Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:671;Page:17566] 
Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill 
Second Reading 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 I move  
That the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill be now read a second time 
. The Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill is a private bill promoted by the Royal Society of New Zealand which will amend the Royal Society of New Zealand Act. I am proud to bring it before the House as the local member for the electorate in which the Royal Society of New Zealand is housed. The Education and Science Committee has been considering the bill and reported back to the House on 11 March. It recommended that the bill proceed with several amendments. I particularly thank the members of the Education and Science Committee for their hard work in looking at the bill for understanding the submissions that came to the committee and for making the amendments they have made. 
The main purpose of this bill is to amend the Royal Society of New Zealand Act so as to incorporate humanities into the objects and functions of the society. This was based on a memorandum of understanding to incorporate the humanities into the society which was signed by the society and the Council for the Humanities in February 2010. The bill expands the objects of the society to include the advancement and promotion in New Zealand of the humanities in addition to science and technology. The functions of the society will also be expanded to include functions relating to the humanities such as fostering in the New Zealand community a culture that supports the humanities and encouraging promoting and recognising excellence in the humanities. The incorporation of the humanities into the objects and functions of the society will mean also that people involved in the humanities may be admitted as members of the society and that people who have achieved distinction in research or the advancement of the humanities can be elected as fellows of the society. The society will also be required to establish and administer a code of professional standards and ethics in the humanities as it currently does in relation to science and technology. 
The Education and Science Committee recommended a change to the definition of humanities in clause 5(2) of this bill by omitting specific mentions of English and American studies. Members of the committee may choose to share with the House some of the logic in relation to that change. As I understand it it is to do with duplication in that English is dealt with under languages and perhaps American studies is dealt with under cultural studies. Questions have been asked in the process of this bill about some other subject areas that are not mentioned under the definition of humanities. Although I retain an open mind as the member sponsoring this bill as to exactly how we should describe the humanities—and I am more than happy to talk to people as we move into the Committee stage about whether we have that definition right—it is important to note that in addition to traditional science and technology the social sciences are already part of the Royal Society’s work. I think social sciences will include a number of the disciplines people have been concerned about not being specifically mentioned in the list of humanities at the moment. It could perhaps include political science and that is one example. 
I am as I said more than happy as we move into the Committee stage to make sure we have a full consensus in the House about the way in which we describe the humanities in the bill. Most members of the House would acknowledge that when legislation has an exhaustive list of any particular thing under a definition what is not there becomes a concern to people. The committee has done its best to come up with a coherent list but we need to make sure we have consensus on that. We can talk about that as we go into the Committee stage if members of the Committee of the whole House would like to do that. 
In the submission process of the select committee there was a submission from the Royal Society’s Wellington branch and it is worth noting that the Royal Society’s Wellington branch expressed some concerns about bringing the humanities into the Royal Society. It is a good thing when bills are sent to select committees which from time to time the current Government has not done and this is an example of where even on a non-controversial bill there was some debate. It is important that we recognise the good faith of those people who make submissions and we can talk about the concerns over this bill now. The objections the Royal Society’s Wellington branch raised were essentially around its concern that by bringing the humanities into the objects and functions of the society there would be some dilution of the focus on science and technology. That is a concern that people who have been working in the framework of the Royal Society for many years may well have. There was concern from some branch members that the significance of science may reduce in the activities of the society. It is clear that the committee members have considered this and decided they are comfortable with where things have reached. Certainly members of the Royal Society itself feel that the process of making the decision was one that was taken seriously. The council of the Royal Society debated it thoroughly and over quite a long period—a year or more—worked out how to make sure their incorporation of the humanities still allowed for sciences to flourish. 
On a personal level I think the incorporation of the humanities is very important because if New Zealand really is going to grow its economy we need to bring together the innovation that comes from the humanities and social sciences and marry that up with hard-core sciences and technology. Sir Paul Callaghan who spoke here recently at a Speakers’ Science Forum and who is a fellow of the Royal Society spoke very much as he has in the past about the important issue of the merging together of the clever minds of New Zealanders—the people who brought us Weta Digital and so on; the designers; and the people who can conceptualise design. Bringing those people together with the hard scientists is the way we will get innovation in our country. When we look at the objects of the Royal Society as they currently stand I think that idea is understood. Although I can appreciate that some people involved in the Royal Society may have concerns about the dilution of science and technology I believe this bill will actually strengthen the Royal Society by bringing in humanities and by broadening out the objects and the functions of the society to take into account the humanities. It will actually start to bring together some of the synergies that have been mentioned. 
I also note because there was some concern in the Royal Society’s Wellington branch about whether there had been sufficient consultation on incorporating the humanities into the society that the council of the Royal Society discussed this matter as far back as March 2009. Incorporation was discussed at the fellows’ AGM in November 2009 then found its way through by late November 2009 to be formally adopted and by January 2010 to be announced. The memorandum of understanding between the Council for the Humanities and the Royal Society was signed on 9 February 2010. A process was gone through by which fellows and those involved in the Royal Society council were able to discuss this issue and I think the decision taken was certainly the right one. 
There is also a slight change being made by the select committee around the appointment of members to the academy council. The process of changing the academy council was one that again went through some significant discussion. It is important obviously when one changes the objects and functions of an organisation like the Royal Society that we are able to have the council operate in a way that goes along with those changes in the functions. But again in the interests of democracy it is worth noting that the fellows of the society had a vote on this and 97 of the fellows were in favour and just two against. 
Moana Mackey 
: What about the 1 percent? 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: No it was 97 actual people and two against. It was not a percentage. The scientist sitting beside me is always thinking in percentage terms. Overwhelmingly the fellows of the society were comfortable with the decision to change the structure of the council. The Education and Science Committee has just slightly amended the wording that relates to the appointment of a person as a member of the society’s council by the society’s regional constituent organisation just so that makes sense. 
