Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill

It is a pleasure to talk about clause 13 of the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill, and a very interesting clause it is. This clause covers the question of revocation of membership or fellowship. One might think that in a body like the Royal Society, which is full of serious-minded, professional scientists and academics, there would never be a situation where there would need to be revocation of membership, lest even revocation of fellowship, given that there are so few fellows for there to be a situation in which revocation could occur.

It is worth looking in some detail at the section of the Royal Society of New Zealand Act as it now stands on revocation of membership, which is section 18, given that this is such a serious matter. Section 18 of the Act tells us that the council of the Royal Society “may, at any time, in accordance with the rules, revoke a person’s or an organisation’s membership”—and I will come back to that—“of the society if—(a) that person or organisation has not adhered to the code of professional standards and ethics; or (b) that person or organisation has acted in a manner that is inconsistent with the Society’s object or functions as set out in sections 5 and 6.” The section goes on to state: “(2) The Council may at any time, in accordance with the Academy bylaws and on the recommendation of the Academy Council, revoke the fellowship or honorary fellowship of a person.”

I just clarify that in that section there are two pathways. One is for those who are members, and that is where a person has breached the code of professional standards and ethics, and/or where they have behaved in a way that is inconsistent with the objects and functions of the society. The threshold for revoking the fellowship of a Fellow of the Royal Society is set at a higher bar and it has to go through the academy council, which is now renamed the academy executive committee. It would be a significant decision to remove someone from the Royal Society. It begs the question of whether this has happened before. That is the obvious question that it begs, and my research to this point has not identified anyone. I would be interested if members have an example of somebody who has had his or her membership or fellowship revoked. It seems like a very serious sanction.

When we look at the two ways in which one could have membership revoked, we see it can happen with someone not adhering to the code of professional standards and ethics. This is important. I guess this instance could come about if somebody perhaps plagiarised some research, undertook research in an unethical manner, or perhaps did not get ethics committee approval for the research they were undertaking. If a member of the Royal Society became aware of that, they may choose to make the academy executive committee aware of that situation. I think that would be the kind of example that would fit within section 18(1)(a). It is difficult to imagine that that could happen, given the integrity of most scientists and most scientific institutions in New Zealand. But it is possible that, from time to time, some people will do this. We have had examples in the medical field where people have falsified their qualifications and have misrepresented themselves in order to work in New Zealand. If people like that could end up as members of the Royal Society, then this would be a way in which they had breached the code of professional standards and ethics. That would, potentially at least, bring up the notion of revocation of membership.

The second part of the clause is perhaps more interesting. This is currently section 18(1)(b), which is being amended by clause 13. That is where a person has acted “in a manner that is inconsistent” with the Royal Society’s objects and functions. To be honest, this is quite a broad category. We know that the academy executive committee will act very cautiously, but it is worth noting as we come to this point in the debate that acting inconsistently with the objects and functions of the organisation is quite broad. The object of the society is the advancement and promotion of science and technology in New Zealand. How can one act inconsistently with that—for instance, would it be inconsistent if a member or a Fellow of the Royal Society went along to a school one day and said to the students: “I don’t think you should study science.”?

💬 Chris Hipkins: What about creationism?

Exactly. Mr Hipkins suggests that perhaps someone might go and teach creationism in a school. Would that be against the object of the Royal Society, which is the advancement and promotion of science and technology in New Zealand? It is a very broad category that if somebody is seen to be acting inconsistently with the society’s object, he or she could have that membership revoked. As I say, I have no doubt that the academy executive committee would behave responsibly and would never let a situation arise where someone was unduly drawn in, but it does create the possibility—the potential—for such things.

Equally, section 18(1)(b) also talks about someone acting inconsistently with the functions of the Royal Society. Those functions are broad. They are about fostering a culture that supports science, technology—and now the humanities—public awareness and knowledge, the advancement of science and technology education, excellence in science and technology and about providing an infrastructure for the professional needs and development of sciences and providing expert advice on important public issues. There may be a situation in which somebody is called upon to provide advice to the Government on an important matter to do with science, technology, or the humanities, and they do not give that advice to the highest professional standard. They perhaps let a bias come into their advice. That may well be the example we are talking about, where somebody’s actions are so egregious that the Royal Society would decide that this was a time to revoke the person’s membership. As I say, I have not yet been able to find an example of a revocation of membership of the Royal Society, but the fact that it is provided for indicates that it is possible. Therefore, we need to take seriously this clause. Obviously, it alters the way in which decisions are made about that by changing the language from “Academy Council” to “Academy Executive Committee”, which will have the role to make these decisions.

