Court Simon; Brooking RachelSIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you Mr Chair. Minister I just want to come back to clause 17(1)(c) and (d). Minister these paragraphs state that the key matters referred to in the contents of regional spatial strategies are (c) areas that are appropriate for urban development and change" and (d) "areas that are appropriate for developing using or extracting natural resources including generating energy:".Now Minister if the objective of these complementary pieces of legislation—the Natural and Built Environment Bill and the Spatial Planning Bill—were to protect the environment wouldn't it be more appropriate that instead of designating the areas that are appropriate for urban development a spatial strategy identified areas such as weather and natural hazards from flooding tsunami sea-level rise landslides volcanoes—places where it's not appropriate for urban development?Potentially in terms of paragraph (d) wouldn't a spatial strategy be more helpful if instead of limiting the areas where developers quarry operators constructors might seek quarry resources for example Minister—aggregates are often only found in relation to the underlying geology; in other words around Auckland hard blue rock suitable for roading and concrete making is found around Hunua Drury South Auckland associated with andesite volcanics which are a suitable material for making concrete and building roads out of. And a spatial planner might not have perfect information and might not know that over the hill or the next hill there might be the next opportunity for quarrying resources. So would it not be more appropriate Minister instead of saying where it's appropriate to go and extract those resources that a planner would identify those very special places? They might be areas of regenerating native bush. They might be a wetland where a threatened species like the kōtuku the white heron lives. Wouldn't it be more appropriate Minister that those places are specifically excluded from development rather than have planners who must claim to have perfect knowledge if they're colouring in a plan and claiming they know where the best place or the only appropriate place for developing using or extracting natural resources is to colour in that part of the map where that activity is able to be consented?That seems to work at cross purposes with the "Hey why don't we get on with building stuff? Make it cheaper better faster; protect our most special places." Here this appears to be working at cross purposes. Minister will you explain why 17(1)(c) and (d) use the terms "appropriate for urban development" instead of that much more helpful "not appropriate for urban development and resource development"?Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Associate Minister for the Environment): I'll just make the point again that this is about good integrated planning. So as the member said—and I agree with him—you should be looking at those areas that are vulnerable to risks and that may in fact lead you to find where some areas are appropriate for urban development. But there are other reasons why something might be appropriate for urban development not just it being inappropriate and that is that it may already have the existing infrastructure and can hold more people and more houses."