Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill

It gives me great pleasure to contribute to this debate on the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill. It was some time ago when we were last debating this bill, on a members’ day. We have had a 2-week adjournment in between and the usual passage of time between members’ days. I would like to do a little bit of a recap, particularly to address the clause at hand, which is the interpretation clause.

First of all, the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill is supported by Labour, and we look forward to its passage in due course. The interpretation clause is the clause that defines particular references in the bill. I will talk particularly about subclause (2) in clause 5. This refers to section 2 of the Royal Society of New Zealand Act being amended by adding the following definition in its appropriate alphabetical order. It is the definition of “humanities”. This is one of the substantial points about this bill. It is the addition of the humanities to the scope of the research and the reach of the Royal Society of New Zealand. No longer will it be simply about science and technology, although they are not simple; no longer will it be solely about science and technology, but it will have an expanded brief to include the humanities.

This is absolutely critical at this point in the debate, because we are seeing the definition of “humanities” in clause 5(2). The original clause in the bill stated: “ ‘humanities’ includes English and other languages, history, religion, philosophy, law, classics, linguistics, literature, cultural studies, media studies, art history, film, drama, and American studies.”

The Education and Science Committee quite rightly amended that definition, because the inclusion of American studies seems a little bit odd in a definition of humanities. I have nothing against American studies, but I do not think it needs to find its way into legislation that defines the scope of, and brief for, the Royal Society of New Zealand. The select committee saw fit not only to delete “and American studies” and insert “and” between “film” and “drama” but also to delete “English and other” from in front of “languages”. So the legislation came back from the select committee with the following definition: “ ‘humanities’ includes languages, history,”—all of those other things I listed—“art history, film, and drama”, and it stops at that point. That amendment deletes the reference to American studies and deletes “English and other” from in front of “languages”.

I will now pick up on the Supplementary Order Paper in the name of Te Ururoa Flavell, which I am quite keen to support. Te Ururoa Flavell, on behalf of the Māori Party, one assumes, has amended the definition of “humanities” further. Instead of the bill stating that “ ‘humanities’ includes languages”, the Māori Party is putting up an amendment to the bill that “ ‘humanities’: includes languages, and in particular, te reo,”. After the reference to cultural studies, the Māori Party has inserted “Māori studies”.

What are we to make of the select committee’s amendment to the definition of “humanities” to delete the reference to English and the reference to American studies and to insert a reference to te reo and Māori studies? Well, this is significant because this bill is not the “Royal Society of Canada Amendment Bill”, the “Royal Society of Australia Amendment Bill”, or even the “Royal Society Amendment Bill”—referring to the original Royal Society—this is the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill.

💬 Hon Simon Power: The member is so much better than this.

I beg your pardon? I missed that. I really want it in Hansard. The insertion of the reference to te reo and Māori studies by the Māori Party has our support, and I think it enhances the definition of “humanities”.

To be clear, the definition of “humanities” with the amendment by the select committee and the Māori Party’s Supplementary Order Paper in the name of Te Ururoa Flavell would read: “ ‘humanities’: includes languages, and in particular, te reo, history, religion, philosophy, law, classics, linguistics, cultural studies, Māori studies, media studies, art history, film, and drama.”

The inclusion of the two additional subjects, te reo and Māori studies, provides a uniqueness that reflects the uniqueness of the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill, of the Royal Society of New Zealand’s governing legislation, and of New Zealand. Nowhere else in the world are speakers of te reo indigenously located. In no other place in the world can Māori studies be undertaken legitimately in situ where Māori people reside. This is our uniqueness. This legislation, and the fact that it extends the brief of the Royal Society of New Zealand to include humanities, is rightly amended by the inclusion of te reo and Māori studies.

In clause 5(2), which is what we are debating at the moment, we have a significant enhancement, not only from the select committee’s amendment but also from the Supplementary Order Paper from the Māori Party, which will improve and illustrate the uniqueness of the brief of the Royal Society of New Zealand. To that end I commend both the Supplementary Order Paper and the amendment bill to the House.

