Court Simon; Brooking RachelSIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you Madam Chair. Minister Brooking I just want to come to clause 62 that a Minister may direct that any other action be taken where a regional planning committee or a local authority should be exercising or performing a power or a function. If the Minister's satisfied the committee or the local authority is not exercising or performing [their] power [or] function or duty to the extent … the Minister considers [it] necessary to achieve the purpose of [this] Act"—or the Spatial Planning Bill as it currently is before it's amended—and if the Minister's satisfied the committee has not exercised or performed the power function or duty then the Minister can direct them.Now to the Minister in the chair there is no accountability to voters and to communities through this clause. Currently when a spatial plan is developed—and I must refer back to Auckland where I live: the Auckland Unitary Plan is a spatial plan essentially delivering what the plans under this bill would. That spatial plan Minister was developed by an Independent Hearings Panel which then referred the final draft of that plan to the elected Auckland Council. There were objections—most were resolved; some were unresolved—but the Independent Hearings Panel referred the draft Auckland Unitary Plan to the full council and they voted on it and they voted to accept it with a few amendments.Now if Auckland Council's plan does not deliver the expected benefits—in other words it identifies where land should be made available for future urban development where land should be available for commercial and business purposes or infrastructure—and if the people of Auckland don't believe that the plan is adequate or that their council is not delivering the infrastructure and the services to give effect to that plan so that more serviced land is made available for housing—because that's the purpose of planning right? I mean planners don't do a planning degree spend their life developing competencies in spatial planning simply to colour in maps and post them on the wall. There is a purpose behind this: it's to deliver plans that allow communities the private sector to build and to live their best lives.If those communities made up of voters representing ratepayers and property owners representing renters people who live in cities and in regions—if they're not satisfied with the plan currently they can vote out the people who approved the plan and they can also ask for new representatives to develop a new plan. In this case Minister clause 62 says the Minister in charge may direct action to be taken. It doesn't say that Minister is accountable back to the people who live in that community in that region. It might be the thing the Minister wants to do. There's no accountability. It's remarkable that after all the submissions that the select committee heard from local government from regional government from farmer groups property developers people concerned about trees in the urban environment if a plan's not working they won't have a chance to vote out the people who are failing them; they'll have to rely on a Minister but if that Minister's intentions for their region or district are different tough luck.Well ACT says that's unacceptable Minister. There must be democratic accountability for plan makers in each region. Shanan Halbert: You didn't do that with Watercare. Auckland Council CCOs.SIMON COURT: There must be. Well this gentleman Mr Shanan Halbert says that ACT didn't do that with Watercare. Well you know what? If the voters of Auckland don't like the way that Auckland Council is managing their council-controlled organisation Watercare they can vote out their elected members Mr Halbert but they can't vote out a Minister who's directing their region to do stuff. Would you please explain Minister?Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Associate Minister for the Environment): Thank you. On this point that Simon Court is raising about the Minister's powers I'd note again that it is only if the Minister is satisfied that the local authority or committee isn't exercising or performing the powers functions and that reasonable steps have been taken to assist that group. Then there are checks and balances at (3) as well.On his more I guess esoteric points around voting in and out people—[Interruption] There's nothing wrong with being esoteric—of course Ministers can also be voted out would be a point I'd make there.Back to Barbara Kuriger's point about clause 63 it is confirmed that it is a carry-over from the Resource Management Act and the officials tell me that it has rarely if ever been used but perhaps the type of thing that it might be used for is a grant for an IT investment that would benefit all of the committees."