White HelenHELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert): Thank you Madam Chair. I want to follow on from those questions but I would have actually quite liked the answers to those before I ask these questions because they may have clarified and it would have deepened the dialogue. However one of the questions I want to know and I think most New Zealanders—most Aucklanders definitely and definitely most people from Mount Albert—want to know is why: why are these ones picked; why not others?So I would like to know what the process was that you went through to select projects and you've said it was in consultation with the mayor but one of those projects is obviously really important to the people that live in your area. So there's an issue of perceived conflict there and I want to know what was the process that you went through for deciding that those were the projects that were important and how did you deal with the fact—CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): You ask the Minister because Auckland's not in my patch and he will have the knowledge.HELEN WHITE: Sorry Madam Chair. Yes you are quite right. What was the process that the Minister went through in deciding how to deal with an issue where in fact he works and he is the elected MP in a particular area and one of those projects is favoured in this situation? A related question is: what was the cost-benefit analysis that was gone through because my understanding from my previous interaction with the Minister is that that is something that he prides himself on? What was the cost-benefit analysis in deciding that these projects would happen and not others?There's also a question which won't surprise him that I am asking about the issue over safety. So one of the big holes in funding is the one that will affect the issues over what he calls speed bumps and I often call raised pedestrian crossings. There was another speech given today in the House which talked about the cost of each death because as horrible as it feels there are numbers often that people use when they talk about the cost of those deaths in terms of what it does to our society and obviously I want to acknowledge there's a much greater loss than any cost when we're talking about the loss of life or the injury of somebody. But what work was done on that when the decision was made to decide on several different projects and disband with others?I have a patch which has put a lot of projects that are in the list that won't be getting funding and I've already raised with the Minister in my speech earlier that I'm concerned about some of the impacts on my local patch that will affect people. So I'm concerned about the impacts around schooling I'm concerned about the impacts over congestion in those areas and I'm also concerned—I'll just note one at this present time: the Carrington Road development. So I can see that that has been suspended that work around that area. Now Carrington Road is going to take thousands of houses and so if you don't work in that area any more if the projects are not completed in that area or the funding is under threat then that area is one of the areas where intensification can happen without a lot of consequence as long as you make sure that the roads are good and the infrastructure's good.So what happens with that area for example and why would that not be given priority by a Government that says it wants intensification and in fact has scrapped a whole lot of rules that meant there'd be more spread of intensification? This is a project that takes so many people and it's going to be really important that they feel safe and that the whole area isn't just totally clogged up. So I know that my constituents will be asking me on Tuesday night at the Mt Albert Residents' Association meeting what the impact of this is on them in terms of the development. So I would like an answer to those questions and I'd appreciate them—the sooner the better—so I can ask proper follow-up questions of the Minister and this can be a real informative debate.