Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill

I will take a brief call on the title clause, because the Hon Pete Hodgson raised a question earlier in the debate as to whether the Act should be called, as it is in the printed version of the bill in front of us, the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Act 2010. I am able to reassure Mr Hodgson that, despite the longish gestation of this bill, when the time comes for it to receive its Royal assent I am advised by the Clerk’s Office that it will magically become the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Act 2011. Before I took on the role that I have with this bill, I was not aware that that is automatically what takes place.

As I noted earlier in relation to that point, there has been a significant process in the development of this bill. Mr Hodgson himself acknowledged that when he was the Minister of Research, Science and Technology, in 2007-08 I believe it would have been, he began the discussions between the Council for the Humanities and the Royal Society. The Royal Society of New Zealand Council and the Academy within the society made sure that they had extensive discussions on this matter through 2009, and it then found its way before the House in 2010. When I was approached by the society to take on the bill, I did so because, as has been previously mentioned, it is headquartered very close to us here in the Wellington Central electorate. It was aware that this was an important legislative tick-off to a process it had well and truly got under way.

I wanted to take just a brief call to let colleagues know that when the bill gets its Royal assent, we will be altering this particular clause. As I understand it, it is standard procedure and it will become the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Act 2011.

Thank you, that is really helpful. I want to raise two other matters concerning clause 1. The first is the use of the word “Royal”. My colleague Brendon Burns speaks of correspondence he has received from people in France about the fact that they would never have the Royal Society as an organisation in France because, of course, they had the French Revolution, and we did not. That matters, because the Royal Society signals that in the British tradition for the past several hundred years, which is, after all, the entire life of scientific inquiry, that inquiry has been offered the patronage of royalty, which is a good thing. I am not saying that France is poorer for it; I am just saying it is a good thing that if one is to have royalty, it is worthwhile that royalty patronise science, because science and technology—and, these days, science and technology and humanities—represent the idea of further endeavour, the idea of rolling back the frontiers of knowledge, and the idea of progressing the insatiable desire of humans to answer questions, our curiosity, and so on. To have that endeavour backed by royalty is the opposite of the Dark Ages, so it matters that we have “Royal Society” in the title.

There is another thing about the title that matters and that is that it does not include the words “Royal Society of Science and Technology and Humanities”; it is just, folks, the “Royal Society”, because no further explanation is needed. We understand. We refer to the Royal Society and those in the know know that it means the Royal Society of science.

💬 Moana Mackey: There’s a secret handshake.

There is a certain sort of cachet about that, which I do not personally pay a lot of attention to, but it is worth pointing out that it is called the Royal Society. If one goes to China, it is the Chinese Academy of Scientists. So they explain themselves using those words. They do not call themselves simply the Chinese Academy. I do not know what it is called in France, and we will not wander around the world on that matter, but it is important that in New Zealand, when we refer to the Royal Society, we are talking about higher learning.

The other point I wish to raise might seem pernickety but I wonder whether the member in the chair, Grant Robertson, could offer some assistance. It is in relation to the use of the term “Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill” as opposed to “The Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill”. This is not minor. The Royal Society is never called “Royal Society” until we make it a creature of legislation, in which case we change its name from “The Royal Society” to “Royal Society”. We did that in the 1960s, we did it in the 1990s, and we are doing it again now, and I wonder whether we should fix it.

Why is it that when we talk about the Royal Society in our ordinary daily lives and we know that we are referring to “the Royal Society”, being the society of sciences and now of humanities as well, that we will not find it under that language in the legislative index? We have to get rid of the “the” in order to find it, and we find it under “R”, not “T”. I do not know whether that is ideal. The member may want to reflect on that. I was never on the Education and Science Committee. I do not know whether it was raised at the select committee. I do think it would be inappropriate for me to put an amendment on the floor without a little bit of discussion backwards and forwards on it, but on the other hand I do not think it is trivial. We have listed it under the wrong letter of the alphabet. I think that “the Royal Society” has been and always will be something that begins with a “the”. Is it a participle? What is it? I have forgotten what part of speech it is. Perhaps someone in humanities could tell us what it is. I see that Mr Chairperson is reaching for his button. I wonder whether he is indicating that I need to sit down just yet.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): No.

