Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill

I am delighted to have this opportunity to speak again on this very important bill, the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill. It is really very important for the people of New Zealand, the scientific community, and the humanities. This bill will include the subject of the humanities in the Royal Society.

This particular clause, clause 8, concerns scientific or technological research, and those words are to be substituted with “research in science, technology, or the humanities”. I think this is a very significant change. These few words mark a very significant change in this bill. As I said in my earlier discussion, there is a significant difference between science, research, and technology. I know some of my colleagues probably do not quite agree that there is a difference between science and research. I say that the word “science” comes from scientia, a Latin word that means knowledge.

💬 Dr Cam Calder: Oh really?

It is very important for the doctor to know that the word “science” comes from scientia, which is a Latin word that means knowledge.

There is a difference between knowledge and research. Science is about creating knowledge, whereas research is something one does to achieve a scientific result, and technology is a follow-up to that research. It is very important to understand what research means because research is something we do to prove some of these theories, whether they are existing problems or new problems. To prove the theories we need to do research. So this is something very different from science. Science is knowledge. In this case we are saying that we want to change the words by omitting “scientific or technological research” and substituting “research in science, technology, or the humanities”.

For about 144 years the Royal Society has involved just science and we have not talked about or worried about the impacts of that science on humans, animals, or the environment. So a very important part of this bill is the inclusion of the humanities so that we understand how science impacts on our society. We have to understand how the work we do—whether it is in medicine, agriculture, or atomic energy, for example—impacts on human beings, the environment, our waters, and our lifestyle. So I think it is very important and timely that we have included the humanities.

Dr Rajen Prasad has worked all his life in the humanities area, so he probably understands some of the work scientists have done. He, like others, has tried to implement science and see how science—the science of agriculture or whatever science it is—impacts on the humanities. I think it is very important for us to understand that the humanities have to be part of the Royal Society’s work, because we have for too long ignored people who have done a lot of the research that creates knowledge and science, and we have had very little understanding of how it might impact on the humanities, on our waters, and on our environment. I think that a lot of significant work is going on at universities in New Zealand by people who are not necessarily involved with science itself but are doing research on understanding how scientific products and innovations impact on the daily lives of our people.

I am delighted to have this opportunity to speak on this bill and on clause 8, which deals with dividends.

Just before I take the next call, I would like to refresh members’ minds that we are dealing with clause 8, which is headed “No dividend or profit to members”.

I move, That the question be now put.

Clause 8 of the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill refers to no dividend or profit being available to members. I wonder whether the member in charge of the bill, Grant Robertson, would be able tell us whether there is any ability to receive any remuneration. I am not sure whether there is any mechanism by which that occurs. I am sure that a lot of work goes on within the society that members could be potentially remunerated for, so if there is any mechanism there I would appreciate the member in charge of the bill telling us about it. Obviously, the Royal Society is a non-profit organisation that is essentially engaged in matters of promoting science and recognising scientific achievement, and under this amendment bill the society recognises “research in science, technology, or the humanities”, instead of just “scientific or technological research”. Obviously, all of those things potentially lead to opportunities for remuneration, but that is not the point of the society. The society is about promoting those things and recognising significant achievement in science, technology, and the humanities, as well.

It has not really been well recognised over the years that the humanities is an area that has a lot of potential for remuneration, but, of course, we often see that people at the leading edge of research in the humanities or at the leading edge of the creative world can generate a lot of profit for the nation. Sir Peter Jackson is a really good example of someone who works in the creative sphere. I am not sure whether he studied the humanities as such, but certainly the field he is in is, I think, one that could be described as being part of the humanities. If I look at the interpretation clause, I see that film, media studies, and drama are included in the definition of the humanities. So Peter Jackson would certainly be described as someone who has been able to derive a profit or a dividend from his work in the creative sphere. It is absolutely appropriate that we recognise achievement in the humanities, that we promote the humanities as an area of significant interest and benefit to the country, and that we bring the humanities within the Royal Society’s scope.

