Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill

I welcome colleagues to the debate on the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill. This is a—

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: Timely bill.

That is right. It is a timely bill, I say to Ms Dyson; it certainly is. I hope we will see colleagues from across the Chamber make a number of contributions throughout this debate, because this is an important issue. This bill is about the future advancement of education and science, and the humanities, right across our great nation. I think there will be a valuable contribution that members can make, as we work our way through the 23 clauses that lie before us—

💬 Hon Member: Plus the preamble.

—plus the preamble, which we are now debating.

As the Chair noted, we are debating the preamble, which sets out two things that I want to discuss in some depth. The first of those explains the Royal Society. It notes that the Royal Society is constituted under both the Royal Society of New Zealand Act 1965 and the Royal Society of New Zealand Act 1997, but that does not do justice to the history of the Royal Society. The Royal Society, in fact, began life in New Zealand in 1867.

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: What day?

I am not sure, but we will come back to that in a future call. I look behind me to find some officials but there are none, so, unfortunately, I will have to research that myself. But in 1867 the Royal Society of New Zealand came forward and began its life leading debate and discussion on the subject of science. So it is an organisation that I think many people here would be able to say quite clearly has benefited them as they have worked through complex issues and as they have dealt with the kinds of technological and scientific changes and advancements that we see in our society.

Recital (1) advises us about the Royal Society. The society itself has been operating since 1867. Its object is the advancement and promotion of science and technology in New Zealand, and it is indeed those objects that we will be changing as we work through this bill to bring in the humanities. But the Royal Society says on its website that it promotes science and technologies in schools, industry, and society; it administers funds for science and technology; it publishes science journals; it offers advice to Government; and it fosters international scientific contact and cooperation. So it covers the full gamut of activities in the sciences.

It is important, as we look at the preamble and at recital (1), to note that broadening the objects of the Royal Society to include humanities strengthens the role of the society. There have been some in the early stages of this debate who have had concerns about whether this represents some form of dilution. I do know, from talking to Fellows of the Royal Society, that in Britain this has not occurred. There are those in the Royal Academy of Arts who would like to see this occur, but it has not occurred because they are fighting, as one person said, against 400 years of history dividing the sciences from humanities. We do not have that burden here. We have the ability to bring this together. The bringing together of the sciences and humanities has occurred in Edinburgh, it has occurred in Ireland, and I think it has also occurred in Canada. I do believe that will strengthen the Royal Society of New Zealand.

So recital (1) gives us the legislative basis. The Royal Society of New Zealand Act 1997 is the basis of the discussion that we will be having this evening, and perhaps moving into other days in the House. I think it is worthwhile reflecting, as recital (1) does, on the Royal Society of New Zealand Act 1997. It was, I think, quite confusing for members in the earlier stages of this debate when there was quite an abstract discussion about what the humanities included. Later in the debate we will come to clause 5, to which there is an amendment in the name of Te Ururoa Flavell, which I am happy to support. But I do think that in the early stages of the debate about what the humanities actually are, there was some confusion. In particular I refer to section 2 of the Royal Society of New Zealand Act 1997, which describes what science and technology are, as the law stands today: “science and technology includes the applied, biological, earth, engineering, information, mathematical, medical, physical, social and technological sciences”. I do think that in the early stages of this debate people perhaps had what I would refer to as the hard sciences in mind when they were discussing the Royal Society.

💬 Hon Rick Barker: What’s wrong with the hard sciences?

There is nothing wrong with hard science; it is very important. But the social sciences are mentioned in that definition. Earlier in the debate when people were looking to describe science, I do not think there was an understanding that the social sciences were included. In fact, my colleague Moana Mackey rather cruelly referred to my own qualification in political science and suggested that it was not mentioned at all in the definition of humanities or in the definition currently in the Act. [Interruption] But I can reassure Mr Ardern that in fact political science is a social science and is therefore included in the current definition of the sciences. So by bringing in the humanities we broaden it, but I did want to clear up any confusion about the status of, for instance, political science within this area.

I move to recital (2), which describes what the Royal Society is looking to do with this legislation. I think we can set out the framework of these things and then go into significantly more detail as we move through the relevant clauses. But looking at recital (2) we can see that the main thing the Royal Society wants to do is incorporate the discipline of humanities into its object and functions, and I did read out those objects and functions before. This has not happened just overnight, and I want to give credit to my colleague the Hon Pete Hodgson, who I am sure will make a contribution to this debate. He was the Minister of Research, Science and Technology who brought together the humanities and the sciences. He is the person who encouraged the Council for the Humanities to meet with the Royal Society and begin this process of bringing them together, and it is good that he can be in the Chamber tonight to speak to the preamble and to other clauses.

Recital (2)(b)—which perhaps might not get as much attention as we move through the bill; so I will talk a bit about it now—is the renaming of the Academy Council as the Academy Executive Committee. This is not something that will necessarily keep people awake at night in Chris Hipkins’ electorate of Rimutaka, but it is an important change. Effectively, the Academy Council is the governance body of the Royal Society, so it is the body that has responsibility for the overall running, as most boards do. It is a board that includes not only scientists, but it does include some scientists. It includes Garth Carnaby, who is currently also the president of the council. It includes Keith Hunter from Otago University, who is a member of the council, but it also includes outsiders. It includes, for instance, Phil O’Reilly from Business New Zealand. So that is the Academy Council.

