling to be funded and the justification for that. Because I think it is important and I think the Minister has a duty to this committee to explain why things that have been consulted on by Aucklanders implemented by Auckland Council—proposals that sought to enrich the city centre and provide greater access to Aucklanders to the city centre—are now no longer going ahead.It's something that has existed since 2012 and was revisited in 2019 and then in 2020. It is a significant period of time and for me it seems very distressing to think that all of the work that went into that could be repealed without a select committee process. So I do on that point—if he doesn't come back to me on cycling I think that he does have a duty to talk about the City Centre Masterplan Access for Everyone and the reasoning that he wanted to not fund that capital expenditure and what will exist in its place."