Mackey Moana: Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Mackey Moana: Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:671;Page:17578] 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I am happy to stand in support of the second reading of the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill. I am happy to do so both as a member of the Labour caucus and as a member of the Royal Society itself. I congratulate my colleague Grant Robertson the member of Parliament for Wellington Central on bringing this important legislation to the House. 
The legislation marks an evolving of the Royal Society to include the humanities. That inclusion is not universally agreed with throughout the science sector but it is an idea whose time has come I think it is fair to say. The reality of the kind of multidisciplinary approach to research that is undertaken by not only our universities but also our Crown research institutes and private research institutes shows that it is getting more and more difficult to draw a line between true scientific endeavours and those that enter into the humanities. I think that inclusion of the humanities makes a lot of sense. Including and promoting research in the humanities as well as in what would be considered more pure science is something the Royal Society has been doing in practice for a while. So for that reason it makes sense that in many respects the legislation brings the Royal Society’s legislation into line with its actual practice in the current day. 
Some questions were raised I understand at the Education and Science Committee and there were some concerns from some branches of the Royal Society about the level of consultation. I as a member of the Royal Society was consulted on the bill. I received my consultation pack and my voting papers in the mail. I thought the information provided was appropriate. The information provided was fulsome and I was quite comfortable with the level of consultation provided by the Royal Society. 
It is particularly important that we continue to support multidisciplinary approaches to research. There are some wonderful examples of multidisciplinary approaches going on around New Zealand. During the time of the previous Labour Government we started funding centres of research excellence that were based in universities Crown research institutes and private research institutes. Those centres really supported the notion of multidisciplinary research which is what the Royal Society is reflecting here in the legislation. 
A multidisciplinary approach draws together people from many different areas around a common focus in research. It may involve not just scientists but also economists sociologists lawyers or any number of people who can all come together and work on a particular area of scientific research that is crucial for the economy of this country. That approach is something Labour very much supported when we were in Government. It makes sense that the Royal Society which has also been supporting this multidisciplinary approach to research also brings its own legislation and practices into line so that it is not stymied and so there are no barriers that in any way stop these different areas of the research community from collaborating as much and as fully as they possibly can. 
Some of the multidisciplinary research that is going on around the country really is world class. I urge members of the House to take note of a lot of the research that is being done. I think one of the things we as parliamentarians should be able to do is say to the people who put us here that we do have regard for the research that is being done not only in New Zealand—particularly in New Zealand where it is relevant to our own situation—but also around the world. Sometimes it concerns me—and I know that this concern came through in some of the submissions—that due consideration is not given to that research. 
The multidisciplinary research that is being done at the Otago University has shown the absolutely important and crucial role that quality early childhood education can play in the long-term achievement of an individual. It is the first type of research of this kind that has been done around the world. It has shown very very clearly that individuals who have gone through not just any kind of childcare but early childhood education that is good quality and specifically teacher-led can have far greater outcomes not just throughout the rest of their education but for the rest of their lives. That research is the kind of multidisciplinary research that needs to be taken into account by members of this House. We need to be able to say that we have regard to the research. If parliamentarians choose to ignore research then that is their prerogative; they are elected to be here. But they should at least have to show regard to it and they should at least have to be prepared to explain to people why they ignore the overwhelming research in a particular area when making policy decisions. 
Labour has always been very supportive of this evidence-based approach to policy. I know that the Royal Society has also been particularly supportive of that approach in its work. Scientists and researchers across the board do not carry out research just for fun. They do not do it just for the hell of it. They do it because they want to contribute to the information out there to the decision-making processes to good-quality policy decisions and to policy-making processes. 
We have heard a lot of fine words in this debate. I welcome comments from all members in the debate on the legislation but it has to go further than just voting in favour of the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill. It has to go much further than that. It has to go much further and we have to be able to say as a Parliament that not only do we support the work the Royal Society does—its move to include humanities and its move to support more multidisciplinary approaches to research—we are going to take regard of that research when it is completed we are not going to ignore it and if we believe the research is wrong we will challenge it. We will give reasons why we are challenging it and why we do not believe that the research should be given due regard. 
