Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill

Clause 9 of the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill amends the Royal Society of New Zealand Act around the questions of the Fellows of the Royal Society. It amends section 10 by omitting “Academy Council” in each place where it appears and substituting “Academy Executive Committee”, and also by omitting “science or technology” and substituting “science, technology, or the humanities”.

To take those two matters in reverse order, this particular part of the bill deals with parts of the Royal Society of New Zealand Act that talk about fellows. It is now worth doing a little bit of explanation of what it is to be a Fellow of the Royal Society. Mr Quinn earlier in the debate tried to suggest that perhaps he might be a Fellow of the Royal Society. I encourage members to listen to the description of what it is to be a Fellow of the Royal Society and to make up their own minds as to whether that is likely to be the case.

Fellowship of the Royal Society of New Zealand is an honour conferred for distinction in research or the advancement of science, technology, and now the humanities. Since its earliest days the Royal Society has made provision for there also to be honorary fellows from overseas institutions. I think we will come to discussing that in debate on clause 12, so I will not talk about those honorary fellows at this time. There are currently 366 Fellows of the Royal Society, and that, I think, says a lot about the esteem in which people who become fellows are held. It is not something that happens easily; it has to be based on a record of scholarship and of advancement of research in a way that is beyond the norm.

To anybody who is familiar with science in New Zealand—and I have here the names of the Fellows of the Royal Society—and works his or her way through the list of the Fellows of the Royal Society, it is clear that in section 9 we are talking about people of the highest achievement. Just looking here randomly, I see the name of Peter Barrett, who is from the school of earth sciences at Victoria University here in Wellington. He has been one of the people who have led, globally, the understanding of the Antarctic, and the understanding of the impact of climate change on the Antarctic. Peter has led global thinking on that issue. He has led a team of researchers from a number of academic institutions in New Zealand and overseas to understand Antarctica, and particularly the impact of climate change on the West Antarctic ice sheet, where there has been significant impact. Peter has largely moved on from full-time academic work now, but his work continues at Victoria University and I know that he continues to be involved in that issue.

Also among the Fellows of the Royal Society are people we might more traditionally associate with the humanities. They include James Belich from the Stout Research Centre, also here in Wellington at Victoria University. The Stout Research Centre, for colleagues who are not aware, is the research centre devoted to the study of New Zealand, essentially. It studies history, politics, and, in fact, the humanities. So there already are fellows who work within the humanities, and I am sure in future calls I can find my way back to the many people who have become Fellows of the Royal Society based on some excellent work. I note that there is a Fellow of the Royal Society named Alan Bollard, but it is not the Alan Bollard who is the Governor of the Reserve Bank, lest anyone be concerned about that. Clause 9 is about the fellows, and it brings the humanities within that.

In order to become a Fellow of the Royal Society, one has to be elected by an annual general meeting of the Royal Society, and that annual general meeting acts on the recommendation of the fellowship selection committee. Candidates get short-listed by fellowship selection panels from within each academic discipline. Through clause 9 we will be including the humanities as a new subpart of the selection of Fellows of the Royal Society. A process begins in December each year, so perhaps Mr Quinn could get an application ready now. Ms Mackey looks alarmed—she has missed the earlier debate about Mr Quinn, who believed that he may have been a Fellow of the Royal Society. We have clarified that he definitely is not.

💬 Simon Bridges: Prove it.

He proves it by his presence, I say to Mr Bridges. That is what he does.

The panels receive nomination documents, work through a short list, and then make that recommendation. It is rigorous. It takes the best part of a year for people to put their applications in and to be assessed by subject-related panels, who work their way through to deciding how many fellows will be put forward. There are currently 12 of those fellowship selection panels; I suspect there will be 13 once this bill goes through. The work of the fellowship selection committees is then approved by the academy executive committee.

That brings us back to clause 9(1), which changes the name of “Academy Council” to “Academy Executive Committee”. I appreciate that there is quite a long time between each time that we debate elements of this bill. Just to refresh members’ memories, I say that we are changing under this legislation the name of the academy council; it is now called the academy executive committee. In fact, we have already done so, under an earlier clause. The reason we are doing that is that there is something called the Royal Society of New Zealand Council, which is its overall governing body. To avoid confusion, what was called the academy council is now called the academy executive committee. Its job is the nuts and bolts of making sure the awards, the prizes, and the membership are undertaken. That is what the academy executive committee does.

The council is the governance body; the academy executive committee is really the administrative body, making sure that it goes through and does the things it does. It is populated by scientists. When the society is making decisions about who should get an award, and who should be a Fellow of the Royal Society, that is done by the academy executive committee, which is what was previously called the academy council. Here in clause 9(1) we are making that change in respect of the part of the Act that revolves around the creation of fellowships.

