Ardern Jacinda: Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Ardern Jacinda: Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:673;Page:19415] 
JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) 
: 
 I would have been devastated had I not had the opportunity to speak on clause 5 for which I have prepared quite a bit of material and done quite a bit of background research. I think it is quite upsetting that Mr Douglas wanted to bring this debate to a close before it has run its full course. What I have not heard and what I ask the member in the chair Grant Robertson to elaborate on is why American studies was originally included in the interpretation. There has been a very interesting discussion on why it has been removed but I am interested in the background as to why it was originally in there. 
Hon Simon Power 
: Why is it interesting? 
JACINDA ARDERN 
: I think it is interesting because it demonstrates that the Royal Society of New Zealand perceived that New Zealand could benefit in its future research and discussion from an analysis of American studies. For Parliament to have decided that it should be removed is I think absolutely correct but I would like to have a little discussion on the origins of its inclusion. 
In order to better prepare the Committee for that discussion I thought it might be interesting to look at what American studies includes. What is it that we have removed from this bill? I have to admit that I did not truly understand the great depth and reach that American studies is as an interdisciplinary field. I did a little bit of admittedly web-based research. I employed the favoured technique of the Minister of Finance and I googled. I went on to probably his No. 1 research website Wikipedia and discovered that the interdisciplinary field of American studies—which also includes American civilisation—incorporates quite a wide range of subsets. I think that perhaps on breaking that down into a full analysis we could have benefited from it. Whether we would then isolate it to one nation State or say that across nations some of these areas would be of use is a debatable point and I encourage my colleagues to debate that. 
Within this interdisciplinary field we have subsets and I would like to go through them individually if the Committee will bear with me on that front. I know that Grant Robertson will and Labour members will— 
Hon Simon Power 
: Do we have a choice? 
JACINDA ARDERN 
: This is a democracy after all I say to Mr Power. I encourage Minister Power to join the debate on this bill given that it is a democracy but the Government does not want to currently involve itself with it. 
The first subset of the interdisciplinary field that is American studies is economics. I wonder what New Zealand could benefit from currently from a study of the American economy. I think clearly the debt issue is one area. Unemployment is another. The United States’ unemployment level is hovering at about the 10 percent mark. That is certainly nothing we would aspire to but we are currently on a trajectory to follow it. The significant level of debt the deficit in the United States is incredible right now. The level of foreign dependency particularly on the nation of China is a very vexed question for the United States at the moment. 
I heard a groan from Mr Douglas. I think he must agree with me that this is a very interesting area of discussion. Perhaps New Zealand would have benefited from some analysis of where the American economy is going. That obviously affects us. 
The second subset—we not only have the economy—is of course history. I am not sure that we can learn too much for ourselves in terms of which paths to follow from American history. It has always been an interesting course of study; I will probably leave it at that. 
The third subset is literature. I personally think that the good people of America could learn quite a bit from our literature. I think we are bastions in the field. 
Law is another area. This area is interesting. New Zealand has always tried to ensure that we have learnt from the mistakes in the structure of the legal system in the United States. The first thing I say is that the US is perceived to be an overly litigious society; something that New Zealand has always tried very hard to avoid. The accident compensation scheme is the perfect example of that. It is a no-fault scheme that is structured on the idea of trying to provide coverage for all New Zealanders.