It gives me great pleasure to move the second reading of this bill. The bill will be an advance forward. Members on this side of the House are committed to New Zealand being an innovative country; a country that supports education science and technology; and a country that invests in education science and technology. We think that that is how we will provide opportunities for future generations of New Zealanders and not by cutting funding to science not by taking science advisers out of schools and not by ignoring the evidence and research that is important in policy making and elsewhere. We see this bill as a step forward an advance for the Royal Society and one that I hope all members of the House will be able to support. 
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP (Minister of Science and Innovation) 
: 
 Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker for allowing me to take a brief call on the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill and it will be relatively brief because it would be fair to say that Mr Robertson has canvassed all the issues that need to be canvassed. 
I think it is important to emphasise that the change being sought was very much at the request of the Royal Society which currently consists of the scientific and technological community. I would like the branches of the society to consider the implications of that. It was scientists and technologists who requested a broadening of their own scope and purposes to include the humanities. They recognised that the existing purposes of the society were simply too narrow so they have incorporated the humanities. That lines up with the general view that prevailed in the funding arrangements for the Marsden Fund. Again that was almost exclusively prior to that convened by the scientific community. 
So this measure was in effect the scientific community reaching out to broaden the scope of research. It is not entirely surprising that that would be the case. In smaller nations like New Zealand royal societies tend to cover both science and the humanities. In larger nations like the United Kingdom it would of course be somewhat different. In our case it is necessary that the one society covers the full range of academic endeavour. So it was a somewhat unusual situation that the society which is very significantly Government funded and indeed administers a number of Government funds had to request its local member—its head office being based in Wellington Central—to advance a bill. But this is perhaps one of those occasions where it is quite a good thing that the public can see collaboration across the Parliament around a common cause. 
Moana Mackey 
: That’s right. 
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: I note that an Opposition spokesperson on science and innovation is present in the House. It would be fair to say there is a broad consensus around what is appropriate in this area. I note of course that we clearly have our small differences from time to time but they tend to be not so much about purposes but extent if I could put it that way. I guess we in the Government have to deal with the reality of fiscal constraints whereas Opposition parties can perhaps take a slightly freer range about things and indeed are inclined to do precisely that. 
It is interesting that the previous Government was in office for 9 years and had plenty of opportunities to do all sorts of things. 
Moana Mackey 
: R and D tax credits. 
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: During a time of amazingly large surpluses—$10 billion—it took the previous Government until 2009 to introduce some research and development tax credits. 
Moana Mackey 
: We didn’t require Crown research institutes to give their money back to the Government. 
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: I have noted what the interjector said just then. Labour did it just at the point of the global financial crisis. Labour members of course seemingly are still operating in the paradigm of $10 billion surpluses. I would like to remind them from time to time that the world has changed just a little and it is probably necessary to change policies just a little to accommodate that reality. 
I also remind those members—all members because I think this is something we should all be able to all celebrate—that from 2008 through to 2010 there was a significant gain in the total share of GDP of New Zealand that is spent on science and innovation or under the more traditional nomenclature “R and D”. It went from 1.19 percent to 2008 which was the last year I think of the previous Government to 1.30 percent in 2010. That is about an 8 percent increase at a time of economic constraint. It is significant I think that in a time of economic constraint businesses universities and the Government have recognised the need to drive up that share compared with what was one would have to fairly say reasonably halcyon times for the economy. That was not due to the previous Government of course but rather to global economic conditions and the previous Government was not able to achieve the sorts of gains that were needed to be made. 
I will not quibble about these things too much. It is possibly inappropriate to do so to excess during this debate. I just draw these points to the attention of the House. I say to members in the House that those statistics are from Statistics New Zealand and are therefore highly reliable. They came out yesterday I note. 
I am very happy to share in the collaboration in the House to advance this bill. The changes that have been made are perfectly appropriate. They are more general in nature than the bill as first presented and I think we would all agree with that. I also note the other changes. I guess we can take the point about the nature of this bill by how quickly it was resolved by the Education and Science Committee and by the length of the report which covers four short paragraphs. It would be fair to say that this bill will be passed by unanimity and it will go through the Committee stage smoothly thence to the third reading. 
I join with my colleagues in the House in supporting this bill and indeed supporting the endeavours of all of our scientific community and other researchers in the humanities for their hard work over recent years to improve the understanding of the importance of science and innovation in our wider community. I think everyone would concede that there has been a significant change over the last 2 years and the data demonstrated the reality of that. Thank you. 
DAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert) 
: 
 As the Minister said there is some agreement on the importance of science and innovation in our society. The question as he quite rightly says is the emphasis and how we go about it. I will get to that in a minute but first I want to address the bill before us. What I did agree with the Minister on was that the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill was brought about by the Royal Society approaching Parliament. It did not come from Parliament; it was at the society’s request. 
We need to remind ourselves that the Royal Society is one of the most pre-eminent prestigious organisations that we have in New Zealand. It is a body of real academic learning and of excellence. It is something that we hold up as being at the top of the pyramid in terms of learning. I will give a couple of statistics to back that up. The Royal Society is independent it is a national academy and it has 1200 members 344 elected fellows 10 regional branches and 60 constituent scientific and technological societies. Nearly 20000 scientists technologists and technicians are represented by the society. In other words the society does a remarkable job. One of the things we have benefited from—and I note the chair of the Education and Science Committee is here—is the sponsoring and bringing of scientists to Parliament. This has been very well-attended by members of Parliament who have come along and listened to some of the more innovative science that is coming out of our institutions right across the board be they Crown research institutes universities or the like. 
This bill was given a pretty thorough reading by the Education and Science Committee. Although it appears uncontroversial there were a number of submissions on it. The bulk of the submissions focused on the question of bringing the humanities into what they believed was a pure scientific organisation. The committee went through the bill quite carefully. We brought what is now the Ministry of Science and Innovation back twice to discuss some of the submissions to make sure that they were given a fair reading and I think we did that. At the end of the day this is something that has been decided on by the Royal Society and I think we must respect its wishes. 