Each year in October the fellows have an annual general meeting, where they look at the list of recommended candidates, along with a brief citation. The academy then votes to elect the recommended candidates to fellowship. So there is actually a threefold process, starting out at the beginning with nominations, going to those discipline panels, and then a recommendation coming to the fellows’ annual general meeting via the academy executive committee. It is a rigorous process. People do not get to become Fellows of the Royal Society by accident. It is something to be proud of—

💬 Sue Moroney: Like Paul Quinn.

—and Paul Quinn, unfortunately, I suspect, will struggle, although he does have until December to pick up his game.

💬 Simon Bridges: Quinn for president!

I will remind Mr Bridges of that, one day. Currently up to 12 fellows are elected annually, so that is the limitation: 12 fellows annually. One of the concerns raised at the Education and Science Committee by the Wellington branch of the Royal Society was whether bringing in the humanities, given that there are only 12 fellows in this example, could dilute or put pressure on the number of fellows. But as we have seen, there are already some fellows from the humanities area. In many ways, it makes it an even more exclusive club and the standard is even higher for becoming a Fellow of the Royal Society. To have only 300 or so of them at this time certainly recognises that level of excellence.

Nominations to the fellowship remain valid for 5 years. If someone is not successful the first time, their nomination stands for a 5-year period. Obviously, they will continue to develop their academic career at that time. After the 5 years elapses, there is a 3-year stand-down period. One is in the ballot for 5 years and if one is not successful after that time there is a 3-year stand-down period, then one can be put forward again after that point. I think that indicates that there is a very high standard for becoming a Fellow of the Royal Society.

Effectively, clause 9 puts in place the building blocks for having people from the humanities as fellows. We are changing the language from academy council to academy executive committee, then dropping in the humanities so that people from the humanities can now be part of the process for being a fellow.

The fellowship selection committee works closely with the academy executive committee, as in clause 9(1), and I am not aware of any major conflicts in the past with the Royal Society. Other members may be aware of that, but I think it is a process whereby the people who are already Fellows of the Royal Society help bring through new people. Under clause 9(2), those people will be able to be from the humanities. I think that a very important part of the Royal Society embracing its new broader mandate is to have people from the humanities reach the highest level of membership of the organisation, and that is to be a fellow of the society.

There are a number of other matters that I can come back to if need be in future calls as to the rules and fellowship by-laws, and I will be happy to do that if members wish.

It is wonderful to be back debating the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill. I think that each time we come to the Chamber, we all learn so much more. I acknowledge the sponsor of the bill, Grant Robertson, who is in the chair. He has demonstrated an in-depth knowledge of, and passion for, this subject in bringing the bill to the Committee of the whole House again today.

I was a bit disappointed to hear a usually very reasonable colleague in Government, Louise Upston, calling out about how many women were there in the society. I am sure that the member for Taupō will be delighted that women can be fellows, too. She talked about equity issues. I do not think that is for politicians to decide. Members will be pleased to know that in clause 9 it is something that is left entirely to the academy executive committee. I am not sure whether the sponsor of the bill in the chair can clarify whether the academy executive committee does look at grounds of equity and at Māori representation, as well as an extension to include the humanities, which this bill proposes at the request of the Royal Society. But I daresay we will be revisiting this bill in the future and we may be asked to include something else.

I congratulate our colleague Te Ururoa Flavell on proposing an amendment that takes te reo Māori into account. I think that is a wonderful addition along with the humanities. When we know that we have Professor Belich contributing as a fellow, along with 366 other wonderful New Zealanders, we can see that perhaps there is a role for other fantastic New Zealanders to be considered by the Royal Society of New Zealand for the status of this honorary fellowship in the future, which is clarified in clause 9(1).

One of the issues that I do not know about, and perhaps the sponsor of the bill could clarify—and it is a serious issue—is whether these fellowships are ever awarded posthumously. I want to acknowledge seriously in the Chamber today the contribution of a wonderful gentleman who was buried today here in Wellington, and that is Dr Lindsay Haas. He was a world-renowned neurologist who has worked in the field of Guillain-Barré syndrome, which is a very obscure condition linked with eating contaminated chicken. We have some neurologists in this country who may never be nominated by the Royal Society to be recognised as a fellow. In our dealings with Dr Lindsay Haas he was a very compassionate, passionate, and humane New Zealander as a neurologist and as a leading expert in this field in the world. It would be wonderful if posthumous recognition by a fellowship could be considered. I seriously do not know whether that is part of the brief of the academy executive committee, which looks at the allocation of fellowships.

