Hughes Gareth: Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Hughes Gareth: Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:673;Page:19427] 
GARETH HUGHES (Green) 
: 
 Kia ora Mr Chairperson. Nga mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. It is great to take a call tonight on the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill and in particular on clause 6. 
Before I begin I say it is good to see this bill in the Committee. The Green Party will support it. Only the member for Mana has been in the House for a shorter time than me and he might agree that the debate tonight on the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill is probably the most intellectual debate that I have seen in my 1 year in this Chamber particularly because of the calls taken by the member in the chair the former Minister Pete Hodgson. 
It is good to be having this debate. I think it is crucial to talk about the humanities. In New Zealand in the last couple of decades the humanities have often been seen as a valueless part of academia or of our society. There has been a focus on research science and technology yet the emphasis from our universities to our schools has been away from the humanities. So it is good to have this debate on this bill. 
Clause 6 is the crucial clause; it is the clause that changes the object of the Royal Society. I have a whole bunch of questions and they might be addressed in Supplementary Order Papers or in further calls tonight. First I will look at the wording. My question is to the member in the chair or to the members who were on the Education and Science Committee. I note that clause 6 is the only part of this albeit small bill that calls it only the “Society” not the “Royal Society”. I am an avowed republican and I would like to see the Royal Society’s name changed and maybe we will get to that part of the debate later on tonight. But I ask why the word “Royal” is not in this clause. Maybe another member can explain it. Maybe there is a common-sense explanation but as a new member I am not sure what it is. 
I have not particularly followed this bill through the House or the Education and Science Committee but I thought I would take a call tonight as I have a humanities academic background. At Victoria University of Wellington I studied religious studies and history which are two of the areas listed in the definition in clause 5 of this bill. I have a postgraduate degree in political science which is one of those topics on the cusp of definition: is it a science is it humanities— 
Hon Judith Collins 
: You’re very unemployable apart from here but really only here. 
GARETH HUGHES 
: I thank the member very much for that contribution which I could not quite hear. Anyway I have a background in the humanities which is why I thought I would take a call on this crucial clause. It is the only call I will be taking. Clause 6 amends the object of the society which currently is “the advancement and promotion of science and technology in New Zealand”. We are adding the humanities to that object. 
I was not able to take a call on clause 5 which dealt with the definitions so I will raise a couple of questions corresponding to the decisions made on clause 5. Clause 5 defines the humanities subjects by listing them. They are languages—not specifically including English or te reo—history religion philosophy and law. History and religion were the two degrees that I studied at university in Wellington. What is missing of course is a whole bunch of others such as music dance visual arts and sociology. I think the problem is—and I am not sure whether this was raised at the select committee but it would be great if a member of the committee could take a call on it—that the humanities have been defined as a list of topics. An equally valid way to define the humanities is as an approach. One good quote I have found that shows the difference between the humanities and the sciences is that the humanities are not defined by a list of topics; they are defined by an approach to the question. It is all about the question one asks. That definition defines the humanities as an interpretive method of finding truth rather than explaining the causality of events or uncovering the truth of the natural world. 
I think we will find when using clause 5 and defining the humanities as a list of topics—some of which we agree with some of which we disagree with and some of which are not included such as te reo or indigenous studies—we will see in an increasingly technological world a whole bunch of potential new humanities subjects coming in that will not be defined in this legislation. In the future we may find ourselves in this Chamber adding more topics as our society is enriched and we find new fields of study for the advancement of approaching the question that is the humanities. 
I think we might rightfully see that this clause amends the work of the Royal Society. People will challenge the Royal Society because it is not adequately advocating for promoting or advancing their particular topic. A hypothetical example is astrology. Maybe astrology is a humanities subject or maybe it is a science. I personally disagree with it. There is the science of studying mysterious animals like the Sasquatch or Bigfoot. Someone could legitimately go the Royal Society and say: “This is what I define a humanities subject as. Why aren’t you advancing or promoting my humanities subject?”. I think that possibly the problem in clause 5 is that we have defined the humanities as a list of subjects when in fact maybe we should not have listed—