Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill

Clause 10 brings us to another category of members of the Royal Society, and this time we move to the category of companions. This clause makes a reasonably substantial change to the current Act, so it is worth reflecting on that change in calls to come.

The class of membership called companions was introduced to the Royal Society of New Zealand Act only in 1997, which is the last time this House updated the Act in order to include social sciences in the ambit of the Royal Society. Companions are defined in the Act at the moment as “any person who, in the opinion of the Council, has achieved a high level of eminence in the promotion or encouragement of science or technology.” That is how the Act currently reads. So it is quite a different matter; it is a question of people whose responsibility is around the promotion and advancement of science and technology in New Zealand. As the Royal Society itself says, being a companion implies some level of responsibility and the people in question have responsibilities to promote and advance the society. Companions are expected, where they are able, to contribute to activities within the society and the wider community that foster a culture that is supportive of science and technology, promotes and advances science and technology, and enhances the awareness, knowledge, and understanding of science and technology in the New Zealand education system and in society generally. So companions are people whose responsibilities involve promoting science. They are not necessarily scientists themselves.

Clause 10 alters quite significantly the way in which the current section in the Act, section 12(1), reads. It does that by including the humanities, as has been done in other clauses, but also by rewording it to make it a little clearer as to what is being sought when somebody is elected as a Companion of the Royal Society. So to give people some examples of exactly what we mean by people who are involved in the promotion of science, I note that one such person who is a Companion of the Royal Society is Helen Anderson. Helen Anderson has recently finished as the chief executive of the Ministry of Science and Innovation. I had the privilege of working with Helen Anderson when she was a science adviser in the office of the Hon Pete Hodgson when he was the Minister of Research, Science and Technology. Helen Anderson is a person who does in fact have a scientific background, but the main part of her working life has been the promotion and advancement of science in her many roles in the Ministry of Research, Science and Technology, and most latterly in the role of chief executive of the new Ministry of Science and Innovation.

Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

When the Committee rose we were discussing clause 10, which is about what happens with companions of the Royal Society, a class of membership of the Royal Society devoted to people who have achieved eminence in the promotion or encouragement of science and technology. With the change being made in clause 10 this will include people both in the science and technology area and also in the humanities. As we rose I was giving some examples to the Committee of the kinds of people who are companions of the Royal Society, to give the Committee an idea of the roles these people have played. This is different from pure scientists; these are people who have promoted and advanced science, particularly in education. We were discussing Helen Anderson, the recently finished chief executive of the Ministry of Science and Innovation; Margaret Austin, a former member of Parliament—

💬 Chester Borrows: She was a good old girl.

Chester Borrows is right; she was a very nice person—that is what I am sure Mr Borrows just said. Margaret Austin has had a role in education and science, and she has been on the council of Lincoln University for a significant amount of time. Bob Brockie is a Companion of the Royal Society. Residents of Wellington will be very familiar with him from his writing in the Dominion Post on a regular basis on the subject of science and ethics. There are a number of people: Len Cook, the former Government Statistician, Jean Fleming from the Centre for Science Communication at Otago University and also—I think I am right—a member of the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification, as well.

The people who play a role in educating the public about science are the ones considered for the role of Companion of the Royal Society. I will name just one more person now. If people are interested, I am happy to talk further about other companions of the Royal Society. One person who has been made a Companion of the Royal Society is Kim Hill, the broadcaster. That is as a result of the work she has done in the area of science. A lot of that began with the conversations she had with Sir Paul Callaghan on her radio show. Those conversations were the way that a lot of New Zealanders became familiar with science and scientific concepts in a way that they could understand. Kim Hill has done a lot of work with the Royal Society over recent years in helping to promote science, so she is a Companion of the Royal Society.

