Court Simon; Brooking Rachel; Salesa JennySIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you Madam Chair. Minister isn't it correct that the reason that strategic planning was first advanced as a title for the draft bill or the proposed bill was because the problem that the Minister identified—that the Randerson panel in its report proposed to solve—was that we need to build a whole lot of infrastructure in New Zealand; it's become too expensive to build. The Infrastructure Commission identified that consenting alone costs $1.3 billion a year. That's not taking the consent conditions for erosion and sediment control permits buying the silt fence digging the silk pond setting up the fence installing the duct. That's just the consenting Minister. And wasn't the use of the word strategic" intended to identify that while the planning has already taken place—in fact regional councils territorial and local authorities have already constructed district plans and regional plans which their communities have voted on or have the ability to vote out councillors who approve those plans and the provisions of this bill simply duplicate what's already being carried out. In fact Auckland Council and Hamilton City Council made just that point. It's not spatial planning that they needed Minister; it's strategic planning that would help them link up where they've already identified people will build and live with the infrastructure needed. Because the strategy to link "Hey we know where the land is where people can build or live but the infrastructure to service that land is missing."—that was the strategic part. Planning legislation should in fact enable that infrastructure to be built as of right by asset owners without having to prove—as they do here—that they've complied with esoteric animist and spiritualist even conditions around tikanga kawa and mātauranga Māori which we debated last night.Minister wouldn't it be correct to say that spatial planning is already common? It's already done well in New Zealand. We have community input we have input from stakeholders who might say "Hey you know that land by Auckland Airport that land in Hamilton between the State highway that fantastic four-lane—in places six-lane—State Highway 1 that trucks can travel on at high speed 110 kilometre an hour road environment"—Minister what they need to know is that the infrastructure needed to connect say a distribution centre to the motorway the new town centre to waste-water and stormwater systems—they need a strategic plan Minister. That's what local government's been asking for.So Minister isn't it correct to say that the title of this bill should in fact be a "Strategic Planning Bill" but not for this bill because it doesn't deliver the intent that the Randerson panel of which you yourself Minister were a member at one point—it doesn't deliver on the intent.Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Associate Minister for the Environment): I'd just remind the member that we've already had an extensive conversation about the need for the strategic direction in these plans and so there is no loss of the strategy by changing the name to "Spatial"; it's just what people seem to accidentally be referring to the bill as. They are both important elements and I don't disagree with the member on that point.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members the time has come for me to leave the Chair. I will resume the Chair at 9 a.m. tomorrow morning. This session is suspended until then. Pō mārie.Debate interrupted.Sitting suspended from 9.59 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Thursday)"