Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill

Clause 14 of the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill, to remind those who have been focusing on this bill in some detail over recent weeks, deals with the election of councillors to the Royal Society. Clause 14 is, in fact, an amendment to section 22 of the Royal Society of New Zealand Act. Section 22 of that Act deals with the election of councillors. In particular, it deals with the electoral college system that makes up part of the Council of the Royal Society.

To clarify this for the benefit of members, the Royal Society of New Zealand’s council should be constituted, according to the rules of the society, by a president and six elected vice-presidents covering a range of areas of interest for the council, and up to three co-opted members. The Royal Society councillors covering those particular areas are elected via an electoral college system.

💬 Hon Lianne Dalziel: Are you sure?

I am, and I am able to enlighten members that the establishment of the electoral colleges is done under the rules of the Royal Society. As I say, they are discipline-based electoral colleges. There is a vice-president for biological and life sciences, a vice-president for physical sciences, mathematics, engineering, and technology, and a vice-president for social sciences. Each of the discipline-based electoral colleges will be managed according to the rules by the council to consist of a grouping of members with similar interests. This is to ensure that the Royal Society council has a wide spread of membership that covers the bases of what the Royal Society stands for.

The electoral colleges themselves are able to review how they operate from time to time, but they are governed by the rules, and these are the rules being amended in clause 14. In particular, the rule being amended within clause 14 is about the length of time that a councillor can hold office. Colleagues will recall from earlier stages of this debate that although this bill is largely about the incorporation of the humanities into the Royal Society, when representatives of the Royal Society came to me, and then to the House, they also said there were a number of minor technical changes.

💬 Jo Goodhew: Such a long time ago.

It was some time ago; that is true. But they are very pleased, I am sure, with the progress that we are making on this legislation. They came and said there were some other technical matters beyond the issue of—

💬 Chris Auchinvole: Do you suppose he rehearses these speeches?

💬 Jo Goodhew: Oh, I think so.

No. No, I can assure Mr Auchinvole that I do not. I can assure him they just come straight out—they come straight out.

💬 Chris Auchinvole: There’s a touch of spontaneity.

💬 Jo Goodhew: There’s some evidence of that.

I think we have seen evidence of that; that is true. The elected councillors from the electoral colleges are an example of the technical changes that the Royal Society wanted. This change would remove the notion that no person may hold office as an elected councillor for more than 4 consecutive years, and replace that with the statement: “No person may hold office as an elected Councillor for more than 6 consecutive years.”

I think members of the Royal Society Council have found that although a 4-year term was useful, actually for the long-term governance interests of the Royal Society a 6-year term was their preference. So that is what clause 14 does in amending section 22: it changes that notion that elected councillors can serve for no more than 4 consecutive years.

💬 Dr Ashraf Choudhary: How many councillors?

What was that?

💬 Dr Ashraf Choudhary: How many councillors?

How many councillors? We can return to that; I did say that before. We have the discipline-based electoral college of the three vice-presidents who are the elected vice-presidents of the council.

At the moment I can tell members of the Committee that the current elected vice-presidents are Dr Stephen Goldson, representing the biological and life sciences areas, and Professor Richard Le Heron, who is the vice-president of social sciences and humanities. A very important point to note is that the Royal Society, as part of the process of adopting the humanities, has as part of the social sciences electoral college a vice-president for social sciences and humanities. This is another example of how the Royal Society is happily getting along with its business as Parliament goes through and debates these important changes. The other elected vice-president is Professor Geoff Austin, who is the vice-president of physical sciences, mathematics, engineering, and technology. They are the three elected vice-presidents of the council.

Other members may be interested to know that the council is currently chaired by Dr Garth Carnaby—somebody whom people in the Chamber, I am sure, have had a lot of contact with, and who is a very respected person. There is also Professor Michael Corballis, and then there are representatives of the regional constituent organisations. These organisations have been discussed before in this debate. The regional constituent organisations are an important part of the Royal Society. In fact, as we know, one of those, the Wellington organisation, submitted against some of the changes in this bill, so they do play an important role in the way that the council operates, and it is obviously the composition of the council that is being amended in this particular clause. It is useful to know that those elected vice-presidents are there.

In addition to the elected vice-presidents, three elected councillors are on the council, as well. Those three elected councillors currently are some eminent people: Professor Caroline Saunders, Emeritus Professor Ken Strongman, and, as I mentioned before, Professor Michael Corballis. They are the three elected at-large councillors, along with the electoral college councillors. Those are the positions that are now able to be held under the change that we are proposing to a term of no more than 6 consecutive years, rather than 4 consecutive years.

I have to say that this is not a clause that was the subject of a lot of submission within the process. But it is an important change, because the council—

💬 Chris Auchinvole: Not a lot. Were there any? Were there any submissions?

There were a number of submissions—

💬 Chris Auchinvole: Were there any submissions on this clause?

