Chauvel Charles: Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Chauvel Charles: Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:672;Page:18388] 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 I take on board the comments the last speaker Allan Peachey made. It is important that the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill be debated respectfully. That is something that we owe the Royal Society. As Pete Hodgson pointed out in his contribution it is an august body. It is an ancient body. Not many institutions in New Zealand have lasted since 1867. When one considers that this Parliament— 
Hon Judith Collins 
: Jim Anderton has. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL 
: Well all right with the exception of Judith Collins—that is true. This Parliament was constituted only in 1865. That is the history of responsible democratic government in this country. One of the most respected institutions still in this nation dates from only 1865 yet here we have the Royal Society constituted in 1867 on a day yet to be revealed by the sponsor of the bill. 
We owe the society the courtesy of carrying this legislation through the House and we also owe it the duty of thoroughly debating the legislation and ensuring that it is properly understood by members. One of the things I will point out about the history of the society that has not yet been touched on in this debate is the fact that the society has its origins in the fact that New Zealand was a difficult place to get around in the years after the society was founded. In fact the society was a federation of organisations. When it was put together in 1867 it was not called the Royal Society. It was called the New Zealand Institute. There is an interesting parallel to reflect upon given that we have in the present day another research-based evidence-based organisation that conducts research in order to reach conclusions on the basis of evidence that bears the name “New Zealand Institute”. That was the original name of the Royal Society when it was founded in 1867. 
It was founded to coordinate the activities of different research organisations in the principal cities of New Zealand. There was the Auckland Institute which was probably not in those days the premier scientific or research institute in the country because Auckland was not then the major centre. There was the Wellington Philosophical Society the Philosophical Institute of Canterbury and the Otago Institute. One of the problems the country faced back in the latter part of the 19th century was that none of those individual research institutes had the resources to be able to coordinate their publication activity. They were not able to afford to publish the research they sponsored and undertook. So what lay behind the impetus for the creation of the New Zealand Institute—later the Royal Society—was a desire to make sure that there would be one sponsoring body to ensure the country could afford to collate and publish in one spot the scientific research that was being done in the new colony. The New Zealand Institute was set up then to remedy the lack of the existence of any such organisation so that there could be published every year a single volume of transactions and proceedings on behalf of those institutions found in each of the major cities. I hope that description of the federative nature of the early institute—later the Royal Society—helps to explain a little bit of the background of what the House intends to do as far as the amendments to the Royal Society of New Zealand Act are concerned. 
In terms of the provisions of recital (2) of the preamble and as Allan Peachey said in his earlier contribution the major thrust of this legislation is to allow the Royal Society of New Zealand to incorporate the discipline of humanities into its object and functions. There are some subsidiary parts of the legislation described in the preamble— 
Jo Goodhew 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I want to alert you to an issue that has been brought to my attention. It seems that Parliament TV is telling the public that Charles Chauvel is talking on the voluntary student membership bill at the moment; of course he is not. If you could instruct Parliament TV to give the correct name of the bill I am sure that contributions from members would make a lot more sense. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: If that is the case I am sure that the point will have been heard and I hope notice has been taken of it. Thank you for drawing it to the attention of the Committee. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL 
: When one considers recital (2)(a) of the preamble and when one compares it with the current aims of the Royal Society of New Zealand one can see why this legislation is necessary. The current aims of the society as set out in the 1997 legislation are under section 6(a) “to foster in the New Zealand community a culture that supports science and technology including … (i) the promotion of public awareness knowledge and understanding of science and technology; and (ii) the advancement of science and technology education:”. But the aims are also “(b) to encourage promote and recognise excellence in science and technology: (c) to provide an infrastructure and other support for the professional needs and development of scientists and technologists:”—an echo of the original purpose of the New Zealand Institute—and “(e) to provide expert advice on important public issues to the Government and the community:” 
On that score I recall that the Royal New Zealand Society was one of the first scientific bodies to have made a definitive statement on climate change in New Zealand. On 10 July 2008 the Royal Society of New Zealand released a statement which said in summary: “The globe is warming because of increasing greenhouse gas emissions. Measurements show that greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere are well above levels seen for many thousands of years. Further global climate changes are predicted with impacts expected to become more costly as time progresses. Reducing future impacts of climate change will require substantial reductions of greenhouse gas emissions.” That was back in 1998 and it is evidence of the fulfilment of that very important third function of the Royal Society that I have just described. 
Then there is the wrap-up provision as to its objects: “(f) to do all other lawful things which the Council considers conducive to the advancement and promotion of science and technology in New Zealand.” 
The other thing that perhaps is not realised about the Royal Society is that it is a federation of bodies—I think 41 bodies at the moment as things stand. I could read out the names of the 41 constituent organisations because it would give the House a very accurate flavour of the preponderance of pure science influences on the Royal Society. But if one looks through the list of constituent organisations one can see the importance of this bill and of the purposes set out in the preamble particularly the one that was adverted to by Allan Peachey—the need to move humanities research into the organisation and to see that that can be done appropriately. Amongst the pure science bodies that are already members of the society there is the New Zealand Association for Research in Education the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research and other non - pure science bodies such as the Association of Social Anthropologists of Aotearoa/New Zealand and the Population Association of New Zealand. Obviously it is the case already that non - pure science bodies have begun to seek and obtain membership of the Royal Society. Accordingly it is entirely appropriate that the bill should pass in its current form as reported back from the Education and Science Committee. 
The preamble’s description of what the bill attempts to do in particular to broaden out the aims and objectives of the society so as to incorporate those non - pure science organisations and to allow them to function lawfully and appropriately as members of the Royal Society is an absolutely proper thing to see and for this House to promote. As Grant Robertson said in his sterling introductory contribution to this debate none of this can be achieved without legislation. It would be a terrible thing if we were to put the Royal Society in the position of operating ultra vires its legislation. I commend the preamble to the Committee.