I do not think—and we will get to this in the Committee stage when we look at the bill more closely—that the various branches that are affiliated to the Royal Society have the constitutional ability to change what was the real wish of the Royal Society itself. As I said we did look at changing a couple of the aspects of the bill—for example to take out the clause on American studies and compress the definition of what constituted humanities. As my colleague Grant Robertson pointed out this issue has gone through quite a large degree of consultation with the Royal Society. It was voted on back in 2009 and passed earlier last year and it has come to the point where we can discuss it in the Committee of the whole House. I do not think there will be too many objections to what it says. 
I want to touch on a couple of points mentioned by the Minister in his speech as I do not feel I can let them go. I will not dispute the information from Statistics New Zealand unlike the Prime Minister in his answers in question time today when he refuted what Statistics New Zealand was saying. There has been an increase in research and development take-up particularly amongst our businesses. The real question for me and I do not think the Minister actually answered this is how much of that was due to his new initiatives—the various vouchers. As we have now waited nearly 2 years for these vouchers and transfers to take effect there is no way that he can claim credit for those vouchers somehow lifting the amount of research and development spending by private firms by 10 percent. There is absolutely no way he can do so. 
Let us look at this initiative which was from 2008. We must remember that during most of 2008 we were under the much more visionary plan of having 15 percent tax credits on research and development spending. Most of that increase was due to the enthusiasm of those companies. They were incredibly enthusiastic about a 15 percent tax credit on their research and development spending. I will mention one company in particular—Gallagher Group in Hamilton— 
Sue Moroney 
: A fine company. 
DAVID SHEARER 
: It is a great company that has been going a long time. It said to me that the research and development tax credit allowed it to take first more risk and second it made the company think creatively about what was research and development and what was not and to be much more strategic about it. 
That typifies much of the feedback I have had from companies about a 15 percent tax credit. Instead we now have a bunch of technology grants that the Minister crows about but when it comes down to it of the companies that applied for these grants 60 percent of them were turned down. That is an extraordinarily wasteful use of taxpayers’ resources. The Minister fails to understand that he has shifted from a tax credit that would have promoted companies and helped them make real changes to the way in which they do research and development to simply giving them a handout. The Government is now giving companies the extra spending for research and development and what are those companies doing? A lot of them are transferring the money they have been spending and shifting it on to other things. They are transferring the current money on to other things. 
I want to bring up one further point on this matter. When I started I wanted to speak on this Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill completely from the point of view of the Royal Society but I cannot sit here and listen to the Minister talk about a step change that in fact is nothing but a step backwards. Let us look at what we could have had. We could have had a 15 percent tax credit that would have— 
Colin King 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This is the second reading. The member is well wide of the mark. 
Grant Robertson 
: Point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: No I do not need any assistance. There is a Standing Order that says that we should confine our comments to the bill but it is quite interesting. The member is rebutting some of the comments made earlier. The member has a minute left but I say now to future speakers because I have the bill in front of me and I have been reading it quite closely that tax credits are not actually mentioned. From now on subsequent speakers will confine themselves to the bill. 
DAVID SHEARER 
: I will conclude on this argument. As I am sure that the Minister now feels suitably chastised about his ridiculous claims I will get back to the bill. The Royal Society is trying to bring humanities and the scientific community together. It is something that has been done in both Scotland and Canada. It has not been attempted in England or Australia where they have very separate societies but from what I can understand from the Australian experience they wish they could have this sort of a bill rather than the one they have. As Grant Robertson quite rightly put it we need to put our science our best designers and our humanities together to grow New Zealand. This is one way of doing it. I think that the Royal Society has been visionary in the way in which it sees the role for both the Royal Society and the prosperity of New Zealand in regard to the way in which we will be growing this economy which is about bringing the best of our talent and our brains together under this bill. 
ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tamaki) 
: 
 In the spirit of the rebuttal of debate and not unmindful of the Deputy Speaker’s recent ruling I will take a moment to remind the member who has just resumed his seat David Shearer of an Education and Science Committee hearing I attended as a regular member in the previous Parliament at which the then Minister of Research Science and Technology Mr Maharey was most defensive about the spend on research in New Zealand. It would behove David Shearer to acknowledge that the party he now represents in Parliament and that he speaks for on science matters had every opportunity over 9 years to do what this Government has done in less than 3 years. 
I had the privilege of chairing the Education and Science Committee that held hearings on the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill. They were constructive hearings. There was broad agreement across the committee and across the House that the bill should proceed. The bill has been introduced at the request of the Royal Society of New Zealand. There really is little more to be said without wasting the time of the House other than to reiterate that the bill has wide support. I support the bill and I urge its speedy passage through its second reading. 
DAVID CLENDON (Green) 
: 
 Kia ora tatou. The Greens are pleased to continue to support the progress of the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill through the House—in part as a show of support for the organisation that the bill seeks to expand strengthen and deepen. The Royal Society of New Zealand has an honourable and long history of doing significant good work for this country as it has done elsewhere and I am pleased to be a member—albeit a rather inactive member—of the society. 
I think the general level of support for the bill is given notice by the fact that it came through the select committee process virtually unscathed and with very little amendment except for the proposal to drop from clause 5(2) the specific reference to American studies. Try as we might we in the Education and Science Committee could not quite understand why American studies was so unique and different from other cultural studies philosophy law or politics—or many of the other elements that collectively we call the humanities—that it should warrant its own statement and place in the bill. Perhaps those who speak American or spell American culture with a “k” could explain why American studies was included but frankly it was unnecessary. 
Putting that issue aside I recall that in the first reading I reflected on my own academic history having both an undergrad arts degree and a postgraduate science degree. It put me in a position perhaps to appreciate the significant value and indeed the necessity of bringing closer together those two sets of disciplines—science and the humanities—in terms of personal development and critically for economic development for the many aspirations this country has. We will be stronger for having an organisation that incorporates the humanities in it. 
There are so many disciplines that are key to our well-being particularly given that we are a country that still earns a great deal of its living from primary production and from attracting people to visit us in order to enjoy our very beautiful—still stunningly beautiful—but also very fragile and threatened natural world our ecosystems our environment and our outdoors. The disciplines that are primarily responsible for the management of the underpinnings to our primary production and tourism are diverse and multiple. They include geography resource management ecosystem management and some branches of ecology—and particularly human ecology—which are all by their very definition and certainly by their practice disciplines that require people who are able to absorb comprehend analyse and critically utilise a very broad range of information and world views. Our Royal Society which is central to the scientific effort in this country amalgamating with the humanities can only strengthen that. 
