Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:672;Page:18838] 
Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill 
In Committee 
Debate resumed from 4 May. 
Clause 4 Purpose ( 
continued 
)  
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 I welcome back colleagues to the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill. 
Chris Tremain 
: We’ve been waiting all night for this. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: Absolutely. It is the highlight of Mr Tremain’s evening—and perhaps life—to be here for this. 
When I was last speaking I was working my way through the memorandum of understanding between the Royal Society of New Zealand and the Council for the Humanities because it lies at the heart of this purpose clause. Essentially the memorandum of understanding is bringing together the Council for the Humanities and the Royal Society in a way in which both organisations will be able to work closely together and to ensure that the kaupapa the philosophy and values of the organisations are kept. I think I had come to the point of saying that the term “humanities” will be included in all places within the Royal Society’s mandate and on its website. We will be doing that as we work through the bill that is before us. Also in making its representations to the Government and agencies the Royal Society will be including humanities wherever it is relevant and particular representations will be made about humanities. Obviously in collaboration with the Council for the Humanities which will become the Humanities Committee of the Royal Society there will be a particular focus on promotion and celebration of the humanities. 
I thought it was important to put on the record what the memorandum of understanding between the Royal Society and the Council for the Humanities means in terms of this purpose clause. I think it is a very good document that gives a solid foundation to the way in which the two organisations will now work together and it will allow the purpose clause to be enacted. I think this is a very important document. It shows that the level of collaboration between the Council for the Humanities and the Royal Society has been high for some time. They are committed to bringing this together. In fact they have largely incorporated most of the work required to bring it together and this legislation is merely the legal requirement on top of that. 
In one last point on this memorandum of understanding as I said in the last intervention one aspect of the memorandum of understanding is the statement that within 5 years the Royal Society will use its best endeavours to have its Act reflect the inclusion of the humanities. We are well ahead of time because this was negotiated in February 2010 so we have until February 2015 to pass this legislation. As I said the other day it might take that long. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: It won’t take that long. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: I say to Mr Hodgson that it probably will not but we certainly want to give it a thorough consideration this evening as we work our way through the clauses. At the end of this call I will seek the leave of the Committee to table this memorandum of understanding because I believe that it is an important part of the debate. I seek the leave of the Committee to table the memorandum of understanding between the Royal Society of New Zealand and the Council for the Humanities. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is anyone opposed to that course of action? It appears not. Leave is granted. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North) 
: 
 I think the memorandum of understanding will be pretty useful and I hope it will be made available to members soon. I was going to ask three questions about the memorandum of understanding but one of them has been answered and that is the date it is being written in. The second question relates to whether the memorandum of understanding was itself subject to any scrutiny by the academy council or the academy executive committee. The member in the chair Grant Robertson may want to reflect on that. I would assume that there has been consultation. I would further assume that in the course of the memorandum of understanding there would have been—I do not want to use the term “argy-bargy”; that is not appropriate for the Royal Society—carefully considered variances of view as people trolled through the vicissitudes of their various disciplines to see whether incorporating the humanities into the memorandum of understanding and therefore into the purpose of the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill was a legitimate thing to do. The member may choose at his leisure to give us some insight into the process by which the memorandum of understanding is drafted. 
I think the more important thing for members of the Committee in general is to reflect on the words in the memorandum of understanding that the member referred to when he said that where it was appropriate the Royal Society in making representations to Government would consider whether the humanities had something to offer. That is an area that I think we need to look at a little more deeply. 
Later on in the bill—and I appreciate that we are talking only on clause 4—when we get to section 6(e) in clause 7 it states that it is a function of the Royal Society “to provide expert advice on important public issues to the Government and the community:”. From now on that expert advice will include the advice that we can divine from the humanities. Let us reflect on what that might be. A good way to do that is to go to the British humanities scholarship group—the British humanities council the body of people in Britain who involve themselves with humanities. I suppose in an effort to sell humanities to the British public it produced a book about the sort of information that humanities might offer a Government of the day that might be helpful to the Government of the day. The book came out at about the time of the London bombings so it inevitably included a piece of research in which some sociologists and those who wanted to study the phenomenology of religion spoke at length with the imams of different parts of Britain—with the geographical distribution of imams but also with imams from different parts of the world; for example those who had come from Pakistan from Afghanistan northern Africa and so on. The researchers were able to give by way of this scholarship quite a lot of insight into a nation that desperately needed that insight. It is a good example I think of the humanities being of immediate value to the Government of the day. 
Another example just to get our appetites whetted—because I am sure other members will be able to offer the Committee further examples—is from New Zealand not England. It is not an immediate example it is historical and it is occasioned by the sad death of Judith Binney who of course through the latter part of her life wrote extensively on Tuhoe. I do not want to make any politics out of this but the Tuhoe claim is not advancing or it at least has got itself into trouble. Although I do not know where the Tuhoe claim will go in the future—others will know more than me—it is my assertion that when that claim is settled people will look back on Judith Binney’s work and say to themselves that had she not lived it would have been a different settlement. My assertion is that that is an example whereby one person’s scholarship quite narrowly defined but quite extensively done and most exhaustively written about will actively influence public policy that is in front of us in this country. 
So let us think now about other examples in the area called the humanities in which we the Government including local government those of us who are in the policy elite those of us who get to do the decision making will be informed by the humanities in the future and have been informed by humanities until now. I am asserting that we have been ignoring the humanities; that we have been absorbing their lessons almost in an indirect way in an unconscious manner and that the humanities influence public policy a great deal. 
This comes from a scientist. If members want to know where I have been greatly influenced by science they should refer to the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification. That is where I drew my public policy from. It was not from any opening or closing prejudice or predilection or from a general view of the world but from the science alone. Why? Because I had nothing else to go on. This was new. I needed to know what the science said. It was a very good example of where science effected a huge impact on public policy. But very often it does not and the Royal Society would much rather that it did more often than it does. I am making the case as a scientist not only for science but I am beginning to make the case for the role of humanities in public policy. This purpose clause is a good place to do it. 