Under clause 10, section 12 of the Act, which currently deals with companions, is being changed reasonably significantly. The main point is that section 12(1) states: “The Council may from time to time elect, as a Companion, any person who, in the opinion of the Council, has achieved a high level of eminence in the promotion or encouragement of science and technology.” That is now being replaced and changed, for two reasons. The first of those is to include the humanities, which is obviously the main purpose of the bill before us. The new section 12(1) will read: “The Council”—and the council being referred to is obviously the council of the Royal Society, the governing body of the Royal Society—“may from time to time elect, as a Companion, any person who, in the opinion of the Council has—(a) shown outstanding leadership in science, technology, or the humanities; or (b) made eminent or sustained contributions to the promotion and advancement in New Zealand of science, technology, or the humanities.”

So that clarifies what it is to be a Companion of the Royal Society, and that is to have shown leadership—and we have the example of Helen Anderson, who has shown a great deal of leadership in the science sector—or to have made sustained contributions to the promotion and advancement of science, technology, or the humanities, and I guess Kim Hill would fall into the latter category. Clause 10 makes a major change to the wording, but it actually clarifies the kinds of people who will become companions of the Royal Society. It is a status of membership that I think is important to the way in which science and scientists interact with the community.

In previous clauses we have been debating fellows. They are obviously Fellows of the Royal Society, as Kelvin Davis said, not to be confused with fellas, which was an important distinction for Mr Quinn. Fellows of the Royal Society are the most eminent scientists, social scientists, and practitioners in the humanities now. Companions of the Royal Society are people who are similarly eminent but are working in the promotion and advancement of science. So this was a very important change made in the 1997 version of this Act. That was when companions were created within the Act, so it was a reasonably recent change. The kinds of people who are companions is reflective of the important role that science has in our community, in education, and in the wider debate we have about issues like ethics and how science can advance not only the economic growth of New Zealand but also the social and environmental situation we find ourselves in.

I have taken a bit of time over this, but I think it is important to outline the way that companions are now to be recognised. Just so members know, there are some other references to companions in the Act. There is an amended section 12(1), inserted by clause 10. It is also noted in section 12(2) that “A Companion is entitled to use, in connection with his or her name, either—(a) the letters ‘CRSNZ’, which stand for Companion of the Royal Society of New Zealand; or (b) such other letters or title as is decided from time to time by the Council.” So companion is sufficiently important to be able to be used as letters after a name.

I think whenever people involved in the sciences and now the humanities see FRSNZ after a name they know that that means a Fellow of the Royal Society and a person of esteem in the science community. We now have an addition to that—the ability to say that a companion is somebody who has contributed to assisting people’s understanding of science in our community. I think that is excellent. Clause 10 clarifies who those people will be. That is something that all of us should be very pleased to support tonight.

I am happy to take my first call for the evening on clause 10 of the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill, which deals with—

💬 Hon Dr Wayne Mapp: The first of many, I am sure, Chris.

The first of many. I can assure the Minister there is plenty more to come. We are just getting started, we are just getting warmed up, we have not even cleared the vocal chords yet, and there is plenty more to come.

Clause 10 deals with Companions of the Royal Society. The member in the chair, Grant Robertson, raised Margaret Austin as an example of a Companion of the Royal Society. Members may be interested to know that the first time I had the opportunity to visit Parliament as a young person was at the invitation of Margaret Austin. It was at the invitation—

💬 Hon Member: Last week?

Now, now! It was at the invitation of Margaret Austin, who at that point had just left the Labour Party and was launching the education policies of the then United Party—the short-lived United Party. So I had that opportunity. It was my first chance to have a look around Parliament. I quite liked the look of the place so I came back. I just thought that little aside was interesting; the mention of Margaret Austin’s name made me think of it.