Of course, it is important to recognise that in clause 8 we are not talking about direct profit to members for the work they do within the Royal Society, because the society is essentially an organisation that advocates the promotion of research in science, technology, and the humanities. This area of when is an organisation purely a charity versus when is an organisation one that engages in political advocacy has, of course, been the subject of a lot of discussion lately. The issue of finance for those particular organisations has been a matter of much debate recently. I would be interested to know—I cannot tell by just reading the bill—what the two different sections, section 8(2)(d)(i) and section 8(2)(d)(ii), in clause 8, actually refer to. Again, it would be quite useful if the member in charge of the bill could give us a bit more detail on that.

I am sure that a lot of work goes on within the organisation that needs to be paid for, and I wonder whether society members who undertake that are able to receive remuneration for it. As this bill has expanded the areas in which that work could be undertaken, there may be a much wider range and I would be interested to hear about that.

This is my first contribution to the debate on this wonderful bill called the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill, which was introduced by the wonderful member for Wellington Central, Grant Robertson—the member in the chair. As it is my first contribution, Mr Chair, I have a range of questions I would like to ask that member about this bill. Just by way of preliminary comments—

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): The member addressed the Chair and said he has a range of questions, so the Chair will respond and say that they must be pertinent to clause 8.

Absolutely, Mr Chair. They certainly will be pertinent to clause 8. Clause 8, “No dividend or profit to members”, contains two subclauses. I would like the member in the chair to comment on it. The clause talks about “no dividend or profit to members”, and I note that that is a theme that the humanities teach—protecting the many and not the few, and ensuring that we share our profits for the benefit of all New Zealanders. I ask whether the member in charge of the bill would agree with me when I say that if more members opposite had taken the humanities at university, they would now be sharing the wealth with the rest of New Zealand. They would be aiming to create more jobs, instead of lacking the aim to do that. Would the member in charge of the bill agree with me on that? Because I think the humanities—

💬 Hon Maurice Williamson: The last three listeners have just switched off.

If that member, Minister McCully, had taken the humanities, he would have had a plan to create jobs for this country. He would have had a plan to get our economy revving up and going. Well, I do not believe he took the humanities, so I want the member in the chair to share with us whether he agrees with my premise in that regard.

Clause 8(2) amends section 8(2)(d)(ii) of the Royal Society of New Zealand Act by omitting “science and technology” and substituting “science, technology, and the humanities”. Does the member in the chair agree with me that if more National members had taken science and technology, they would have figured out that the debt that they are increasing for this nation will put more burden not only on today’s generation but also on the next generation in the years ahead? They would have figured out a way through taking science and technology—and perhaps they would have had a bit of heart if they had taken the humanities—to recognise—

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Relevance.

Mr Chair, I am asking some questions of the member in the chair. As I said to you earlier, this is my first contribution to the bill—

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Clause 8.

Clause 8. We go back to clause 8, which is about having no dividend or profit to members. Are the members this bill talks about specifically from the Royal Society of New Zealand? Are we looking to amend the standard for electing members of this society to ensure that they do not get unfair treatment? Would that be right? I think we are amending the election process for councillors of the society. Is that not why there is a concern about why we are changing the way of electing councillors on this? It comes back to clause 8, of having no dividend or profit to members—

💬 Dr Ashraf Choudhary: No dividend.

—no dividend or profit to members. The feeling out in the community is that this Government is looking after itself, this Government is looking after its buddies—

💬 Dr Ashraf Choudhary: And their mates.

SU’A WILLIAM SIO:—and this Government is looking after its mates, and members opposite are forgetting the reason why they are in Government. They are in Government to ensure that clause 8, “No dividend or profit to members”, is there to protect the interests of the wider community and not necessarily to protect the interests of the wealthy few, whom Mr Maurice Williamson seems so adamant to protect. There is probably more room to extend clause 8 and add other clauses, simply because I think that clause 8 suggests that under this Government, the John Key Government, we have to look at ways to protect our society from being undermined by the way this Government runs roughshod over legislation and the way this Government has no particular plan to create jobs and to address the cost of living that many families the length and breadth of New Zealand are having difficulty with.