I am really pleased to take this call on the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill following the call of the member who has just resumed her seat, Maryan Street, because it was—

💬 Hon Maryan Street: Very erudite.

It really was; it was great. To be able to follow her comments about the Supplementary Order Paper put up by Te Ururoa Flavell is very important, because it is so important that we have these issues considered by the Royal Society and in the Royal Society Amendment Bill. There is a really big problem with the teaching of history in our New Zealand schools. In the curriculum it states that schools are supposed to be teaching New Zealand history, and as part of that New Zealand history we would expect those schools to be talking about Māori history, but in fact we find that so many schools do not. We hope that by having the amendment that is moved on this Supplementary Order Paper included in this bill the Royal Society of New Zealand will take that provision very seriously, and put pressure on the schools to take the teaching of New Zealand history very seriously.

It is also entirely appropriate to discuss at this time a new development that has occurred in the month since the time this bill was last discussed, and that is the discussion that has occurred about cultural competencies. The Minister of Māori Affairs has made mention of Tataiako, a school-based cultural competency programme that is expected to be formally launched this year. It is a professional development programme to help teachers relate to Māori students. I refer to a release put out by Ngā Kura-ā-Iwi o Aotearoa in the name of its chairman, Pem Bird. In that release he states: “Research and experience clearly demonstrates the connection between culturally aware and attuned teachers and Māori learner achievement … The pivotal issue is about the authenticity and relevance of our cultural landscape which ought to permeate our thinking and practice. We have now been presented with a golden opportunity to make the difference that counts.”

The Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill, and specifically the amendment from my colleague Te Ururoa Flavell, incorporates the humanities into the objects and functions of the society. In essence the substance of humanities is also about the expression of cultural competency. As Mr Flavell’s explanatory note to the Supplementary Order Paper states: “The Supplementary Order Paper amends the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill to include in the definition of humanities Māori studies, te reo, and the recognition, application, and advancement of te Tiriti o Waitangi.”

This is a simple but effective strategy to remember that, for Māori, this is our natural home. Māori are here for ever. This is about marking our cultural landscape. But it is also about adding balance to the bill, to identify and distinguish it as home-grown, a truly New Zealand bill. The definition of humanities would include: “languages, and in particular, te reo, history, religion, philosophy, law, classics, linguistics, cultural studies, Māori studies, media studies, art history, film, drama, and the recognition, application, and advancement of te Tiriti o Waitangi.” That is a comprehensive, robust, and, one would think, thoroughly practical suggestion, and I hope that all of the Committee will be able to support the Supplementary Order Paper.

Over the last fortnight the education sector has been responding enthusiastically and responsibly to the proposed new direction of cultural competency. New Zealand Educational Institute president Ian Leckie promoted the need for solid resourcing and ongoing professional development. His view was that it is important that any training in te reo and tikanga Māori is backed up by regular opportunities for teachers to enhance their knowledge and skills in the classroom. In this bill, the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill, we now have explicit proposals that encompass the cultural landscape of Aotearoa through respect for and acknowledgment of the significance of the Treaty, of te reo Māori, of tangata whenua.

I acknowledge the Minister of Science and Innovation, Dr Mapp, for his willingness to work with Mr Flavell to consider this amendment to this bill, and I welcome the acknowledgment from the Labour Party. I hope that in the spirit of a maturing nationhood, we will enjoy unanimous and enthusiastic support for this amendment right across the Committee. Kia ora.

It is a pleasure to rise and speak to the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill, and to clause 5 in particular. I had the honour last evening of co-hosting the Speaker’s Science Forum with the Royal Society of New Zealand, so it seems very fitting to be speaking on this organisation’s bill today. At last evening’s forum we talked about the Square Kilometre Array and discovered that New Zealand is working with Australia to lead a bid for winning that particular contract, which would be very, very exciting for New Zealand, indeed. Certainly, all of our fingers and toes are crossed for gaining that contract, which we will learn about in the course of next year.