It is interesting that the member in the chair referred to the initials CRSNZ and FRSNZ as being letters that people could put beside their names. I think there is a bit of a problem with that, and it is a problem we have with our honours system—separate to this—as well. No one understands what half of the letters, initials, and things that people have these days actually mean. One of the arguments that members opposite used for reintroducing the knighthood was the fact that at least people knew what it meant. People could understand a “Sir” or a “Dame”, but they cannot necessarily understand all of these other letters we now have. That could be one of the reasons why many of the Companions or Fellows of the Royal Society now find that they have knighthoods or dame-hoods. I wonder whether some other knights, like Sir Paul Callaghan—whom admittedly I have not heard mentioned; I came in only after the dinner break—were companions or fellows. Is he a companion or a fellow? He is a fellow. Sir Peter Gluckman? He would be a fellow, as well. These are people who have achieved excellence in their fields. They do many of the things that a companion or a fellow of the Royal Society would be expected to do. But they have had that contribution recognised through another system that is probably more readily understood by people. I think one of the failures of the replacement for the knighthood and the dame-hood system was that nobody understood it. I do not think that bringing back knighthoods and dame-hoods was necessary, but we could have come up with something more readily understood by the public at large. So when I heard Grant Robertson talk about CRSNZ and FRSNZ, my concern with adopting that system—well, it is already there—would be that no one will understand it. It will probably not be widely used.

I turn now to a forensic examination of the clause in question, clause 10, which repeals section 12(1) of the principal Act and replaces it with new subsection (1). The subsection allows the council to elect, as a Companion of the Royal Society, people who, in the opinion of the council, have “(a) shown outstanding leadership in science, technology, or the humanities;”. I suspect that the major change there is the inclusion of the word “humanities”, but if we compare this clause with clause 11, for example, which simply adds “humanities” to the section about honorary members, we see there is a much more substantive change going on in clause 10. I wonder whether at some point in the evening the member in charge of the bill could give us an explanation as to why a more substantive change is required to clause 10, when that change does not appear to be required in clause 11, which deals with honorary members, or in fact even in clause 12, which deals with honorary fellows. The change to clause 10 could potentially make a more substantive change than the bill purports to make, which is simply to extend the coverage of the Royal Society to include the humanities.

New section 12(1)(b), substituted in clause 10, adds the additional criteria that in order for someone to be a companion, they have to have “made eminent or sustained contributions to the promotion and advancement in New Zealand of science, technology, or the humanities.” I think that is a really, really important point. The words “leadership” and “sustained contribution” are vitally important. It is all very well for the Royal Society to promote the advancement of the sciences, the humanities, technology, and so on, but the dissemination and adoption of that information, the putting of that scientific and academic discovery into a practical use or purpose, are also vitally important. One of the important roles of the companions is to ensure that the knowledge that is created is put to some good use. From my reading of this clause, I understand that a companion—and the member in the chair, Grant Robertson, may clarify this if I am wrong—does not necessarily need to be an academic expert in one of these fields. In fact, companions can contribute in a leadership role by promoting the work that other people do. One of the things that I have discovered, when popping in and out of academia from time to time—

💬 Darien Fenton: Ha, ha!

—in my short, but distinguished, career—ha, ha—is that a number of academics, not to put too fine a point on it, are entirely incapable of communicating the work that they do. They have those magnificent minds and make those excellent discoveries, but are unable to communicate them to the public at large. [Interruption] Well, I am not necessarily labelling scientists in their own category; a number of academics across the fields, including those of the humanities, seem unable to communicate the benefits of some of their academic advances. Therefore, having some more common people involved in the promotion of these—

💬 Moana Mackey: You’re going well.

Ha, ha! I know. It is good, eh? I am doing well. Those people can be quite beneficial. One of the important distinctions, then, is that the companion category creates an opportunity for other people to be recognised by the Royal Society for the contribution they make in showing leadership in science, technology, or the humanities. That may not necessarily be in making an academic contribution; it may well be in putting the results of academic inquiry into a more readily understandable form, or putting them to more practical use.

