4. Auckland Transport Alignment Project—Funding GapPRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour) to the Minister of TransportAuckland Transport Alignment Project—Funding Gap4. PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour) to the Minister of Transport: What advice did he receive about the funding gap in the Auckland Transport Alignment Project prior to the new version he announced last week with Mayor Phil Goff?Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Transport): Officials informed me that the August 2017 Auckland Transport Alignment Project was short $9.7 billion to deliver on the promises that had been made. This is larger than the $5.9 billion shortfall that the previous transport Minister admitted to when he published the Auckland Transport Alignment Project. Auckland needs these new projects and projects cost money. Without action the $9.7 billion hole that I inherited would have meant that vital projects such as Mill Road and Penlink would not have been built.Priyanca Radhakrishnan: How did he close the funding gap in the Auckland Transport Alignment Project announcement he made with Mayor Goff?Hon PHIL TWYFORD: We made hard choices we prioritised projects we didn't put in anything that wasn't funded and we raised more revenue so that we can make a record amount of investment. The regional fuel tax means that without taking more than its fair share of the national transport budget Auckland will get $4.3 billion more of investment for projects like Mill Road and Penlink. Anyone who opposes the regional fuel tax needs to explain what $4.3 billion of projects they would cut.Priyanca Radhakrishnan: What did closing the funding gap allow the Government and council to deliver?Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Closing the $9.7 billion funding gap that we inherited allowed us to give Aucklanders confidence and certainty with a fully funded 10-year $28 billion programme of transport investments that will unlock the city's growth and prosperity after years of neglect. At long last we can start to get ahead of the growth.Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Rest assured I'm not having you on and we are still perturbed about the interpretation you put on a number that is used in question 12—notwithstanding that you've said you agreed with that number. In this question there was in a primary question an assertion that there was a funding gap. What was the verification provided to the Clerk's office to establish a non-specified funding gap?SPEAKER: A document was provided to the Clerk's office and accepted showing a set of assumptions which led to me accepting the question on the basis that there was a funding gap.Hon Gerry Brownlee: Speaking to the point of order.SPEAKER: Further point of order—the Hon Gerry Brownlee.Hon Gerry Brownlee: Well no it's the same one because we need clarification from you so we don't make the same mistake in lodging questions in the future. So if a verification was there that was able to establish a funding gap and therefore the term funding gap" could be used does that mean that if we are able to establish that there are deficiencies in some of the Government's numbers we can use equally expressive terms in primary questions?SPEAKER: It's something that I'll consider carefully on a case by case basis."