Robertson Grant: Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Robertson Grant: Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:673;Page:19437] 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 I will take a call on clause 7 of the Royal Society Amendment Bill which I have not done so far. I will respond to the questions that my colleague Carol Beaumont asked me— 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: What questions? 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
:—and any other interjections that Mr Hide or Mr Williamson might have. I am happy to respond to those as well. 
Carol Beaumont raised in relation to new section 6(a)(ii) inserted by clause 7 that this currently states only: “the advancement of science and technology education:”. To look back at the historical roles of the Royal Society in science and technology education gives us a clue as to why the humanities is not included in that subparagraph. That relates to the Royal Society’s role in helping to set the science curriculum which is a role that it has traditionally played. It is not one that would have been associated I suspect with the Council for the Humanities which has previously guided that particular area. The other area will be a historical and even more recent requirement for more science and technology teachers. Obviously that is an area where we have had a significant shortage as well. 
I can see that some colleagues—Dr Prasad for instance who is a passionate defender of the social sciences and the humanities—look at this subparagraph and wonder why the change has not been made to include the word “humanities”. I was not on the Education and Science Committee so I am not aware that it was raised. But I believe it relates to the Royal Society’s role in developing the science curriculum which the Council for the Humanities has not had. I do not think that Dr Prasad should be too upset about this new subparagraph. When we look at the overall functions that are now within this new section we see that it gives the humanities the role alongside science and technology. The particular new subparagraph notwithstanding when we look at the total of this new section we see that the humanities are right up there beside science and technology. 
The comments I specifically wanted to make on these functions note something. The bill does not add just the word “humanities”. The bill repeals the whole of section 6 in the Act and substitutes a new section 6. So this is an opportunity to reflect on whether we think these are the functions we believe the Royal Society should have. So although it is a conversation about the inclusion of humanities we are not doing just that; we are actually as a Committee repealing a whole section of the Act and replacing it with a new section. This is the opportunity to assess whether these are in fact the functions that the Royal Society should have. 
I will focus on two of those functions. One is in new section 6(b) which states “to encourage promote and recognise excellence in science technology and the humanities:”. I believe that the Royal Society is now doing this more and more. A quick look at the Royal Society’s website would tell members that the range of awards prizes and medals now given out by the Royal Society is vast. We have the Charles Fleming Award for Environmental Achievement the Cooper Medal for physics and engineering the CREST Awards for creative and innovative science the Dame Joan Metge Medal for social science research and now a new award to be given out for the first time this year: the Humanities Aronui Award. 
The humanities as we have noted previously in this debate are already functioning within the Royal Society. Our job here is simply to give the final legislative tick-off to that; the actual work is ongoing. So there is now a humanities award in there. The award that people will perhaps know the most about is the Rutherford Medal. I hope members know about it; if they do not I am happy to enlighten them. The Rutherford Medal recognises excellence in science. When we look down the history of the people who have received the Rutherford Medal we see that it really is a tribute to the scientists of New Zealand. Members of this Committee will be quite familiar with them: the likes of Paul Callaghan; Alan MacDiarmid obviously; and Peter Gluckman. Peter Gluckman is now the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor; some years ago he won the Rutherford Medal. To me his latest publication is an exact example of why the bringing together of the humanities and the sciences under this bill is so important. 
Peter Gluckman’s topic I guess was adolescent morbidity but when we talk about what adolescent morbidity is we see that it is a combination of physical health—the things that people need to enable them to as Sir Peter says survive adolescence—and also the whole way in which we support people to achieve their potential in whatever field they are interested in. That involves moving into areas like psychology; it also goes into areas of social development and social science. They are important areas. The Rutherford Medal is an important example of a high-quality excellence award. Sir Peter Gluckman is now showing us that the kind of work he is doing takes on issues of physical science and brings in social sciences and the humanities in a very very important report that we hope the Government takes notice of. Paragraph (b) is important. We are re-putting these paragraphs and we are re-establishing the functions of the Royal Society; we should be very proud. 
The other function I will particularly highlight and it has been mentioned by a couple of colleagues is the question of expert advice on important issues to the Government and the community. The Royal Society needs to be congratulated because across New Zealand branches of the Royal Society play the role in their communities of highlighting issues that it is important the public be able to debate. I know that during the debate on genetic modification when the royal commission was meeting and then in the wake of the royal commission’s report we saw the Royal Society playing an important role. I happen to know that when the Local Government and Environment Committee did its inquiry into matters surrounding the possible accidental release of genetically modified organisms into New Zealand—[ 
Interruption 
] Yes it was indeed; that is quite some memory for Mr Hodgson. It took in the Royal Society’s advice. In fact there was one fascinating occasion when two scientists assessed the information that was related to the so-called “corngate” situation and came up with quite different conclusions. They were both fellows of the Royal Society and they were both brought in by the select committee. To me that is the essence of the role that the Royal Society can play. We will be able to say that science is not an absolute thing but we will bring together the best minds in the country to advise in this case a parliamentary select committee. Frankly with due respect the then members of the Local Government and Environment Committee were probably not able to bring that advice to the table themselves. That kind of community and parliamentary advice role is very important and I am very pleased that we are restating that particular function tonight. 
I also mention just a couple of other things. The Marie Curie Lecture Series is a year-long tour of talks by female New Zealand chemists in honour of Curie’s Nobel Prize in chemistry. Here is an example of both supporting scientists and acknowledging the role of women in science. Were Moana Mackey—I am not allowed to mention the absence of members. But Moana Mackey has contributed significantly to this debate and I know that she is very keen on encouraging the role of women in science. It has often been seen as a male-dominated profession so that lecture series is a good example of the way in which the Royal Society fulfils the function within this section. 
The point I am really trying to make here is that there are important roles within this section and we should not gloss over them too quickly because they are the essence of why we have the Royal Society. We as a Committee are being asked tonight whether we want to put those objects and those functions back into place; we are making that judgment. I think those objects and functions have served the Royal Society extremely well. They have been altered at times over the years and earlier in this debate we talked about the different Acts that have been put in place. The most recent one was the 1997 Act which brought the social sciences to more prominence within the legislation. That is what these particular sections do. 
I also note that there is always the “get out of jail” function which is the final paragraph: “to do all other lawful things that the Council considers conducive to the advancement and promotion in New Zealand of science technology and the humanities.” That is the paragraph that people familiar with constitutions will recognise. I do not know why but students associations come to mind on this particular evening. There is always one of these clauses in the constitutions of incorporated societies. There is a clause that allows the organisation to perform things that are within its remit but perhaps have not been considered within the exact language above. Again that could assure Dr Prasad that the humanities are not being left out in that particular paragraph. 
I wanted to make those comments. I had not spoken on this particular clause which is one of the most significant clauses of the bill. It is the restatement of the very things that we expect the Royal Society to do and it is important that we are taking some time to work through them. They are in a sense listed in order of importance from the overall role of fostering the culture of supporting science technology and the humanities all the way through to the “get out of jail” function. They are all important and I am very pleased that we are able to re-include them in our legislative framework.