The member in charge of the bill has reminded us of the memorandum of understanding that exists between the humanities of New Zealand and the Royal Society of New Zealand to bring them together and spoke of the role of humanities when the Royal Society was making representations to the Government or was involved in some educative process. Those of us who think that humanities are nice only that they are just poetry should think again. Poetry may not directly affect public policy a lot but history does and geography does. Just think of the Geographic Board—people who go around renaming things. Think of the role of the humanities in our trying to get the nomenclature of our own place in order. It takes a bit of time and we do not do it without expert advice. So there is another example. I am sure many members will be able to leap to their feet when I return to my seat to give examples of where the humanities have been instructive or have been in some cases perhaps even inspirational in determining Government policy. We do not have to always rely on what the health professionals say what the physicists say what the educationalists say or what the social scientists or political scientists say. We can reach to the humanities. We can ask historians what they have to say about life. 
Hon Member 
: We all have feelings. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: We all have feelings. We can ask people whose skill is with language who are skilled linguists what they have to say about that. We all know that this is the one country in the world where there is a particular language known as te reo which if it does not exist here it will not exist anywhere. We are absolutely beholden to the humanities for the maintenance of that the teaching of language to our mokopuna. There are a bunch of things to which the humanities make a contribution that I think have probably been underrated. 
I am coming to the view that I soon need to resume my seat. I have enjoyed this contribution and I do thank members for their close consideration and careful attention to my modest contribution. Thank you. 
DAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert) 
: 
 What I would like to do is to follow on from Pete Hodgson’s contribution. I think he made a really important point that cuts to the very heart of the purpose of the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill which is the incorporation of the humanities into the Royal Society. I was reflecting on his contribution as he was speaking. 
The Prime Minister’s Chief Science Adviser Peter Gluckman is looking very much at the issue of evidence and scientific evidence in particular in terms of the contribution that that can make to policy. Although we support that—and of course we should be making decisions on the basis of evidence—Peter Gluckman makes it quite clear that we should at least have the evidence presented before us and as a result of that evidence we should make the decision. We may decide to take that evidence into consideration in the decision on policy or we may for political reasons decide to ignore it or take only some of it into consideration. But nevertheless that evidence is before us. Peter Gluckman makes a very good point in that regard. 
However I think what Pete Hodgson was also saying is that it is not just scientific evidence that is important in the consideration of policy but also history. He mentioned te reo the Maori language. That too is important when we are looking at policy in this particular place. 
I will go back to clause 4 the purpose clause to reflect on what the Royal Society itself says about the inclusion of the humanities in this bill. Clause 4(a) recognises that incorporating the humanities is a big step forward and an important step forward for the Royal Society to make. The explanatory note of the bill also notes that in November 2008—and Grant Robertson talked about this before in terms of the date of this particular legislation and how it came into being—the council of the Royal Society resolved that there was a need to expand the object and the functions of the society to include humanities. So we are looking at this legislation 2½ years on from when it was first considered. 
The Royal Society went on to say—and this is important—“The decision to extend and enhance the Royal Society’s Academy to include researchers from across all disciplines of science technology social sciences and the humanities is a landmark decision.” It recognises that this is not just a decision that was suddenly dreamed up by the Royal Society and the academy of the Royal Society. It was considered over a long period of time by the Royal Society and I think that was one thing that we recognised and valued when we were in the Education and Science Committee hearings—that this was not an ad hoc decision. Again I will quote from the Royal Society’s submission: “There is a growing appreciation at both national and international levels of the need for greater cross disciplinary dialogue to address the global problems that now occupy much of the research agenda.” 
That really comes back to what Pete Hodgson said in his contribution. In fact his contribution chimes very well with what the Royal Society was trying to get at and why it wanted to make this landmark change. The submission goes on to say: “The enhanced Fellowship at the centre of the Royal Society mirrors the situation in many of the world’s leading academies. This strengthening of capacity will enable the Royal Society to provide a significant contribution to present and emerging debates …”. I think that sums up the reason that we are here tonight debating this bill. I say “debating” but in many ways it is a traversing of the issues. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Hon David Carter 
: Let Parekura have a go. We need some entertainment. 
DAVID SHEARER 
: We will wait for the Hon Parekura Horomia. I did not want to be unkind; I probably should have sat down. I feel somewhat guilty now for seeking a second call to be honest. 
To come back on track with regard to the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill there were about 13 submissions on the bill which we heard very carefully. A number of those submissions were made in person and were made very passionately by people who were very concerned that the object of the Royal Society was to be eroded. I just want to reflect on the contribution of Bob Brockie— 
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: Bob who? 
DAVID SHEARER 
: —Bob Brockie—who is a weekly columnist for the  
Dominion Post  
and is also a scientist in his own right. What I would like to do is to note what he stated quite articulately about his opposition to the inclusion of the humanities into the Royal Society bill. He said: “The Royal Society might think that it is doing God’s work by bringing the Sciences and the Arts together. I don’t think this is the role of a Scientific Society which should stick to its knitting. From my observations there is very little traffic between the worlds of Science and the Arts and that is all in one direction. Science inspires a lot of artists but Artists rarely if ever inspire Science (science fiction writers are the exception). The Arts and Humanities can have their own Academy but finance it not from the Science Budget but from the Creative Arts and Heritage budget.” 
Although I think his point is probably slightly overstated compared with a lot of the other opposition that we have heard on this bill it does reflect the feeling quite strongly held that the Royal Society is going backwards in terms of bringing the humanities into the Royal Society. I think that that view is mistaken. What the Royal Society said in its submission was right. In fact the humanities are an extraordinarily important part of policy dialogue and other dialogues. As I quoted before bringing that in is enormously important. I will just wrap up on that particular point and hand over to the Hon Parekura Horomia and I will give him plenty of time to get to his feet. 
ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tamaki) 
: 
 In speaking to clause 4 of the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill I will reflect for a moment on the comments of the previous speaker David Shearer. The only bit of merit in his speech was the way he opened his second call when he said in effect that he should not have taken it. It is time that this nonsense stopped. There is support across the Committee for this bill. As chairman of the Education and Science Committee that conducted the hearings into the bill I think it is time that I at least on behalf of members on this side of the Chamber apologised to the Royal Society for the way in which this legislation which is very very important to the society is being made into a farce by the tactics of the Opposition. The Opposition is trying to delay debate on— 
Dr Rajen Prasad 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I fail to see how the member is addressing clause 4 of the bill in anything he has said so far. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: No the member has a few minutes in which to respond to any debate from the other side. But the member should come to the point. 
ALLAN PEACHEY 
: I am indeed trying to respond to the comments that have been made by the Opposition on clause 4. The difficulty is of course that there is actually very little to respond to. So on behalf of the Royal Society and members on this side of the Chamber I appeal to the Opposition to stop this nonsense. It is costing the taxpayer $31000 an hour— 
Colin King 
: How much? 
ALLAN PEACHEY 
: —$31000 an hour—while the Opposition unnecessarily delays the progress of this bill. It is a bill on which there is agreement across the Committee. It should be passed the Royal Society has asked for it to be passed and it is incumbent on this House to do that in a timely and diligent manner. But all the Opposition is doing in prolonging the debate on clause 4 and in prolonging the debate generally on this bill is avoiding confronting the issues of the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill. 
I think that approach brings no credit to that party at all. I say to the member in the chair Grant Robertson who has spoken on clause 4 endlessly that he should live up to his responsibilities as the sponsor of the bill. He has that responsibility and that honour as the member for Wellington Central and it will not be lost on his constituents that he is disabusing that responsibility with a smirk on his face because of a greater agenda on the part of the Labour Party. That brings no credit at all to that member. I appeal to that member to take a moment to reflect on the comments he made on clause 4 to reflect on the strategy that is being used and to question whether he is meeting his responsibilities to his constituents as the member sponsoring this bill. 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: This isn’t the classroom or the schoolhouse; this is the House of Parliament. 
ALLAN PEACHEY 
: I heard the junior Opposition whip shouting at me a moment ago and I say to that whip that she should exercise some responsibility some leadership and some control over her team. The behaviour of the Opposition in the debate on clause 4 as in other aspects of this debate brings no credit to this Chamber and even less credit to the Labour Party. 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Labour—Ikaroa-Rawhiti) 
: 
 I have much pride in rising in this House of democracy and debate. I will certainly put to rest the notions of the previous speaker Allan Peachey. I have just watched someone who has taught the ABC to pupils over generations in the classroom. 
The Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill is a serious bill as my learned friend from Wellington Central has pointed out. I wonder when I listen to the debate between those sciences that were supposed to be exact—only those sciences recognised through research and whatever else—and the other parts suggested as the humanities that have been put aside. I was the most uneducated Associate Minister of Education I think this Parliament has had because I was evicted from school at 16. But I learnt over 9 years as one of the longest-serving Associate Ministers of Education in this House that snobbery pervades in relation to unreal differentiations between the humanities and those supposed exact sciences. 
You see when Captain Cook came here he used cartography. He would put the line up take the angle and strike it. He used researched science and proof. Yet he did not know where he was going—he did not know where he was going. Generations before that my ancestors used their wills their hearts and the stars and they got there— 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: And back again. 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: They came back again. I think there has been a fair bit of snobbery by people like the last speaker who have tried to be harbingers of the isolation of those sciences. I think this is a wonderful and great opportunity for merging and recognising things. 
When I went to school we learnt about Shakespeare. There would be talk about a pound of flesh or there would be talk about Puck coming down at midnight or some damn thing. I was always astounded as a Maori living in a Maori environment and wondered why the hell we were thrust into that long-breadth learning about somebody who lived in Italy wrote stanzas and whatever else. We had great stories of our own. I believe marginalisation in the sense of educational progress came out of that isolation. What has survived? What has survived? Italian songs and stanzas that are 4000 years old—the arts! 
We can go into the Louvre and look around at things. Gee it is bigger than the Tolaga Bay community hall. We can look at things and stand in front of the Mona Lisa. The eyes follow us and we think it is great stuff. But it is not science; it is the humanities. Yet all those mugs go over there and pay money to go and look at it. 
In 1867 the Royal Society was started—a long time ago. That is why with respect we need to give this debate time. In 1856 the Maori chiefs went to Pukawa and they decided they would mirror those great scientists. They would get together collectively and form things not too dissimilar to the King and everything would be put right. But what they missed and what the old professors—Mr Hodgson’s ancestors—kept in their hip pockets was this great thing about science. 
At the end of the day I commend the member in the chair Grant Robertson for his effort in putting forward this bill and in getting general agreement for it across the Committee. It is like the great statement about the person who is about to inflict on us a lot of doom and gloom in about 2 hours and 54 minutes of sitting time—that is Budget day. I am not too sure what size they have used but there are “nice-to-haves” like psychology English literature arts and Maori. Who were the fools in the past who believed that those subjects do not have a place in any society especially the Royal Society which was mirrored by our people? 
It is like wine tasting: there is a science of fermentation and there is an exactness about prolonging tasting over a period of time so one quits the taste of the wine. But then people get pissed if they drink too much of it. Or they get a bit wayward. I am sorry Mr Chair—they get a bit wayward if they drink too much. Which is the right science? The one that is researched and states that we should ferment the grapes plant them try to avoid botrytis and keep the sugar levels up or the one that makes us happy? Which is right? 