When we think that there are 366 fellows on the list that Mr Robertson referred to, we see that they are our iconic New Zealanders. Having known Dr Lindsay Haas as I did, and given the acknowledgments that came from neurologists all around the world today at his funeral service, I can tell members that he was a fairly fundamental Kiwi bloke with a new migrant family from Germany who settled here in New Zealand. I do not think he ever saw himself as needing or warranting the status of a fellow in order for him to contribute to the field of medical science, but sometimes these awards are acknowledged by their own contemporaries and by their own peers, and to become a Fellow of the Royal Society is the greatest recognition of their contribution to science in New Zealand. It is a privilege to acknowledge in the Chamber the contribution of Dr Lindsay Haas to New Zealand society and to medicine. He was the sort of practitioner who had a library around him in the Wellington school of medicine that other neurologists envied. He could pull out a research proposal and say that, actually—

I am happy to take a call on the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill and I commend Grant Robertson for the types of amendments that I think, had they been introduced some 30 years ago, would have seen some of the most esteemed Māori academics come through. I can fathom that probably out of the 366 current fellows, not 2 percent would be Māori. The reason is simply this: the entry point in terms of academic excellence and the recognition of that historically amongst Māori was really in the subject area of the humanities: our language, our art, our culture. Steve Chadwick prompted me to think about some of those early experts and academics, and if I were to cast my mind back they would be people like Te Rangi Hīroa—Sir Peter Buck—Maharaia Winiata, Māui Pōmare, who was a former member of this House and a doctor, and who, by the way, introduced the Tohunga Suppression Act, Hoani Waititi, who died before his time, Professor Kāwharu, and John Rangihau. Those are but some of the recognised leaders in our academic areas who have now passed on and who could have been recognised had an amendment like this been introduced. These days I think we have more contemporary figures like Mason Durie, Dr Linda Smith, and Patu Hōhepa, and there are many more.

I think this type of amendment makes way for recognised leaders and experts who are proficient in all manner of the humanities’ subject areas, but specifically there are a number of Māori who could certainly now be recognised as leaders in their field of study. I think we can embrace that as being very much a progressive move by the Royal Society. I have heard the Royal Society referred to as an old boys’ club that prides itself on its small membership and its patch protection. So I am pleased that a Labour member has sought to advance its interests in order to open up the field, so to speak, to be more inclusive in this area.

I should mention, by the way, that if there were posthumous recognition, certainly within my own tribe we would go no further than Pei Te Hurinui Jones, who made a huge contribution to the wealth of knowledge and retention of tribal histories, language, and culture within our own tribe. He was certainly recognised with the same regard with which the people of Ngāti Porou recognised the contribution of Apirana Ngata.

Clause 10, as Grant Robertson has clarified, opens up a process for recognising people’s contribution and expertise and appointing them. I have a question for Grant, in terms of promoting this clause: was it, in fact, intended that there could be an opportunity for posthumous recognition? If that was discussed when this bill was being put together with the Royal Society, could it be an opportunity to recognise posthumously those who were involved in the humanities? I think that becomes a question of some significance, because the Royal Society is moving with the times. It is certainly broadening the inclusion of subject areas in terms of their role with the society, and the society is recognising that more and more scholarship is being done in the area of the humanities, which will help our society overall.

I look at some of the previous awarding of scholarships in the areas of the improvement of teaching and the role of teachers in the classroom. I look at a number of funded scholarship projects at Waikato University. I know that the academics there have made a huge contribution to advance teaching practices in the classroom. In fact, Te Kotahitanga is but one of the current initiatives that have been promoted through Waikato University, and it has had a huge impact on improving the achievement levels of Māori within our schools, and within our mainstream schools in particular. Kia ora.

I acknowledge at the outset that Grant Robertson, the member in the chair, explained the meaning of “fellow”, because if a worker simply picked that term up and looked at it, it would not necessarily make any sense. It could be that fellow, this fellow, that big fellow, that skinny fellow, and that black fellow. So in hearing what the member has now said, I acknowledge the fact that it is a prestigious role, and that we are looking at the cream of the crop. But I wonder why the definition of “fellow” was not included in the bill, and whether that would not be an appropriate way of allowing people who are unfamiliar with the goings-on of a society like this to know what it really means. I would like the member to respond to that request, if that is possible.

The second thing is that I want to know from the member whether, by extending the subjects to include the humanities, he foresees that we will have an expanded membership of fellows. The member has said that there is a range of about 366 fellows, so what are the projections he foresees now, with the society’s expansion to include the humanities?

The other thing I am now curious about is whether we have ever appointed Pacific fellows to the society. It is a known fact that we are not getting enough young Pacific people into the sciences, so I wonder whether the member foresees that by including the humanities we will be able to acknowledge people who are doing research in those particular areas, and acknowledge the distinction of the work they will be involved in.