Overall, in summing up my contribution to this part of the debate, I am very interested to hear from the member in charge at some point in the course of the evening why this clause appears to be more substantive than the other clauses in this block of clauses dealing with amendments. I would like to be reassured that clause 10 does not go wider than the purported scope of the bill, which is simply to extend coverage to the humanities. The second point, with regard to that matter, is whether we may want to consider the nomenclature used to describe some of these people, and whether there is a more readily identifiable and communicative way that we can recognise people who are either Fellows, Companions, Honorary Members, or Honorary Fellows of the Royal Society

💬 Darien Fenton: Fullas.

I do not know that we should use that particular description. I will leave my contribution at that, but I look forward to the continued debate on the remaining 13 clauses of this bill as the evening progresses. I am sure there will be a lively and sustained debate through the rest of the evening. Thank you.

I move, That the question be now put.

Unlike my learned colleague Chris Hipkins, I cannot claim to have popped in and out of academia my entire life, and I suspect that my contribution may be a little more lowbrow than his, but, none the less, I hope I am able to add to this debate on clause 10 of the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill. The role of Companion of the Royal Society is a very important role. The Royal Society is, of course, to be commended for the recognition of those people who advance the cause of science and education in science—those who work with the public and carry out that function of almost being an intermediary between the general public and members of the academic community who work in the area of science, and now, of course, in the area of humanities when this bill is passed into law.

I take on board the concerns of my colleague Chris Hipkins about the awarding of titles, but I do think that under clause 10(1) of this particular bill the wording is appropriate. I myself am an ordinary member of the Royal Society and as such I have the right to vote, and to nominate Companions of the Royal Society. I suspect that when we come into this role in Parliament, it becomes more evident—

💬 Chris Hipkins: Who is being elitist now?

I am not. I am an ordinary member, I tell Mr Hipkins.

💬 Chris Hipkins: A common member?

I am an ordinary member of the Royal Society, and very proud to be so. I note that when we extend the ambit of the Royal Society out to the humanities, Mr Hipkins himself may suddenly become eligible to also become an ordinary member of the Royal Society and enjoy being part of this amazing organisation whose history around the world goes back hundreds of years, and which has been responsible for the enlightenment of humankind. I strongly recommend to any of my colleagues who want to join the Royal Society that they should do so. It is an eminent and very worthy organisation.

In terms of the companions, as politicians we should know better than most the importance of communication around issues of science and issues of technology. We need think back no longer than the issue of genetic modification, and I think of the inability of politicians at that time to be able to grasp an issue that was incredibly divisive and inflamed passions on both sides of the debate. I hope we have learnt from that and realise that issues of science and technology will be commonplace in our country from now on. We will have to debate them as politicians. We do not necessarily need to understand them down to the same level that the practitioners do. But this is where the Companions of the Royal Society really do show their worth. I note there are relatively few Companions of the Royal Society, as opposed to other classes. I hope that over time, and as a result of this debate where we are discussing in detail the workings of this very important organisation, we can promote the role of companions—promote the role of those people who can be the intermediary between those who are carrying out the technology and those who ultimately want to feel safe that that technology is OK, and that it will not cause any damage. These people play an incredibly important role, and it is perhaps a role that has been undervalued in the past and a role that I hope will see more people introduced into this area of companions.

I remember that when we were in Government we set up the Science Media Centre, which ended up being tendered to the Royal Society, so the Royal Society carries out this role. The centre’s role is to act in the way that a companion of the Royal Society would act. Say if we want to get issues around science and technology out into the mass media, we have to appreciate that maybe those journalists who are running the stories might look at something and think: “That’s very complicated; it’s going to take me a lot of time to get my head around it—

💬 Kris Faafoi: What are you saying about journalists?

I was not just looking at Kris Faafoi when I said that. Then they may go with another story. This unit has proactively gone out and told the media that when they want a story, they should go to the Science Media Centre and it will give them the people to contact. It will tell them who to get in touch with and give them all the background. That has worked very well. It has resulted in some of the daily news shows having a regular spot for science and technology because they know they can get that information. This is the kind of role Companions of the Royal Society carry out, and they should not be undervalued.