I say to Mr Peachey that there is a very very serious case for merging these great studies and sciences. We have to capture our young people’s mindsets in relation to how they should be part of the Royal Society. They should be more than inspired; they should actually understand. 
Imagine a young Maori sitting in Mr Brown’s biology class in Tolaga Bay. There are two things they like: the Bunsen burner because they can burn something and the subject of unicellular animals such as paramecium and amoeba. They are fascinated because this is unlearned stuff. It is outside the sciences. They are attracted because they learn that those organisms breed and that their sexuality is carried out through the central cells splitting. The cell is surrounded by cilia which means fine hairs. Then that person understands that there are two little creatures unicellular things flying around in the air somewhere. That person starts to sit down with their mates and wonder about how they might trap some. 
Hon Paula Bennett 
: Wouldn’t this be more interesting if you said it in Maori? 
Hon Simon Power 
: In te reo. 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: Well that is another point. The Maori language is not recognised. Shame on you— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Not shame on me. 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: Shame on the people who kicked it out. It is like being in Italy and their language being put under the mat. It is like being in Greece and their language being put under the mat. Why are these humanities not important? There is only one place where the Maori language is really important and it is here. Why? Because the Maoris are not going away. Captain Cook’s progeny and all those people who came from Australia such as my ancestors the Rutherfords have a lot to answer for at the end of the day. 
What we are doing here in fine community spirit is ensuring that these two great functions are merged and that neither is greater than the other. It is like the tax take at the moment. What is it about giving tax favours to the more well-off when the people at the bottom suffer? It is like not recognising the humanities. If we want to disconnect from the humanities let me tell the Scots to get rid of their bagpipes and take those skirts off or tell the Irish to stop drinking green beer. Yes that is right. It is like telling the English to stop going to big weddings—all of those things. Stop doing that sort of stuff. 
This has been a whole lot of nonsense. I am really really proud of my colleague for bringing this bill together for making history and for ensuring that simple people like me who were evicted from school at 16 will have a chance or my grandchildren will have a chance to learn and to become great scholars and will not have to worry whether they are in the humanities or the true sciences. 
If we are to say that everything has to be stood up and the impact and outcomes of years of research and information measured then I say stop feeling good stop believing we can do things and stop dreaming. What is that? Is it the humanities or the sciences? 
David Carter is the Minister of Agriculture. We have this great science that says that if we put so many tonnes of urea on the paddock the grass will grow. We have this science that says if we pour copper on cattle they will survive better and get heavier. But at the same time the cows piss in the paddock it leaches into the river and turns our rivers into dirty uninhabitable environments—and that is through science. Only people’s feeling that we must keep things green and clean will correct that issue because nobody puts effort into the science needed to correct it. So I am a strong supporter of the humanities. 
Jo Goodhew 
: Did the member get the wrong notes? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: I am not worried unlike those people who have no culture who bastardise everybody else’s dreams and joys and who sit on the other side of the Chamber. 
Hon Simon Power 
: Steady steady. 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: That member is skiving off. He is not a bad bloke though. Simon Power has been a great man. He has run the justice portfolio with an iron hand. He has used science he has measured everything and he has ensured that the countables are counted but he has used his heart. He has a heart this Simon Power. I am trying to get him in trouble with his leader. He has a good heart and that is the truth. That is why Paula Bennett is sitting next to him. She is trying to get from him the ways to feel about the heart. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) 
: 
 It is not easy to follow a great orator like the Hon Parekura Horomia but I will give it my very best shot. I have to say that Mr Horomia showed exactly what this Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill is all about which is the bringing together of science and the humanities through the poetry with which he described some of the environmental challenges that we face through the degradation of our rivers in this country. Of course there is a lot of science involved in monitoring our rivers for the nitrate levels and the other things that we might find in them but could we have heard them more poetically described than we did when the Hon Parekura Horomia spoke this evening? 
I fully support what other members have been saying tonight. I support this bill. As someone who has taken papers in such diverse subjects as biochemistry the history of New Zealand politics inorganic chemistry and the English language I have great interest in this coming together of the humanities and science. Although there seems to be—and Mr Peachey pointed this out—a pretty uniform agreement around the Chamber on this bill I am not sure that the same can be said of the members of the Royal Society itself and of some of the practitioners of science out there in New Zealand. That was borne out I think in some of the submissions at the Education and Science Committee. I wonder whether the member in charge of the bill might be able to address some of those issues. 
When I first looked at this bill I reflected on a number of the meetings I have had with Royal Society members in Palmerston North many of whom are involved with Massey University. On a number of occasions I have heard those members lament the fact that in their opinion not enough young people in New Zealand these days are engaging with the sciences or feel so connected to the sciences through their time at secondary school that they wish to continue with a career of studying science and technology at university and maybe go on to undertake some research in science and technology. In fact they lament the fact that too many young people are perhaps taking off to the humanities and studying subjects such as English French geography and subjects like that. I wonder just how much support there is amongst the rank and file members of the Royal Society for this bill. My concern about that I think is borne out in some of the submissions that the select committee heard. 
I have to admit that I come to this debate rather belatedly. This is the first opportunity I have had to participate in the debate but while looking at some of the submissions I noted that some submitters said the exact definition of “humanities” was difficult to provide and that “humanities” was a vague term. I know we will come to that matter later in the debate on clause 5 where there is a definition of the humanities but it seems rather limited and I wonder whether it is too limited. I think some of the submitters are right as the humanities are difficult to define and I wonder whether the member in the chair has some reflections on that. There was even a submission that said there was no need to change the current Act because the Royal Society of New Zealand Act could be interpreted to include humanities fellows. Obviously there is some concern out there amongst the science fraternity that this bill in some ways waters down what they do. 
