Bishop Chris; Twyford PhilCHRIS BISHOP (National—Hutt South): Thank you Mr Chair. Can I ask the Minister about the East-West Link project in Auckland which is one of the 12 projects that were re-evaluated following the new Government policy statement from February 2018 I believe it was and 11 of those projects have gone through their formal re-evaluations and they've been published on the website. To varying degrees they've been either adopted as part of the National Land Transport Programme or they haven't been but the East-West Link project is noticeable by its absence; it's not clear what's going on there.I note the Minister's comments from I think it was December 2017 soon after becoming the Minister that the project was something that the Government realised basically—I'm paraphrasing the words of the Minister here but words to the effect of—has to be done in that part of Auckland. It's a heavy industrial part of Auckland and a major employment centre. The Government was interested in a solution there. We're now sort of 2½ nearly three years on. There's a real lack of clarity about exactly what is going to happen there. I acknowledge the Minister's comments publicly in the past that it's a very expensive project—no one doubts that. But equally I put it to the committee that there's also a recognition I would hope across the House that a solution is required in that fast growing part of Auckland with major congestion problems. So I'd just ask the Minister for an update on exactly what's going on there and what the Government's intentions are.Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Transport): We've had quite a lot of debate in this Chamber about the East-West Link over the last few years. I think where we can agree is that it's a vital freight corridor for Auckland it suffers a high level of congestion and there's a problem that needs to be solved there. We've had the view in Government and in Opposition before that the megaproject approach had really got out of control. It was too big too expensive and simply couldn't be justified. So under the new policy settings in the Government policy statement that's been in place for the last three years Waka Kotahi have been looking at what kind of solutions they could find and they've really been working hard to try to see what kind of interventions might fix the problems there. The fundamental problem in my view is the freight corridor but there are a whole lot of other issues that complicate that in the area.I think it's fair to say that Waka Kotahi—notwithstanding their very significant capability in dealing with these issues—have struggled to find a solution that doesn't cost an arm and a leg. I have encouraged them they've come back to me and then I've asked them to go away and do more work on it and they're continuing to do that. I've asked them to look at whether or not pricing could be a solution there that could potentially be part of the solution—effectively congestion charging. I've also asked them to look at whether there are other demand management tools like freight booking systems that also might ease the congestion and make it easier for freight to move along that corridor. So the problem's not solved yet. I recognise that something does need to be done there.The only other thing I would say to the member is that that part of Auckland which is currently used to a very high degree for the transit and the storage of containers is also not immune to rapidly changing land values in Auckland as the city grows and attracts more economic growth and the land from the centre of Auckland moving outwards is becoming more expensive. I'm not sure that in let's say 15 20 years' time that land will be used for stacking containers. Also while we consider the future location of the Port of Auckland until the idea of a port of Manukau is eliminated—and I want to make it clear I'm not advocating a port of Manukau but it is at least one option among several that's worth serious consideration—you wouldn't want to invest $1.5 billion in a megaproject on that location until you had far more certainty about its future land use.