Simpson Scott; Kuriger Barbara; Brooking RachelHon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): So just carrying on that point—and I thank the Minister for her interactions; it is helpful to this debate. So if we carry on to clause 16 and we get past the vision and objectives" and the broad requirement to "develop protect restore and enhance the region's environment in a way that achieves the purpose of this Act" and if we then go to clause 16(1)(b) it says "support the vision and objectives by applying and otherwise providing for—(i) the key matters listed in section 17".So if we then flip over to question clause 17 again we have incredibly wide-ranging parameters. So clause 17 says "The key matters referred to in section 16(1)(b)(i) are as follows: (a) areas that require or may require protection restoration or enhancement:". Now again that's incredibly wide: "areas that require or may require protection restoration or enhancement". I put it to the Minister actually that that's probably all land—surely isn't it that every piece of land in the country at some point is going to "require or may require protection restoration or enhancement" of some form or other?Is it the intention of the Minister's legislation that the key matters that are contained in a regional spatial strategy must actually apply to every square centimetre of New Zealand's landscape?CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Sorry could those members just take their conversation a little bit lower? It's echoing around the Chamber. Thank you.BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki-King Country): Minister I'd like to have a conversation about clause 17(1)(jb). So as we went through the bill—and the fact that the cyclones were progressing at the time there were often times when we looked at each other and thought "Gee if we knew some of the things we know now we might not have put some of those same things in those places."So in paragraph (jb) it talks about "matters relating to risks arising from natural hazards and the effects of climate change". I just would like a comment around this. I mean I know none of us is ever going to outwit Mother Nature but if I look at subparagraphs (i) (ii) (iii) and (iv) of paragraph (jb) is this some way of mitigating at least some of those factors that we were confronted with through the committee process?And given that I know that as late as about 24 hours ago we were just looking at some perhaps options around removing people from where they are and putting them somewhere else I just wanted a comment around that provision—we can never be 100 percent foolproof—and get the Minister's view on how this could enhance that in the future?Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Associate Minister for the Environment): So we're focused on clause 17 here. To the Hon Scott Simpson's point I'd say that you read "areas that require or may require protection restoration or enhancement" in the context of the legislation and the clause and in fact as Barbara Kuriger has said there are some more specifics in clause 17 with that hazards section that you've just referred to a climate change one and also one particularly relating to infrastructure that the select committee worked on as well.Yes to Barbara Kuriger's question that is my understanding: that the select committee worked hard on these provisions to report back—to strengthen really—the natural hazards provision so that we can enable better planning and responsiveness to those natural hazards."