💬 Charles Chauvel: They’ve relaxed their entry criteria.

That is right! Actually, I should say that that is the council of the Royal Society—the council includes those people. Recital 2(b) renames the Academy Council as the Academy Executive Committee. Now, that is a different body from the council of the society. That is the scientific body. It makes the awards of prizes. It gives advice to the Government about scientific issues. So perhaps I should restate that; I was not totally clear. What we have within the Royal Society is the council of the Royal Society, which is the governance body, and recital 2(b) renames the Academy Council as the Academy Executive Committee, to avoid any confusion. That Academy Executive Committee is the scientific body within the Royal Society. It makes the awards and ensures that policy is commented on and advised on.

The other parts of the preamble are: “(c) amend the standard for the election of Companions of the Society;”—and we can come back to that issue later on—“and (d) amend the election process for Councillors of the Society:”. As noted in the preamble, the objects of this Act cannot be achieved without legislation. In actual fact, the Royal Society is already operating with the humanities within it, but from a legislative point of view it is important that the changes are made lest any concerns be raised by those associated with the Royal Society that this legislation had not been passed and therefore they are acting outside their mandate.

I will come back to this in later contributions, but we did note in earlier parts of the debate that in fact some members of the society, some fellows of the society, are opposed to this move, and I want to acknowledge their concerns as we go through. But I think that in general most of us here would feel confident that the preamble outlines the important discussions we will have tonight. It incorporates some history about the Royal Society but it also tells us that bringing the humanities in, and the other changes, will lead to a stronger Royal Society. I think we will all benefit from that, and I hope to hear contributions from colleagues across the Chamber on this important bill and subject this evening.

I am delighted to take part in this debate. I say to the member who has just resumed his seat, Grant Robertson, that I thought he gave an erudite introduction. I thought that for a man who has come to this bill only because the Royal Society is domiciled in the bailiwick he has the privilege to represent, he gave a very good description of the legislation and, briefly, a history. Let me add my remarks.

The Royal Society of New Zealand began partly because of a geological survey, which itself had a bit to do with gold, and partly because New Zealand was trying very hard to be as much like Britain as it could, as soon as it could. A lot of that activity took place originally in Dunedin North, which is the electorate I have the privilege of representing. The Royal Society formed in 1860-something—the member told me.

💬 Grant Robertson: In 1867.

It formed in 1867 and has been going ever since. I would not say it has been going strongly ever since. It has fluctuated over the years as its fortunes have ebbed and flowed, and its importance in society has fluctuated over the years. What happened, to cut a long story short, was that in the late 1980s the Lange - Palmer - Moore Government, which was doing all sorts of things in society and was going through a restructuring phase, restructured science. So the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research came up for disbandment. There are only three countries in the world that run science as per the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research model, and they are New Zealand, Australia, and South Africa—the southern hemisphere colonies of mother England. We took out the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research and in a bipartisan approach, which began under Tizard and Austin and finished under Minister Upton, we moved into Crown research institutes. That is where we are now.

While we were going through the stage of trying to create a bit of commercial drive on our science effort and trying to use a company model instead of a State department model in an effort to try to make sure that science moved more quickly into the community and was taken up in technology transfer, intellectual property, and that sort of thing, we were also starting to wonder what was going to happen to the Royal Society. We did not know for quite a long time. Finally, Minister Upton, in the mid-1990s, got his head around it and decided to do a bit of restructuring, and that is where the 1997 legislation came from. But, more important, we as a country, we as a Government, we the polity, if you will, started interacting with the Royal Society in a much more consistent and enriched way than we ever had. We had ignored each other until then.

These days, the Royal Society is involved in delivering a range of programmes for the Minister of the day—whatever they may be. Normally, the Royal Society does so extremely well. It gets involved in stuff on a one-off basis. I will give members an example: trying to work out how best to get the Performance-based Research Fund to work. The Royal Society was very, very helpful. They were not just a bunch of stuffed shirts who were conservative, bearded, greying—

💬 Charles Chauvel: Cardigan-wearing.

—cardigan-wearing, hopelessly introverted scientists. That era has long past. It has long past, but it did exist. Upton’s changes and the changes made by subsequent Governments have now meant that the Royal Society is a vital part of the mechanism of government, as well as being the home of scientific method, scientific thought, rational thought, or whatever we may like to call it. Both of those functions—as an institution and as a deliverer of services to Government—are now put in place and are pretty well settled. The Royal Society is a good outfit, and it used not to be.

When we rejigged science, we did not know what to call the Ministry of Research, Science and Technology, so for almost 20 years we called it the Ministry of Research, Science and Technology rather than the Ministry of Science and Technology. We wanted to let people know that not all research was science and technology but some research was—gosh, what can we call it—scholarship. Then we would instance the humanities as an example. We took the sciences, and started with the hard sciences of physics or whatever it might be; headed off towards the biological sciences, which are the medium-soft sciences; then headed off to the very soft sciences, such as political science, but not as far as Scientology, which is not a science. If members want to know what a science is and what a science is not, I tell them that if it involves scientific method and trying to remove variables in order to better examine and observe things that have not been taken out, or the things that remain, then that is the essence of science. Scholarship—the study of a poet, for example—has nothing to do with that. There is a very clear difference between sciences in their various forms, and humanities.