The best decisions in the multiple disciplines I mentioned that are all critically involved in land use production and environmental protection are made by people who are able to understand scientific data and information even if those people are non-specialists at least to absorb the key lessons that science can give to us. Those people can also grapple with—at least at a general level again if not at a specialist level—the considerable complexity of economic and social issues and the interactions between the economy as a set of social relationships and the broader set of social relationships that make up our communities and our country. It is important that people making key decisions understand that their world view is unique to them—and perhaps collectively to a group with a similar background education and life experience—but often different from for example indigenous perspectives or the perspectives or world views of other minority groups to the degree that we can overcome the understanding between the dominant world view and another world view and make better-informed better-quality decisions about the management of our productive sector and natural environment. Clearly the Royal Society as one of the considerable pools of collective wisdom that inform this ongoing debate and work is a very valuable addition for humanities to come into. 
In a more general view in terms of the pursuit of science and the application of science in this country I acknowledge that the Government has done some very useful work and made some very useful changes in the structure of research and development with the different models that now apply in terms of the Crown research institutes funding and research capability. Some useful changes have been made but I do think there is still some way to go to get the optimum set of circumstances. As a country we are science poor. We do not attract educate graduate and retain sufficient scientists nor do we do so increasingly in the humanities. We are losing skills and knowledge rather than retaining or gaining them. Some policy settings could be improved to remedy that situation. In terms of science education we can go right back to secondary school level.  
I had the pleasure of attending ASB Polyfest last week which was an extraordinary expression of our future particularly in our very Polynesian Auckland City. In that context I had the opportunity to speak to some secondary school teachers particularly science teachers. They had some very interesting views on the curriculum and on necessary changes to the curriculum. I sensed some frustration that perhaps the teachers are not being heard sufficiently about changes at that very important level—the secondary schooling of our potential science graduates—and that we are missing out. For example nowhere in the curriculum is there adequate coverage or discussion of issues around climate change. In 2011 that is an extraordinary omission. Climate change is a reality; it is a scientific reality. It is also something that requires changes to human behaviour. So the combination of scientific effort scientific application and good understanding of how to motivate and affect human behaviour—to effect behavioural changes in people—is very critical to that. Some work is to be done at the secondary school level in terms of science education. At the tertiary level we are clearly exporting scientists rather than exporting science and that continues. 
I make these comments which are critical in acknowledgment that I think there is some understanding of the problem within Government. But I urge the Government to move faster and to do more to ensure that we retain the scientific capacity that makes major contributions to building our society and economy and that we can continue to do so in the future. 
I will touch very briefly on some of the issues that were raised by the previous speaker Allan Peachey about research and development. We know that members of the Royal Society have some quite strong views about the appropriate funding mechanisms both for public-good science and for private sector science. Some useful work is to be done. I think the current model is for Government support of private sector science. It is still expensive in terms of time. It is convoluted. It is difficult particularly for smaller companies to come to grips with and I think changes in the current model would have major economic benefits going into the future. Kia ora koutou. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
Hon HEATHER ROY (ACT) 
: 
 Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. 
Chris Hipkins 
: We’re looking forward to this. 
Hon HEATHER ROY 
: Yes I am sure the member is. I rise to speak on the second reading of the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill on behalf of the ACT Party. I will be taking just a brief call because there are other equally important bills on the Order Paper tonight. 
Like all other parties in the House the ACT Party will be supporting this bill. It is a very good bill very timely and at the Education and Science Committee the submissions that we heard persuaded us greatly that this bill was needed. There are two main points that I took from it one of a very practical nature and the other at a much higher level. The higher level perspective is that the humanities will now be incorporated into the Royal Society’s proceedings. I think that is long overdue. One of the submitters—I just cannot quite remember which one now—who was a physical scientist said that when he was researching or looking into any topic in his particular field he could not in this day and age overlook the effect that the humanities had on even his very specific area of physical science. 
The second point which is of a very practical nature is that the Royal Society has already effectively been including many of the humanities issues into its current work and proceedings. So the practical reason that it wanted us to address in this bill was to formalise the practice that was already occurring. 
There were a variety of submissions. Something that has not been raised in the House this evening but I am sure will be discussed more at Committee stage was that some of the branches felt that consultation had not been adequate on this particular issue. The Royal Society did not agree to this point but it is something that I think the Royal Society does need to be and will be in future very mindful of. 
For those reasons I have great pleasure in joining with the other parties in this House in supporting the member’s bill. Thank you. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker; kia ora tatou i tenei po. Ehara i te mea he nui waku korero mo te pire nei hoi ano kai te whaiwhai haere i te ahuatanga o te korero a wetahi atu. Mena he pono taku korero ehara i te mea he tino mohio au ki nga hohonutanga o te Royal Society 
o Aotearoa kao. Kare ano au kia rongo mo tera ropu i nga tau kua hipa ake ahakoa kai roto au i te ao o te matauranga. Hoi ano i puta te ingoa nei i roto i nga whiriwhiringa i nga wiki kua hipa ake na runga i tera i tu te Pati Maori i tona panuitanga tuatahi ki te tautoko i te motini kia whakatapirihia atu tenei mea te humanities ki roto i nga whainga me nga whakahaere o te society 
. 
I tenei wa e rua pea waku korero ki a tatou o te Whare. Tuatahi ko te wahanga tuarima he take nui kai reira e pa ana ki nga whakamarama. I titiro te Education and Science Committee ki tenei o nga pire ana hei tana me whakaae ka tika tukuna kia haere. Ehara i te mea he nui nga rereketanga ki te whakamarama i tenei mea te humanities 
. 
 Hei ta tera komiti he whakaae kia paku rereke te wahi 5(2) ki te ata titiro i te hohonutanga o nga whakamarama o tenei mea te humanities 
. 