I will respond to the questions raised by my colleagues Iain Lees-Galloway and Su’a William Sio, although at the outset I should clarify that the Minister who was interjecting on Su’a William Sio was Maurice Williamson, not Murray McCully. Few insults cut deeper than being called Murray McCully, I have to say. On behalf of the Labour Party I apologise to the Minister for such an egregious insult.

Su’a William Sio asked whether bringing in the humanities to the functions of the Royal Society adds an element to the question of there being no dividend to members. In a sense, the answer to the member’s question is no, because section 8 of the Royal Society of New Zealand Act, which is amended by clause 8 of the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill, states quite clearly: “The income and property of the Society must be applied solely towards the object of the Society, and … no portion of the income … may be paid directly or indirectly by way of dividend, bonus, or otherwise to members.” So it is actually quite clear. It is comprehensive.

Section 8 then lists a series of exceptions for where money can be paid to members. Before I come to those exceptions, it is worth clarifying—again, in response to another question that Su’a William Sio asked—the nature of the members of the Royal Society. We will in debate on future clauses, I hope, be able to go through this matter in some detail. The different kinds of members include the Fellows of the Royal Society. There is quite a process to become a Fellow of the Royal Society.

💬 Paul Quinn: That’s me, isn’t it?

No, Mr Quinn has not quite made Fellow of the Royal Society. In fact, I am looking at the list of people who can be members of the Royal Society. Section 9 of the Act goes all the way down to paragraph (h), but unfortunately there is no mention of fools. Fools are not allowed in the Royal Society at all, so Mr Quinn is out. Membership of the Royal Society includes fellows, ordinary members, companions, constituent organisations, honorary members, and honorary fellows. One can apply to be a member of the Royal Society. Mr Quinn may choose to do that at some point in the future.

💬 Paul Quinn: How do you know I’m not a member?

I have a membership list here, I say to Mr Quinn. Would he like me to read through it? I do not think we will find Mr Quinn in the Royal Society’s membership. If he is a member, however, I may choose to withdraw my sponsorship of the bill as I would be concerned about the standards of the Royal Society.

Section 8 states that those people I have listed as members—not Mr Quinn, but the fellows, the ordinary members, and the companions—cannot have dividends or profits from the Royal Society except where remuneration is returned for services rendered or goods supplied. One example of this would be if a member or a fellow of the Royal Society was on a panel to choose the winner of one of the awards, perhaps the Rutherford Medal or something like that. They would, no doubt, have costs associated with serving on those panels, therefore they would fall under section 8(2)(a) of the current Act. They would receive some recompense from the Royal Society for doing that. That is the exception to the overall rule that no dividend or profit should be given to members.

The other specific area that is worth noting is section 8(2)(d) of the Act, which is about the grant of awards or prizes. They are the members, the fellows, and the companions of the Royal Society who win a prize from the Royal Society. I am not sure whether Mr Quinn has been awarded any medals by the Royal Society, but others have been. For example, the Rutherford Medal, which is the pre-eminent medal awarded by the Royal Society, has gone to people like Richard Faull; Paul Callaghan; the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Adviser, Peter Gluckman; and Alan MacDiarmid, the renowned physicist. They have won the Rutherford Medal. All of those people are, in addition—

💬 Paul Quinn: Any Māoris?

Yes, I am sure there have been. I will come back to that.

💬 Paul Quinn: Well, do you know?

Thank you for asking me the question. I will come back in a future call to answer that question.

💬 Louise Upston: How many women? What’s the gender balance?

There are not enough women, I say to Louise Upston. Not enough women have been given awards by the Royal Society because, sadly, science does not have enough women in it. Adding in the humanities will broaden the number of women who will be eligible for medals.

One of the awards, I say to Mr Quinn and Ms Upston, given out by the Royal Society is the Dame Joan Metge Medal for social sciences. That award is given for excellence and achievement in the social sciences. Interestingly, one of the prizes and awards already available to members of the Royal Society is the Humanities Aronui Medal. So the Royal Society has actually been getting on with integrating the humanities inside the Royal Society while we work our way carefully through this bill. That medal is already available. It is an example of a dividend or profit going to a member of the Royal Society when they receive, for instance, the Dame Joan Metge Medal for social sciences. They are the main classes by which members can receive what could be considered a profit or a dividend of the society.