I can think of the example of boot camps. All the research told us they would not work. All the research said the participants had worse outcomes not better and that the camps create fitter faster criminals. All the research about boot camps was very clear yet a policy that disregarded the research was put in place. 
A party runs on a policy platform and when it is in Government it has a mandate to bring policies into place but the Government should have to explain to the public why it is ignoring every single piece of evidence out there and why it thinks the evidence is wrong and it is right. A lot of taxpayers’ money is being spent. The taxpayers of New Zealand deserve to know that their money is being well spent that the research is not being ignored and that the evidence is being listened to before money goes towards pet projects that are frankly doomed to failure before they even start and we flush $20 million of taxpayers’ money down the drain. 
I hope that the fine words we have heard— 
Louise Upston 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am just drawing your attention to the speech to see whether it is going beyond the scope of the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: Well I am waiting for the member to make it relevant. 
Hon Dr Wayne Mapp 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You may or may not be aware that prior to the dinner break the Deputy Speaker gave an explicit instruction to all members that after—how can I put it—a slight digression by myself and Mr Shearer he felt that it kind of closed off that issue and that all other speakers essentially were to speak on the bill. He felt that Mr Shearer and I had had an appropriate and adequate debate but that probably should be confined to the two speakers I have just referred to. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: I was not aware of that ruling. I have frequently told the House that of all the debates a second reading debate is pretty much the tightest. If members want to make analogies or comparisons that is appropriate but they must be linked to the material pertaining to the second reading. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: I apologise to National members. I thought the Royal Society of New Zealand was about research but apparently not. That is all right; if it makes the member uncomfortable then I will speak about something else. One of the key achievements as I said of the previous Labour Government was the multidisciplinary approach that is being taken up in this legislation. As I also said before there was some disquiet at first about the inclusion of humanities into the Royal Society’s role. The reason I was discussing some of the areas that the humanities go into is to show that crossover to show why it is important that this change in the Royal Society be supported and actually to brag a little bit about the fantastic research that is going on out there. I am very disappointed that National members are so uncomfortable about that that they feel the need to shut me down. 
Louise Upston 
: We just want to talk about the bill. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: Well they want to talk about the bill because they do not want to talk about their appalling record in this area but that is fine; we can move on. 
Hon Dr Wayne Mapp 
: The Limited Service Volunteers are extremely popular and well proven. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: The Limited Service Volunteers are extremely popular and well proven? 
Hon Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Yes that’s right. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: Oh the boot camps. The Minister wants to interject on me about boot camps. 
Chester Borrows 
: No they’re not boot camps; they are Limited Service Volunteers not Fresh Start camps. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: “Limited Service Volunteers” is the nice phrase National has come up with but they are boot camps. That is what National members called them during the election campaign but now they have realised that the name does not sound good so they want to move away from it. The fact is that it does not matter what National members call boot camps they do not work and the research shows that. 
The Royal Society has often taken pains to show how important it is that Governments follow an evidence-based approach to policy. What is it about an evidence-based approach to policy that terrifies National members so much? All the Royal Society has been asking for for the longest time is that we look at the evidence because the best example of how things are going to go in the future is how they have worked before—and boot camps did not work before. The research shows that and the evidence shows that. 
Hon Dr Wayne Mapp 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I know I have made some interjections but I did stop with the interjections and the speech has just continued and continued with no reference whatsoever to the bill. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: I think the member has to take some responsibility for what happened. Moana Mackey you have 30 seconds left. Talk to us about the bill. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: This legislation is very good. As I said as a member of the Royal Society I was completely happy with the consultation that was undertaken and with the ability given by members of the Royal Society to participate in that consultation. I know that concerns were raised at the Education and Science Committee about the consultation which is why I want to mention it. 
The bill is a step change—as Government members are so fond of saying—for the Royal Society. It brings in the humanities. It is a welcome change and I look forward to the Committee stage debates on the bill when I might be able to talk about things without the National members getting so upset.