Although the Royal Society proposed this bill and asked the member Grant Robertson to bring it to Parliament I wonder about the process that it used to engage with its members. I am sure other members who were on the select committee might be able to discuss that issue. This matter is central to the purpose of the bill. Clause 4(a) states that the purpose of the bill is to “incorporate humanities into the object and functions of the Royal Society of New Zealand:”. David Shearer reflected on the submission of Dr Bob Brockie who made comments that science and the humanities were incompatible. 
CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour) 
: 
 It is a great pleasure to rise and speak to the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill and to acknowledge my colleague Grant Robertson who I believe has taken this matter very seriously in bringing forward this bill. I acknowledge his work on it and his representation of this organisation which is based in the electorate that he so ably represents Wellington Central. 
As others have said the purpose of this bill—I thought I would remind people—is to amend the Royal Society of New Zealand Act 1997 to “(a) incorporate humanities into the object and functions of the Royal Society of New Zealand: (b) rename the Academy Council: (c) amend the standard for the election of Companions of the Society: (d) amend the election process for Councillors of the Society.” I will talk about one of those purposes in this call although later on I will come back to others. 
Incorporating the humanities into the object and functions of the society is the core part of this bill and I think it is very very important that it is done. It makes a great deal of sense. Others have talked about their areas of studies. I did a degree in social sciences. Arguably it would already fall under the authority of the Royal Society of New Zealand. Social sciences would be seen as science for the purpose of currently belonging to the Royal Society. 
However when we look at a subject or a series of subjects we can see that a number of them are made up of different components. Take the subject of geography which is the subject I majored in. Human geography is certainly a social science. Physical geography is clearly a science. And there is something in between all of that when we look at people’s relationship with the land and how they organise and place themselves on the land which is what the study of geography is really about. That can be conveyed through poems music art and a whole range of mechanisms that one might call the humanities. So in fact many subjects are effectively interdisciplinary in nature. It seems to me that one of the advantages of this change is to recognise that many many subjects touch across a whole range of areas and that makes that traditional division no longer useful. Take environmental studies; again we can see it has physical social and humanities elements in it. 
I want to give a particular example because it is one that I have recently been looking at. It is the issue of violence against women. That issue can be studied at a university for example as part of women’s studies sociology or history which is one of the humanities. The reality is that it is interdisciplinary. The fact of the matter is that creating this new object and function of the Royal Society is entirely appropriate. 
I want to illustrate that a little bit more. At a conference I was at over the weekend we were talking about the issue of violence against women. As many in this Chamber know it is a very serious troubling and pervasive problem. We can look at the problem from the point of view of the history of it. What is it that society has experienced over generations in relation to violence against women and where has it come from? What has been the underlying reason for the sexual and other forms of physical violence that women face? What has created that? Is it an issue of power perhaps? Is it because of the view that men own women and can treat them in any way that they want? Certainly if we look at the relationship between men and women in a historical context we might come to that conclusion. 
At the conference I was at in Australia over the weekend we were shown a T-shirt. It was illustrative of what one might loosely call art—one of the humanities that under this provision is now being incorporated into the objects of the Royal Society. This T-shirt had a very ugly drawing of a woman who was bound and bleeding and the words that went with that were “Relax it’s just sex”. That is a deeply troubling image. I think that image is quite powerful; the words are powerful and the image is powerful. My point is that up to that point in the conversation at the conference we had been talking about numbers about the number of women who have violence inflicted upon them. We had been talking about politics and what the political response was. 
While I am talking about that I note that $86 million of new money has gone into the issue of violence against women and girls in Australia—A$86 million of new money—and there is a 12-year plan to tackle the issue. Sitting there I could only compare that with what is going on in New Zealand where we are cutting funding in the area of violence against women where refuges have had their funding cut by $700000 and where Te Rito and child advocates have had their funding cut. 
I come back to my point which is that we were having a political discussion on the issue of violence against women and children. At that point the T-shirt was shown. 
Jo Goodhew 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I am really struggling to work out how this fits with the purpose of this bill and I ask for your assistance in that matter. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I am listening to it. It is a wide-ranging debate and it has been for the whole of the debate. I am quite happy to let the member go on but I caution her to try to keep it pretty close to the bill. 
CAROL BEAUMONT 
: The point I am trying to make and I will spell it out for the member opposite so that it is clear is that clause 4 states that the purpose of the bill is to include and incorporate the humanities in the objects and functions of the society. The point I was really making was that social sciences are already included in the definition of the society and in its coverage. The physical sciences are already included. What is being added in is what one might call the humanities. I was trying to point out—just so the member opposite understands—that many areas of study are now interdisciplinary or multidisciplinary and elements of all three of those things may come into play. 
The example I was giving and it was foremost in my mind because it was so powerful was the issue of domestic violence and the study of domestic violence. A number of different subject areas including those in the humanities try to explain what the problem is about and the consequences of it. The T-shirt I referred to was a graphic representation that somebody had made. They had not done it for shock value. It was on sale as a serious but very troubling statement of attitudes about violence towards women. My point was that the politics is probably covered as a social science but the imagery and the words of that T-shirt which say a great deal about the issue of violence against women and girls perhaps are not. The value of this change to the Royal Society of New Zealand Act is that it will incorporate the humanities and those distinctions will not be relevant any more. Subject areas like women’s studies environmental studies and many others that are interdisciplinary will certainly not have any strange or arbitrary distinctions made in particular elements. I think that is very important because how we understand things as people how we learn and how we convey knowledge is not in just one manner. We can learn a great deal about particular topics by for example looking at a cartoon. A visual representation of an issue can often convey a great deal more than a chapter in a book. 