In the case of the humanities, New Zealand has very little structure. We have a bunch of universities with humanities departments, which is where the professionals lie, where the PhDs are supervised, and where the humanities flourish, but beyond that we are not big enough to have this, that, or the other humanities societies. There are no great literary societies in New Zealand, for example. There are some music societies, but not many. There are some societies, but humanities in general struggle in a smaller country. For that reason, humanities are hard to organise. There is another reason, which is that humanities are often done by amateurs, by people who are retiring and writing a book about something that as likely as not is contributing to humanities. But they are doing so at their kitchen table, so they are not likely to be easily organised. For all of those reasons, the society of humanities has had difficulty getting off the ground.

When I was Minister of Research, Science and Technology between 1999 and 2005 I was repeatedly asked by humanities where their home was. We came to the view that we should test the Royal Society as a home. I stopped being the Minister in 2005, and they went off to begin what turned out to be a couple of years of discussion as to whether the humanities could be accommodated within the Royal Society structure. I returned to the portfolio for 1 year, in 2008, only to find that it was all done and dusted. That is where this legislation has come from. I pay tribute to the tenacity of the people who have been leading humanities in New Zealand. I will not bother naming them. Perhaps I should name Neville Jordan, who was president of the Royal Society at the time. He is the guy who in an earlier life started Marine Air Systems Technology and who, in my view, is the only serial entrepreneur in our New Zealand economic history so far. He is not a scientist; he is an engineer, a technologist. He said the Royal Society could accommodate humanities. He did not see how the Royal Society could exclude anything. The society certainly could not exclude him as president because he is an engineer. The senior staff in the Royal Society equally embraced the idea, and I acknowledge that. It is important to acknowledge that some people did not like it. It is important to try to understand that, too. In the event, having an academic home for humanities matters. That is why this legislation matters. I am delighted we are making some progress.

I will say one last thing about clause 1 before I resume my seat. We cannot count. The bill’s title is the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill 2010. We will have to amend that.

💬 Grant Robertson: We will.

We will, will we? Can the member assure me that that is the case? Can it happen automatically? Perhaps, it can. I hope so. Thank you.

It is a real pleasure to speak on the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill, and particularly on the preamble, because it is the area of the bill where we can really pay our respects and gratitude to, and express some admiration for, the Royal Society. Obviously, it is the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill, but the Royal Society itself needs a mention in its own right.

Pete Hodgson spoke articulately and, as usual, knowledgably about the Royal Society and about what it does for New Zealand. It plays an extraordinary role. The fact that it has been functioning in New Zealand since 1867 means it is one of the few institutions that have survived for that length of time. Not only has it survived but it has grown in stature, competence, and reach. Today the number of scientists that it draws in is in the tens of thousands. In fact, I have the figure here. The number of scientists who are represented by the society is 20,000. There are 20,000 scientists, technologists, technicians, and perhaps engineers represented by the society.

In some ways I always see engineers, as Pete Hodgson was mentioning just now, as representing the bridge between science and its application in a commercial sense. Sometimes, perhaps, we do not make enough of our engineers in the way we develop our products. We also do not make enough of them in the way we encourage students coming through school to take on science and maths and go towards an engineering type of vocation. That is the area where we would be able to earn value in New Zealand. I do not think we can have enough engineers, whereas we have plenty of accountants, lawyers, etc. There are two engineering schools and, I think, eight law schools in New Zealand. The Minister of Science and Innovation, who is a lawyer, might be able to elucidate. It is a curious coincidence. I wonder whether we have our priorities round the right way.

As was laid out by both Grant Robertson and Pete Hodgson, the bill is really about expanding the remit of the Royal Society to include humanities, which I hasten to say was somewhat controversial in some of our select committee meetings. The chair of the Education and Science Committee, Allan Peachey, is here, and I think he did a very good job, as did my colleagues across the other side of the Chamber. We engaged in the process very constructively and we did a pretty thorough job of interrogating the people who came before us. I should perhaps say questioning; interrogating sounds a little bit too much like shining a light in people’s faces to get the truth. We took quite seriously some of their concerns that the work of the Royal Society and of science might be diminished in New Zealand as a result of the humanities being brought into the legislation, as Grant Robertson spoke about before.

I think it is extraordinarily important that we gave those people a really good hearing. We asked questions of the Ministry of Research, Science and Technology, as it was then known. It is now known as the Ministry of Science and Innovation. That is one of the most innovative things that the Minister has done. I will not list the others—not that I do not have time; it would not take very much time to do that—but bringing the word “innovation” alongside “science” is a good step. We brought back the Ministry of Research, Science and Technology before the committee twice, I think, or perhaps three times to check up on the concerns that some of the Royal Society branches around the country had about their perception of dilution of the Royal Society.

I will just reflect on the Royal Society itself and what it does, and try to provide a context for this bill and its preamble. Some people watching this debate may have concerns that we did not do a good enough job in reflecting on what incorporating the humanities into the Royal Society might do. Some countries—for example, the UK and Australia—do not follow this particular pattern of doing things. Instead they have separate societies, and the royal societies of those countries jealously guard their borders. I think that in New Zealand, where we obviously have a smaller country and a smaller bunch of academics—20,000 is not exactly a small number, but nevertheless it is smaller—we have the ability in this legislation to look a little laterally and understand how science and the associated humanities make an impact on our society. It is for that reason that we have the ability to be innovative within the Royal Society itself.