 Me ki kia ukui i nga korero mo te reo Pakeha me nga whakaakoranga o Amerika me pera rawa te korero. I roto i te reo Pakeha ko te reo English me te American studies 
.  
E ai ki tera komiti he moumou taima noa iho te korero mo te reo Pakeha i te mea kai roto tera i te whakamarama whanui mo nga momo reo. He pera ano hoki mo te American studies 
i te mea kai reira tonu te cultural studies 
. 
 No reira e ai ki ta te komiti i roto i tera whiriwhiringa moumou taima noa iho te tini haere i tera wahanga. 
Hoi ano ko taku ko te titiro ki nga korero a te tangata nei a Hori Jones. Ko ia tetahi tangata ki taku mohio he matatau te tangata nei mo nga whakahaere o te ropu nei i te mea ko ia tetahi mema o te peka o Poneke i nga tau e wha tekau pea kua hipa ake. Ko tetahi wahanga me ki tata ki te tekau tau ko ia tera te perehitini o tera ropu. No reira he tangata mohio nei ki nga whakahaere o te ropu. Hei tana ahakoa kua pa mai nga tikanga o Amerika ki a tatou o Aotearoa nui noa ake te panga o nga tikanga Maori ki a Aotearoa no reira hei tana me tapiri tenei mea te whakaako o nga mea Maori ki roto i tenei mea te cultural studies. No reira kai te tino whakaae atu te Pati Maori ki tera momo whakaaro me te akiaki i te Minita ki te ata titiro ki tera take. 
Me te ki ano hoki me titiro pea tatou ki te whiti tuarua o te wahanga tuarima ara te wahi whakamarama. Kei wareware i a tatou ko te reo Maori he reo tuturu a-ture nei ki Aotearoa. Kei wareware i a tatou ko te Maori Language Act o te tau 1987 i a ia e whakatau ana no hoki ko te reo Maori he reo tuturu ake o Aotearoa he mea motuhake o Aotearoa tata ki te 25 o nga tau kua hipa ake. No reira ko ta matou ko te ki atu ko te reo Maori he reo tuturu ake ki Aotearoa he reo o te tangata whenua he taonga tonu e korowaitia ana i raro i te ahuatanga o te Tiriti o Waitangi. Kaore te reo Maori e rangona ana i wahi ke iwi ke i tua atu o Aotearoa putake mai ki konei korerotia ana i konei kei konei anake te reo Maori e korerotia ana. Engari ka eke ki te Royal Society of New Zealand Act 1997 he ture tera i muri mai o te Maori Language Act 
engari kare he paku korero o roto mo te ahuatanga o te reo Maori. Na reira ko ta matou ko te whakatakoto i tetahi Supplementary Order Paper 
i te wa o te Komiti ki te kokiri i tera take. No reira tera take tera. 
Tuarua kai te pirangi au ki te whakatakoto i tetahi whakaaro e hangai tonu ana ki te Tiriti o Waitangi. Ahakoa nga tutohutanga i te panuitanga tuatahi naku tonu i kauhau ki roto i tenei Whare kare he paku korero o roto mo te Tiriti o Waitangi i roto i nga akiakinga i nga whakanuinga o nga take taiao me nga take hangarau i Aotearoa nei. Karekau. Kua kaha tohe nei matou o te Pati Maori me whakauru i te Tiriti o Waitangi hai whakanui i te ahuatanga o nga mea Maori ki roto i te ao putaiao ki roto i nga mahi hangarau kia taea ai e te motu te ata titiro i nga mea e rua e korerohia ake nei na runga i te tirohanga Maori. 
No reira koi nei ta matou e aki nei. Ki a matou he pai ke me titiro pera rawa na runga i te mea i te nuinga o te wa kaore era take e korerohia ana; ara te tirohanga o te Ao Maori ki a ia ano ki tona ao ka mutu te tirohanga o te motu ki taua Ao Maori. E hia ke nei nga momo huarahi kai mua i te aroaro kia taea e tenei pire te whakawhanui i tona titiro. Kia titiro whanui tenei pire ki te ahuatanga o te matauranga Maori otira ki te whakanui i tera momo ahuatanga. No reira ko taku tera pea na runga i te ahuatanga o te korero mo te rangatiratanga o roto i nga mahi putaiao o roto i nga mahi rangahau o roto i nga mahi pangarau he ao ano tera. No reira ko ta matou ko te ki atu kati me titiro ki te wahanga o te tangata whenua me titiro ki te wahanga o te Tiriti o Waitangi i roto i tenei momo whiriwhiringa. 
Ka mutu he nui nga patai hai whakatakoto ki mua i te aroaro o te Whare i tenei wa engari ko te aki tuatahi ara kia hoki ra ano ki taku korero i te tuatahi me titiro ki te ahuatanga o te reo Maori na runga i tona putaketanga mai i Aotearoa nei. Me titiro ano ra ki te Tiriti o Waitangi hei whakawhanui tonu i te titiro ki tenei pire. Koi nei ta matou e aki nei. Kei reira tonu etahi whainga matua o roto i te Ao Maori ara ko te mana whenua ko te mana tupuna ko te whakapapa enei korero katoa ko te kaitiakitanga ka taea e wai ranei te titiro ki te hohonutanga o enei kaupapa. No reira kare e nui nga korero i tua atu o tera hoi no ko te ki atu ae a te wa o te Komiti ka whakatakotohia etahi tapiringa korero hai mea wananga ma te Whare katoa kia taea e tatou te wetewete i enei take hai taua wa. No reira kia ora tatou. 
[ 
Greetings to you Mr Assistant Speaker and to us this evening. It is not as though I have much to contribute to the debate on this bill but I merely want to follow up aspects that others before me have commented on. To be honest I do not have an in-depth knowledge of the Royal Society of New Zealand—none at all. In years past I had not heard about that organisation even though I was involved in the education sector. But the name of this society has emerged in the discussions during the past weeks and as a consequence the Maori Party got up at the first reading of the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill to support the notion of incorporating the humanities into the objectives and functions of the society 
. 