So I support this bill and I acknowledge again the work of my colleague Grant Robertson in bringing this bill to the House. I think it is important that we debate these types of distinctions and I am really looking forward to outlining a little further the definition of “humanities” which is referred to in clause 4 which outlines the purpose of the bill. It states it is to “(a) incorporate humanities into the object and functions of the Royal Society of New Zealand:”. I think there will indeed be a lively debate on the definition of “humanities” which is included in clause 5. There has been some interesting discussion as I understand it in the Education and Science Committee about that definition and whether it is sufficient to outline what we are talking about in the purpose of this bill. With that I look forward to resuming this debate later. 
JO GOODHEW (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 I thought this might be a timely opportunity to respond to one or two of the comments made by colleagues from both sides of the Chamber. 
To begin I respond to Pete Hodgson who in his initial contribution on the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill raised two very important issues. The first issue was the process that was gone through to reach the point at which the humanities could be drawn into the Royal Society to create—as my colleague who has just resumed her seat Carol Beaumont highlighted—the situation where so many issues that we face today are in fact a combination of the sciences and the humanities in terms of the way we deal with them the way we talk about them and the way we describe them. 
This is not a decision to be taken lightly. The Royal Society is an organisation with a huge history. I am not allowed to refer to Mr Hodgson’s absence but the last time we discussed this bill we had a debate about when the Royal Society commenced. I discovered that on 10 October 1867 it began its life. It is an organisation with a great deal of history. It is an organisation with a serious contribution to make and it has up to this point been composed of what we would call scientists. It includes the social sciences already and that has caused some confusion but it has been up to this point an organisation associated with science in its most serious forms. The inclusion of the humanities therefore is not something to be taken lightly. 
Mr Lees-Galloway also raised the fact that people were concerned about that inclusion and we discussed earlier in the debate the submission of the Wellington branch of the Royal Society to the Education and Science Committee. It raised the concerns that Mr Shearer and others have raised regarding the question of whether there is a dilution of the sciences and of the ability of the society to advance sciences by the inclusion of the humanities. It raised those concerns as an organisation that as it pointed out had been going longer as a Wellington branch than the Royal Society had overall. 
The Royal Society responded to the select committee with a very thorough explanation of the process. It goes right back to the fact that the decision to incorporate the humanities was presented to the council of the Royal Society it was presented to the Academy Council and it was presented to the fellows over a period of time through 2009. At all of those occasions the fellows the Academy Council members and the council members were given the opportunity to give feedback and at each stage of that process there was a universal endorsement of this idea. The reason there was a universal— 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: Fancy scientists agreeing on anything. Fancy that. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: Exactly. As Mr Hodgson said it would be a rare time to find such universal agreement among scientists and social scientists. 
The letter from the Royal Society to the fellows is very interesting because it makes the point that for the promotion of scholarship and excellence in research in New Zealand there needs to be a coming together of the arts and the sciences. Although there was dispute in the submission made to the select committee the decision to incorporate the humanities was thoroughly discussed. It was not totally accepted by all members of the Royal Society but at the council level at the academy level and at the fellows level it was accepted. 
To answer Mr Hodgson’s question: yes there was a degree of argy-bargy but it was not at the level that would stop this bill going through or that would make me as the member for Wellington Central on being presented with a bill—which I am taking on behalf of the Royal Society—have any concern about it. I have been at great pains in this debate to acknowledge the fact that there was some debate from the Wellington branch in particular about this but overall the benefits to the Royal Society of incorporating the humanities are great. 
The other point Mr Hodgson raised in his speech regarded the question of the importance of bringing these disciplines together. Mr Hodgson mentioned the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification which I was also involved in as a non-scientist looking to interpret relatively complex scientific concepts in a political way as the adviser to the Minister who was responsible for that royal commission. That was the classic bringing together of the sciences and the arts. In fact some of the contributions on the ethical dimensions are to me the cutting edge of why humanities and sciences need to come together. 
But with respect to Mr Hodgson I say that to me the most interesting aspect of this legislation is the future not the past. It is the opportunities that the bringing together of the arts and the sciences provides for us in the future. We had a lot of talk about knowledge societies about knowledge waves and about how we will add value to our products. I know if Mr Hodgson ever goes to Westpac Stadium he will look out and see all that wood all those logs sitting piled up on the waterfront. It grieves him to see that because sitting there is the product of nature and the product of science yet we have not applied the innovation to it to turn it into something of greater value to New Zealanders. That is the coming together of the arts and the sciences that I want to see. That is the bit where the Royal Society can contribute to how we bring together innovation. 
All over the world innovation in science has been driven by multidisciplinary teams. We can go to any country. We can go to Taiwan and see innovation parks that include not only scientists and engineers but also designers historians linguists and marketers—people who will actually bring the concepts together. We do not have to go to Taiwan; we can just go to see a factory in New Zealand. I went to a Fonterra factory recently. The designers and the artists who do the packaging are as important as the people who are working out whether they can put probiotics into milk. What can they do? How can they actually make those things work together? That is the bit that I am focused on I say to Mr Hodgson: the future of the linkages between the arts and the sciences. 
I turn briefly to Allan Peachey’s contribution. I will say two things. The first is that I am not sure whether Mr Peachey was listening to me when I worked my way through the memorandum of understanding between the Council for the Humanities and the Royal Society. I will repeat for his benefit the clause in point two of the memorandum of understanding which states: “Within 5 years the Royal Society will use its best endeavours to have its Act reflect the inclusion of the humanities alongside science and technology.” That was written in February 2010. Here we are in May 2011 making excellent progress towards that goal. In the meantime the Royal Society and the Council for the Humanities have begun working together bringing fellows together from the Council for the Humanities and the Royal Society and working on exactly the things we have just been discussing. We are providing the legislative tick-off to that and we will do that in time. 