Just to reflect on what the Royal Society has done and does, beginning in 1867 it has an extraordinarily long and proud history. It promotes science and technology in schools, industry, and society. It also administers several funds for science and technology, publishes scientific journals, and offers advice to, and advocates for science with, the Government. It also advocates for science with the Opposition. I meet with the Royal Society frequently to hear its concerns and some of the issues it would like to push in the area of science more generally. The society even hosts a series of dinners here for MPs, which are well attended, to promote science within Parliament. It does an extraordinarily good job in terms of promoting and supporting science in our community.

I will make an aside. The society has not said this to me, but I imagine that it is somewhat disappointed about the science advisers in the area of education being ripped out of schools, along with various science advisory services that can provide teachers with up-to-date support in science. As I said at the beginning of my address tonight, the idea of science and promoting science in schools has to be one of the most important things that we do. We are ranked in the Programme for International Student Assessment listings at No. 7 in the world in terms of our science achievements in our schools. I think we face a sliding of that ranking as a result of the resources that have been pulled out of schools and from teachers in order to, I guess, save money. It is an extraordinarily short-sighted policy to take. At the end of the day it is not very much money, and it is used for the promotion of something that is fundamentally important to our economy. Our economy is based on primary products, mainly, and science—using science applied to our primary products. That is what gives us the edge, and we need to promote our scientists more than anything else.

Pete Hodgson also mentioned the restructuring of the science community that has happened over the last few years. Simon Upton is a Fellow of the Royal Society. I think he is the only former Minister or MP to be made a fellow, and it attests to the interest and passion for science he showed when he was the Minister of Research, Science and Technology.

💬 Hon Member: And Aaron Gilmore—Aaron Gilmore was, I think.

Possibly Aaron Gilmore. The other aspect of this debate is that restructuring is what Simon Upton did, and he did it to a particular end. We have had a little bit of discussion about restructuring over the last few weeks.

I express my very strong disappointment with the Opposition’s lack of interest in hearing the contribution I have to make to this debate on the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill.

💬 Hon Rick Barker: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Just to show our interest in what the member has to say, I move that he be given unlimited time.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): That is being frivolous with the Chair.

I point out to the chief Labour Party whip that whereas it takes some Opposition members 10 minutes to say what most of us could say in 2, I prefer to be one of those who can say what needs to be said in 2 minutes. I acknowledge the contribution that the previous speaker, David Shearer, made, and I recognise his acknowledgment of the work that the Education and Science Committee did on this bill. It was a very good process and he was a major contributor to it.

In a nutshell, this bill is before the Committee because the Royal Society—which is a fine, august body that has made a major contribution to intellectual thought and development in this country over a long, long time—wishes to extend its base beyond strictly the sciences to include the humanities. There is widespread support for that to happen. I think many of us acknowledge that the science community has a lot to offer the humanities, particularly in terms of the introduction of the scientific method of thinking, the gathering of research, the drawing of conclusions, and that sort of thing. If one were to criticise some of the quality of research in the humanities that has occurred in this country—and I think particularly of some of the work done in the education field—one could not avoid drawing the assumption that far too often the conclusion had determined what the inquiry would be, when it should, of course, be the other way round.

💬 Moana Mackey: Like national standards.

I thought we had an agreement that I would be listened to in silence—did I miss something there?

💬 Hon Member: It’s members’ night.

It is good that on a members’ night the Committee can enjoy itself and have a little bit of mutual fun across the floor. If members opposite did not all shout at once, I might be able to respond to them individually, but when half a dozen are coming at me I find it a little bit hard to cope.

I reinforce the view of members on this side of the Chamber that this legislation is supported. I urge members opposite not to spend all night debating it. I realise they have another agenda operating, but I ask that those members also be respectful of the Royal Society and its need to get this legislation through. I ask that it not be delayed because there is another agenda operating. Thank you.

I take on board the comments the last speaker, Allan Peachey, made. It is important that the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill be debated respectfully. That is something that we owe the Royal Society. As Pete Hodgson pointed out in his contribution, it is an august body. It is an ancient body. Not many institutions in New Zealand have lasted since 1867. When one considers that this Parliament—

💬 Hon Judith Collins: Jim Anderton has.

Well, all right, with the exception of Judith Collins—that is true. This Parliament was constituted only in 1865. That is the history of responsible democratic government in this country. One of the most respected institutions still in this nation dates from only 1865, yet here we have the Royal Society constituted in 1867 on a day yet to be revealed by the sponsor of the bill.

We owe the society the courtesy of carrying this legislation through the House, and we also owe it the duty of thoroughly debating the legislation and ensuring that it is properly understood by members. One of the things I will point out about the history of the society that has not yet been touched on in this debate is the fact that the society has its origins in the fact that New Zealand was a difficult place to get around in the years after the society was founded. In fact, the society was a federation of organisations. When it was put together in 1867 it was not called the Royal Society. It was called the New Zealand Institute. There is an interesting parallel to reflect upon, given that we have in the present day another research-based, evidence-based organisation that conducts research in order to reach conclusions on the basis of evidence that bears the name “New Zealand Institute”. That was the original name of the Royal Society when it was founded in 1867.