Another interesting exclusion is the repayment of money borrowed or the payment of interest on money borrowed. It seems odd to think that the Royal Society may at some point have to borrow money from people. I have not got an explanation for how that provision came to be part of the Act. I presume that at the beginning of the establishment of the Royal Society there may have been a need for the society to borrow money from individuals, perhaps at a branch level where smaller operations occur from time to time. I thought it was curious to see that within section 8(2)(b).

The main reasons that people can get a dividend or profit out of the Royal Society is that they have done work, perhaps on behalf of the society, in terms of being on panels that award medals. The Royal Society also undertakes research and advocacy into certain areas. When that work takes people away from their regular work, they do get recompense. In a previous life, before being in Parliament, when I worked for the University of Otago I knew of a number of Otago University academics who spent time on Royal Society projects. The university would have been reimbursed for that time by the Royal Society. That is the kind of activity that is done. I say that in answer to Mr Lees-Galloway, who asked for an example.

The other part of it is about those who win awards or prizes. In the brief time I have remaining in this call, it is worth noting that the range of prizes, awards, and medals that the Royal Society gives out reflects incredibly well on the scientific—and now humanities—community of New Zealand and its standards. The people who have received those medals and awards—and therefore received some financial gain, as allowed for under section 8 of the Act—are a catalogue of some of the highest-quality science and innovation that one could see anywhere in the world.

The Royal Society plays an excellent role in fostering that and ensuring that there is financial reward for those people. Science, and the humanities in particular, are often fragile existences: people trying to have a career in academia—and Dr Choudhary knows this—are required to do teaching, and they are required to have other responsibilities within their academic institution. To then have the ability to undertake the kind of ground-breaking research that we need in New Zealand to foster innovation and to grow our economy, those people need some financial recompense. The Royal Society can, from time to time, give that financial recompense.

I know that the Rutherford Medal, which I mentioned before, has a significant financial benefit associated with it, and that is why it has gone to scientists of the calibre of Richard Faull, Paul Callaghan, and Peter Gluckman. It has enabled them to push ahead with ground-breaking research that is outside of their normal employment within the academic institutions that those gentlemen all work in. That is why it is important that we have clause 8, because it makes sure that we are clear that nobody is in the Royal Society just to make money. It is not about the profit. But there will be occasions such as winning awards and prizes when money that the Royal Society has generated will go to members. I think that clause 8 is very well crafted.

In terms of updating the Act, we are now including the humanities, alongside science and technology, among the classes of members who will be able to get that financial benefit. As I think I have said in a previous contribution, I look forward to the day when the pre-eminent medal of the Royal Society, the Rutherford Medal, goes to someone from the humanities. That will be a sign that the Royal Society has fully embraced the new class of membership that the society has within it. It would be a great occasion for New Zealand to perhaps see someone who has worked in both the sciences and the humanities take up that provision.

I am particularly pleased to take a call on clause 8 of the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill, as it relates to that important issue that members of the Royal Society shall not take part for dividend or profit. The reason I say this is that last night I was one of a number of members of the House who were privileged to attend a function to recognise the firefighters of Canterbury and the West Coast who came to our city of Christchurch on 22 February and ensuing days. The rewards they were given were nil in terms of profit or dividend. They came simply because of their humanity, I suppose. Many of them were volunteers. Certainly, some professional firefighters were amongst the ranks of those who were present last night, and there were perhaps 200 or 300 people at the former Wigram airbase museum for the awards ceremony. The Minister, Nathan Guy, was in charge of the ceremony and a number of other members were there. It really brought home to me the importance that we should continue to attach to people who serve not for profit, dividend, or personal gain but for something bigger than that, and I think we are doing that very much so in clause 8.

I want to acknowledge in this Chamber, at the first opportunity, and thank those firefighters for their valiant service to my community, particularly in the central business district at the heart of my electorate. There is no amount of reward, there is no amount of dividend, and there is no amount of profit that we could provide to them that would say thank you enough for what they did in the hours, days, and weeks that followed our nation’s national disaster of unprecedented consequence.