I do not. Then let me probably sit down, anyway. Would that be a good idea, Mr Chairperson? We do not need to waste the time of the Committee, especially if my colleague is ready to offer his erudite remarks.

There are some contradictions in the Royal Society of New Zealand Bill. There has been talk about whether we should take the word “Royal” out of Royal Society, or something like that, although then it would be called “Society” or “The Society”, which is not very distinguished or distinguishing. But there are those of us who might be tempted, from a republican point of view—and I am glad the French Revolution was brought up—to move an amendment to take out the word “Royal” and just have “Society”, or to invent a whole new name such as “Kiwi Society”, or something. One of the contradictions here is that under the commencement clause the bill commences when it receives Royal assent. If we tried to extract—

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): This is clause 1.

It is important, because this is where the contradiction is. If we tried to take out “Royal”, then we might not get Royal assent. The Queen or her designated person, the Governor-General, might say: “Well, I’m not going to sign off a bill”—and they do have reserve powers—“that is taking out ‘Royal’.” because it is undermining his very being as a representative of the Queen and undermining the Queen herself.

The other thing is that the concept of royalty is totally opposed to the concept behind the Royal Society, which is about achievement. It is not about inheriting a position in society or winning an honour, but actually achieving honour in cultural, scientific, or any of the other endeavours in the purposes of the Royal Society. So there is a big contradiction there. What I suggest, and I think it fits with the title and what we conceive of what the Royal Society should be doing, is that we should charge the Royal Society to use, in respect of royalty, its expertise in areas of science like genetics—because royalty is based on genetics and inheritance—or its expertise in the cultural field in philosophy of religion, because the monarch is the head of the Anglican Church, which creates problems in a multi-religious and multicultural society. If the Royal Society mobilised all its powers to analyse royalty, it might be able to be the author of its destruction, because with all its collective wisdom and expertise it would come out with such a strong argument against our continuing with royalty that it would have to be abolished. Unlike the bill I put forward previously, the Head of State Referenda Bill, any such bill would not go down by a few votes, with some members voting against it, but would get the support of the overwhelming majority of the House for a referendum on whether we should be a republic, because of the great work of the Royal Society in arguing the case for royalty not being continued. I think this is a serious matter.

There are also the questions about royal succession raised before by Brendon Burns, and they relate very much to the title of the bill, as well. I think we could take the initiative here and instead of New Zealand chairing the meeting that Brendon Burns referred to, we could bring a bill before this House to say that there should not be any preference for a male heir, that the heir should be able to marry a Catholic, and that the heir should be able to be a Catholic. One of the problems with any changes in Britain is, even if its citizens go for some bill that states the heir is allowed to marry a Catholic and a female heir equals a male heir, the British are still faced with the problem of wiping out the monarch as head of the Anglican Church. That is the big sticking point for them. The monarch is the head of the Anglican Church in Britain—not the Anglican Church worldwide. That is the big sticking point for the British in respect of moving to a Catholic king or queen, whereas in New Zealand we do not have that problem.

Also, we have something called the Human Rights Act, which would push us down the road of getting rid of any religious discrimination in any sense of the word, and also gender discrimination. We would also be motivated to remove ethnic or racial discrimination. It is very hard, given the inheritance line, for a Māori or an Indian New Zealander—whomever—to become the head of State in New Zealand, because the monarchy is very much a European line—

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Please narrow your speech to the title.

To talk to the expertise of the Royal Society in genetics, one of the things it could analyse is the gene pool of European monarchies, including—

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): I have asked the member to speak to the title. I am going to cut his speech off. That is the end of his speech.