I acknowledge Māui Pōmare, whom Nanaia Mahuta mentioned earlier. Pacific communities know Māui Pōmare and the area from which he hails in Taranaki. It was Māui Pōmare who visited the Samoans who were imprisoned in Mt Eden by the Government of the day when the New Zealand administration was trying to quash the protest of Samoa mo Samoa, the Mau movement for independence. It was Māui Pōmare and another elder of that particular time whose name I cannot remember. I am pointing out to the member in the chair that there is a real need for including, or at least identifying and acknowledging, Pacific people, as well, who are showing distinction in their particular areas of research, and I am hopeful that by including the humanities we will see a broader range of people being eligible.

The other thing I want to ask the member is whether including the humanities—clause 9(2) omits “science or technology” and substitutes “science, technology, or the humanities”—includes research into languages. I want to point that out to Mr Chair, because he is looking at me quite evilly. We are celebrating te reo Māori this week, and we have a group of Pacific researchers and teachers who are protesting against the cuts by the Minister of Education to Pacific languages—cuts to the promotion of the five Pacific languages, and cuts to the Tupu and Folauga series. Would the humanities include those people who are researching and showing distinction in that area of Pacific languages? I think that is an important area for the future.

I will also ask about clause 9(1), which omits “Academy Council”—

I will follow on from what my colleagues were saying in this debate on the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill regarding the membership of the Royal Society for minorities—Māoris, Pacific people, and also women. I think it is very important to see several things there. Historically, of course, the Royal Society was more science-based. It was scientists who were the members of the Royal Society, and again, historically, it was men—mainly European, and maybe some Asian men who had done advanced studies, had done PhDs, and had done some really well-known research. They became members, then Fellows of the Royal Society. Clearly, as we go through this bill, we have the humanities included, and I am quite sure we will have a lot more women coming through to become fellows—not just members, but fellows—of the society, as well as Māoris and Pasifika people. I am sure they will be coming through to become fellows.

H V Ross Robertson: Don’t forget about the Palagis.

Yes, the Palagis are already there. There are 367 fellows, so there are probably plenty of them there, I tell Mr Ross Robertson.

This is an area that is very close to my heart, because while I was at Massey University researching into agricultural engineering, I was a member of a number of societies—the American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers, the Asian Association for Agricultural Engineering, and the International Soil Tillage Research Organisation. These were the associations and societies I was a member of. Of course, I never sought to become a fellow. The question was raised earlier. Normally to become a fellow, one has to be nominated by others—nominated by one’s peers. People instigate others and nominate people to become fellows. Of course, I never sought to become a fellow. I am quite sure I would have been a fellow of those societies if I was still researching there. But the good news is that I know my son will become a Fellow of the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons very shortly. He is now into vascular surgery, and I think next year he too will become a fellow of that college.

There are many societies that have different categories of membership. People become members, then they become fellows. Often, as I said earlier, one becomes a fellow when one is at the top of one’s profession. A person who has done a lot of research, published a lot of papers, and written books and had them published, can then become a fellow. I think it is very important to recognise, as we recognise the humanities, that as we get more members involved in the Royal Society, they also become Fellows of the Royal Society. With this amendment, I am quite sure we will have more women coming through and more Pasifika and Māori people coming through to become fellows. Historically, some of these people have not done a lot of science. We are very familiar from going through university that very few Māori students have studied science and technology. Also, in previous years there have not been many women studying those subjects. Of course, nowadays we have a lot more women studying the sciences.

In the medical profession there are a lot of surgeons and physicians who are fellows. Certainly there will be encouragement for those groups, which have never been part of the membership of the Royal Society, to come to the level of being fellows of the society. Clearly, a fellow of the society is a person who has achieved at the highest level and is recognised by their profession—not only by their peers, but also by their profession internationally. As I said, this is right across the various disciplines, including engineering and the sciences.

It is perhaps time now to respond to the first tranche of questions from members on the issue of clause 9 and the changes we are making to who is made a fellow and to the committee that makes the final approval.

Firstly, I will answer one set of questions that Nanaia Mahuta asked. The number of fellows has been kept at 12 new fellows each year. In effect, by including the humanities but keeping the number of fellows at 12 we are raising the bar as to who can become a fellow. That is a decision that in time the Royal Society might decide to revisit, because there will now be a much wider pool of people who can potentially put themselves forward to be fellows. But for now the number is staying at 12.

Both Steve Chadwick and Nanaia Mahuta asked about posthumous fellowships. It is clear when we look at the key clause in the rules for becoming a fellow—I am reading from clause A6 of the academy council’s bylaws of June 2010—that “No person shall be nominated or elected as a Fellow unless he or she: i) is a citizen or permanent resident of New Zealand; and ii) has been a New Zealand resident for at least three years during his or her career; and iii) normally spends at least six months in New Zealand each year.” So it is quite clear that to be a fellow of the society one has to fulfil those criteria. Sadly, if one is deceased one is not able to do that.