So I am pleased to see that the Royal Society, under this bill, is affirming the tradition that when it operates it is not doing so on the basis of profit or dividend. That is important because the Royal Society has a noble tradition; one that has been centred on the sciences. This bill, under the adept stewardship of my colleague Grant Robertson, MP for Wellington Central, is bringing through amendments that will add to the dimensions of the Royal Society those who come from a humanities background. I guess if those firefighters could be categorised, they are not intellectuals, they are not scientists, and they are not people with professional degrees in most instances. I am sure that occasionally in their ranks there might be somebody with an advanced university degree who serves simply because they love the contribution they can make through something like the New Zealand Fire Service.

💬 Simon Bridges: That is very stereotypical.

If the member wants to interject on that point, he is most welcome. I am sure the people of Tauranga would like to know that he does not agree that our firefighters deserve to be recognised in this Chamber, alongside people from the Royal Society. There is a parallel there between people who serve, not for profit, not for dividend, but for public service to the people of this country. I think that does deserve to be recognised. I think our society tends to put too much focus on the cost of things, rather than on the value of things.

Clause 8 really enshrines the fact that there is something beyond dollar-sign returns; it is an issue of public service. I think the Royal Society embodies that beautifully, as do the firefighters of this nation. If we have only a short-term focus, based upon profit, then I think we will see a continued falling away of the way our society holds together and operates. If we look at it in a business setting, a company that has a focus only on short-term profit will not be investing in research and development. That is the sort of research and development that members of the Royal Society often help drive, because they are not there for the short term; they are there for the long-term haul. They can often give their whole lives to the particular study of one small, unique subsection of the sciences—and soon the humanities. But that still makes a huge contribution, because sometimes those tiny little areas of research can lead to enormous quantum leaps for us as a society.

That is why enshrining in clause 8 the fact that the Royal Society is not centred upon profit or dividends to its members will encourage them to follow their natural creed, which is that they are there for public service, they are there to contribute to society, and they are there as members of the Royal Society because they want to do their utmost and best for the communities in which they live, for the professions in which they serve, and for the disciplines that they represent. I think that is important to be upheld by this clause.

Tēnā koe, Mr Chair. Kua roa ahau e ngaro atu ana ki tēnei Whare i te mea i te Raki ahau e whakataetae ana ki te tūru o Te Tai Tokerau engari, e pai ana ki te hoki mai. I runga i te tikanga o tēnei wiki, arā, te Wiki o te Reo Māori, ko te tino tūmanako ka taea e au te whakamāramatia ōku whakaaro e pā ana ki tēnei kaupapa i roto i tō tātou reo rangatira. Ka tū hoki ahau hei tauira mō rātou e kore e taea rātou i tupu ake pēnei i ahau, arā, horekau te reo Māori te reo tuatahi. E tū ana hei tauira mō rātou kia mōhiotia, e taea ana e tātou te kōrero mō ēnei kaupapa ahakoa te hōhonu me te whānui, he whakamāramatia atu ki te tini, ki te mano.

E mīharo hoki ana ahau ki te kaha o ōku hoa hei whakamāramatia ō rātou whakaaro e pā ana ki tēnei pire, me te hōhonu o ō rātou matatau, ō rātou mōhiotanga ki wēnei kaupapa. Ahakoa e roa ana e kōrero ana mō tēnei pire, he tohu tēnei e hāpai ana i te mana o tēnei rōpū arā te Royal Society of New Zealand. E tika ana kia kōrerohia wēnei kōrero e pā ana ki tēnei rōpū, me te whāititanga hoki kia kōrero pū ahau, kia hāngai atu ahau ki tēnei te wāhanga tuawaru e kōrero ana kia kore e riro e ngā mema o tēnei rōpū i ngā pūtea, i ngā moni rānei, mō ā rātou mahi. Nā reira, mihi kau ana ki a rātou e whakapau ana ō rātou kaha i roto i te ao tōrangapū, te ao pūtaiao, te ao hangarau, te ao e pā ana ki ngā tikanga tangata, rātou e mahi ana i ō rātou mahi hōhonu mō te kore utu. Kore rātou e whiwhi he paku aha mō ā rātou mahi, mihi kau ana ki a rātou.