I move, That the question be now put.

I want to respond to the issues that my colleague the Hon Pete Hodgson raised very specifically about the title. It is the question of the fact that the bill is called the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill, with a small “t” on the word “the”. It is not, as Mr Hodgson pointed out, filed under “t”, but rather, under “R”. Mr Hodgson is correct that certainly in all my dealings with the Royal Society the word “the” very much has a capital “T”. However, the reason why I do not believe an amendment would be appropriate is that the predecessor legislation covering the Royal Society, both the 1965 Act and the 1997 Act, are both filed under “R” and we would be stepping outside the process that was put forward by both of those Acts to make it “The Royal Society of New Zealand Act”, with the “T” being the key letter, rather than the “R”.

The other argument against making an amendment, as Mr Hodgson would suggest, is contained within the Standing Orders. In particular I refer to Appendix C of the Standing Orders, which runs through the procedures for private bills. The Clerk’s Office is extremely helpful, I might say, to those of us who end up sponsoring private bills. The Standing Orders and also McGee cover the responsibilities of a member who sponsors a bill. In actual fact, it is the role of the organisation on whose behalf I take the bill, as to what it is called. The title is in fact its prerogative, and although we are making potentially some amendments, they are ones that have been done in close consultation with the Royal Society and, therefore, I would be very reluctant to take up Mr Hodgson’s kind offer of amending the title. But I do understand what drove him to make that contribution on the title clause.

I think, in common parlance, it is “The” Royal Society. It is actually part of its integrity and it is part of its mana, to coin a word, that it is called “The” Royal Society. But both the 1965 and 1997 Acts are filed under “R”, so, although I very much respect my colleague Mr Hodgson’s knowledge of this topic, I do not think I will take him up on the offer of that amendment. Thank you.

It is very kind of you, Mr Chair, to give me the call, given that I very rudely interrupted your decision prior to that. I am so pleased it did not make any impact when it came to giving me the call on the title of the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill.

At the outset I want to congratulate my colleague Grant Robertson. I am very pleased that I am able to congratulate him whilst speaking on the title of the bill. I would hate for anyone to think that I was congratulating Grant Robertson on bringing forward the bill that is next on the Order Paper—it was showing on the television screens before.

I am sure that Grant Robertson is also very grateful that he is not being congratulated on bringing that bill forward. I am pleased to have the opportunity to reiterate that the bill I am standing up to support, and the one that I am congratulating my colleague on bringing forward, is the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill, and not the bill that is coming up on the Order Paper. I am pleased that I am debating the title, so that I can remind people that this is a bill about the Royal Society, and not a bill about taking away students’ freedom to—

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): The member must speak on the title, or I will terminate her speech.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): I am on my feet. The member cannot go to the next bill and bring it into this debate. I have given the instruction quite clearly. A title debate is a very tight debate. The member must speak on the title.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I am seeking your advice. I was responding to interjections from the—

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): I am not interested in what the member is responding to. No member from the other side of the Chamber has spoken, but there have been interjections. I have given my instructions quite clearly and members ought to follow them.

I will not be responding to any interjections, but I do invite members opposite to take a call if they have something to say. I would be really interested in listening to their contributions about the title of the bill.

I am not a person of the world of the Royal Society of New Zealand, so I do feel very humbled to be in the company of people like Moana Mackey who are members of the Royal Society of New Zealand. Also, I am very appreciative of listening to my colleague Pete Hodgson describing the reason why we call it the Royal Society of New Zealand.

I have to say that being on the Education and Science Committee and hearing the submissions on this bill left me feeling that I was a little out of my depth, because this is not the world I belong to. So the title of this bill did not mean an awful lot to me. “The Royal Society of what?”, I wondered, and I am sure that lots of other New Zealanders wonder what this Royal Society is.