Just briefly, the other category that is within the revocation clause is the revocation of a fellowship. As I said before, there are only 366 fellows at this time. They are people who have reached the highest level of academic excellence. It would be very surprising to think that any of them would be in a position where their fellowship would need to be revoked, but there is the possibility to do that. The ability to do that is held by the council of the Royal Society, which is the overall governing body of the Royal Society. So the gravity of doing something like this is recognised in section 18, which is being amended by clause 13. It is important to note that any revocation of a fellowship has to be in accordance with the academy bylaws, and on the recommendation of the academy executive committee to the council. It is also possible to revoke an honorary fellowship. Given that those honorary fellows, as we established in the last clause, have no voting rights, they are quite excluded from the process. Again, there are some issues that the academy executive committee of the Royal Society would need to bear in mind.

They are the comments that I wanted to make on this. Section 18 is actually quite a significant part of the Royal Society of New Zealand Act, which we are now amending through clause 13 of the bill. We are amending it to change the name of the organisation that is making these decisions about revocation. It is important that we note that it is possible to lose one’s membership of the Royal Society. We have spent some time tonight talking about that and the significance of that.

I just wanted to—

💬 Darien Fenton: Your membership’s cancelled.

Revoked—I have been revoked. I just wanted to make some comments on what Grant Robertson was talking about. He said he could not find any history of a revocation of membership actually happening, so I think that the possibility of clause 13 of the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill being acted upon is very unlikely. Clearly, the reason for that is that in many ways these people are self-selecting. To get to that level they have to be of the highest quality. They are judged by their peers. It is interesting in looking through the various types of membership and the way that the activities are carried out within the Royal Society to see the presence of peers judging peers, or measuring peers, to ensure that we are talking of the highest quality.

I cannot imagine the possibility that somebody could be, in a sense, thrown out from that position, unless a pretty serious occasion caused that. I could only think that if that was the case, it would have to do with science and the way that the person conducted himself or herself in science. I am thinking of people not conducting their research in a way that was in accordance with the highest scientific principles. Possibly plagiarism or something along those lines might cause a scientist of that standing—given that they are of the standing to be in that illustrious group—to have that title taken away.

I also touch on clause 13 itself: “Section 18(2) is amended by omitting ‘Academy Council’ and substituting ‘Academy Executive Committee’.” Although in some ways this change is administrative and very perfunctory because this council will have the powers to take these sorts of decisions, it is worth looking at the structure, and at the new structure, in particular. The supplementary submission made by the Royal Society to the Education and Science Committee looked at the new structure of the council. It noted that academy council, which is the name that has been used until now, will be changed to academy executive committee. That change is proposed in the bill to avoid confusion with the council of the society itself, and that is provided for in the bill.

The restructure is noted in the bill. It is set out there and is also set out in the explanatory note. The new structure of the council includes one president and six elected vice-presidents. They each have specific responsibilities in biological and life sciences; physical sciences, mathematics, engineering, and technology; social sciences—which are important in the context of the humanities, as we are discussing here—international; education, public awareness, and outreach.

To be perfectly honest, we are doing some of the job of the Royal Society tonight, because anybody who is watching this debate through the various clauses and parts that we have debated in this Chamber will come away with an extraordinarily detailed understanding of what the Royal Society is all about. I think that is a useful by-product; in fact, it is more than a by-product. I think it is part of the role of government.

All of us have talked about the eminence of these people. I reflect on the fact that just recently a poll found that the three most trusted New Zealanders are all scientists, and they all—actually, maybe not Ray Avery, but certainly two of the three—are Fellows of the Royal Society. The point I am making is that the Royal Society is a hugely prestigious organisation, and we have talked about this at length before. It is difficult to become a fellow, a member, or, in particular, an honorary member. I appreciated Grant Robertson’s explanation about the difference between those types of membership in response to a question he was asked. The Royal Society is a highly prestigious organisation, and it is structured in a way to ensure that the highest standards are maintained.