I really wanted to speak about clause 5, “Interpretation”. I am a member of the Education and Science Committee, which considered this bill. The committee decided to amend clause 5. It was interesting to look at the definition of the word “humanities”, which is, of course, central to what the bill is doing. I remind those listening to this debate that fundamentally this bill is bringing the humanities in and having them officially recognised for the first time. Even though the Royal Society of New Zealand has operated in such a way that it has recognised the humanities for some time now, this bill is officially bringing the humanities within the recognition of the Royal Society of New Zealand, so getting the definition right is pretty important and central to the purpose of the bill.

The select committee moved to take out some of the particular subjects that had been noted in the definition, because they seemed to be a little out of kilter. Originally, the definition of “humanities” started off by recognising “English and other languages”, and as a select committee we thought that that seemed a bit out of place. We asked why we did not talk about just “languages”, because that does not give preference to any particular language, and I think that was the right thing to do.

But in reading the definition subsequently, I wonder about the other things we have left out that I think come into the humanities. Putting all personal interests aside, I have been reflecting on the only tertiary qualification I hold, which is the Certificate in Labour and Trade Union Studies. It is a bit of a collector’s item. I imagine that not many people listening to this debate will have that certificate on their wall. I really do hold it very proudly, because it is a collector’s item. Labour and Trade Union Studies was a course that was in existence for only about 3 or 4 years, so it is quite an elite qualification. Not too many people in New Zealand hold this qualification, and I am really proud that I am one of those people.

During the 1990s Labour and Trade Union Studies unfortunately fell victim to the ideology of the National Government at the time, and the University of Waikato felt that it could no longer continue to offer the Certificate in Labour and Trade Union Studies. Such was the ideology of the Government of the day that it really needed to drum out any notion or idea that workers’ rights and labour studies, or the study of workplace relationships, had any legitimacy in a university scenario.

It caused me to reflect on why in this definition we give recognition that the humanities include media studies, for example, but not trade union studies and not women’s studies. I would have thought that if media studies rates a mention in the definition of “humanities”, then perhaps some of these other studies would rate a mention, as well.

I certainly think, in terms of my personal experience with gaining the Certificate in Labour and Trade Union Studies, that it would fit under the banner of “humanities”, because that is exactly what we were studying. We were studying the impact of workplace relationships. We were also writing. In fact, the course I was on published a book of oral histories about workers’ rights and workers’ issues in the workplace, so we were published as a group of students. I think that improved the status of that particular period of study and of that certificate, which, as I say, proudly hangs on my wall.

I know that other recipients of that particular certificate cashed it in, so to speak, as credits to put towards other qualifications and degrees, but even at that stage I recognised that this certificate would be a collector’s item. I did not cash it in for further study. I very proudly kept my Certificate in Labour and Trade Union Studies on the wall. But it has not made it into the definition of “humanities”, and I think that is a great shame.

However, I do support the amendment put forward by Te Ururoa Flavell, because, of course, if we are to recognise cultural studies, law, classics, philosophy, history, and religion, then it makes a lot of sense to recognise Māori studies as coming within the humanities. I support what my colleague Maryan Street had to say about this amendment, and also what Rahui Katene said. This amendment really locates, in a way that having American studies did not locate, this particular definition as being a New Zealand definition—a definition for Aotearoa.

I feel a little embarrassed now, having been part of the select committee, that we did not spot that earlier, because we certainly spotted the anomaly of talking particularly about American studies and singling that out as being somehow elevated and somehow more important than any other study of any other nation or any other continent. That should have caused us to think—and I ask why it did not cause us to think—about Māori studies being the obvious thing that was missing from the definition of “humanities”. It could have been a very, very long definition, and I think it was important that the select committee chose not to list every single one of our own personal qualifications under “humanities”, because that would have caused some concern when we came to debate this definition in the Committee of the whole House.

