6. Question No. 6—EnvironmentGARETH HUGHES (Green) to the Minister for the EnvironmentQuestion No. 6—Environment6. GARETH HUGHES (Green) to the Minister for the Environment: Does he agree with Sir Geoffrey Palmer that mitigation of global warming under the Resource Management Act is important and the law as it stands is clearly deficient"? Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Yes which is why Cabinet has agreed to climate change resilience both mitigation and adaptation being considered as part of the overhaul of the resource management system. There are doubts that the Resource Management Act (RMA) as it currently stands can respond effectively to future challenges such as climate change. Gareth Hughes: Will the Minister support removing section 70A and section 104E this term so local authorities consider greenhouse gases in air discharge consents while we wait for the much needed longer-term reform of the Resource Management Act? Hon DAVID PARKER: No. The overhaul panel will ensure that the RMA aligns with the purpose and processes set out in the Climate Change Response (Zero Carbon) Amendment Act once passed and consider interaction with climate change recommendations and other institutions responding to climate change. Gareth Hughes: If sections 70A and 104E stay in place is it correct that under the current law new coal-fired power station or open-cast coalmine consents could be applied but decision makers would be specifically excluded from considering the adverse effects of those greenhouse gases? Hon DAVID PARKER: Yes that is correct but it's also notable that because of the price on coal emissions and various other changes that have been made through the years no new coal-fired electricity has been built in this country for over a decade and I'm not aware of any being planned—and in fact Huntly progressively closes down. Gareth Hughes: Is it then also the case that for an application for an open-cast coalmine or oil well the consent decision-makers could consider the traffic effects of transporting the coal or even the dust from the trucks building the facility but not the global warming impacts of burning the fossil fuels itself? Hon DAVID PARKER: Yes it is but I would note that there are pro-renewables biases in the RMA already that make it easier to get a renewables consent. Gareth Hughes: Well would the Minister then recognise the climate mitigation and adaptation values of urban trees by repealing sections 76(4A) and 76(4D) this term and restoring the ability of local authorities to protect tree cover? Hon DAVID PARKER: That will be considered in the wider review. We do need to take a bit of care here. Yes we need due protection of trees in urban areas but one of the reasons why the last Government—the National Government—changed that was that some of the over-regulation prevented people pruning a tree without getting a resource consent and that was a step too far. Hon Dr Nick Smith: Why did a former Labour Government of which this member was a Minister remove climate change from the RMA? SPEAKER: Can the member just have a go—he's been around here for a while—at getting it in order. Hon Dr Nick Smith: Can the Minister explain why Labour has reversed the policy setting that it previously set back in 2005 to exclude climate change as a consideration in the Resource Management Act? What's caused the flip-flop in Labour policy? Hon DAVID PARKER: We haven't but it is an issue that will be considered. Gareth Hughes: Can we really afford to wait for a major reform of the Resource Management Act which is unlikely to pass this term when right now our major environmental law actively disregards our generation's most important environmental issue when granting discharge consents? SPEAKER: I don't know if you can actively disregard but we'll just keep going. Hon DAVID PARKER: I can sir."