Robertson Grant: Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Robertson Grant: Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:672;Page:18849] 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 I thought this might be a timely opportunity to respond to one or two of the comments made by colleagues from both sides of the Chamber. 
To begin I respond to Pete Hodgson who in his initial contribution on the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill raised two very important issues. The first issue was the process that was gone through to reach the point at which the humanities could be drawn into the Royal Society to create—as my colleague who has just resumed her seat Carol Beaumont highlighted—the situation where so many issues that we face today are in fact a combination of the sciences and the humanities in terms of the way we deal with them the way we talk about them and the way we describe them. 
This is not a decision to be taken lightly. The Royal Society is an organisation with a huge history. I am not allowed to refer to Mr Hodgson’s absence but the last time we discussed this bill we had a debate about when the Royal Society commenced. I discovered that on 10 October 1867 it began its life. It is an organisation with a great deal of history. It is an organisation with a serious contribution to make and it has up to this point been composed of what we would call scientists. It includes the social sciences already and that has caused some confusion but it has been up to this point an organisation associated with science in its most serious forms. The inclusion of the humanities therefore is not something to be taken lightly. 
Mr Lees-Galloway also raised the fact that people were concerned about that inclusion and we discussed earlier in the debate the submission of the Wellington branch of the Royal Society to the Education and Science Committee. It raised the concerns that Mr Shearer and others have raised regarding the question of whether there is a dilution of the sciences and of the ability of the society to advance sciences by the inclusion of the humanities. It raised those concerns as an organisation that as it pointed out had been going longer as a Wellington branch than the Royal Society had overall. 
The Royal Society responded to the select committee with a very thorough explanation of the process. It goes right back to the fact that the decision to incorporate the humanities was presented to the council of the Royal Society it was presented to the Academy Council and it was presented to the fellows over a period of time through 2009. At all of those occasions the fellows the Academy Council members and the council members were given the opportunity to give feedback and at each stage of that process there was a universal endorsement of this idea. The reason there was a universal— 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: Fancy scientists agreeing on anything. Fancy that. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: Exactly. As Mr Hodgson said it would be a rare time to find such universal agreement among scientists and social scientists. 
The letter from the Royal Society to the fellows is very interesting because it makes the point that for the promotion of scholarship and excellence in research in New Zealand there needs to be a coming together of the arts and the sciences. Although there was dispute in the submission made to the select committee the decision to incorporate the humanities was thoroughly discussed. It was not totally accepted by all members of the Royal Society but at the council level at the academy level and at the fellows level it was accepted. 
To answer Mr Hodgson’s question: yes there was a degree of argy-bargy but it was not at the level that would stop this bill going through or that would make me as the member for Wellington Central on being presented with a bill—which I am taking on behalf of the Royal Society—have any concern about it. I have been at great pains in this debate to acknowledge the fact that there was some debate from the Wellington branch in particular about this but overall the benefits to the Royal Society of incorporating the humanities are great. 
The other point Mr Hodgson raised in his speech regarded the question of the importance of bringing these disciplines together. Mr Hodgson mentioned the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification which I was also involved in as a non-scientist looking to interpret relatively complex scientific concepts in a political way as the adviser to the Minister who was responsible for that royal commission. That was the classic bringing together of the sciences and the arts. In fact some of the contributions on the ethical dimensions are to me the cutting edge of why humanities and sciences need to come together. 
But with respect to Mr Hodgson I say that to me the most interesting aspect of this legislation is the future not the past. It is the opportunities that the bringing together of the arts and the sciences provides for us in the future. We had a lot of talk about knowledge societies about knowledge waves and about how we will add value to our products. I know if Mr Hodgson ever goes to Westpac Stadium he will look out and see all that wood all those logs sitting piled up on the waterfront. It grieves him to see that because sitting there is the product of nature and the product of science yet we have not applied the innovation to it to turn it into something of greater value to New Zealanders. That is the coming together of the arts and the sciences that I want to see. That is the bit where the Royal Society can contribute to how we bring together innovation. 
All over the world innovation in science has been driven by multidisciplinary teams. We can go to any country. We can go to Taiwan and see innovation parks that include not only scientists and engineers but also designers historians linguists and marketers—people who will actually bring the concepts together. We do not have to go to Taiwan; we can just go to see a factory in New Zealand. I went to a Fonterra factory recently. The designers and the artists who do the packaging are as important as the people who are working out whether they can put probiotics into milk. What can they do? How can they actually make those things work together? That is the bit that I am focused on I say to Mr Hodgson: the future of the linkages between the arts and the sciences. 
I turn briefly to Allan Peachey’s contribution. I will say two things. The first is that I am not sure whether Mr Peachey was listening to me when I worked my way through the memorandum of understanding between the Council for the Humanities and the Royal Society. I will repeat for his benefit the clause in point two of the memorandum of understanding which states: “Within 5 years the Royal Society will use its best endeavours to have its Act reflect the inclusion of the humanities alongside science and technology.” That was written in February 2010. Here we are in May 2011 making excellent progress towards that goal. In the meantime the Royal Society and the Council for the Humanities have begun working together bringing fellows together from the Council for the Humanities and the Royal Society and working on exactly the things we have just been discussing. We are providing the legislative tick-off to that and we will do that in time. 
I think it is sad for Mr Peachey to say it is somehow wrong for members of this Committee to want to make a contribution about one of the most important changes to the way we think about knowledge and future innovation in New Zealand. There is an opportunity on members’ day for individual members to decide they want to stand up and talk about the importance of science and the arts and humanities together. I think that is a good thing. 
Mr Peachey is concerned about a bill further down the Order Paper about freedom of association. Mr Peachey knows very well that there were opportunities to change that bill in the Education and Science Committee which might have seen it progress a little quicker but those opportunities were not taken. From my point of view as the sponsor of this bill I will not take the blame for members of National not taking the opportunity to progress that bill in a much quicker way. 
I will support this bill because I think it is a good bill. I will not stand here and say that people cannot be allowed to have their say on this bill. This bill deserves debate. It will pass; it will pass well before the time limit the Royal Society has set for itself. In the meantime the Royal Society will have the opportunity to develop the linkages that it is already developing knowing that the bill will get the legislative passage it needs. 
I think we have heard an interesting debate on clause 4. I know there are colleagues who have yet to make a contribution on clause 4 “Purpose” who want to. It is an important clause in this bill because it defines exactly what we are doing and why we are doing it. I think there needs to be an opportunity for people to be heard on this bill. Members make a choice on members’ day to come to the Chamber and have their say. There are very few opportunities for members to talk on their own terms in this Chamber in the system we have. This is a very important opportunity. I urge members who want to to take a call. The Royal Society knows I am taking a responsible attitude to the passing of this bill. I strongly support it. It will pass in good time when all members have had the chance to have their say.