Simpson Scott; Brooking RachelHon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you Mr Chair. I want to come back to clause 15 because the scope and breadth of these spatial strategies is quite incredible and I don't know that many people will have quite yet grasped how wide-ranging they are. So we had a little bit of a chat previously about clause 15(1)(a) and the 30-year time span of these strategies not being less than 30 years but paragraph (b) of clause 15(1) goes into some detail about the breadth. So these spatial strategies must—(b) provide for the integrated management of the environment including by providing strategic direction for the instruments in the planning system that are referred to in Section 4"—and we've already discussed that—"(c) support the efficient and effective management of the environment; and (d) give effect to the national planning framework to the extent that the framework directs; and (e) otherwise be consistent with the national planning framework". This requirement to provide for an integrated management of the environment including by providing strategic direction is very broad.It goes on in some detail right through to paragraph (g) which relates to consistency with water conservation orders but when we get to clause 16 "General contents and form of regional spatial strategies" again we find that there is an incredibly wide purview for these strategies to contain: clause 16(1)(a) says that "A regional spatial strategy must—"—and again I emphasise the word "must"—"set out a vision and objectives for how to use develop protect restore and enhance the region's environment in a way that achieves the purposes of this Act;". Well that's all very fine and dandy and setting out a vision and setting out objectives is fine in theory but the question I have is: whose vision and whose objectives?The regional planning committees will have enormous power to effectively put their stamp on what the vision and the objectives for the regional spatial strategy in their region are going to be. I contend that what that may mean is that depending on the makeup the history the background and the sort of geography and regional aspects that may differ from region to region that vision and objectives could be dramatically different in one part of the country to the next.So my question to the Minister around the "General contents and form of regional spatial strategies" in clause 16 is: how is the Minister going to provide assurance that these strategies are going to have a nationwide consistency that in practice is going to be largely the same and predictable for citizens for local government for business and for community groups so that they can with some certainty and some surety provide an understanding that what happens in one part of the country is going to be essentially the same as another part of the country.Or is it that the Minister sees that actually there will be very dramatic and wide-ranging differences from one region to another about what is a vision and an objective for how to use develop protect restore and enhance the region's environment? I suspect that regions are going to differ from area to area and I think it's only fair that New Zealanders can have some degree of certainty about what the broad vision will be not only for the country but for each region.Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Associate Minister for the Environment): Well yes I do not disagree that it is wide at clause 15 and of course that is the purpose that we want the joined-up thinking of these issues in the spatial strategies. I would point the member as well—the first question was: who gets to decide? Of course at clause 32A there's wide public consultation and in terms of consistency throughout the nation at clause15(1) it has to "(d) give effect to the national planning framework to the extent that that framework directs;"—so the framework can direct how these are to look—"and (e) otherwise be consistent with the national planning framework;"."