All of this sounds like—I guess it's a little bit difficult to relate this bill, necessarily, to people's everyday lives, but I did during this debate just want to take the opportunity to respond to some of the arguments that were put forward earlier in the debate by Michael Woodhouse, the spokesperson for transport for the National Party. I think that there's a whole lot of misconceptions, particularly from the National Party, on what effective transport investment is in the 21st century, and I can really understand their confusion about it. They've long been advocates for significant investment in very short, very expensive bits of highway. You know, it is understandable that people would think, "Oh, if we have these really expensive highway connections, it's going to make it easier to drive from point A to point B." Unfortunately, the overwhelming evidence from the second half of the 20th century, where we did a lot of highway building, is that it doesn't reduce congestion and make it easier for people to get around. It does have a lot of negative unintended side effects, which have to do with the way that land use is influenced. When you build a highway, you very briefly reduce congestion, maybe up to the first five years—but, of course, the design life of the road itself should be more like 20 to 40 years—but after about five years, there's overwhelming evidence from North American cities and also from here in New Zealand that within about five years there's no reduction in congestion because the highway—