I think it is sad for Mr Peachey to say it is somehow wrong for members of this Committee to want to make a contribution about one of the most important changes to the way we think about knowledge and future innovation in New Zealand. There is an opportunity on members’ day for individual members to decide they want to stand up and talk about the importance of science and the arts and humanities together. I think that is a good thing. 
Mr Peachey is concerned about a bill further down the Order Paper about freedom of association. Mr Peachey knows very well that there were opportunities to change that bill in the Education and Science Committee which might have seen it progress a little quicker but those opportunities were not taken. From my point of view as the sponsor of this bill I will not take the blame for members of National not taking the opportunity to progress that bill in a much quicker way. 
I will support this bill because I think it is a good bill. I will not stand here and say that people cannot be allowed to have their say on this bill. This bill deserves debate. It will pass; it will pass well before the time limit the Royal Society has set for itself. In the meantime the Royal Society will have the opportunity to develop the linkages that it is already developing knowing that the bill will get the legislative passage it needs. 
I think we have heard an interesting debate on clause 4. I know there are colleagues who have yet to make a contribution on clause 4 “Purpose” who want to. It is an important clause in this bill because it defines exactly what we are doing and why we are doing it. I think there needs to be an opportunity for people to be heard on this bill. Members make a choice on members’ day to come to the Chamber and have their say. There are very few opportunities for members to talk on their own terms in this Chamber in the system we have. This is a very important opportunity. I urge members who want to to take a call. The Royal Society knows I am taking a responsible attitude to the passing of this bill. I strongly support it. It will pass in good time when all members have had the chance to have their say. 
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Motion agreed to. 
Clause 4 agreed to. 
Clause 5 Interpretation 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 Clause 5 is the interpretation clause. It is where a number of quite significant changes are being made. As members know Te Ururoa Flavell has an amendment to clause 5(2) which we will come to in time. I note before we do that his amendment has been consulted on across the House and there is agreement to it. The Royal Society itself is comfortable with the change and supports it going through. So I hope that all parties in the Chamber will be able to find their way to support it. It will be helpful to have an explanation of the process and how we arrived at it. 
Before we come to that though there is clause 5(1) which amends the Act by “repealing the definitions of ‘Academy bylaws’ and ‘Academy Council’ ” and substituting the definitions included there. The important point as was raised earlier was the confusion that could occur by having an Academy Council and a separate council of the Royal Society. The Academy Council is essentially the science scholarship committee of the Royal Society and the council is the governance body. But by having one called the Academy Council and the other called the council there was scope for some confusion. Therefore the decision was taken to rename the Academy Council as the Academy Executive Committee. 
Some might say that is a minor point but it is important. Those two bodies represent the different strands of work of the Royal Society. The council has the overall governance role to ensure that the Royal Society is performing the functions outlined in clause 6 which we will come to forthwith. It is about fostering the culture of science and presenting arguments to the Government. There needs to be a body that can govern that work and provide the overall stewardship and leadership. That body does not necessarily have to include just scientists and it does not. Currently it includes someone like Phil O’Reilly from Business New Zealand. He brings an outside perspective. He would not consider himself to be a scientist I think by any means but he has a valid perspective that is worthy of being included on that council. The Academy Executive Committee on the other hand is the harder science end of the operation. It is the part of the organisation that decides who wins fellowships and scholarships. It is at the hard edge of deciding what work the Royal Society will undertake within its scientific fields. That is what clause 5(1) focuses on. 
Clause 5(2) as I mentioned defines “humanities”. This has gone backwards and forwards a little bit. The original definition that came before the House included English and other languages and American studies at the end of it. That is a slight hotchpotch of subject areas. It was largely defined by subject matter that the Council for the Humanities tended to note when it described itself. I think the Royal Society made clear from the very beginning of this process that it was relaxed about that definition. It wanted a definition that was inclusive but that highlighted areas that people thought were important. The Education and Science Committee withdrew “English and other languages”—perhaps a member of the select committee might want to discuss that; I was not on the committee myself—“and American studies.” Te Ururoa Flavell has introduced an amendment that will include te reo specifically and also Maori studies. 
As I noted when I read out the memorandum of understanding I think that that falls in line with what the two organisations the Council for the Humanities and the Royal Society were trying to achieve in bringing themselves together. Right at the start of the memorandum of understanding the third point refers to the importance and value of Te Whanga Maori. It was recognised right off the bat that that was part of the bringing together of those two organisations. I actually think Mr Flavell’s amendment picks up that spirit; it includes te reo and Maori studies. There could have been an argument to re-include other things but the Royal Society is happy with where it has ended up. As I have stated before I am here on behalf of the Royal Society sponsoring this bill and it is comfortable with the amendment that is on the Table in respect of clause 5(2) but it would be useful to hear from someone on the select committee at some point about why the change was made to withdraw English and American studies originally. But I do not think that we should concern ourselves that the amendment is in any way hostile; it is in fact very supportive of the original agreement of the Council for the Humanities and the Royal Society to bring this bill to the House. 
I think clause 5 is an important one because what it does is define two specific changes that have been made: the change to the structural part of the organisation and also the change to the definition around the bringing in of humanities. Just to clarify once and for all I say that the social sciences are already there so my own subject of political studies is covered already and humanities is defined as it is here in the bill and in the amendment from Mr Flavell. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Chairperson. Kia ora tatou e hoa ma e hui nei i tenei po. I thank the member in the chair Grant Robertson for giving a lead-in to our korero tonight. I very much thank him for his cooperation—and indeed that of the Minister—in getting us to the point where we are at tonight. 
I will set the scene as to how this amendment came about—this very good amendment in my name that I am sure will be supported by all members of the House. At the opening address of the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues earlier this week the United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon welcomed the fact that the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples finally had the consensus it deserved. He challenged nations to make the declaration’s principles a reality and to protect and promote the rights of indigenous peoples simply because it benefits all of us. This Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill seems an absolutely appropriate place to apply some of this wisdom. 