Engari, tua atu i a rātou, ko te wāhanga rua me te section 8(2)(a), ka hoatu he pūtea ki a rātou ngā kaimahi o te rōpū o te Royal Society of New Zealand. E tika ana kia utua rātou mō ā rātou mahi i a rātou e mahi ana hei whakatutuki ai i ngā wawata o te Royal Society of New Zealand. Nā reira, e tika ana tēnei i te mea mōhio ana a Aotearoa ko mātou te Rōpū Reipa te rōpū e ngākaunui ana ki ngā hiahia o ngā kaimahi. Nā reira e tika ana mō rātou kia riro ai he utu, he pūtea mō ā rātou mahi mō te Royal Society of New Zealand. E tika ana hoki kia whakahokia ngā pūtea kua whakapaungia e ngā kaimahi i a rātou e mahi ana, arā i te wāhanga 8(2)(c), “the payment of expenses incurred in the performance of office;”, e tika ana kia whakahokia ngā pūtea nā rātou i whakapaungia. He āhuatanga pai hoki, mō rātou kua whiwhi i ngā taonga i roto i te wāhanga 8(2)(d), rātou i whiwhi i ngā taonga mō ā rātou mahi. Nā rātou i tae ai, i whakatutuki ai i ngā āhuatanga e pā ana ki te rangahau o te pūtaiao me te hangarau. E pai ana mō rātou kia riro ai i a rātou he pūtea hoki. Nā reira e pā ana ki tēnei wāhanga tuawaru o tēnei pire, he wāhanga pai pērā i tōku hoamahi a Grant Robertson, i whakamāramatia ai. Nā reira mihi kau ana ki a ia mō tōna kaha ki te hāpai i tēnei pire.

[Thank you, Mr Chair. I have been away from this House a long time because I was in the far north contesting the Te Tai Tokerau seat. However, it is good to be back. Because of what this week means, being Māori Language Week, the real hope is that I will be able to express my thoughts on this matter in our revered language. I stand also as an example for them who grew up like me without the Māori language being my first language. I stand as an example to them so they know that it is possible for us to address these matters, despite their depth and breadth, and explain them as well to the masses.

I admire the efforts of my colleagues in explaining their thoughts on this bill, and the depth of their knowledge and understanding about these matters. While the debate on this bill has been lengthy, this signals that it is endorsing the status of this organisation, the Royal Society of New Zealand. It is right that comments about this organisation be made, but I must confine my comments directly to and focus on section 8 of the Royal Society of New Zealand Act, which states that members of the society cannot receive funding or money for their work. So I pay tribute to those people who worked hard in the political, scientific, technology, and humanities sectors, doing their work at great depth for nothing. They receive no financial rewards for their efforts, and therefore I truly acknowledge them.

But beyond them, there is section 8(2)(a), which provides funding to the staff of the Royal Society of New Zealand. It is right that they be paid for their work in fulfilling the goals of the Royal Society of New Zealand. This is right, because New Zealand knows that we of the Labour Party are the most committed to the needs of workers. It is right that they be paid for their work at the Royal Society of New Zealand. Workers should be reimbursed for what they spend while carrying out their duties, as in section 8(2)(c), which states “the payment of expenses incurred in the performance of office”. It is right that expenses incurred by them be reimbursed. Those who have received gifts, as provided for in section 8(2)(d), which relates to those who receive gifts for their work, have achieved and completed scientific and technological research. It is wonderful that they be paid, as well. As my colleague Grant Robertson said, section 8 is a good section. I acknowledge his efforts in promoting this bill.]

It gives me great pleasure to return to the House after a 6-week absence while I was contesting, unsuccessfully, the seat of Te Tai Tokerau. Unlike my colleague Su’a William Sio, who today will have his first opportunity to speak on the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill, I spoke on this bill 6 weeks ago, and it is great to come back to the comfort of a bill that we have come to know and love so fondly. It is great to see that my colleagues are upholding democracy in this way. This is just a short continuation for the benefit of those who did not understand what I was saying earlier.

