Utikere Tangi; Pugh MaureenTANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Thank you Madam Chair. Good to hear the Minister of Transport always has an open mind because we've still got a lot to get through and I think he might you know continue to do that as well.Minister I want to move to the reality that if a Minister was to create regulations under this provision—and thank you for also clarifying the suitability or not of paragraphs (a) (aa) and (h) of section 168 of the primary legislation. But if the Minister is to go on a process of basically putting regulations in place there is a requirement for the Minister to consult with such persons as the Minister considers appropriate. So what I think would be really interesting to hear from you Minister is: what would guide you in determining who you would consider as appropriate or what would guide new Ministers in the future as to who would be appropriate? Because one of the common themes as this bill is progressing through the Parliament over the last day or so has been around the fact that we understand that you have undertaken consultation in bringing this bill to the House. We have yet to hear from you in this Chamber who the specific industry participants were around consultation even though that has been raised with you Minister.So I think there are two things here. One is the opportunity to confirm the nature of the consultation that you've had in bringing to the House this particular provision to create regulations. The other is how the Minister expects to go about consulting prior to making regulations—which I think is actually a sensible thing if we are to have regulations that there is some form of consultation. But it's even more important when those sorts of decisions and considerations are taken whilst the House is under urgency but also whilst there is no select committee process. I know that other members have referred to this about the lack of a select committee process. I am certain that if this was in front of a select committee—well I know that if this was in front of a select committee there would be industry participants there would be others from all around the country who would submit about who they consider might be appropriate for the Minister to consult with in the process of making regulations. I know that for a fact because some of those industry participants have been in touch with members of this committee to indicate that they feel aggrieved that they haven't been part of this process.So I think there is a responsibility on the Minister to identify who he would consider as appropriate participants. They don't need to be identified specifically in the primary legislation—I'm certainly not seeking that. But what I am seeking is some understanding and some context around who those industry participants—or maybe they're not within the industry. Maybe it could be that the Minister opens up—it might be a little bit unwise—a broad invitation to anyone. I don't think that would really meet the purposes of having regulations—to ensure that there is some expediency around that.But I would like to hear from the Minister who he would consult with. One of the questions that have been put to the Minister throughout this whole process is: has he consulted with environmental groups? The primary purpose of the Land Transport Act in terms of this section that we've touched on previously is around the reduction of emissions. We can still talk about whether this bill is the appropriate place or not. But actually I think it would mitigate some of the concerns that have been raised if the Minister was able to identify exactly who it is that he has consulted with in terms of bringing this to the Parliament. But also if he was the Minister who was going to be executing or making these regulations under this Act if it is passed who would he consider as appropriate to effectively get on the phone to or to allow for a process to seek their feedback before he embarks upon issuing those regulations?CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Members my view is that the consultation aspect has been well canvassed and the Minister has addressed them so I am looking for new material about the substance in this particular clause. I call the Hon Julie Anne—Tangi Utikere: Point of order. Thank you Mr Chair—Madam Chair my apologies.CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Thank you.Tangi Utikere: Madam Chair I just seek your guidance on that because I am not aware of any response from the Minister to date in committee—not once has the Minister referred to any individual any industry participant or organisation that he has actually consulted. So you've made the determination that that has been canvassed. I would encourage you to reflect on Hansard but I am not aware of a single response from the Minister to date—and I have been here for the huge majority of the time that the Minister has been in here. I know there was a different Minister in the Chair for a period—that Minister did not take any calls to provide any responses.CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Understood and the point of order is noted. Thank you Mr Utikere. The questions about consultation have become repetitive and I've note that in the documentation.Tangi Utikere: Point of order.CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh):: Is this a different point of order?Tangi Utikere: It's about how repetitive nature would apply in this context. Speakers' Rulings are very clear around the requirement for a Minister to address a question. If a matter has been raised by members under urgency yet that matter has not been addressed or answered or addressed how can that surely be repetitive? All the Minister needs to do is stand up and say I've consulted with X Y Z."CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): I understand. We're going to move on now—I'm going to call the Hon Julie Anne Genter.Tangi Utikere: Sorry sorry but Madam Chair are you indicating that consultation has been addressed?CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): It's not my role to referee—if the questions are being asked and not answered that is up to the Minister. But the questions have been asked; it was one of the first questions when I took over the Chair that was raised—it's been raised several times. I'm simply indicating to members it's becoming repetitive I'm looking for new material in the body of this clause.Tangi Utikere: Point of order. Thank you Madam Chair and I accept what you've just said there. The issue however though is are you now saying that if members under urgency are posing questions to the Minister and the Minister refuses to address the questions that members of this House are no longer able to ask those questions? Because that would be quite a deviation as to how Standing Orders have been interpreted at this point in time.CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): I understand the member's frustration. I could invite the Minister—I've already called the Hon Julie Anne Genter. I could invite the Minister to address the question—I cannot make him answer. Hon Julie Anne Genter."