It is interesting that the Royal Society, and we have discovered that this has traditionally been the case, has chosen not to describe what it is the Royal Society of. It is for those in the know—I think that is how Pete Hodgson put it—and I think that is a little sad. I am probably quite naive in terms of making this comment, but those of us who are not in the know would find it quite useful to know what it is the Royal Society of. Of course, this bill is expanding what it is officially the Royal Society of, and I think it would be useful to see that reflected in the title of the bill.

I do accept, however, that the member who brought the bill forward has adequately described that it is up to the Royal Society itself as to the title it gives to the bill. Obviously it is up to the Royal Society as to what it calls its own organisation. But it would be, I think, helpful to those of us who are lesser mortals to know what the Royal Society does.

In fact, it is a very, very impressive organisation, and certainly in the time I spent on the select committee listening to the submissions I grew to understand a great deal of what the society does. It does those things that are so important to the future of this country. It left me wondering, though: if the role of the Royal Society is as extensive as it is, then what is the role of the Chief Science Adviser to the Prime Minister? I think sometimes the Chief Science Adviser to the Prime Minister wonders what his role is, as well.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): I have given the member a warning. I am going to terminate her speech. Members must speak on the title.

I move, That the question be now put.

Let me speak briefly on the title of the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill, and my comments will pick up on a couple of the points that other speakers have made. I start by thanking Grant Robertson for explaining the issue of the word “the” in the title and the absence of the word “the”. I guess the other possibility is the word “a”, which, of course, would not be appropriate. We would not say “a royal society” when it is about the Royal Society. As Pete Hodgson mentioned, it is not the “Royal Society of Scientists and Technologists”; it is the Royal Society. Everybody knows what the organisation is, because since 1867 it has been the most august and prestigious organisation of its kind. The bill does not need to spell it out; it is inferred that one knows about the society.

The word “Royal”, as others have said, gives the organisation a gravitas that it would not have without it, but also it gives it a sense of tradition. I reflect on what Keith Locke was saying about our constitutional changes, and I agree with him that we should be moving to become a republic much more quickly than we are. However, we still have to reflect on where we came from, and the fact that the word “Royal” does bestow on this organisation a gravitas, and a sense of elitism, really, in terms of what it does—

💬 Chris Auchinvole: Distinguished.

—and distinguished, as well—shows it is an organisation backed by history. It has a tradition, or a genealogy, if you like, in terms of the contribution it has made to New Zealand.

But the other word in the title is “Society”. This is not society as we know it; it is not society as generalised society in New Zealand. It is a society of the group of people who make up the Royal Society. I spoke earlier about who actually makes that up, and once again we come back to this idea that this is a society, a grouping of people. I think the word “society” is both poignant and traditional in this sense as well. It is a society of people, a group of people who get together in order to advance science in this country and, in effect, elsewhere. The society in this context is 20,000 scientists and technologists. It is not simply a small grouping of people; it is literally a society. So it is aptly named the Royal Society in the context of the title of this legislation.

Lastly, of course it is the Royal Society of New Zealand, because there is a Royal Society in the UK. Obviously, this ensures its specific nature as being the Royal Society of New Zealand. There are other Royal Societies across the world, and I mention that in the context of this bill, because the Royal Society of New Zealand is doing something that other Royal Societies have not done, or perhaps will not even dare to do. The society is advancing humanities and bringing humanities into a society that is ostensibly focused on the advancement of science and scientific thought, and using its scientific thought to the benefit of wider society, but particularly in New Zealand.

There is a strong traditional element in this. There is a strong ethos of that tradition being a proud, long tradition that is feeding into the future. It is a society that by its very nature is elitist. Scientists are not simply people who can walk in off the street; they are people who have undergone rigorous training, who have carried out research, and therefore they have had to earn their place in this grouping. That applies specifically to the more than 300 Fellows of the Royal Society, who are some of the best brains that we have in New Zealand. I believe that the Royal Society of New Zealand is an aptly named organisation.

I move, That the question be now put.

Motion agreed to.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 Commencement