To go through the new structure of the council, as I was talking about before, we have the president, six elected vice-presidents with their specific responsibilities, and one elected representative of the regional constituent organisations. This is one area in which we received a great deal of submissions on this bill, and most of those organisations making submissions were unhappy about the inclusion of the humanities in the bill. Those objections came from the regional organisations, in particular. They were unhappy with bringing the humanities into the bill, as has been spoken of before, because they felt it would, in a sense, dilute the scientific nature of the Royal Society, which they believed should very much remain the pre-eminent science organisation.

The arguments laid out by the Royal Society in its various submissions, and what we heard from the Ministry of Research, Science and Technology, as it was then—it is now the Ministry of Science and Innovation—was that the move forward to bring in the humanities would greatly enhance the Royal Society, and not diminish it. In fact, in many ways what might be diminished, given the eminence and the gravitas of the Royal Society, is the humanities, which might be submerged amongst the sciences. I think there is more to worry about in a sense of, not exactly a takeover, but certainly a crowding out, if you like, of the humanities, rather than the sciences.

As we have argued as we debated many of the clauses in this legislation until now, we believe that the humanities can only enhance the work of the Royal Society. In many of the other royal societies across the world where they have made this change, it has enhanced the ability of those royal societies to function and to make a really valuable contribution not only to science and intellectual endeavour but to the policy arena as well, which ultimately for us as politicians, for example, is very much appreciated.

I will come back to the new structure of the council to be amended under clause 13, which states: “Section 18(2) is amended by omitting ‘Academy Council’ and substituting ‘Academy Executive Committee’.” Yes, on the one hand that is a rather administrative or technical point, but nevertheless it is an important change, and is a particularly important change given the types of changes and alterations that have taken place for the various memberships of the Royal Society.

To wrap up, I point out once again that given the nature of the Royal Society, as Grant Robertson said, it would be very difficult to imagine clause 13, “Revocation of membership or fellowship”, ever having to be used. It can happen at any time, but, like Mr Robertson, I have not been able to find a single incidence of this actually happening. If it did happen, it would probably make the headlines, frankly, because the Royal Society is of such gravitas and standing in our community and in New Zealand that it certainly would not go unnoticed. It would be for a very serious academic crime.

I move, That the question be now put.

I do feel sorry for Government members, because when I look at those who were on the Education and Science Committee, I see members like Allan Peachey, who I know would love to come and take a call on the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill. I also see Jo Goodhew. Jo would have enjoyed standing up to give an erudite contribution to the debate in the Chamber tonight. I also think of Heather Roy. She could have given a great perspective from her research-based background, which she has always been known for with regard to her contributions on health. I also see Louise Upston. So it is a pity that Government members are not joining in this fulsome debate tonight.

We have hit clause 13 tonight, and I think this is the nuts and bolts of this bill. Since we began the debate on the bill today, we have romped, really, through five clauses—five clauses. Through this we have had an amazing learning experience in the Chamber tonight, and I want to thank clause 9—

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Point of order, Jo Goodhew. [Interruption] The member will be seated.

💬 Jo Goodhew: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Once again I find that we are transgressing from the clause under debate. I have not heard it mentioned. In fact, I think I heard clause 9 mentioned once. So I would ask that you ask the member to narrow the debate to the 12-word clause under debate.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Thank you. I was coming to that conclusion myself. Can the member narrow the debate to the clause in question.

Well, that took 2 minutes. Thank you, Mr Chairperson. What a pity it is that that was the contribution from the Government today—just to take a point of order. But here we are.

