10. Environmental Protection Authority—Chief Scientist's Statements about Waikato RiverCATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green) to the Minister for the EnvironmentEnvironmental Protection Authority—Chief Scientist's Statements about Waikato River10. CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green) to the Minister for the Environment: Does he agree with the Environmental Protection Authority's Chief Scientist Jacqueline Rowarth's comment that the Waikato River is one of the five cleanest rivers in the world?Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment): Dr Rowarth's comments were made prior to her taking up her position with the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) when she was a professor at Waikato University. I am advised by her that her comments were taken out of context. Water quality in the Waikato is superb and amongst the very best in the world in the upper reaches like around Huka Falls but deteriorates in the lower reaches due to nutrients pathogens and sedimentation particularly below the confluence of the Waipā River. The data shows that in the lower reaches these problems have been increasing in recent decades and steps are required to reverse those trends. That is why this Government has invested over $300 million in its clean-up. I do note the EPA does not have a role in the regulation of water quality and its principal function is the regulation of hazardous substances and new organisms.Catherine Delahunty: Does he consider that the comments of the new chief scientist at the EPA show a robust understanding of science and of a waterway that has more than $8 million of Government funding dedicated to cleaning it up because it is so seriously polluted?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The Government is spending a lot more than $8 million; it is spending over $300 million—such is the importance of Lake Taupō and the Waikato River to this Government. In respect of this particular individual I think the member should be cautious of taking her comments out of context because actually in the upper reaches the water quality is very good at Huka Falls and it would be wrong for the Green Party to run that down.Catherine Delahunty: Given that the New Zealand Freshwater Sciences Society comprising 400 freshwater scientists and professionals disputes Dr Rowarth's full claims should we have faith that the EPA is able to make good decisions about hazardous chemicals and water and protect our environment?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Professor Rowarth who is a new appointment to the EPA is a well-qualified scientist. The decision as to her appointment has been made independently by the EPA and I think this House should be cautious of being openly critical of neutral public servants which is the new role she has after completing her term as a professor at Waikato University.David Seymour: Will the Minister rule in or out invoking section 142 of the Resource Management Act and appointing a board of inquiry for the Healthy Rivers: Plan for Change/Wai Ora: He Rautaki Whakapaipai in light of complaints from farmers in the area that it will put them out of business?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The process under the Resource Management Act where I as Minister can call in a planned change is only time limited to a period prior to the notification. The notification of the planned changes on the Waikato River that are publicly available for submissions right now has passed that point where I could intervene but it would be unusual for the Government to step in and effectively take over a regional council's most important function of water quality. We did choose to do so in Canterbury; I am reluctant to do so in the Waikato.Catherine Delahunty: So to be clear is the Minister saying that his new chief scientist at the EPA who only just made that statement weeks before she started the job is competent to make judgments about the environment when she says that Waikato is one of the five cleanest rivers in the world?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Firstly I would dispute the claim that it is my" Environmental Protection Authority. When this Government set up the Environmental Protection Authority we quite deliberately made it independent and it is the Environmental Protection Authority that has appointed the chief scientist. The second point I would make is that Professor Rowarth has made plain that her comments have been taken out of context and actually would be quite appropriate for the upper reaches of the river such as the Huka Falls where water quality is exceptional. Question No. 5 to MinisterRt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Grant Robertson: To table the text?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Yes exactly. I seek leave to table the full quote that the Leader of the Opposition used and it says: "we have been trialling a domestic RSE scheme. But go in and ask the employers"—get them on the show—"and they will say some of these people won't pass a drug test some of these people won't turn up for work"—[Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! First of all points of order need to be heard in silence. I was attempting to hear it but I think I have heard enough though. The point of tabling documents is to better inform Ministers and members of the House. What I think the Prime Minister is attempting to do is take the opportunity to politically engage with a quote that he thinks was not given in full. That is not the purpose of tabling a document and I will not put the leave.Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): Speaking to the point of order.Mr SPEAKER: I have already dealt with the matter Mr Brownlee.Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Well I would just ask then that you consider the Standing Order that makes it clear that if a member is misrepresented in the House they have a right to take the floor of the House to correct that misrepresentation.Mr SPEAKER: And that is done in a very different way. If the member thinks that he has been misrepresented he seeks leave to make a personal explanation. I would then put the leave to the House. That is the way it is then tackled. It is not done by simply rising to table a document or a quote. We are moving now to—"