However—and we come back to this in a later clause, so I do not want to go into too much detail now—the question of honorary fellows of the society is much more open. It is at the absolute discretion of what is now called the academy executive committee. I would presume from that, and from reading through the by-laws of the society that cover honorary fellows, that there is nothing that would exclude a posthumous awarding of a fellowship. I certainly agree with Nanaia Mahuta that a number of people could be put forward for that. One of the very positive changes made during this Committee stage debate that shows the value of an extensive Committee stage debate was Te Ururoa Flavell’s amendment that brought te reo Māori and Māori studies within the humanities. Should people want to go down the path of recognising people from disciplines that have not previously been part of the Royal Society, there may well be a way to do that via the honorary fellowship awards. So I do think it is possible.

But it is quite clear when one goes through the list of current Royal Society fellows that there are very, very few Māori. In fact, having just flicked through it now, and at the risk of what could be called racial profiling, and at the risk of missing out some Māori because I am not familiar with them, I see only one Māori fellow and he is Mason Durie. Mason Durie is an academic of significant scholarship and research, but nobody else on the list is identifiable to me as Māori. Things get worse when we head to the Pacific sector. I cannot identify any one on the list of fellows who has a Pacific background. Su’a William Sio asked about this, and I am sure that by including the humanities there will be a change. I think of someone like Albert Wendt, who quite clearly would be deserving of a fellowship. To pick someone out is perhaps a bit unfortunate, but I am sure there will be such people.

In terms of Dr Choudhary’s intervention, there are some fellows from ethnic communities in New Zealand. Manying Yip is in here, as is Dr Choudhary’s former colleague Harjinder Singh from the Riddet Institute at Massey University. There is some representation, but I do think it is quite clear that clause 9(1) will now broaden the range of people who are likely to become fellows, and that is a very, very good thing.

The question was asked about the kinds of people who are fellows of the society now, and I can think of one person who has graced this Chamber. Simon Upton is a Fellow of the Royal Society and a person with a broad range of scientific knowledge. He was a terrific science Minister. In another life I worked for Simon Upton as a foreign affairs official, and he brought an incredibly scientific brain to that job. He was the chair of the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development when I worked with him. The commission was charged with developing an oceans policy for the United Nations, and Simon Upton was able to bring his extensive scientific knowledge to the table to ensure that both a political approach and a scientific approach were taken. He is a Fellow of the Royal Society who already has a humanities part to his background. Simon Upton has extensive experience, and is now working at the OECD on sustainable development issues.

Another couple of people whom I have had the privilege of working with are also Fellows of the Royal Society and are covered by clause 9. One of those is Richie Poulton, who runs the multidisciplinary centre at Otago University. That is the centre that works with a cohort of people born in 1972 at Queen Mary Hospital in Dunedin. That longitudinal study has the highest retention rate in the world; 96 percent of the people who started in that longitudinal study in 1972 remain in it now. It is a remarkable study, which Richie Poulton, a fellow of the Royal Society, has led. It now has not only those people; of course, a lot of those people now have children. Those people are in their late 30s and their children are now part of the study. The centre has gone back and spoken to the parents of the people in the study, as well, so three generations are involved. The work that Richie Poulton is leading down there has a whole genetic basis to it. There is a lot of work on genetic make-up. An awful lot of the work has been used by the current Government and also by previous Governments on things like conduct disorder and being able to understand and predict some of the issues that children have in early life that may lead to problems in later life.

Richie Poulton is a Fellow of the Royal Society on the basis of that work, which is internationally renowned. That is the standard we are talking about. With only 360-odd fellows, we are talking about a certain standard of research and scholarship. I absolutely respect the comments and questions that colleagues have put to me about fellows coming from backgrounds other than the traditional European male background that dominates Royal Society fellowship. I am sure that as time passes and the number of people from Māori and Pacific backgrounds who participate in tertiary education increases, which it happily did under the Labour Government, we will see those people flow through into fellowship of the Royal Society.

I have just one more point in regard to the kinds of people who have membership of the Royal Society. They are people who are at the cutting edge. Recently in the Dominion Post some colleagues may have read about the work of a father and son combination. The father is Brian Robinson, and he has developed a wound healing gel. He began by working with people who had had nose reconstructions, and his wound healing gel makes wounds heal more quickly. It is non-invasive. There are no stitches; there is nothing like that. It has been developed by a father and son combination. Brian Robinson is a chemist. His son is a dentist, actually, and he has obviously used the gel within the dental area. Brian Robinson is a Fellow of the Royal Society. Just last week the work that they have been doing was patented, and it will now be taken on by American companies, I am quite sure. That is where a lot of the work in relation to leading edge science goes. So Fellows of the Royal Society are not just people from the past who have developed a scientific record and are now in some form of semi-retirement. They are people who are at the cutting edge of science. Brian Robinson is certainly one example of that kind of person.