At this stage I have two points perhaps to make in my address to us of the House. The first one relates to clause 5. It contains an important matter relating to definitions. The Education and Science Committee examined this bill and agreed emphatically that it be passed and be allowed to proceed. It is not as though many changes are required to define this thing called the humanities. The committee recommended that a minor change be made to clause 5(2) in respect of examining the depth of the definition of the humanities and to omit references to English and American studies or words of that effect in the English language. In the view of that committee it is a waste of time to specify English because it is already in the broad statement about language types. The same can be said about American studies because it is already there in cultural studies. So according to the committee in that discussion it is a sheer waste of time to make those changes in that clause.  
But I want to pick up on the advice from George Jones. He is a person who to my knowledge is reliably informed about the work of the society having been a member of the Wellington branch for 45 years including nearly a decade as the president of that organisation. Mr Jones noted that although America has had some influence on New Zealand culture there has certainly been far more influence from Maori and he suggested that Maori studies could therefore be added in addition to cultural studies. The Maori Party fully endorses that kind of thinking and urges the Minister to examine it more closely.  
Perhaps we should look at subclause (2) of clause 5 the interpretation clause. We must not forget that the Maori Language Act 1987 declared te reo Maori as an official language—almost a quarter of a century ago. We advocate that te reo Maori is the foundation language of New Zealand the ancestral language of the indigenous people and one of the heirlooms guaranteed protection under the Treaty of Waitangi. It also provides this country with a unique language identity in the rest of the world as this is the only place where Maori is spoken widely. Yet the Royal Society of New Zealand Act 1997—introduced some 10 years after the Maori Language Act—has not included this major development in its text. So we will be introducing a Supplementary Order Paper at the Committee stage to have it debated there. So that is that point which I leave there.  
Secondly I want to put a thought before us that relates specifically to the Treaty of Waitangi. Despite recommendations in the first reading that were the focus of my address in this House there is still no reference made to the critical role of the Treaty of Waitangi in the advancement and promotion of science and technology in New Zealand—not one mention. We of the Maori Party argued strongly that the Treaty of Waitangi be included to enhance things Maori in the domain of science and technology enabling the nation to look critically at these two things being referred to based on a Maori perspective. 
So these are our urgings. We think that it is better to look at things that way because most times those matters are never aired—the way Maoridom views the world compared with his or her view of the world; and eventually the nation’s view compared with that of Maori. There are so many ways in which this bill could stretch its view. It could have taken a wider view towards aspects of Maori knowledge in terms of broadening that aspect. Perhaps that is just my take on things based on the kind of talk about self-determination in relation to activities concerning science research and technology. That is another sphere. What we are saying is enough. Give due consideration to that which pertains to the indigenous people of the land and the Treaty of Waitangi in this part of the deliberations.  
Further to that we have many questions to put before the House at this time but first I go all the way back to my first address and urge that the situation as it relates to the Maori language be considered because it is the founding language of New Zealand. Consider the Treaty of Waitangi again as a means of broadening the outlook towards this bill. These then are our urgings. But there are so many other major things that Maoridom is striving for. Land control ancestral control genealogy all these talks guardianship—who can examine the depth of these matters? So there is not much more to add further except to say yes at Committee stage we will be putting forward Supplementary Order Papers for the House as a whole to debate and unravel in the future. Greetings to us 
.] 
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to address the House during the second reading of the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill. When one does so one does so with a level of confidence that there is universal support for the bill in the House. 
We had 13 submissions. Six submitters asked to be heard. One thing that was interesting to the Education and Science Committee was the disconnect between the various provincial organisations of the Royal Society and the Royal Society itself over the constitution. I think that there is a better understanding now if not an agreed position taken by the various provincial arms of the Royal Society. 
The Royal Society has been going since 1867. As has been borne out the amendment to clause 5 was the only substantive change that the committee recommended. In doing so it amends that clause by removing the words “English and other” and “and American studies” for obvious reasons which will no doubt be drawn out in the Committee stage. 
Other than that this is very tidy legislation coming before the House. I have the pleasure of supporting the bill. 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I am happy to stand in support of the second reading of the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill. I am happy to do so both as a member of the Labour caucus and as a member of the Royal Society itself. I congratulate my colleague Grant Robertson the member of Parliament for Wellington Central on bringing this important legislation to the House. 
The legislation marks an evolving of the Royal Society to include the humanities. That inclusion is not universally agreed with throughout the science sector but it is an idea whose time has come I think it is fair to say. The reality of the kind of multidisciplinary approach to research that is undertaken by not only our universities but also our Crown research institutes and private research institutes shows that it is getting more and more difficult to draw a line between true scientific endeavours and those that enter into the humanities. I think that inclusion of the humanities makes a lot of sense. Including and promoting research in the humanities as well as in what would be considered more pure science is something the Royal Society has been doing in practice for a while. So for that reason it makes sense that in many respects the legislation brings the Royal Society’s legislation into line with its actual practice in the current day. 
Some questions were raised I understand at the Education and Science Committee and there were some concerns from some branches of the Royal Society about the level of consultation. I as a member of the Royal Society was consulted on the bill. I received my consultation pack and my voting papers in the mail. I thought the information provided was appropriate. The information provided was fulsome and I was quite comfortable with the level of consultation provided by the Royal Society. 
It is particularly important that we continue to support multidisciplinary approaches to research. There are some wonderful examples of multidisciplinary approaches going on around New Zealand. During the time of the previous Labour Government we started funding centres of research excellence that were based in universities Crown research institutes and private research institutes. Those centres really supported the notion of multidisciplinary research which is what the Royal Society is reflecting here in the legislation. 
A multidisciplinary approach draws together people from many different areas around a common focus in research. It may involve not just scientists but also economists sociologists lawyers or any number of people who can all come together and work on a particular area of scientific research that is crucial for the economy of this country. That approach is something Labour very much supported when we were in Government. It makes sense that the Royal Society which has also been supporting this multidisciplinary approach to research also brings its own legislation and practices into line so that it is not stymied and so there are no barriers that in any way stop these different areas of the research community from collaborating as much and as fully as they possibly can. 