The bill amends the Royal Society of New Zealand Act 1997 through a number of measures including incorporating the humanities into the objects and functions of the society as other members have spoken about tonight. When the bill came to the Education and Science Committee members examined the provisions and recommended that it be passed with the main substantive amendment to the definition of “humanities”—basically clause 5. While doing so the committee also put forward some very strong guidance; specifically to omit mentions of English and American studies. Curiously however—and I take the member’s point about it being a little bit hard on them in terms of that action—in cutting out and deleting reference to America and England from this bill one thing that the Maori Party picked up is that the committee neglected to preserve and protect that which is purely of this land namely Aotearoa. That is basically where the Maori Party has come in. The committee crossed out American studies as a part of the humanities perhaps because we are not in America and it crossed out English studies as part of the humanities because we are not in England. But the Maori Party has suggested that in remembering who we are it is logical that we learn about te reo Maori Maori studies and Te Tiriti o Waitangi. 
Over a month ago I released an amendment to the bill to include Maori studies te reo and the recognition application and advancement of Te Tiriti o Waitangi in the definition of “humanities”. I will come to the definition shortly. These amendments would balance out the bill to identify and distinguish it as home-grown—a truly New Zealand bill. I proposed therefore a definition of the humanities which includes languages—and in particular te reo—history religion philosophy law classics linguistics cultural studies Maori studies media studies art history film drama and the study of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. That we thought was a pretty logical move. Part of that was not to insist on or mandate the compulsory study of te reo or even of Te Tiriti o Waitangi or Maori studies in fact much as some may well have favoured that approach. The amendment that we put up does not mean that people must study these disciplines; we simply propose that they qualify under the definition of “humanities”. 
We have developed this amendment not just because one of the submissions received on the bill—from one George Jones I am told—suggested that Maori studies must be included but because it is pretty unthinkable to consider the application of “humanities” in our land without consideration of the people of the land tangata whenua or the official language of the land te reo Maori or one would have hoped the foundation of our nationhood: Te Tiriti o Waitangi. This is Aotearoa - New Zealand. The fundamental source of authority for our country comes from Te Tiriti o Waitangi the Treaty of Waitangi. In that Treaty the Crown agreed to arrange governorship over Pakeha living here without British law. It has also guaranteed the continuance of Maori authority and sovereignty over our lands our villages and everything else that we treasure including our language culture and customs. In article 3 the Treaty affords Maori similar rights to those of British people. I quote the Hon Justice Durie: “we must not forget that the Treaty is not just a bill of rights for Maori. We must remember that if we are the tangata whenua the original people then Pakeha are the tangata tiriti those who belong to the land by right of that Treaty …” 
The Treaty is a bill of rights for Maori and non-Maori alike. Having at least put the case I would like to acknowledge the Minister Dr Wayne Mapp for his willingness to consider these amendments. We did not quite achieve the goal as members will see in terms of the amendment on the Table because one or two major bits have been crossed out but it was not through a lack of trying and it was not through at least some consideration by the Minister. We really appreciated his response to the notion that at least the Treaty section be taken out as it was indeed captured in I suppose the definitions of law and maybe even of philosophy and that that is why we had to remove that section. There may well have been other motives but we will leave those aside because we would have liked it to be a part of the bill. But in the end a gain is a gain and te reo Maori and Maori studies are significant in terms of their promotion and acknowledgment in this bill. 
As I said I appreciate the support from the Minister. I appreciate the work done by the honourable member Grant Robertson and of course the other parties. I assume that Labour is coming to the party. I am sure the Greens will be with us as well. In fact I am sure all members will support this amendment. It is very much appreciated and we look forward to adding its provisions to the definitions in this bill. 
Ko taku noa ake ko te mihi ki tena ki tena o tatou o te Whare. He mea nui tenei ki te whakanui i tenei ahuatanga o te reo Maori ka mutu nga tikanga Maori i tuhia mai ai ki roto i te pire nei. Ehara i te mea he kupu noa iho kao he wairua ano ra kai reira he tikanga ano ra kai reira ki te ki atu te reo Maori ehara i te mea he kupu pakupaku nei kare ona kiko. Ara no te whanui te wharoa o tena whakamarama tae atu ki nga tikanga Maori he pera ano te ahua. No reira ka mihi ra ki a tatou katoa i tenei po. Tena koutou kia ora tatou. 
[ 
I simply want to acknowledge each of us of the House. Magnifying this aspect of the Maori language and furthermore Maori customs by writing them into this bill is a significant thing. They are not just mere words. Far from it a sense of spirituality and culture is present as well saying the words are not just mere words of little significance or usefulness. The explanation of that is extensive and broad. It applies to Maori customs as well. So I acknowledge us all this evening. Greetings to you collectively and to us. 
] 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD (Labour) 
: 
 Thank you Mr Chairman and a big namaste to you. I thought you might have as is your practice used our indigenous or cultural greeting but I will greet you in mine Mr Chairman. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Namaste. 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD 
: Thank you and namaste again. I am pleased to take a call on clause 5(2) of the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill and I am really pleased that here are the beginnings of additional free thinking regarding the sciences and regarding the work of the Royal Society which now includes a missing link a huge knowledge base and the many subjects that are part of the humanities discipline. I note that the interpretation clause does not give an exhaustive list of the subjects that are in the humanities. It simply states that the humanities include certain subjects and therefore it does not exclude many other subjects that are part of the discipline of the humanities. I urge the Royal Society to look at this more broadly when graduates of other subject areas want to apply for membership of the Royal Society through this provision. I hope it will be so. 
As a social scientist— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member but the time has come for me to report progress. 
House resumed. 
The Chairperson reported the Westpac New Zealand Bill without amendment and progress on the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill. 
Report adopted.