I imagine that if we had sat down as a select committee and listed our own personal qualifications that would come under the humanities banner, we could have made clause 5 into a much longer clause. However, clause 5 in its current state, with the amendment from Te Ururoa Flavell, gives enough of a roll call—and if not a full roll call, then an idea of what the definition of “humanities” means when it comes to this clause of the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill.

I look forward to having a National member of Parliament get to his or her feet and debate this bill, particularly this clause, in order to let us know how National members will be voting, because—

💬 Louise Upston: You’re doing a fine job. We’re quite happy to leave this to you.

I am sure that even the Māori Party would be interested to learn whether the National Government will support the amendment put forward by Te Ururoa Flavell. In fact, I wonder whether Rahui Katene would be so good as to give us an indication about whether such a discussion has been had between National and the Māori Party. She is indicating that it has been held, and National members are indicating that they are—supporting?

💬 Rahui Katene: It’s ongoing.

Well, National MPs might want to take some calls to ensure that the debate continues for a good measure of time so that they can come to a conclusion on the question, which is clearly vexing them, of whether to support the amendment put forward by Te Ururoa Flavell. I would hate us to get to the position of voting on clause 5 before National had the opportunity to reach its conclusion.

I am sure there will be a vigorous debate within the National caucus on whether to support this amendment. I have given Rahui Katene the opportunity, and I really thank her for her frankness and honesty, but can we have an indication from, perhaps, National’s senior whip about whether the Government will support the amendment?

I move, That the question be now put.

I would have been devastated had I not had the opportunity to speak on clause 5, for which I have prepared quite a bit of material and done quite a bit of background research. I think it is quite upsetting that Mr Douglas wanted to bring this debate to a close before it has run its full course. What I have not heard, and what I ask the member in the chair, Grant Robertson, to elaborate on, is why American studies was originally included in the interpretation. There has been a very interesting discussion on why it has been removed, but I am interested in the background as to why it was originally in there.

💬 Hon Simon Power: Why is it interesting?

I think it is interesting because it demonstrates that the Royal Society of New Zealand perceived that New Zealand could benefit in its future research and discussion from an analysis of American studies. For Parliament to have decided that it should be removed is I think absolutely correct, but I would like to have a little discussion on the origins of its inclusion.

In order to better prepare the Committee for that discussion, I thought it might be interesting to look at what American studies includes. What is it that we have removed from this bill? I have to admit that I did not truly understand the great depth and reach that American studies is as an interdisciplinary field. I did a little bit of, admittedly, web-based research. I employed the favoured technique of the Minister of Finance and I googled. I went on to probably his No. 1 research website, Wikipedia, and discovered that the interdisciplinary field of American studies—which also includes American civilisation—incorporates quite a wide range of subsets. I think that perhaps on breaking that down into a full analysis we could have benefited from it. Whether we would then isolate it to one nation State or say that across nations some of these areas would be of use is a debatable point, and I encourage my colleagues to debate that.

Within this interdisciplinary field we have subsets, and I would like to go through them individually if the Committee will bear with me on that front. I know that Grant Robertson will and Labour members will—

💬 Hon Simon Power: Do we have a choice?

This is a democracy after all, I say to Mr Power. I encourage Minister Power to join the debate on this bill, given that it is a democracy, but the Government does not want to currently involve itself with it.

The first subset of the interdisciplinary field that is American studies is economics. I wonder what New Zealand could benefit from currently from a study of the American economy. I think, clearly, the debt issue is one area. Unemployment is another. The United States’ unemployment level is hovering at about the 10 percent mark. That is certainly nothing we would aspire to, but we are currently on a trajectory to follow it. The significant level of debt, the deficit, in the United States is incredible right now. The level of foreign dependency, particularly on the nation of China, is a very vexed question for the United States at the moment.

I heard a groan from Mr Douglas. I think he must agree with me that this is a very interesting area of discussion. Perhaps New Zealand would have benefited from some analysis of where the American economy is going. That obviously affects us.