I look at some of the names of people who are on the list of Companions of the Royal Society and I see Mr Jim Salinger’s name. I want to talk more about him. He was the principal scientist at NIWA. He was the person whom Jim Hickey would go to on a regular basis. Jim Hickey would say what was happening and that he wanted to understand it more. He would ask Mr Salinger to tell him more about it, and Mr Salinger would provide that help. Unfortunately, a couple of years ago Mr Jim Salinger was dismissed from NIWA. It was a decision that I personally very, very strongly disagreed with. Mr Salinger was actually a member of a team that won a Nobel Prize. He is one of the few Nobel Prize - winning New Zealanders we have, and he won for his role in the science of climate change. He is incredibly well known on the international stage, and incredibly well respected. We were very lucky to have him as our principal scientist at NIWA and I personally very, very strongly disagreed with the terms of termination of his employment from NIWA. I registered my disappointment personally with the Minister of Science and Innovation at the time. I said that something needed to be done about this because Nobel Prize - winning scientists who are prepared to be principal scientists at our Crown research institutes do not come along every day. We cannot afford to burn them off because of what ended up being personality clashes and disagreements over things that I think, in the broader scale of things, were minute compared with the contribution he made to science in New Zealand.

Mr Jim Salinger is a very worthy Companion of the Royal Society of New Zealand. He has worked tirelessly, particularly with media outlets, to make sure that science was easily understood, and when one reads the reason why he was dismissed, it was for doing his job. It was because he had not sought approval from a manager to talk to a weatherman, even though NIWA had a relationship with the organisation concerned, and even though it had an agreement that he would do that. The weatherman rang him and asked him about something. He had a discussion with the weatherman and was then told it was not appropriate to do that without going through a manager. I think that that is bureaucracy gone mad. For a Government that says it hates bureaucracy, this Government did nothing to step in in the case of Jim Salinger to keep that Nobel Laureate in our Crown research institute.

The other person’s name I saw on the list is very interesting: Helen Hughes, a former Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment. I did not know she even existed until last week on Back Benches, when she opened a can of the proverbial on Peter Dunne regarding 1080. Helen Hughes, I have since learnt, is a formidable woman. She is an environmental champion from a long time back. She carried out the role of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment when it was not quite as high profile a role as it is now and, as anyone who watched Back Benches last week would have seen, she is a passionate advocate for the environment. She is pragmatic in the extreme when it comes to issues like 1080. I invite members to watch Back Benches from last week if they have any concerns about 1080 to hear what she said, which was pragmatic, which was true, and which was evidence-based. Helen Hughes, even just based on her performance last week on Back Benches, is the kind of person who well deserves to be a Companion of the Royal Society and who, under the amendment to section 12 of the Royal Society of New Zealand Act in clause 10 of this legislation, will be the kind of person who I hope we will see continually promoted.

Also I believe that Shaun Coffey, who is the chief executive of Industrial Research Ltd, is also a Companion of the Royal Society. I mention him—

💬 Chris Hipkins: As long as he doesn’t move it all to Auckland.

—as long as he does not move to Auckland. I mention him specifically because I have been so impressed with the work that Industrial Research Ltd has done. I used to work on the Industrial Research Ltd campus when I worked for the Institute of Environmental Science and Research and then for AgriQuality. We were based on the same campus as Industrial Research Ltd. We all used to mix together and talk about what it was doing, and it really is at the cutting edge of science and technology. It is doing the stuff that Sir Paul Callaghan talks about, which is the stuff that perhaps not many of us know about, but will bring enormous wealth to this country. Again I urge the Government not to mess with Industrial Research Ltd and not to make ideological decisions about the future of that organisation. Again, Shaun Coffey is another person who has done a very good job. Industrial Research Ltd promoted the What’s Your Problem New Zealand? Competition, where it put up a prize and said it would invest in something. Scientists and innovators were asked to go out there and come back with what they thought would make money. The competition induced an enormous response from the scientific community and showed just how much potential is out there if we are able to properly invest in science and innovation. Industrial Research Ltd had the money to invest in only a very small proportion of the ideas that came through—

I move, That the question be now put.