To sum up those questions, I think it is sobering to look at the list of Fellows of the Royal Society, and, yes, it needs to be enhanced by greater representation from Māori and Pasifika communities, and other ethnic minorities, and also women. There are a number of women on the Royal Society fellows list, but the number is not in proportion to even the number of women academics, let alone the number of women in society. I think we respect those who are Fellows of the Royal Society, but we recognise that in clause 9 today we are beginning a process that will see an expansion of the number of people who can be part of that list, and also, perhaps, a change in the demographic of the people who can be part of it. I thank my colleagues for having raised those questions, because they are important. I think fellowship of the Royal Society, which is covered by clause 9, will continue to be the pinnacle of achievement for people in the science and technology areas, and now, happily, for those in the humanities areas, as well.

It is very humbling to rise to speak to clause 9 of the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill, and to hear about the fellows. It is very humbling indeed to hear about some of the work that those fellows have undertaken to reach this esteemed place within the Royal Society. I think the Royal Society must be thrilled to know that we are already up to clause 9, because, as we heard in question time today, its expectation in 2010 was that it might take 5 years to get this legislation through. The fact that we are here today, already up to clause 9, I think must show that we are galloping through, are we not?

I hope—I know, in fact—that the society is very pleased with the amount of debate on this bill. Just last evening I had the opportunity to host the Speaker’s Science Forum, which is held in conjunction with the Royal Society. As it was the last in the series in this parliamentary term, I had the opportunity to talk with the president of the Royal Society, Diane McCarthy. She said to me that they are so enjoying the debate happening in relation to this bill, because what she essentially said to me was that they do not feel as though they have had as much publicity in many, many years as has arisen from the debate on this bill. So I am pleased to be up to clause 9 already, talking about the fellows.

I have some further questions for the member in charge of this bill, Grant Robertson. When he talked to us about the process, I noted that the process by which fellows become Fellows of the Royal Society is very thorough and robust. My question is about the nomination process. We heard that people appear before a panel, which assesses the nominations. Once those nominations are accepted they stay viable, I guess would be the way I would put it, for a period of 5 years. That means, as I understand it, that if they are unsuccessful in being one of the 12 esteemed people accepted as fellows the following year, they can keep their nomination coming back for 5 years before it has to be withdrawn. Then there is a period—I guess a cooling-off period—before they can be nominated again.

As we have identified in the course of debating this clause, by including people from the discipline of the humanities among the group who can now be nominated to become fellows, will we create a logjam effect? What I mean by that is that there are people now who will have been nominated before this clause is changed, and they will not be from the humanities. Therefore, for another 4 years, I imagine, their names will continue to roll through this process. Does that mean that there are fewer opportunities for people who can be newly nominated because they are in the discipline of the humanities—to get their name in the pool, so to speak?

Maybe I am exposing my ignorance of this process, because I have just realised I am talking about pools as if we are talking about a game of soccer, or something like that. I am just trying to understand how quickly we expect that by amending clause 9 we will see the sort of diversity that I think certainly this side of the Chamber has expressed a very keen interest in seeing. We are hoping that with the inclusion of the humanities, by amending clause 9, we will see more women, more Māori, some Pasifika—by the sounds of it, it seems like we do not have any Pasifika people in that category at the moment—and people from other ethnicities becoming fellows. I think we on this side of the Chamber want to see that diversity that is represented in the great academic work undertaken in this country. We want to see that happen sooner rather than later. I suspect that the process of people’s nominations staying live, as it were, for 5 years will make that somewhat difficult. We will see that it might take longer than we would hope in amending this clause.

As Grant Robertson has already said, under section 10 of the Act “The Academy Council may from time to time, in accordance with the Academy bylaws, elect as a fellow any person who in the opinion of the Academy Council has achieved distinction in research or the advancement of science or technology.” So it was quite a surprise to all of us that Paul Quinn believed he had a case to answer in order to become a Fellow of the Royal Society. I guess he was confused from his form 2 science test—you know, magnets, rocky shores, and all that—when he got six out of 10. The teacher said “Well done, Paul.”, and I think he might have thought that it meant he had achieved some sort of distinction. As Grant Robertson said, he has time before November to get his application in. I believe they may still accept applications in crayon, so if he sharpens the point a bit, and forms his letters properly, he may be in. There is old Paul there, and he is a good fulla, I have to admit. But it is probably more the case that he is a good “fulla”. I think he thought this was about fullas, not fellows, so if he does not actually get in, he might be able to form his own “Fullas Society”.