The second subset—we not only have the economy—is of course history. I am not sure that we can learn too much for ourselves in terms of which paths to follow from American history. It has always been an interesting course of study; I will probably leave it at that.

The third subset is literature. I personally think that the good people of America could learn quite a bit from our literature. I think we are bastions in the field.

Law is another area. This area is interesting. New Zealand has always tried to ensure that we have learnt from the mistakes in the structure of the legal system in the United States. The first thing I say is that the US is perceived to be an overly litigious society; something that New Zealand has always tried very hard to avoid. The accident compensation scheme is the perfect example of that. It is a no-fault scheme that is structured on the idea of trying to provide coverage for all New Zealanders.

I move, That the question be now put.

I am sorry to have interrupted the member Jacinda Ardern in the midst of her explanation of American studies, but she asked me a question when she first got up. I think it was a good question and it is one that I am very happy to answer. The definition of humanities that appears in the original draft of the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill was provided by the Royal Society and the Council for the Humanities. Its exact origin is something I have been searching for. I have not been able to exactly identify it, but what I have been able to identify is that the selection of subjects there relates to the activities of the Council for the Humanities. So it was never meant to be an exclusive list. Obviously, members will note that clause 5(2) begins by stating: “ ‘humanities’ includes languages,” and so on. It was never meant to be an exclusive list. It was more that those subjects represented the areas that the Council for the Humanities, Te Whāinga Aronui, has as its work areas and focus. The council was very relaxed, as was the Royal Society, about the amendment that Te Ururoa Flavell put forward.

The Education and Science Committee made the decision that highlighting American studies in that way did not seem to reflect the broad nature of the work that the Royal Society undertakes.

💬 Jacinda Ardern: Can they operate outside the definition?

Absolutely. The answer to that question is yes, they can. That is the great beauty of the humanities. Those of us who have studied the humanities know that it is not a definition or a broad grouping of subjects that is in any way restricted.

I think it is important to clarify that the Royal Society and the Council for the Humanities are both comfortable with where we are reaching with this definition. I hope that National will support the amendment in Te Ururoa Flavell’s name, because I agree with both Rahui Katene and Maryan Street. In their speeches earlier they said that the amendment really does “New Zealandise”, or “Aotearoaise”, this part of the bill. It is very consistent, may I say, with the Council for the Humanities approach. Te Whāinga Aronui is a very inclusive organisation that thinks a lot about its responsibilities under the Treaty and its responsibilities to develop a New Zealand and an indigenous form of the humanities. There is no surprise that they are very comfortable with the idea of this definition.

One other matter that was raised by a speaker the last time we were here was the question of the role of the social sciences. I clarify that in the current Royal Society of New Zealand Act, science and technology includes the applied, biological, earth, engineering, information, mathematical, medical, physical, social, and technological sciences. So the current definition includes the notion of social sciences.

Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7 p.m.

I stand in the stead of Grant Robertson, in whose name the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill is before the Committee. He is the member—and, I would say, a mighty fine member—for Wellington Central, which is where the Royal Society of New Zealand is to be found, just up the road in Thorndon.

We are debating clause 5, which is an interpretation clause. The Committee is seized with the issue of how best to define “humanities”: whether to add American studies, whether to specify English as a language, whether to have te Tiriti in the definition, and whether to have te reo as a specified part of humanities. Someone will get up and say: “What about sociology?”, and someone else will get up and say that that is a social science, not a humanity. We will, I suppose, explore where the boundary line is between the arts and the sciences.

I will make my contribution by referring to an earlier decision of this House, made 20 years ago, that I think will interest the Hon Wayne Mapp. That was when the House, in the dying days of the Lange-Douglas Government—or the Lange-Palmer-Moore-Douglas Government, I suppose, to be truthful—and the early days of the Bolger Government, was going through reforms of science. Out of those reforms emerged the Ministry of Research, Science and Technology; the Foundation for Research, Science and Technology; the Crown research institutes; the idea of a public-good science fund; and much besides.