Some of the multidisciplinary research that is going on around the country really is world class. I urge members of the House to take note of a lot of the research that is being done. I think one of the things we as parliamentarians should be able to do is say to the people who put us here that we do have regard for the research that is being done not only in New Zealand—particularly in New Zealand where it is relevant to our own situation—but also around the world. Sometimes it concerns me—and I know that this concern came through in some of the submissions—that due consideration is not given to that research. 
The multidisciplinary research that is being done at the Otago University has shown the absolutely important and crucial role that quality early childhood education can play in the long-term achievement of an individual. It is the first type of research of this kind that has been done around the world. It has shown very very clearly that individuals who have gone through not just any kind of childcare but early childhood education that is good quality and specifically teacher-led can have far greater outcomes not just throughout the rest of their education but for the rest of their lives. That research is the kind of multidisciplinary research that needs to be taken into account by members of this House. We need to be able to say that we have regard to the research. If parliamentarians choose to ignore research then that is their prerogative; they are elected to be here. But they should at least have to show regard to it and they should at least have to be prepared to explain to people why they ignore the overwhelming research in a particular area when making policy decisions. 
Labour has always been very supportive of this evidence-based approach to policy. I know that the Royal Society has also been particularly supportive of that approach in its work. Scientists and researchers across the board do not carry out research just for fun. They do not do it just for the hell of it. They do it because they want to contribute to the information out there to the decision-making processes to good-quality policy decisions and to policy-making processes. 
We have heard a lot of fine words in this debate. I welcome comments from all members in the debate on the legislation but it has to go further than just voting in favour of the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill. It has to go much further than that. It has to go much further and we have to be able to say as a Parliament that not only do we support the work the Royal Society does—its move to include humanities and its move to support more multidisciplinary approaches to research—we are going to take regard of that research when it is completed we are not going to ignore it and if we believe the research is wrong we will challenge it. We will give reasons why we are challenging it and why we do not believe that the research should be given due regard. 
I can think of the example of boot camps. All the research told us they would not work. All the research said the participants had worse outcomes not better and that the camps create fitter faster criminals. All the research about boot camps was very clear yet a policy that disregarded the research was put in place. 
A party runs on a policy platform and when it is in Government it has a mandate to bring policies into place but the Government should have to explain to the public why it is ignoring every single piece of evidence out there and why it thinks the evidence is wrong and it is right. A lot of taxpayers’ money is being spent. The taxpayers of New Zealand deserve to know that their money is being well spent that the research is not being ignored and that the evidence is being listened to before money goes towards pet projects that are frankly doomed to failure before they even start and we flush $20 million of taxpayers’ money down the drain. 
I hope that the fine words we have heard— 
Louise Upston 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am just drawing your attention to the speech to see whether it is going beyond the scope of the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: Well I am waiting for the member to make it relevant. 
Hon Dr Wayne Mapp 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You may or may not be aware that prior to the dinner break the Deputy Speaker gave an explicit instruction to all members that after—how can I put it—a slight digression by myself and Mr Shearer he felt that it kind of closed off that issue and that all other speakers essentially were to speak on the bill. He felt that Mr Shearer and I had had an appropriate and adequate debate but that probably should be confined to the two speakers I have just referred to. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: I was not aware of that ruling. I have frequently told the House that of all the debates a second reading debate is pretty much the tightest. If members want to make analogies or comparisons that is appropriate but they must be linked to the material pertaining to the second reading. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: I apologise to National members. I thought the Royal Society of New Zealand was about research but apparently not. That is all right; if it makes the member uncomfortable then I will speak about something else. One of the key achievements as I said of the previous Labour Government was the multidisciplinary approach that is being taken up in this legislation. As I also said before there was some disquiet at first about the inclusion of humanities into the Royal Society’s role. The reason I was discussing some of the areas that the humanities go into is to show that crossover to show why it is important that this change in the Royal Society be supported and actually to brag a little bit about the fantastic research that is going on out there. I am very disappointed that National members are so uncomfortable about that that they feel the need to shut me down. 
Louise Upston 
: We just want to talk about the bill. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: Well they want to talk about the bill because they do not want to talk about their appalling record in this area but that is fine; we can move on. 
Hon Dr Wayne Mapp 
: The Limited Service Volunteers are extremely popular and well proven. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: The Limited Service Volunteers are extremely popular and well proven? 
Hon Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Yes that’s right. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: Oh the boot camps. The Minister wants to interject on me about boot camps. 
Chester Borrows 
: No they’re not boot camps; they are Limited Service Volunteers not Fresh Start camps. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: “Limited Service Volunteers” is the nice phrase National has come up with but they are boot camps. That is what National members called them during the election campaign but now they have realised that the name does not sound good so they want to move away from it. The fact is that it does not matter what National members call boot camps they do not work and the research shows that. 
The Royal Society has often taken pains to show how important it is that Governments follow an evidence-based approach to policy. What is it about an evidence-based approach to policy that terrifies National members so much? All the Royal Society has been asking for for the longest time is that we look at the evidence because the best example of how things are going to go in the future is how they have worked before—and boot camps did not work before. The research shows that and the evidence shows that. 
Hon Dr Wayne Mapp 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I know I have made some interjections but I did stop with the interjections and the speech has just continued and continued with no reference whatsoever to the bill. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: I think the member has to take some responsibility for what happened. Moana Mackey you have 30 seconds left. Talk to us about the bill. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: This legislation is very good. As I said as a member of the Royal Society I was completely happy with the consultation that was undertaken and with the ability given by members of the Royal Society to participate in that consultation. I know that concerns were raised at the Education and Science Committee about the consultation which is why I want to mention it. 
The bill is a step change—as Government members are so fond of saying—for the Royal Society. It brings in the humanities. It is a welcome change and I look forward to the Committee stage debates on the bill when I might be able to talk about things without the National members getting so upset. 
LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupo) 
: 
 I am very proud to speak in the second reading debate to support the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill. Some people will be a bit puzzled as to which legislation we are discussing in this debate. It is not contentious legislation which some of those listening will be quite staggered to hear but it makes a quite a simple change. All it is doing is putting into law what the Royal Society has already been doing in practice for the last 12 months which is including the humanities in the work it does. 
If we look at the preamble to the bill we see that when the Royal Society was first set up one of its purposes was the advancement and promotion of science and technology in New Zealand. I am a proud member of the National Government which has a fine record in this area. Fantastic work has been done by the Minister of Science and Innovation Dr Wayne Mapp who is sitting behind me. I am very proud that this change to this legislation supports further work in science in this country. Thank you. 
JO GOODHEW (National—Rangitata) 
: 
 I rise to speak very briefly on the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill. I acknowledge the member Grant Robertson who brought it to the House. As we know the bill makes a fairly minor amendment but it is actually a very big deal for the people who are involved in the Royal Society. 
We have certainly heard that the consultation was far from perfect in the eyes of some of the members. However it seems that the changes made at the request of the Royal Society are mainly minor. The inclusion of the humanities is an important step to take and I believe that as this bill beds in we will find over time that the concerns of some of the members are allayed as they better understand how the change can benefit the Royal Society in the future. I commend this bill to the House. 
KELVIN DAVIS (Labour) 
: 
 As Jo Goodhew has just said the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill does mean a lot to the people of the Royal Society of New Zealand. Although only a word or so of the principal Act is being changed the bill has huge implications because the humanities are included in the objects and functions of the society. 
We have the humanities sitting here and science and technology sitting over there. I ask members to imagine a Venn diagram. I think the argument stems from whether science and the humanities overlap in a Venn diagram. I think it is really important and I think Moana Mackey spelt things out quite articulately to be honest. A debate has gone on for a number of years about the merging of the humanities the sciences and technology. Because I am a new member to the Education and Science Committee I missed out on the submissions. I personally was not fully aware of the Royal Society of New Zealand and what it does so like all good researchers I googled it. The debate has gone on for some time. I came across  
The Two Cultures 
 an influential 1959 Rede Lecture. So the debate has gone on even since 1959. The lecture was by British scientist and novelist C P Snow and its thesis was that “the breakdown of communication between ‘the two cultures’ of modern society the sciences and the humanities was a major hindrance to solving the world’s problems.” I find it quite amazing that people were thinking at that sort of level about the sciences and the humanities and thinking that the breakdown of communication between them—calling them “the two cultures”—was a major hindrance to solving the world’s problems. 
So what is science? I looked up a definition of science and it stated science is “an enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the world.” An older and closely related meaning still in use today is that of Aristotle for whom scientific knowledge was “a body of reliable knowledge that can be logically and rationally explained.” It is stating there that science is a body of knowledge that can be rationally and logically explained. Technology is “the usage and knowledge of tools techniques crafts systems or methods of organisation in order to solve a problem or serve some purpose. Technologies significantly affect human as well as other animal species’ ability to control and adapt to their natural environments.” I believe that science and technology are traditionally thought to be more closely related to each other than they are to the humanities. I know from teaching technology at schools that technology is the search for a solution to a problem or a need. 
Then we come to humanities. “Humanities are the academic disciplines that study the human condition using methods that are primarily analytical critical or speculative as distinguished from the mainly empirical approaches of the natural science. Examples of the disciplines of the humanities are ancient and modern languages literature law history philosophy religion and visual and performing arts including music and theatre. Additional subjects included in the humanities are technology anthropology area studies communication studies cultural studies and linguistics although these are also regarded as social sciences.” So the humanities look more at the human side of things—obviously being “humanities”—compared with the sciences which as I said earlier is a body of knowledge that can be logically and rationally explained. 
The Royal Society does a lot of good in a lot of areas around research the promotion of studies and projects like that. When I was the principal at Kaitaia Intermediate School a teacher at that school took a year’s leave with pay—paid for by the Royal Society—to undertake a study of Ninety Mile Beach and the effect of pingao the native plant that is similar to a hard flax on the sand dunes and erosion and toheroa would you believe. There is a belief that toheroa spawn attach themselves to the pingao. It was a year-long scientific study by this teacher sponsored by the Royal Society. That is an illustration of the good work the society is doing. As I was going through the society’s website I saw the number of ways that it supports and sponsors high school students on overseas trips to undertake higher study. The society supports all manner of research projects. I think it is important to raise this point for the people out there to whom this bill would not mean a lot. I think it is important that people hear and understand exactly the contribution that the Royal Society makes to New Zealand. 
Section 5 of the Royal Society of New Zealand Act 1997 is one of the sections that is being changed. It states: “The object of the Society is the advancement and promotion of science and technology in New Zealand.” That is what the Act currently says. Section 5 is being amended by clause 6 to state: “The object of the Society is the advancement and promotion in New Zealand of science technology and the humanities.” 
I have explained what is involved in technology science and humanities. Sociology which is one of the humanities is the study of society. It is a social science—a term with which it is sometimes synonymous—that “uses various methods of empirical investigation and critical analysis to develop and refine a body of knowledge about human social activity often with the goal of applying such knowledge to the pursuit of social welfare. Subject matter ranges from the micro level of agency and interaction to the macro level of systems and social structures.” That is one of the fields of the humanities that has been brought into the amendment bill. Anthropology is another field of the humanities. It is the study of humanity and it has origins in the natural sciences the humanities and the social sciences. Anthropology asks what defines humans who the ancestors of modern humans are what humans’ physical traits are how humans behave why there are variations and differences among different groups of humans and how the evolutionary past of Homo sapiens has influenced its social organisation and culture. 
That is just a broad outline for those people out there who are wondering what the Royal Society does and what this bill is about. We need to recognise the massive contribution the society makes to research and to education in New Zealand. Even though this is a non-controversial bill and it will probably slip through under most people’s radar I think it is right that we take the time to talk about the great work the society is doing the work that it has done and hopefully the work that it will continue to do in New Zealand for many many more years to come. Kia ora. 
Bill read a second time.