Simpson Scott; Kuriger Barbara; Brooking RachelHon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you Mr Chair. We're moving through Part 2 which extends right through to clause 57 so there's still a lot to do. I want to turn now to clause 23A which is relating to the considerations that must be taken into account when preparing regional spatial strategies. Now clause 23A is headed General requirements: use and presentation of information" and it's on that subject that I want to spend a couple of minutes if I may.Clause 23A(1) says "A regional planning committee must ensure that its regional spatial strategy is (a) as far as practicable based on robust and reliable evidence and other information" and so forth and then it goes on—and that's fair enough; I think it would be perfectly logical and safe to assume that of course a spatial strategy should be based on robust and reliable evidence. But the question then is well what if there isn't reliable science and robust knowledge and reliable evidence? That is kind of answered in clause 23A(2) where it says "The regional planning committee must not use an uncertainty or inadequacy in the available information as a reason to omit content from its regional spatial strategy if the committee considers that including the content is necessary to achieve the purpose of this Act."So on one hand we have clause 23A(1) saying a regional planning committee must "(a) as far as practicable [base their plan or their strategy] on robust and reliable evidence". But then it says that they can't use a lack of evidence or uncertainty or inadequacy to omit content. So we've got an area where we're straddling between robust evidence-based information that is available versus unknown knowledge but just a seat-of-the-pants kind of expectation that something should be included. I'm confused about how a regional planning committee has to try and juggle those two conflicting priorities between getting practical-based science knowledge and information to base their strategy on versus just a sense or a whim as to what may or may not be included because they don't have that information.Then I want to ask the Minister subsequent to that upon whose decision is it made that something is robust or reliable in terms of evidence? Is it the personal views of the members of the regional planning committee? Is it the views of their advisers? If it is the view of their advisers whose advice do they take? What advice is admissible? What advice isn't? Who are the arbiters of what is robust and reliable evidence? It's been my experience in this place and also in life in general that reliable and robust evidence is a bit like beauty; it's kind of in the eye of the beholder. One person's robust and reliable evidence can be another person's conspiracy or rabbit-hole. So I'm keen to know who's going to make the decision about what is robust and reliable and in the absence of agreed robust and reliable evidence how they are going to determine what matters should go into a spatial strategy where there is uncertainty or inadequacy as required under clause 23A(2).BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki-King Country): Thank you Mr Chair. I just wanted to have a question around local voice which was something that was very consistent in the submissions as they came through the Environment Committee. I want to go from clause 23A(6) and then go back to clause 23A(4). So subclause (6) says that "The regional planning committee must consider how to set out its regional spatial strategy in a way that's easy for interested parties and other members of the public to use and understand including through the appropriate use of maps" etc. Then in subclause (4) it says "The regional planning committee must be satisfied that each matter covered in its regional spatial strategy is provided for at a spatial scale that is appropriate to the matter."So a lot of submitters were asking about things that were at place or in their local community. So does that require when they're wanting to have some input into the spatial plan that it's OK for them just to interact with their piece at place and not feel overwhelmed by the whole spatial plan in general? Because a lot of their queries were around their ability their resource their lack of resource and funding to be able to make submissions. So I just wanted to satisfy them on that case that they were able to interact at place without having to go further than that. Thank you.Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Associate Minister for the Environment): Yeah thank you very much to the member for that question. I think it's a very good and fair point and I'm pleased that she referred to clause 23A(6) which of course uses the word "maps"—very pleased that the bill now refers to them. Yes that would be my interpretation as well that of course you've got the spatial strategy across the region and some areas of that region will need a whole lot more detail than other areas and it would be my expectation that community members that want to get involved in the process would be able to look at the part of the region that they are interested in.To the previous member's question the Hon Scott Simpson I'd point out of course that there can be regulations about that evidence. So this is still clause 23A(1)(b). And then in clause 23A(2) the rest of the sentence does say "if the committee considers that including the content is necessary to achieve the purpose of this Act."—so that's one of the tests. Then in clause 23A(3) it goes through what that committee must have regard to."