It is my very great pleasure to take a call on clause 10 of the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill. This is my first contribution. I have been down here week after week trying to make a contribution, because this is one of the most exciting bills that I have ever seen come through this Parliament. I have never seen anything so well debated. It has been such an education for people like me who do not have any background in science or, actually, in academia. I congratulate the member in the chair, Grant Robertson, who has brought this bill forward. I congratulate him on his wonderful work, and I also congratulate all of my colleagues who have brought to New Zealand’s attention the whole debate about the importance of the Royal Society, which none of us knew about.

💬 Chris Hipkins: Enriching.

It is very enriching, that is right. I agree with my colleague Chris Hipkins. This has been a very educational debate, because, to be honest, I did not know much about the Royal Society. This is my working-class prejudice talking here, but for me anything called “royal” would have been something I did not know much about. I would have thought it did not apply to me because I am from a working-class background. It would have sounded like it was about those important people out there who have studied, worked hard, and done important stuff, but I did not get it because I come from a working-class background. I have always stood up for people who are at the bottom—the vulnerable workers, and the vulnerable people in society. However, this debate has stimulated my thinking, and I want to say that it is great that something like this exists.

The Royal Society started in, what was it, 1867, and I think King George is mentioned somewhere there, and now Queen Elizabeth. For those of us who have republican tendencies, that is always a little bit difficult, but I do think it is great that the pursuit of intellectual argument and debate—

💬 Jo Goodhew: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I raise this point of order reluctantly because I realise that this is an important debate for the members opposite, but I have not heard the word “companion” used once in this member’s speech, so I seriously doubt the relevance to this clause.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): I will uphold the point of order. The member must debate clause 10.

Thank you. I was getting there, Mr Chair, I assure you. I was talking about my history, my understanding, and my background, and I was thinking about clause 10 and companions. To me, as a working-class person, a companion is somebody who has been given a conferment by the Queen, which is something that is way, way above any of the associations that I have. It made me think quite a lot about this.

I know there is a whole process under clause 10. I have read the Royal Society of New Zealand website, which talks about the selection of companions. I do not want to denigrate them in any way because I think they are very, very important people. But I will say that I have never been a companion of anyone apart from my beloved partner—he would describe me as a companion—but I am a fellow. When I thought about it, I am a fellow—

💬 Hon Member: No, you’re not. You’re a sheila.

—not a fella, but a fellow—of Trinity College London. I do not know how one becomes a companion of Trinity College London, but I am a fellow. I had to go quite a long way back into my history, and that is all to do with music, being a musical kind of person, and studying performance—I was good at that all those years ago. I do not think there was such a thing as a companion of Trinity College London, but when I looked back I thought that being a fellow of Trinity College London was quite a good thing to be, actually—I thought that was quite good.

I tend to think, and many other people tend to think, that these things do not matter—being a companion, being a fellow, or being an honorary member, which we will get on to in the next clause. But these things do matter, because they recognise that there are a whole lot of people in our society who contribute in a whole lot of areas. That is why I am really pleased that this whole bill has been about expanding the role of the Royal Society into the humanities, which goes into a whole range of areas, and maybe one day there will be a companion of trade union studies.

My colleague Sue Moroney talked about her qualification, and I have the same one, which is about trade union and labour studies. Maybe, in terms of expanding the humanities, there might be a companion of trade union and worker and labour studies; I think that is a very, very important part of our society. I think it is wonderful that clause 10 is recognising that the Royal Society—

I move, That the question be now put.

Motion agreed to.

Clause 10 agreed to.

Clause 11 Honorary Members