It is interesting that in looking through the list of previous fellows and talking about Paul Quinn, immediately my eye went straight to the 2007 recipient Professor Richard Faull, who was recognised for his ground-breaking work in understanding the human brain. I immediately thought of Paul Quinn there. I think the difference between Richard Faull—who has studied the human brain and who has done some amazing work on the regeneration of the human brain—and Paul Quinn is that Paul Quinn thinks that the study of the brain is rolling his eyes to the back of his head and having a look, but he suffers from claustrophobia. When we go through the list of fellows there, we see some remarkable achievements by some remarkable people, and Richard Faull is one of those people. As I said, he has done some remarkable studies in the regeneration of the human brain, and it is that sort of high-level achievement that sets these people apart from ordinary, everyday scientists or researchers. They have made some huge advancements for people—for humanity. They need to be encouraged and recognised, and we need to celebrate the successes they have had. Such are the people that Grant Robertson was talking about: Brian Robinson and his son, with that gel that cures wounds. Is that it?

💬 Grant Robertson: Yep.

It is absolutely amazing stuff. That is why we really do need to invest in research and development. We should not be just relying on the work of the Royal Society of New Zealand to do amazing research and to develop amazing products, but also continuing to invest in research and development in many areas, because those are the sorts of products that will really progress New Zealand. An economist said that one entrepreneur—and I guess the people who can develop these products are very entrepreneurial—is worth a thousand farmers. If we have all these fellows who are generating this outstanding research and making these advancements for New Zealand and for the world, they need to be encouraged not just through the Royal Society of New Zealand but also through investment in the research and development funds that I know this current Government has in fact cut.

I agree entirely that there are not enough Māori or Pacific Islanders in the list. Certainly, as I scan down the list between 1991 and 2009, I see there are no women. That, to me, is a crying shame, because we know the contribution that women make to the sciences, the humanities, and technology. Women need to be recognised and encouraged, as well, for the outstanding work they do.

I move, That the question be now put.

I have been listening closely to the debate on clause 9 of the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill, which amends section 10 of the original Act. It refers to Fellows of the Royal Society of New Zealand. I have been listening intently as people have referred to different groups within society who we feel are underrepresented in the Fellows of the Royal Society. I share my colleagues’ hopes that those people might find they become better represented with this expansion into the humanities.

I would like to reflect on something we can all celebrate, and that is the representation of people from Palmerston North in the list of Fellows of the Royal Society of New Zealand. In a quick flick through the list on the Royal Society’s website, I found 27 people from Palmerston North. The population of Palmerston North is about 80,000 people, which is about 2 percent of New Zealand’s population. By my rough maths, 7.5 percent of the Fellows of the Royal Society of New Zealand are from Palmerston North. We are punching well above our weight and that is something to celebrate. I think it also reflects just how important research and development, science, and technology are to Palmerston North—

💬 Simon Bridges: Local MP.

It is something I like to celebrate wherever I go, I tell Mr Bridges. It is a very important part of the Palmerston North economy. Off the top of my head, I think of people like David Penny at the Allan Wilson centre for molecular ecology and evolution at Massey University, and I think of—

💬 Dr Ashraf Choudhary: Mason Durie

I think of Mason Durie, the member is absolutely right. Mason Durie is someone who has achieved at a very high level and has become a Fellow of the Royal Society.

These names are just picked randomly. They are no more important or more significant than any other of the 27 names on the list. Brent Clothier is a soil scientist and environmental scientist. He is the leader of one of New Zealand’s major soil science research programmes, the Sustainable Land Use Research Initiative. His work is all about tracing the fate of water and chemicals in production systems and in the environment. That is such important work when we think about the impact of agriculture on our waterways. Again, this is a huge issue in the Manawatū, with the Manawatū River coming under a bit of fire for being one of the more polluted rivers in New Zealand, and the work that someone like Brent is doing to assist the agricultural sector in tracing those chemicals as they move through the environment and move through environmental systems is hugely important not only to our environment but also to our economy as we try to ensure that we maintain our “clean, green” brand internationally. Another person we could focus on is Bryce Buddle, who is at the Hopkirk Research Institute, I believe. His work is focused on immunology, microbiology, and applied science, covering a range of animal diseases. He has a very advanced understanding of livestock diseases, including mastitis in dairy cows, orf virus in sheep, pneumonia in sheep and goats, and yersiniosis—I think is the word—in deer. Of course, having a better understanding of all those diseases is, again, economically very, very important to New Zealand and to our agricultural sector. I could also talk about Dr John Caradus and his work on clover—in fact, internationally he is known as “Mr White Clover”. He is really right at the forefront of this research.