On this clause? I am not aware of any, I say to Mr Auchinvole. I was not on the Education and Science Committee.

💬 Chris Auchinvole: You weren’t on the committee?

No, no, but I am reliably informed that there were no submissions on this clause. However, there were submissions on this bill, as Mr Auchinvole will know. I thank him for interjecting and allowing me to talk a little about the submissions that came into the committee. The fact that these technical matters did not get a lot of analysis in the select committee is, I believe, an invitation for this Committee to study them in more depth.

💬 Sue Moroney: Are you criticising the members of the committee?

No, I am not criticising the committee, because the committee had a lot to deal with in other clauses of this bill. But this is one clause that did not, perhaps, get much attention. So I think it is worthy of debate that a governance body such as the Council of the Royal Society would want to change from a 4-year term to, effectively, a 6-year term. That will reduce, obviously, the turnover in elected councillors, but the balancing consideration is that it will improve the continuity of work of the Royal Society council.

Obviously, the Council of the Royal Society is the body, as we have noted before, that is involved in the governance; the academy executive committee, which was formerly known as the academy council, deals with more of the direct scientific-based work—the decisions about who gets prizes and so on. But the council has that important governance role, and by this change under clause 14 we will be enabling people to stay on the council as elected members for up to 6 years. I regard that as a change that is positive. On balance, I am sure there may be members of the Committee who do not. There may be members of the Committee who feel that it should not go that way, and I would be happy to entertain the views of those members. But, on balance, I believe that the work of the Royal Society council is such that it is an important governing body, and having people able to serve for up to 6 years will allow them to represent the concerns of members.

I will end this contribution by just making note of the fact that the area of responsibility of one of the electoral college representatives, the representative of the social sciences electoral college, now includes the humanities. That shows that the Royal Society is getting on and doing its work of incorporating the humanities into the highest level of its organisation.

I move, That the Committee report progress.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): That is a motion that the Committee has to address, so the question is that the motion be agreed to. Those of that opinion will say Aye, of the contrary No. The Ayes have it. Party vote?

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Does this pertain to the vote?

Yes it does. The question of reporting progress on a bill part-way through its consideration is one, as a relatively new member in the Chamber, where I would have thought a member would have to seek the leave of the Committee, rather than simply move a motion to do that.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): I can respond to that. If members refer to Standing Order 177/1 it is quite clear: “A member may move ‘That the committee report progress’.” It is a procedural motion. The wording has to be accurate. The member fulfilled that requirement. The Committee then addresses the matter by a vote, which is put immediately, which I have done. I was going to call a party vote, which we will now do. So—

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I just seek some clarification on this. We have had only one speaker on clause 14, so it is highly irregular for this to have been proposed. I seek clarification on this.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): There is no instruction in either Speakers’ rulings or the Standing Orders as to how many speakers speak; any member at any stage can move that the Committee of the whole House report progress. The member has taken that option. The Committee now expresses its view on that procedure by voting.

I move, That the report be adopted.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. As the member in charge of the bill on which progress has just been reported, I just want to seek your guidance as to the ability of a member in whose name the bill is to have any way of ensuring that a bill continues to progress. I would have thought, looking at Standing Order 177, that the intention of that was around a member who may be in charge of the bill, rather than another member in the House seeking effectively to foreclose debate on the bill for a day. I am not sure, then, of the exact intent of being able to do this. Certainly Standing Order 177(2) mentions the notion of what a member in charge of the bill would do, but it does seem to me to be an unusual process to be going through. Obviously, I am a new member, and have not seen this happen before. But I do seek your guidance as to what rights a member in charge of a bill may have when another member seeks to foreclose the debate by reporting progress.

The member makes a perfectly reasonable point of order. Those who have been in this House for a while will well remember how this Standing Order is used. Any member, although they cannot interrupt a speaker, can when taking a call move that the Committee report progress. The House votes on that matter, and it is the decision of the House to report progress. That is the end of the matter. The matter can come up again next sitting day. That is how the matter is handled. I do therefore set the bill down for further consideration next sitting day.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I move that the matter that has just been set down for next sitting day be brought forward to today again.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I am not sure under what Standing Order the member is moving that.

One does not need a Standing Order to move a procedural motion.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. There are three subclauses to Standing Order 177. The member moved the motion referred to in subclause 177(1). That is the end of the matter. The House has voted on it. She did not move a motion along the lines of what is in subclause (2).

In the interests of making sure we do not make any errors here, I will receive advice on this issue. The advice is pretty clear. The House has made a decision that the Committee reported progress, and the House voted on that motion and made its decision. I have set the bill down for further consideration next sitting day, and it is not available for consideration today. There is not a procedural motion available to change that.

I seek leave of the House for the matter that has been set down for next sitting day to be reinstated as a matter for today.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is objection.