National’s junior whip will be really thrilled to know that I am getting to clause 13—clause 13. We have romped through five clauses tonight since we have been in this debate, and we have hit clause 13, which is really the nuts and bolts of this bill, because it is about the revocation of membership or fellowship. We have gone through, in the previous five clauses, the provisions relating to the fellows, the companions, the honorary members, and the honorary fellows, and now we have hit the clause that really is the sanction—the sanction given by the Royal Society of its very membership, which is the great society that we all enjoy here in Parliament. I heard one of my colleagues, David Shearer, speak earlier. He is our spokesperson on science, and he knows more about this area than I do. He doubted whether this revocation clause would be needed very often. But, actually, now as we get more academics in the sciences, the humanities, in technology, and in the market place and in the educational institutions, there is an element of requiring much more care to be taken about the validity of the research and ensuring that research has not been plagiarised. We are seeing examples in New Zealand of research having been plagiarised. Even peer review is sometimes a very slow process, and that is the mechanism that the Royal Society uses.

Perhaps the member in the chair, Grant Robertson, who is sponsoring the bill and who knows so much about the details of it, could elaborate as to whether there is a complaints committee mechanism. I do not see it here, but we have gone through other substantial legislation like the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act, where we put in a complaints mechanism. I think this bill is still a little loose, with this heavy revocation clause. I mean, it is the ultimate sanction if someone’s membership or fellowship is revoked. That would be the ultimate embarrassment professionally to any academic. But there does not seem to be a feed-in mechanism to the Royal Society about the management of complaints and the reception of complaints. I am not sure whether this is now a matter for the academy executive committee, which is mentioned here. Is it just open to anyone in the public to complain about a member or a fellow, in terms of whether he or she is abiding by the code of ethics or the standards of professional conduct that is to be applied consistently to members? I do not know what the complaints mechanism is; it would be helpful if the member in the chair would help us on that.

But I think it is a great thing to see clause 13 in the bill. The Royal Society is much more than a club. I grew up as a little girl with my father as a member of the Freemasons, and that was like being in a secret society. I used to pick dad up when I got my driver’s licence, and I had no idea what they were up to.

I move, That the question be now put.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak specifically to clause 13 of the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill. I have not had an opportunity to speak to this clause, which focuses on the revocation of membership or fellowship. This is set out in section 18(2) of the principal Act. It is very specific, but, as I think my colleagues have alluded to, we hold some concerns over this clause, and I ask whether we have missed an opportunity here. I would like to hear the member in the chair’s contribution on this; perhaps it will take a lengthy contribution to respond. Details are important on this, because, as my colleagues have raised, although this clause amends only section 18(2) by omitting “Academy Council” and substituting “Academy Executive Committee”, that does very little to allay the concerns that members here have over whether the revocation of membership or fellowship is a robust procedure in and of itself. I would like to know from the member in the chair what the substitution of the word “council” with “executive committee” represents. Is that a broadening of the panel that makes the decision on revocation? Would the academy executive committee, for instance, include other members who might not be members of the council but may have specialist knowledge? For instance, if we are talking about a controversial revocation, would it be possible to co-opt a lawyer on to the academy executive committee, as opposed to the existing academy council? As my colleagues have outlined, there is the potential here, embedded within this clause, for quite a significant controversy. Although we have not been able to find any examples of revocation of membership or fellowship, there is the potential that if someone were to lose his or her weighty title within the Royal Society, it could create great waves.

The second point I want to raise is that the clause does not include a great amount of transparency around the process for having membership revoked. Very clear within the public details of the Royal Society is the very onerous process one must go through in order to become a member or recognised fellow, but there is not that kind of transparency in relation to what happens if that role or membership is removed from someone. I think that is an omission. It is probably contained somewhere within the Royal Society’s membership guidelines, but I think it would be helpful if that were made public. I know that many people would be very interested to know what it would take for Sir Paul Callaghan to have his role as a fellow removed. In fact, I have heard of people who in the past have wanted to find this information but have been unable to do so.

I also want to ask about what criteria it takes to have a revocation of one’s membership. For instance, the point was raised that a revocation may be rendered if it was thought that one would teach in schools—what is it called again, President Bush’s favourite—

💬 Chris Hipkins: Creationism.