It was founded to coordinate the activities of different research organisations in the principal cities of New Zealand. There was the Auckland Institute, which was probably not in those days the premier scientific or research institute in the country, because Auckland was not then the major centre. There was the Wellington Philosophical Society, the Philosophical Institute of Canterbury, and the Otago Institute. One of the problems the country faced back in the latter part of the 19th century was that none of those individual research institutes had the resources to be able to coordinate their publication activity. They were not able to afford to publish the research they sponsored and undertook. So what lay behind the impetus for the creation of the New Zealand Institute—later the Royal Society—was a desire to make sure that there would be one sponsoring body to ensure the country could afford to collate and publish in one spot the scientific research that was being done in the new colony. The New Zealand Institute was set up, then, to remedy the lack of the existence of any such organisation, so that there could be published every year a single volume of transactions and proceedings on behalf of those institutions found in each of the major cities. I hope that description of the federative nature of the early institute—later the Royal Society—helps to explain a little bit of the background of what the House intends to do as far as the amendments to the Royal Society of New Zealand Act are concerned.

In terms of the provisions of recital (2) of the preamble, and as Allan Peachey said in his earlier contribution, the major thrust of this legislation is to allow the Royal Society of New Zealand to incorporate the discipline of humanities into its object and functions. There are some subsidiary parts of the legislation described in the preamble—

💬 Jo Goodhew: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I want to alert you to an issue that has been brought to my attention. It seems that Parliament TV is telling the public that Charles Chauvel is talking on the voluntary student membership bill at the moment; of course, he is not. If you could instruct Parliament TV to give the correct name of the bill, I am sure that contributions from members would make a lot more sense.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): If that is the case, I am sure that the point will have been heard, and I hope notice has been taken of it. Thank you for drawing it to the attention of the Committee.

When one considers recital (2)(a) of the preamble, and when one compares it with the current aims of the Royal Society of New Zealand, one can see why this legislation is necessary. The current aims of the society, as set out in the 1997 legislation, are, under section 6(a), “to foster in the New Zealand community a culture that supports science and technology, including … (i) the promotion of public awareness, knowledge, and understanding of science and technology; and (ii) the advancement of science and technology education:”. But the aims are also “(b) to encourage, promote, and recognise excellence in science and technology: (c) to provide an infrastructure and other support for the professional needs and development of scientists and technologists:”—an echo of the original purpose of the New Zealand Institute—and “(e) to provide expert advice on important public issues to the Government and the community:”

On that score I recall that the Royal New Zealand Society was one of the first scientific bodies to have made a definitive statement on climate change in New Zealand. On 10 July 2008 the Royal Society of New Zealand released a statement, which said in summary: “The globe is warming because of increasing greenhouse gas emissions. Measurements show that greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere are well above levels seen for many thousands of years. Further global climate changes are predicted, with impacts expected to become more costly as time progresses. Reducing future impacts of climate change will require substantial reductions of greenhouse gas emissions.” That was back in 1998, and it is evidence of the fulfilment of that very important third function of the Royal Society that I have just described.

Then there is the wrap-up provision as to its objects: “(f) to do all other lawful things which the Council considers conducive to the advancement and promotion of science and technology in New Zealand.”

The other thing that perhaps is not realised about the Royal Society is that it is a federation of bodies—I think 41 bodies at the moment, as things stand. I could read out the names of the 41 constituent organisations, because it would give the House a very accurate flavour of the preponderance of pure science influences on the Royal Society. But if one looks through the list of constituent organisations, one can see the importance of this bill and of the purposes set out in the preamble, particularly the one that was adverted to by Allan Peachey—the need to move humanities research into the organisation, and to see that that can be done appropriately. Amongst the pure science bodies that are already members of the society, there is the New Zealand Association for Research in Education, the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research, and other non - pure science bodies such as the Association of Social Anthropologists of Aotearoa/New Zealand and the Population Association of New Zealand. Obviously, it is the case already that non - pure science bodies have begun to seek and obtain membership of the Royal Society. Accordingly, it is entirely appropriate that the bill should pass in its current form, as reported back from the Education and Science Committee.

The preamble’s description of what the bill attempts to do, in particular to broaden out the aims and objectives of the society so as to incorporate those non - pure science organisations, and to allow them to function lawfully and appropriately as members of the Royal Society, is an absolutely proper thing to see, and for this House to promote. As Grant Robertson said in his sterling introductory contribution to this debate, none of this can be achieved without legislation. It would be a terrible thing if we were to put the Royal Society in the position of operating ultra vires its legislation. I commend the preamble to the Committee.

I move, That the question be now put.

I appreciate this call. I first of all congratulate Mr Robertson on the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill. I am one of the probably very few scientists in this Chamber.

💬 Chris Hipkins: Not a political scientist.

No, not a political scientist—a real scientist.

💬 Chris Hipkins: This is supposed to be about bringing humanities in!

I will talk about that. I tell the member to just hold on a moment and give me time.

I had been doing science for about 26 years before I joined Parliament. I must confess that as a scientist, as I was trained, I always thought that scientists were creatures above everything else. They did science and never really thought about social sciences or humanities. I have to make that confession. I thought a scientist’s job was to create machinery, to design something that would be useful as an economic tool, and to create wealth, and all that. I never thought about the fact that it had social implications, particularly on humanity.

I was doing research on zero-tillage technology. I do not know if people are aware of it, but it is a technology that reduces the amount of tillage one needs to grow crops. The benefits of that technology were that people could save fuel on the farm, they could save labour, they could save energy, they could save fertiliser, and they could have benefits in terms of reducing climate change. There were a lot of benefits, but we never really thought about the social impact of that technology until about 15 years ago, when we did a survey among farmers. We asked the farmers who were using the technology what were the real benefits to them. The technology is now used worldwide. Out of all the countries, most farmers are using the technology for growing crops. I was in Western Australia recently, where zero-tillage technology has become a conventional technology. Farmers are really benefiting.

