Simpson Scott; Brooking RachelHon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you Mr Chair. I know that my colleague from the ACT Party Simon Court will have some questions as a result of the Minister's answers but I want to turn now to clause 15 because it's quite a pivotal part of the proposed legislation which we will of course be repealing should we have the opportunity to lead a new Government after the October elections.However notwithstanding that very real prospect clause 15 relates to the scope of regional spatial strategies and it's quite extensive broad and comprehensive. So 15(1) says that a regional spatial strategy must—and I emphasise the word must"—"(a) set the strategic direction for the use development protection restoration and enhancement of the environment of the region for a time span of not less than 30 years". That's an extensive period of time and the requirement that the spatial strategy must set the strategic direction for the use development protection restoration and enhancement of the environment is extremely broad. It has the potential—in fact not only the potential the reality—of impacting on the private property rights of every single landowner in the country because it will be that broad strategic direction that will essentially decide what can be done where on what property and in what time frame. So my initial question to the Minister on this is: what consideration was given by her as Minister in the chair and her officials for the use of those broad-ranging words and descriptions and why was 30 years nominated as the minimum period of time that a spatial strategy must provide for? Then following that what is to stop a regional spatial strategy extending well beyond 30 years? What say for instance a regional planning committee decides that they want to put in place a spatial strategy that might be for 40 50 or 100 years? Are there any bounds or limits on the upper end of the capacity for such a spatial strategy to extend beyond 30 years? Would that be something where as Minister she would consider having to use those discretionary intervention powers that were mentioned in I think clause 52 from memory. Would that be the backstop? Would that be the backstop for what could potentially become in the eyes of some people an abuse of power and authority in terms of the impact of a regional spatial strategy?Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Associate Minister for the Environment): So as the member knows—and I think most members in the House will agree—New Zealand has not been great—all Government stripes—at doing long-term planning for infrastructure and the idea here is that we are looking at a strategy; it is a strategic direction. It is not a regulatory plan so it is not the same as the Natural and Built Environment Bill's plan which you know can have an impact on property rights. This is different; this is at the strategic level. The idea of 30 years aligns with a lot of other documents that are required in Government such as the council infrastructure strategies and in terms of not less than 30 years if the group thinks that there is a good reason to go for longer than 30 years then that is a possibility. But in terms of how wide it is I'm advised that we should also read it in conjunction with clause 23A."