—creationism. My question is, given that there is an expert panel on climate change within the Royal Society, if one was a climate change denier, for example, someone like Rodney Hide—oh, we are blessed with the member’s presence in the Chamber—became an honorary member of the Royal Society and then tried to establish within Parliament a select committee to deny climate change, which I believe actually happened in real life, would that be an example of when someone would lose his or her membership or fellowship? I think we should have that question answered. Is it simply that one brings degradation of the Royal Society? Could it occur when one acts in a way unbecoming of the Royal Society? Is poor behaviour significant enough to be judged by the new academy executive committee, given clause 13? Is that criterion sufficient to have one’s membership revoked?

People have referred to the honourable role of the Royal Society and the idea that it is perceived to have great integrity, which it does. I imagine that the society will be very cautious to protect that brand. Does this clause allow the academy executive committee the ability to disbar, as it were, someone who behaved in a way unbecoming of the Royal Society, and what would that behaviour include? Would it include an appearance on Dancing with the Stars? I would not want to speculate, but there could be a range of options that are deemed to be behaviour unbecoming of the Royal Society.

I think it is timely for me to respond to the very interesting questions asked by my colleague Jacinda Ardern. I would not dare to respond in terms of the matters she raised with regard to the Hon Rodney Hide. I would certainly leave him to make any contribution he may wish to make in that regard. But I do want to answer her question about exactly who will be making the very important decisions covered under section 18 of the principal Act, which is being amended here by clause 13 of the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill, and to say it is the academy executive committee.

The academy executive committee consists of what are called the three discipline-based vice-presidents. That should not be confused with their having any role in discipline. This is a case of using the word “discipline” in the context of an academic discipline. There are three discipline-based vice-presidents: the vice-president (biological and life sciences); the vice-president (physical sciences, mathematics, engineering, and technology); and, to keep Dr Prasad happy, the vice-president (social sciences). Those three vice-presidents are on the academy executive committee and will make the decision about whether to revoke the membership of a member of the Royal Society. In addition to that there are three other Royal Society of New Zealand councillors, who must also be fellows, who are on the executive committee. I imagine that if the issue they were dealing with related to another fellow, there might be some questions of conflicts of interest. But in terms of dealing with a complaint about the revocation of membership, that complaint would be dealt with by the academy executive committee with the three councillors on it. There are also three more fellows added to make up the full Royal Society council.

The question Jacinda Ardern asked was whether a lawyer could be added to that body if there were a disciplinary matter or a revocation of membership under consideration. There is not currently anything in the Royal Society rules that allows for that. The Royal Society rules about that simply state that membership is for a 3-year term, that members cannot hold office on the academy executive committee for more than two terms, and that the committee will be chaired by one of the vice-presidents. The rules also talk about vacancies in the event of deaths or resignations. But there is nothing in the rules about adding in any legal expertise to the executive committee to make decisions about the revocation of membership under section 18 of the principal Act, as amended here in clause 13. I would imagine, I say for Jacinda Ardern’s benefit, that the academy executive committee may well take legal advice in this situation. I think that would be the only wise course of action, if the committee was moving towards the idea of revoking someone’s membership. But it is a very valid question, and I think that the debate on this clause tonight, which has been very valuable, has drawn out the fact that this sanction is quite severe, and that considerable thought needs to be given to it.

I have tried in this intervention to indicate that the academy executive committee, which is now being named here under clause 13, is an august body, with three vice-presidents representing the full gamut of the activities covered by the Royal Society, and also with the addition of other fellows, who will be part of the academy executive committee for the period that they are there. I note that as we move on through the bill, we will be making some changes to the way that the academy executive committee operates, and when we get to that point, it will be worth reflecting back to the question of whether that committee is now constructed in a way that represents the full activity of the Royal Society. But for now, the academy executive committee will be making that serious decision about whether someone’s membership should be revoked.

💬 Hon Steve Chadwick: Is there a complaints committee?

I was just about to come to my colleague Steve Chadwick’s question.

No, there is no complaints committee process. I think, given that the academy executive committee is such an august body, most members will be comfortable with that. I presume, however, as with any public organisation, that judicial review could come into play. If somebody did have his or her membership revoked, it would be possible to move it to that higher level. But within the rules of the Royal Society, there is no complaints process beyond a complaint being referred to the academy executive committee. I feel that probably gives sufficient closure for that matter.

I move, That the question be now put.