It so happens that the current Minister of Science and Innovation, the Hon Wayne Mapp, has heralded—and, in fact, overseen—a recent amalgamation of the ministry and the foundation, so the words “research”, “science”, and “technology” have been removed from our public nomenclature. The question is how they got there in the first place. If one thinks about research, science, and technology, one can easily argue that science and technology are separate and distinct, and that both have a place, but what is research doing in there? Surely research is simply a way of conducting a bit of science. Why did we have the word “research” as well as “science” and “technology”? We had them for 20 years until the Hon Wayne Mapp acted in recent months, oblivious, I am sure, of the importance of what he had done.

Why did we have “research” as well as “science” and “technology”? I first came to Parliament at about that time, and I did not know either, so I asked the Hon Simon Upton. His answer was that we are interested not just in science and technology, but also in a thing called scholarship. If scholarship was to be included and recognised, then we needed a word. It could have been “scholarship, science and technology”. That would have looked a bit strange, so they went for the word “research”, where the scholar might research something that is not science. The scholar might, in fact, research the humanities. The point I am making is that way back then—when we were reinventing science, developing Crown research institutes, and on you go—there was a nod and a wink towards the humanities in the thinking of the Minister of that day.

I think it is kind of cute, even if it is slightly accidental, that the very year that the Hon Wayne Mapp takes the lexicon of “research, science and technology” out of the New Zealand public space, along comes this legislation in the name of the honourable Grant Robertson to recognise humanities in statute as part of the Royal Society and its functions a lot more explicitly than the word “research” ever did. But I suggest that there is kind of a nice little segue there, and we should be pleased about that happening even if, as I say, it were accidental.

I shall not partake in the debate—not now, anyway—about what words should be put into the definition of “humanities” and what words should not. I think I am beholden to listen carefully to the advice of my parliamentary colleagues. But I think we are close to a definition, and some parliamentary colleague may well wish to rise to his or her feet and offer his or her advice about what the definition should be: whether te reo should be left in or taken out, whether te Tiriti should be left in or taken out, etc.

I am happy to take my first call for the night on the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill. I think this might be the first opportunity I have had to speak on any of the guts of the bill—the main parts of the bill. I had an opportunity to speak on the commencement clause previously.

Just as a slight aside, when I was on my way here this evening I mentioned to somebody that I was going to the Chamber to debate the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill. They wondered whether I would be spending the evening talking about the wedding and Pippa Middleton. I had to explain that it was, in fact, an entirely different topic.

Clause 5 deals with the interpretation of, in particular, the word “humanities”. Subclause (2) lists what is covered by “humanities”. As a social scientist, I am quite interested in the idea that we are incorporating the humanities into the mandate of the Royal Society, which has dealt with just science. I am interested also in the change made by the Education and Science Committee. The first part of this definition was to read: “ ‘humanities’ includes English and other languages,”. The select committee has made the decision to shorten that part of the definition to simply “languages,”. Of course, English is a language and therefore will be covered by that definition.

But the ambit of the Royal Society, under the definition provided here, will also extend to “history, religion, philosophy, law, classics, linguistics, literature, cultural studies, media studies, art history, film, and drama”. The term “American studies” has been crossed out. I would be interested to hear from somebody who was involved in the deliberations on this bill why the select committee decided that American studies should be taken out, whether American studies could be regarded as coming under one of those other definitions, and if so, which one they believe it would come under.

💬 Dr Rajen Prasad: History.

It could well come under history, but it could come under a number of other areas as well. I guess it depends which part of American studies we were referring to. It could come under any number of these other areas.