Briefly, in terms of honouring Te Wiki o Te Reo Māori, for people who are trying to learn to speak te reo, this is a good example of how second language learners like me are able to stand as an example and use te reo Māori to cover the breadth and depth of subjects. We should be able to speak te reo Māori regardless of what the topic is.

I also acknowledge those people who have expended a lot of energy for the Royal Society of New Zealand. They have achieved great things and have not asked for a cent in repayment. I just acknowledge them. It is wonderful that we have people working in the sciences, the technologies, and the humanities, who are able to expend their energy in areas and fields that they love for the benefit of New Zealanders and who do not expect a cent in return, although of course we in the Labour Party—the party of the workers—do agree with section 8(2)(a) of the Royal Society of New Zealand Act 1997, which states: “remuneration to employees of the Society … in return for services rendered …”. We believe that workers need to be paid justly, and congratulations go to the Royal Society of New Zealand on that. I refer also to section 8(2)(c) of that Act, which states: “the payment of expenses incurred in the performance of office;”, and section 8(2)(d), which states: “the grant of awards or prizes …”. People need to be acknowledged when they achieve great things in the sciences, the humanities, or the technologies. They receive prizes, and good on them for that.

As I said earlier, it is great to return to the House despite an unsuccessful campaign, but, of course, there is always 26 November. Kia ora.

Tēnā koe, Mr Chairman Roy. I will pick up from where the previous speaker, Mr Davis, left off, because one of the important amendments that was made to the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill earlier on was to include te reo Māori as part of the interpretation of “humanities”. I thank Mr Grant Robertson for his explanation of some of the mechanisms by which members of the Royal Society could receive remuneration and I noted some of the awards that are available. Perhaps, one day, we will see someone receive an award for the work he or she is doing in the field of te reo Māori. I am not sure what research opportunities might be available, but certainly development of the language may be one. All languages develop over time. They are constantly changing and responding to the environment around them, and te reo Māori is no different in that regard. One might wonder what te reo Māori has to do with research and development, and I will get to that, Mr Chairman. I can see in your face that you are wondering where this is going, and I will get there shortly.

I was at a meeting last week in Palmerston North at the Bio Commerce Centre, which is a business incubator for innovative businesses. Many ideas come out of Massey University and the Crown research institutes in Palmerston North and the meeting was for entrepreneurs. It was an e2e meeting—an entrepreneur-to-entrepreneur meeting—and it was about sharing ideas. There was a presentation from one of the founders of Unlimited Realities, which is a Palmerston North company that employs about 70 people in Palmerston North and Wellington. It is a very innovative business and exactly the kind of business we want to see more of in New Zealand, and the presentation was made to a group of entrepreneurs. One of the people in the room wanted to start a business creating soft toys with a Māori cultural aspect to help young people in New Zealand to understand Māori culture and Māori mythology. The presenter actually said that this was really amazing. He said that part of what people are researching these days is how cultural capital can be included in new products, new design, and new ideas, and spoke about the fact that bringing that cultural capital of Māori mythology and Māori culture to something as simple as a soft toy instilled a lot more value into that object and was potentially a really profitable business. The presenter really encouraged that chap to continue with this idea and to try to take it further.

This is exactly an example, I think, of where the Royal Society might seek out someone who is researching Māori culture, or te reo Māori. It might look at the work that person is doing and see how that cultural capital might be invested into items that might prove to be profitable and that one could build a profitable business on. This is exactly the sort of thing that potentially could grow the New Zealand economy. So I think it was absolutely appropriate that Kelvin Davis used the Māori language in Te Wiki o Te Reo Māori to highlight an area that could have enormous growth. This could happen only in New Zealand; this is the really amazing thing about it, and I think it is something New Zealand does extremely well. Even in the area of tourism, which we know does not bring an awful lot of money into New Zealand per job—in productivity terms it is not the most productive enterprise, but it is an important part of our economy—there is an opportunity to research the ability to enhance the cultural aspects of tourism, and that is something New Zealand is absolutely at the forefront of. I could see members of the Royal Society doing this not for dividend or profit, of course, but, using their role in the Royal Society, to see how far they could take the use of cultural capital to enhance products in New Zealand.

I move, That the question be now put.