We did a survey at Massey University to find out what real impact the farmers felt from that technology. One of the top three impacts was that they had more time, and they could spend that time playing golf. I thought to myself after receiving this feedback that people do think about the social part of it. The impact is not just how beneficial the technology is in terms of saving fuel, saving fertiliser, growing more crops, and all that; it actually impacts on families. In that survey the farmers also suggested they could spend more time with their families—and they could get out and play some golf. From that point onward I started thinking about including the social sciences, the humanities part of the work, in my science.

We had a number of projects overseas in terms of NZAID, the United States Agency for International Development, and the United Nations Development Programme work that I have done over the years. From that point onward I have made sure that every project has a part in it that examined the impact on the social aspects of life, which is part of the humanities.

I am really delighted that this bill includes extending to the humanities the Royal Society’s role as a provider that helps science and technology. I am really pleased after 134 years of its existence that Mr Robertson has come up with this bill that includes extending the Royal Society’s function to include the humanities. I think it is very important to recognise, as Charles Chauvel suggested earlier, how many different organisations are working in the social arena that have never been considered to be a part of science work. I think those scientists, in my view, need to be recognised; they should be made honorary fellows or fellows of the society. They are no different from scientists and engineers. Those high achievers in their own fields should be given the opportunity.

A number of Labour members are very keen to speak on the preamble to the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill. It is very important legislation.

The Royal Society is an institution in New Zealand, as my colleague Charles Chauvel pointed out. From my perspective as a member of the Royal Society, I believe that the legislation is very important. Many people have referred to the legislation as breaking new ground or being a great stride forward. In fact, at its most basic sense, the legislation is actually going back to the very first roots of the Royal Society when it was first formed in the United Kingdom.

The Royal Society was formed in the 17th century in the United Kingdom, and the Enlightenment followed very quickly after. The Enlightenment brought together not just scientists but artists, philosophers, and people from all walks of life who had an interest in learning and discovering. They all came together, and there was no distinction between those who wanted to study biology or physics or to learn how the universe worked and those who wanted to understand how humans interacted in that world, how the human influence interacted with the physical world, and how the physical world interacted with human existence.

Over the course of the last 200 or 300 years we have seen within the community of the Royal Society a parting of the ways between people who were very much all together in the same kind of culture and very much together with the same common goal of human enlightenment. Here we find ourselves.

As a scientist I absolutely acknowledge that science is very hierarchical. The minute someone enters the science field, he or she learns there is a pecking order. Just as people in Europe tell jokes about the Belgians, there are people in science who tell jokes about people who have certain degrees. It is quite a culture shock go into the science field and realise that not all degrees are created equal in science. There is a pecking order. When one comes up through that culture, one very much accepts that. It is partly because scientists are very proud of their qualifications. They are very proud to be part of a community that contributes so much not only to the economy and education of their country but also to the progression of human achievement and the human race. That is really where that culture comes from.

Bringing the humanities into the Royal Society will in no way dilute the mission of the Royal Society. It will in no way alter its path. The legislation is not a massive step forward; it is going back to the very roots of the creation of the organisation, when philosophers, humanitarians, and social scientists worked alongside their companions. That is very important.

We saw in the climate change debate that we cannot separate the physical world, studies to understand the physical world, and the patterns that occur in that world from human involvement, human interaction, and human influence. In the same light, we cannot separate how human thought and attitude will impact on scientific progress. I think of the genetic modification debate as a classic example of where science was on one page and the public was on another page. We cannot separate the two. For a long time we have been doing that. For a long time they have existed very separately from each other.

I congratulate the Otago University on the work being done there. When my colleague David Shearer and I visited the University of Otago we saw that it was doing a lot of what is called multidisciplinary work, where it was bringing together not just social scientists but economists, lawyers, and pure scientists. For example, one of the projects the university was doing was about renewable energy. Everyone thinks renewable energy is great, but can anyone think of a single renewable energy project that did not have massive public opposition in the community in which it was based?

We have a disconnect between scientists doing a lot of work in an area that is incredibly important not only to our economy but also to our environment. They are doing the work for all the right reasons. They know that when people are asked abstractly in a survey whether they think we should have more renewable energy they say yes, but then wind turbines or tidal turbines are put in and suddenly the local community reacts in a very different way and in a way that is not anticipated. That can significantly slow down progress. Work is being done at the Otago University on that issue. The work asks what is missing—and this is very relevant for politicians when we push these policies—and where the disconnect is between—

💬 Allan Peachey: It’s not a disconnect.

It is a disconnect. The work asks where the disconnect is and where science is not taking people along with it, and vice versa. The Royal Society’s bringing together the two disciplines is another step along the path of recognising that the two cannot exist separately from each other.

I will go back to the discovery of New Zealand by the English. The Royal Society supported Captain Cook’s journey to the Pacific to observe the transit of Venus. The crew that was on board the Endeavour was very representative of what one would have seen in the Enlightenment. There was a variety of people in the crew, not just pure scientists. That was very much the way the Royal Society operated. It is nice to see that the Royal Society is going back to its roots in that respect and that it is valuing the work the humanities provides and the aspect it brings.

