Utikere TangiTANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Thank you Madam Chair. I know there are members opposite seeking a call. I would hope that they would share with the committee their views. I look forward to hearing from Andy Foster the chair of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee. That would be if this was in front of a select committee considering this along with Grant McCallum and Tom Rutherford. But it seems that only other members of that select committee are contributing tonight.I do want to thank colleagues on this side who have shared their local passion for some of the projects because I do think—and I hope that the Minister accepts this and perhaps that's a question to the Minister: does the Minister accept that local members of Parliament who obviously have a very clear and distinct connection to many of these projects are firstly entitled to raise the concerns and that those concerns are not simply set aside because the Minister's response is that he's decided on the three. In actual fact he's already pointed out a couple of Amendment Papers in the name of the Hon Damien O'Connor and also my colleague Camilla Belich. I think there might be a suggestion maybe from the Minister that instead of isolating each of those perhaps we could just put them all back in. I think he would find favour on this side of the Chamber if that was what he was referring to. Perhaps he could clarify that.I have a number of Amendment Papers in my name that I would like the opportunity to address. They are distinctly different. Before I move to that though there are still a number of outstanding clauses within Part 1 that have yet to be addressed and I do have questions about them so I will turn those to the Minister.The first in this call is in relation to clause 22 and that is still within the proposed new Part 5 inserted into Schedule 1AA—and this relates to the Disbursement of proceeds". When one looks at what is contained in subclause (1) it refers to "Top-up funding" and there's a specific word that's used there which is in relation to "the payment of scheme administration or winding-up costs". It says that "it may require the Auckland Council to pay it an amount or amounts from the Auckland RFT reserve fund to fund those payments."Now my question for the Minister is: is that a discretion that rests with the agency in which case there is perhaps no consultation with Auckland Council as to what its requirements or its role might be in terms of that final sentence there within the clause or is the use of the word "may" more of a two-way transactional conversation? This relates actually to an earlier point that my colleague Shanan Halbert made about the level of consultation that had taken place between the Mayor of Auckland and the Minister. So my question is around where that discretion lies. Does it sit purely with the agency or is there an expectation that it's a one-way relationship in this regard. Now I note that this is in relation to transitional provisions but none the less it is important that that is understood.My other question relates to clause 23 and this is in relation to the "reserve fund". So clause 23(1) talks about the fact that "The Auckland Council must continue to operate … [this] fund under … [a parent section] until it is spent." Now my question to the Minister is: is there any incentive or disincentive for the spending of those moneys? Because it could be that the money could just sit there for—well the question is: what period of time? It's unspecified. Is it tied in with the date that other provisions within this bill would come into place? But then again these are provisions that are transitional and so I'd appreciate the clarity around that.The other is also in relation to subclause (2)(b) under that clause and this ties in with projects—specifically four six and 12. If those projects were to be delayed what would be the impact in relation to how the reserve fund may be accessed or not? So in essence is the spending of the moneys for projects four six and 12 time bound; if so could the Minister please point to the time-bound provision within clause 23 and if not why not?"