The reason I went through the list is I am a passionate believer in the value of science but I also believe that science can lend an awful lot to the humanities. There will always be issues around the definition of “humanities” and around the definition of “science”. I myself am a political scientist. Within Victoria University, of course, there was heated debate about whether politics was, in fact, a science. For a period of time the department dropped the term “science” and it was simply the school of politics. Many years later it reinstated the term “science”. One could argue that politics fits within the definition of “humanities” rather than the definition of “science”, and there are a number of areas like that. Criminology is my other area of academic study. Does criminology come under humanities? Is it a social science? Is it a science? It depends on which aspect we are talking about. I think everybody’s view of criminology is defined by watching TV shows like CSI, but the forensic part of criminology is actually only a very small part of the study of criminology; it is the scientific end of the study of criminology. There is a huge social aspect to the study of criminology, as well, and each lends itself to the other. So extending the ambit of the Royal Society to cover these wider issues will, I think, be incredibly beneficial. The Royal Society has a very important role to play in New Zealand in the pursuit of ideas, in research, and in the dissemination of ideas. I do not think it should be limited to purely a narrow definition of science.

Adding the study of law into the ambit of the Royal Society is an interesting one. Of course, there are many, many other bodies that study our laws and our statute book. I am not convinced, actually, that we should include law in the definition of “humanities”—whether we want the Royal Society to be focusing on law. Yes, it should focus on law in relation to some of the other issues that come under the definition, like history, languages, or literature, but not necessarily on the law in itself. I am not sure that that would fall within what I think the ambit of the Royal Society should be.

I will run through the issues that are now being added to the ambit of the Royal Society. The Royal Society’s ambit is being extended to include the humanities. I will run through those again in a little more detail. First is languages, and not specifically the English language, as the former Minister Pete Hodgson just mentioned; it covers any number of languages. A very legitimate question has been raised as to whether te reo Māori should be specifically mentioned. As a New Zealander, I would like to see te reo added in so that it is specifically mentioned.

History is now to be covered by the Royal Society, as well. In discussing this definition and the extension of the Royal Society’s functions to include history, I want to say that I would be very reluctant to see the Royal Society picking up a much wider role that would replicate what a number of other agencies and entities do very, very well. I think it is really important that the society continues to focus on the areas to which it can lend significant expertise. My hope is that the Royal Society in extending its coverage to include the humanities will do so in a way that builds on its strengths and expertise in science. I hope that it contributes the knowledge and the expertise that it has in that field to the humanities, where it might add some additional value.

I will continue to run through the issues. The study of religion is there, which is quite fascinating. The role of science in religion is a very contentious issue, and will continue always to be a contentious issue.

💬 David Shearer: Historically.

Historically, it has been. History is in there, as well, I tell David Shearer. The role of science in religion is critically important, so I am really pleased to see the Royal Society picking up that particular function. What of linguistics? There is a certain science to language, and one could argue that linguistics by definition is the science of language, so extending the Royal Society’s ambit to cover linguistics seems a very sensible thing to do. Also listed is cultural studies; of course, there is a significant aspect of science within cultural studies, as well. I guess the point I am making by going through the definition is that it makes sense to extend the remit of the Royal Society to cover the humanities, because it is very difficult to draw clear distinctions and to create arbitrary barriers.

💬 David Shearer: That’s the way the world is going.

The world is definitely moving much more in this direction, so it is a very sensible move. I congratulate my colleague Grant Robertson on bringing this very excellent piece of legislation to the House.

I will run through the other parts of the interpretation clause that I have not addressed in any great detail—and I suspect that time will be against me. Clause 5 also deals with the definitions of “Academy bylaws” and “Academy Council”. The term “Academy Executive Committee” refers to the executive committee that is constituted under section 37 of the principal Act, which we will come to later on as we debate the bill. It deals with the ability of the academy to establish by-laws, which is very sensible and practical.

Overall, I think the extension of the Royal Society’s coverage to include the humanities is a very welcome move. I am looking forward to the debate on the remaining clauses of the bill as we proceed through the rest of the evening. I have uncovered some other thorny issues as I have read through this quite extensive bill that I am sure we will be debating as the evening progresses. Thank you.

I move, That the question be now put.