It is also very important for the humanities to be able to benefit, as Allan Peachey said, although I do not think I would be quite so dismissive of the social scientists in the humanities as he is. It is very good also for the humanities to be able to benefit from scientific methods and scientific disciplines. That is an area where I think we could get more young people interested in science. Science is seen by a lot of students in schools as something they just do not want to do. There is a bit of stigma about science. Students either like science or they do not; it is not one of those grey areas. If we were able to introduce far more scientific methods and far more scientific disciplines into the everyday teaching of a lot of humanities subjects, which are popular with a number of students, then even if the students do not go on to do pure science qualifications, just the development of those skills and the ability to critically analyse information and data would be of enormous importance. Sometimes people who are doing a science degree do not realise the skills they pick up along the way in terms of the ability to read research.

As members of the House will know, we get sent endless amounts of research. I come back to what Allan Peachey said when he criticised a lot of the work that was being done in the education area. The way science works is not that we will only ever get one opinion because there is a right or a wrong. Science is about the reduction of doubt; it is not about the elimination of doubt. Maybe in the scientific community that fact has been dumbed down a little bit for public consumption in order to say that science can give an absolute answer of yes or no. Those who study science are taught that it is about the reduction of doubt and that there will always be competing interests and opinions. Those who study science put together those interests and opinions and look at the entire body of work.

I do not know what particular research Allan Peachey was talking about, but I know that some very, very good education research is going on. I know that it follows very, very strict scientific disciplines, in terms of the way the analysis is carried out. There is also some very bad research across the board in every single area. I have to say to those people who say that climate change is not real that some of that research is the dodgiest research I have ever read, in terms of following scientific discipline. The research is not peer reviewed because the researchers know it would not stand up to a peer review.

Maybe if we could get more of the scientific discipline taught through the humanities in our schools we would get critical thinking into a lot more of our young people, even if they do not go on to do pure science subjects. That is important, particularly, as one of my colleagues pointed out earlier, as we lose science advisers, who were critically important in terms of making sure that primary school teachers who did not have a background in science had access to the information they needed to be able to engage the youngsters who were interested in that area. We have lost those science advisers because the Government cut their funding in the Budget. They have gone. The Government said it might bring back science advisers next year. It is too late. They have gone overseas. The science advisers were people who were in very high demand around the world. They have now left. They have been picked up by other people. Our schools, and science in our schools, will be poorer for that. We do not need any kind of research to tell us that. We on this side of the Chamber know that the value those people added to science education in our schools was invaluable. It was one of the reasons why we do particularly well in science in international tests. It will be interesting to see how much that success continues with the national standards, because we have ascertained that national standards are not based on evidence, at all, but based on political rhetoric, which is one of the tragic things about politics.

I move, That the question be now put.

I will take the opportunity to respond to a couple of matters that have been raised during the debate. The first of them, I hate to say, is that I will disappoint some colleagues in the Chamber but I have been unable to discover the exact date in 1867 when the Royal Society began. But I undertake, as this debate carries on, to endeavour to do that.

💬 Hon Simon Power: The member will never make a Minister with that sort of tardy work—very tardy!

Well, the problem, I say to Mr Power, is that I turned around and looked for my officials, but they were not there.

💬 Hon Member: It’s your bill; you should know the detail.

That is right, but we will resolve that issue before we complete our deliberations. I can tell members, from the research I have been doing in the meantime, that the Alexander Turnbull Library holds the transactions and proceedings of the Royal Society from 1868 to 1961, which is why I have been unable to discover what happened in 1867. That collection is obviously a rare collection. It includes statements and transactions from William Colenso, Ernest Rutherford, and Mr Hocken—a very esteemed group of people.

The two matters I will respond to are about the structure of the Royal Society. There has been some allusion during the debate to some organisations within the society that were perhaps not as happy as others about the changes being proposed in the bill, which are outlined in its preamble. I will briefly recap: the categories of membership of the society are set out in Section 9 of the Royal Society of New Zealand Act 1997, which is mentioned in the preamble. The highest level of membership is a fellowship of the Royal Society; at the time of the introduction of the bill there were 374 fellows and 56 honorary fellows. That is an esteemed form of membership of the organisation, and an important part of how the Royal Society operates.

Ordinary membership of the society is also open to anybody who thinks they can subscribe to the objectives of the society—which we have run through already—and who pays a fee. Ordinary members also have to have a university degree or 3 years’ professional experience within a field designated by the council of the society. So to be an ordinary member of the Royal Society one has to have either a degree or professional experience within a designated field of the society. There are approximately 1,200 ordinary members of the society, so that membership is quite a large part of the society.

I will respond specifically—with some noise on my right here—to the question of the regional constituent organisations. As my colleague Charles Chauvel mentioned, the original establishment of the Royal Society incorporated the four existing societies that were working in the area of science in New Zealand. One of the submissions that came to the select committee was from the Royal Society of New Zealand’s Wellington branch. The Wellington branch in its submission noted, I tell Mr Power, that it could in fact trace its history back to 1851. That obviously predates the Royal Society itself by some 16 years, so clearly one can understand why the Royal Society of New Zealand’s Wellington branch would be concerned about changes. I think it feels as a constituent organisation that it has been in existence longer than the overall organisation.

