Shearer David: Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Shearer David: Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:673;Page:19433] 
DAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert) 
: 
 As Gareth Hughes said earlier in the debate we are having an extremely good discussion on the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill one that is perhaps on a slightly higher plane than the debates on most of the legislation that comes through the House. 
Three words of clause 7 run right through the various parts of the clause and those words are “science” “technology” and “humanities”. Pete Hodgson touched on and answered the questions of some of the other members who had asked about research. We have a Ministry of Research Science and Technology and a Foundation for Research Science and Technology and now we have a Ministry of Science and Innovation. The word “research” has been removed from the title of that ministry. As Pete Hodgson quite rightly argued it has been taken out because research is an inherent part of science; we cannot have science unless we have research. We can discuss the types of scientific research we can have but nevertheless research is part of science. The really interesting point is that the word “humanities” has been brought into the three words I mentioned. 
I will make a couple of points and first I will again go back to what Pete Hodgson was talking about in terms of the Marsden Fund. In some ways the Marsden Fund which is to recognise and reward excellence in New Zealand has for some time provided awards in both the science and the humanities areas. There has been no problem in terms of that happening. In many ways what we are trying to do with this legislation is bring the humanities into the Royal Society. 
Mr Hodgson mentioned in his contribution that the Marsden Fund is for excellence regardless of what end the research might be put towards in the future and of what it might be able to produce. It is about the best research that can possibly be done and we can have extreme examples of that. It is something that is held up as being about the best science in New Zealand. 
My only issue with the Marsden Fund—and I will diverge on this for just a short period of time—is that often the work is done and we already have the conclusions before we can actually put forward an application for the Marsden Fund. So in a sense the 2 years’ funding from the Marsden Fund in many ways is confirming what we have already found out. In a sense the Marsden Fund does not do exactly what we would like it to do which is to take forward an area of science at the most excellent level. Often in order to get the Marsden Fund applicants must already know almost the conclusions of their research. 
The other thing I will point out about the fund is that only 5 percent of the applications are rewarded in this regard. Just about everybody whom I have spoken to has said it could easily be 10 percent. Making that cut-off point between 5 percent and 10 percent or even 15 percent is extraordinarily difficult. Would it not be great if we in New Zealand had more money to provide that extra 5 percent or 10 percent to those other researchers who are there and who are just as excellent but who perhaps for whatever reason have not been chosen? 
I come back to the key point I started with. The key point is that the humanities have been part of the Marsden Fund which has been seen as the highest point of endeavour in our scientific community amongst the universities Crown research institutes etc. In doing that there has been no problem about dumbing down science or making science less relevant but it has in fact been holding up the humanities and science together. That is a very important point. 
The other thing I will say is that about nine or maybe 10 out of the 13 submissions made on this bill on the humanities—I do not have the exact figure—were against bringing the humanities into the Royal Society. It seemed to me that many of those branches believed and felt that bringing in the humanities would undermine the tenets of the Royal Society and what the Royal Society stood for—that is excellence in science. In fact the more I look at this the more I think that what will happen is that it will be the other way round. It is the humanities that need to worry about what will happen by bringing the humanities into an august scientific organisation like the Royal Society and the humanities will perhaps face the greater risk of being submerged by broader science within the society. 
I think the movement forward is a healthy one on both sides. Both sides both the pure scientists and those who are involved in the humanities—again as Pete Hodgson pointed out to my colleague Dr Rajen Prasad this involves the social sciences as well—will have to work together for the benefit of excellence and for the benefit of New Zealand. No one side will be threatened as many of the submissioners seemed to suggest when they came before the select committee. 
As has been pointed out the movement forward of bringing in the humanities and of looking at science technology and the humanities covers that broad range of endeavours that we believe belong together. As other speakers have said in this much more complex world where we are looking at global warming and at some of the other areas that we are trying to apply science to there is a natural fit. They naturally fit together and we need to have that broad conversation across the whole of the Royal Society. 
I will make just one comment about something that Gareth Hughes mentioned before about the Royal Society and about why it is called the Royal Society. He mentioned the fact that he is an avid republican—as am I I say to Mr Hughes. There is an element of the Royal Society being traditional. This organisation was first established in 1867. Therefore the word “Royal” in those years perhaps had a much more relevant connotation than it does today. But I still believe that we can be cognisant and respectful of the history of this organisation by maintaining its title the “Royal Society of New Zealand”. I would hate to see it being called the “Republican Society of Science”. I do not think that has quite the same ring to it as the “Royal Society”. Therefore I believe that the Royal Society and what it stands for—and in particular where it is going—is what clause 7 really establishes in its six subclauses which is to bring the humanities into the Royal Society. 
I will particularly point out that proposed new section 6(e) which is to be substituted in the Royal Society of New Zealand Act by clause 7 of the bill states that the Royal Society’s function is “to provide expert advice on important public issues to the Government and the community:”. That can involve pure science but by definition of what it is anticipating doing it must bring in society and the way society works as well. That means that it is to incorporate what we have been talking about which is bringing in the humanities. 
In conclusion I say that I believe that the Royal Society is taking the right track in bringing in the humanities. I think that the three words that pervade clause 7 of this legislation—“science” “technology” and “humanities”—are reflective of where we want to see the Royal Society going in the future.