I am pleased to take a call on the purpose clause of the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill. The bill, as Chris Hipkins said, is an important one. It is welcome, and it has been in the offing now for quite a long period of time, although the major decisions on where the Royal Society is going and on what it is going to be doing have already been taken. In many ways this bill is a kind of confirmation and determination of where the society would like to go.

In relation to the interpretation clause, we talked at length about the definition of science and bringing the humanities into science. This is something that has occurred across the world, but perhaps not in the more—

💬 Jo Goodhew: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): I think I can anticipate what that might be. If the member Pete Hodgson will return to his seat, we will move on.

I think I can guess what the point of order was about, but I thought I was on a particularly interesting train of thought there that unfortunately was cut short. I will go on to the “Academy bylaws” in the bill and the Royal Society of New Zealand Council. The Royal Society of New Zealand Council is mentioned in the interpretation clause, clause 5, in this bill. The council is sort of the guts of the decision-making body that decides how science progresses.

We talked about the idea of the humanities coming into the Royal Society, and as I said it is a welcome step. It is happening throughout the world; it is not happening just in New Zealand. It is generally seen as a welcome step. Many of the larger scientific organisations have resisted this step, because they have a weight behind them—a mass of scientists, I guess, and we have a lot of scientists involved in our Royal Society, as well—but the blurring of these boundaries in bringing in the humanities is seen as a step in the direction of moving science forward into the modern age. The Royal Society of New Zealand Council and the by-laws will play a particularly important role in this regard.

The submission by the Royal Society on this legislation looks at the council. The council is looking at changing its name, and “Academy Executive Committee” is proposed in the bill, to avoid confusion with the society. That change is also provided for in this legislation.

The Royal Society of New Zealand Council is made up of fellows who are elected to the council in accordance with the by-laws. In a sense the fellows are the intellectual firepower of the Royal Society. In a sense they are the elite of the scientists who are involved in the Royal Society, essentially to promote the society itself and the way it pushes forward into the community and engages with so many scientists throughout New Zealand. The Royal Society of New Zealand Council is the guts of that.

The council is made up of fellows, as I have said, and is empowered by the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Act to make by-laws for the regulation, management, and advancement of the council and to govern the procedure for the election of fellows to the council. In a sense, the Royal Society of New Zealand Council is at the heart of what the Royal Society is all about and the way it progresses.

A number of changes were made to the Royal Society of New Zealand Council in 2008. Under sections 20 to 24 of the Act, the council has some discretion in relation to the composition of the council. For example, the council must determine how many councillors may be appointed by regional constituent organisations, may co-opt up to three members to be councillors, and may alter the names and composition of electoral colleges.

I move, That the question be now put.

Motion agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Pete Hodgson to the proposed amendment in the name of Te Ururoa Flavell to clause 5 be agreed to:

to insert “literature” after “linguistics”.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to.

The Chairperson declared that the outcome of the vote was unanimous.

Amendment to the amendment agreed to.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I am sure I misheard you, but I understood you from the Chair to direct a party’s vote. I want you to assure the Committee that that did not happen.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): I think what I did was explain an omission to the whip for National, saying that if they want “linguistics” in they should vote for it. It is a reinsertion of something that was dropped. If that is seen as directing the outcome, then I apologise.

I want to reassure the Committee that I had a quiet word with the member in the chair, the Hon Pete Hodgson, and took my guidance from the words that he actually explained to me. I accept the concern.

I accept that, Mr Chairman, but you will understand that it is not the Chairman’s job to be suggesting how an entire party votes.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): That is correct and I have apologised that it was interpreted in that way.

The question was put that the following amendment as amended in the name of Te Ururoa Flavell to clause 5 be agreed to:

to omit the definition of humanities and substitute the following definition:

(2) humanities includes languages, and in particular, te reo, history, religion, philosophy, law, classics, linguistics, cultural studies, Māori studies, media studies, art history, film, and drama.

Amendment as amended agreed to.

Clause 5 as amended agreed to.

Clause 6 New section 5 substituted