The Wellington branch put its concerns to the Education and Science Committee. Those concerns were largely about what it described as the potential for the dilution of the promotion and advancement of science, including the social sciences and technology, by the introduction of the humanities. It noted that its branch resources are quite stretched merely servicing the current objects of the society, let alone bringing in others. Obviously that is a philosophical difference, and the branch as a regional constituent organisation is part of the Royal Society but also has its own identity. I think it is important to note that that is a particular type of membership, and as we were going through the debate earlier on I think people were perhaps not as clear as they might have been about the fact that there are these different types of membership within the ruling body. [Interruption] I am glad I am holding the attention of Government members! It is important to know that the 1997 Act also had changes that the Wellington branch had some concerns about.

I will not take too much longer, but I will just refer to the other issue that the Wellington branch raised, which was the consultation undertaken in terms of the changes contained in this bill. I think it is important to note—and I also note Mr Peachey’s earlier comments in this regard—that this process has been under way for some time. It began in 2008 within the Royal Society, and, as I said in my earlier call, the society is now operating in close consultation with the humanities. So we in the Chamber today are not holding up the society’s actual work, but we are thoroughly debating an important issue.

The society’s concern was that there had not been sufficient consultation. However, within the submission made to the select committee by the Royal Society itself, it was noted that in March 2009 the Royal Society of New Zealand Council resolved to work with the Council for the Humanities. From there the matter went to The Academy, which, as we have already discussed, is the peak scientific body within the Royal Society, and which had a process of consultation. It went to a fellows’ AGM in November 2009, and was discussed by the honorary fellows as well. It then went back to the council on 26 November 2009. So there was quite a thorough consultation process. I understand that the Wellington branch was concerned by that, but I think the submission indicates that the branch should be satisfied. I just wanted to make reference to those two matters that had been raised by other members—about the structure of the society and, indeed, about the process that has been gone through to bring us to the stage where we are now. Thank you.

I move, That the question be now put.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Ah—

You’ve got to be kidding.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): I am not kidding. The members who are seeking a closure need to show a bit more decorum when the debate is on.

I am delighted to take a call tonight. I commend my friend and colleague Grant Robertson for his impeccable timing in respect of the introduction of this Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill, because just today I received a letter from a constituent raising some very important questions about royal society—a gentleman who lives in France, as it happens, who is a strong believer that there should be a change in the way of succession to the throne in Britain. He has written to members of the British Parliament—the House of Lords, indeed—and asked a question as to whether there could be any move by the House of Lords in respect of a change of succession there. Obviously, this bill relates to a change in a very longstanding limitation on the membership of the Royal Society. It has been limited to those from the science faculties and background, and it is proposing an important change to allow those with a humanities background to become fellows of the Royal Society. I suppose there is a parallel.

There is an important question being asked about whether there is a New Zealand connection here, because Lord Alf Dubs of the House of Lords has been asking questions in the House of Lords as recently as January of this year as to whether any consideration would be given to changing the rules of succession in Britain. Those rules, of course, mean that only a male can ascend the throne and that a Catholic cannot ascend the throne. The interesting thing that emerges from this—and it is a bit of a test, perhaps, for members of the press gallery as to whether they listen to Parliament at night—is that Lord Dubs tells us in correspondence and questions to the House of Lords that discussions about this very issue of succession are proceeding under the chairmanship of the New Zealand Government. Lord Alf Dubs of the House of Lords, on this issue of royal society, if you like, is suggesting that the New Zealand Government is taking the lead in respect of opening up for debate the question of succession, in terms of whether Britain will continue to have only male heirs to the throne. This is an issue that might be of some consideration, given events as recent as last Friday.

I would be interested in the research that Mr Robertson has done on the Royal Society of New Zealand, and in whether this issue might have popped up. I know that it is a little peripheral to the Royal Society of New Zealand and the bill he has introduced, but I know he is a very thorough member. I know he takes a great deal of time and care with his research. He has shown that, with his most recent contribution to the Committee, noting that he was really disappointed that he could not discover the exact date that the Royal Society of New Zealand was created on some day back in 1867. He was very, very disappointed that he was not able to give the Committee the specific date.

I just wondered whether, in the course of his research, he had come across anything that indicated an involvement of Lord Alf Dubs of the House of Lords, who had a bill in the House of Lords, I believe, some years ago, and is now asking questions in the Hansard of the House of Lords as recently as January this year suggesting that New Zealand’s Government is providing the leadership as the Commonwealth nations consider whether there should be a change in the Act of Settlement, which goes back some 300 years. One of his supporters noted that, in fact, there does need to be change.

This is why we are considering this bill today. It might have been appropriate back in 1867 on some unspecified date when the Royal Society came into being that only those from a scientific background were able to join the Royal Society of New Zealand. We obviously need to make a change because, as one of those taking part in the question session in the House of Lords back in January of this year noted, if there had not been change on things that were instituted some 300 years ago, we would still be jailing people for stealing bread. We would still be hanging people and would have a whole range of other things, such as jailing children and hanging people for stealing sheep. The member for Kaikōura might make a contribution in that respect. But I ask the member in the chair, Grant Robertson, who is the author of this bill, given his prodigious knowledge, his research, and his contribution, whether in the course of his research he has seen anything that suggests that the Royal Society—

I move, That the question be now put.

We will move now to the debate on the clauses, of which there are 23. Members have had quite a wide-ranging debate on the preamble. I am now going to require that—

💬 Sue Moroney: Some members.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): I am not saying that that was inappropriate. The member should not interject while I am speaking. What I will be doing now is requiring relevancy as we go through these 23 clauses.

Clause 1 Title