I suppose what this reflects is just how important the work of these fellows is, how important science, research, and development are to our agricultural sector, just how much agriculture has to gain from a much more concentrated focus on research and development, and how important better Government support for research and development would be to the work of those gentlemen I highlighted. I think one could highlight any number of people working in Palmerston North on research and development, which is so important to developing our agricultural products and developing the way in which we undertake agriculture in this country to improve our environmental impact.

I will try to not take my full time here. I think clause 9, “Fellows”, in the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill is really important, particularly because for me—and I speak for myself in this—this is the first time I am hearing about the work of the Royal Society of New Zealand. I would be interested to hear from the sponsor of this bill about the background of the fellows and how that name came to be. In this day and age, I would say it is a very male name. Why did they not call it “sheila”? I would be interested to know the background to how the society arrived at that particular award. I do not mean to diminish or undermine the value of the award. I recognise that it is a prestigious award and I recognise that it is probably at the same level as a Nobel Peace Prize, but I am interested to know from the sponsor of the bill the background of the particular name of “fellow” and how that has come to describe this particular award.

I would also like to hear from the sponsor—and I recognise what other speakers have said—about the low numbers of women, Māori, Pacific, and people of other ethnicities. I think it is important that the Royal Society works toward identifying and recognising the cream of the crop of researchers in these particular areas. Particularly as our nation moves forward, we need to hold them up as examples and as role models for the next generation that comes through. My question is: does the Royal Society have a plan for increasing, or at least generating, the competition out there so that we are seeing the cream of the crop coming through? I would not like to see the Royal Society follow the example of the National Government, which has no plan at all. That is why we are in the economic mess we are in at this particular time, and I do not want to see the Royal Society in a similar mess. I ask whether the Royal Society has a plan to promote that.

I come back to clause 9(1), which changes the name “Academy Council” to “Academy Executive Committee”. Will the changing of the name also change the status and the function of the council? Because I was not a member of the Education and Science Committee, which heard the submissions on this bill, I wonder what the submissions from the public said in reference to changing the name. Often when we change long-held names of societies such as the Royal Society of New Zealand that have a long history, I would suspect that there is a lot of reluctance to change. I would be interested to hear what the public have had to say.

For many working families throughout New Zealand, the work of the Royal Society of New Zealand is probably not well known. If we are to increase the number of people we identify and acknowledge as fellows, for the recognition of their work and for deserving to be held up as role models for the next generation, then the idea of having a specific plan to roll that out is really the key. As we all know, if there is no plan to make things happen, they do not happen, and we tend to then think that somebody will pluck an answer out of nothingness, as we have often heard from the other side of the Chamber.

The final matter that I raise is the cost of changing the name. What sort of impact will that have on the Royal Society? Noting that there is to be no dividend or profit for any of the members, I would be curious to know how the society will maintain its work, and, in particular, how one would be prepared to fund such a plan to promote the distinction of the work.

I will speak very briefly, as I am conscious that other colleagues want to speak. Su’a William Sio asked about the origins of the term “fellow”, and using a research tool that the Royal Society may not approve of—Wikipedia—I am able to answer Su’a William Sio’s question.

The appointment of fellows was first authorised on 22 April 1663 by the original Royal Society in the United Kingdom. Originally, 94 fellows were appointed—perhaps not through the same process as that of the Royal Society of New Zealand—and another four were appointed a little later. They were known as the Original Fellows of the Royal Society. Interestingly, two-thirds of them were not scientists. Wikipedia speculates that one of the reasons for that was that the Royal Society needed money. It had no funding from the Crown and it needed money to operate, and that would appear to be the reason that those fellows were charged an entrance fee of £4 at the time. But over time, obviously, the nature of being a fellow changed in the United Kingdom, as it has in New Zealand, and the traditions about how one becomes a fellow have changed significantly.

Just while we are on the subject—because I think it is interesting to reflect on the importance of the Royal Society—I note that the Royal Society in the United Kingdom has only 1,300 fellows even today. So there are very, very few. The 300 New Zealand people can do the maths and work out that there are proportionately more here in New Zealand, but the Royal Society in the United Kingdom, from which the Royal Society of New Zealand came, is still a very exclusive club. The original members of that Royal Society included Christopher Wren and all sorts of people who were founding fathers of science. So the term “fellow” is certainly a historic one. I suspect it has been retained, despite gender connotations, because of that link to as far back as 1663. I thought I would clarify that matter for the member.

I move, That the question be now put.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): The question is that the question be now put. Those of that opinion will say Aye—

💬 Su’a William Sio: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I am sorry, Mr Chair, but I did want to raise the information that Mr Grant Robertson raised.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): No, I did not accept the member’s call. I accepted the call of the member over here, Mr Bridges, and that is the end of the matter. The Committee will decide whether the motion is agreed to and the question is put.