Chadwick Steve: Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Chadwick Steve: Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:673;Page:19884] 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK (Labour) 
: 
 I do feel sorry for Government members because when I look at those who were on the Education and Science Committee I see members like Allan Peachey who I know would love to come and take a call on the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill. I also see Jo Goodhew. Jo would have enjoyed standing up to give an erudite contribution to the debate in the Chamber tonight. I also think of Heather Roy. She could have given a great perspective from her research-based background which she has always been known for with regard to her contributions on health. I also see Louise Upston. So it is a pity that Government members are not joining in this fulsome debate tonight. 
We have hit clause 13 tonight and I think this is the nuts and bolts of this bill. Since we began the debate on the bill today we have romped really through five clauses—five clauses. Through this we have had an amazing learning experience in the Chamber tonight and I want to thank clause 9— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Point of order Jo Goodhew. [ 
Interruption 
] The member will be seated. 
Jo Goodhew 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Once again I find that we are transgressing from the clause under debate. I have not heard it mentioned. In fact I think I heard clause 9 mentioned once. So I would ask that you ask the member to narrow the debate to the 12-word clause under debate. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you. I was coming to that conclusion myself. Can the member narrow the debate to the clause in question. 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK 
: Well that took 2 minutes. Thank you Mr Chairperson. What a pity it is that that was the contribution from the Government today—just to take a point of order. But here we are. 
National’s junior whip will be really thrilled to know that I am getting to clause 13—clause 13. We have romped through five clauses tonight since we have been in this debate and we have hit clause 13 which is really the nuts and bolts of this bill because it is about the revocation of membership or fellowship. We have gone through in the previous five clauses the provisions relating to the fellows the companions the honorary members and the honorary fellows and now we have hit the clause that really is the sanction—the sanction given by the Royal Society of its very membership which is the great society that we all enjoy here in Parliament. I heard one of my colleagues David Shearer speak earlier. He is our spokesperson on science and he knows more about this area than I do. He doubted whether this revocation clause would be needed very often. But actually now as we get more academics in the sciences the humanities in technology and in the market place and in the educational institutions there is an element of requiring much more care to be taken about the validity of the research and ensuring that research has not been plagiarised. We are seeing examples in New Zealand of research having been plagiarised. Even peer review is sometimes a very slow process and that is the mechanism that the Royal Society uses. 
Perhaps the member in the chair Grant Robertson who is sponsoring the bill and who knows so much about the details of it could elaborate as to whether there is a complaints committee mechanism. I do not see it here but we have gone through other substantial legislation like the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act where we put in a complaints mechanism. I think this bill is still a little loose with this heavy revocation clause. I mean it is the ultimate sanction if someone’s membership or fellowship is revoked. That would be the ultimate embarrassment professionally to any academic. But there does not seem to be a feed-in mechanism to the Royal Society about the management of complaints and the reception of complaints. I am not sure whether this is now a matter for the academy executive committee which is mentioned here. Is it just open to anyone in the public to complain about a member or a fellow in terms of whether he or she is abiding by the code of ethics or the standards of professional conduct that is to be applied consistently to members? I do not know what the complaints mechanism is; it would be helpful if the member in the chair would help us on that. 
But I think it is a great thing to see clause 13 in the bill. The Royal Society is much more than a club. I grew up as a little girl with my father as a member of the Freemasons and that was like being in a secret society. I used to pick dad up when I got my driver’s licence and I had no idea what they were up to.