Moroney Sue: Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Moroney Sue: Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:673;Page:19851] 
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
: 
 It is very humbling to rise to speak to clause 9 of the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill and to hear about the fellows. It is very humbling indeed to hear about some of the work that those fellows have undertaken to reach this esteemed place within the Royal Society. I think the Royal Society must be thrilled to know that we are already up to clause 9 because as we heard in question time today its expectation in 2010 was that it might take 5 years to get this legislation through. The fact that we are here today already up to clause 9 I think must show that we are galloping through are we not? 
I hope—I know in fact—that the society is very pleased with the amount of debate on this bill. Just last evening I had the opportunity to host the Speaker’s Science Forum which is held in conjunction with the Royal Society. As it was the last in the series in this parliamentary term I had the opportunity to talk with the president of the Royal Society Diane McCarthy. She said to me that they are so enjoying the debate happening in relation to this bill because what she essentially said to me was that they do not feel as though they have had as much publicity in many many years as has arisen from the debate on this bill. So I am pleased to be up to clause 9 already talking about the fellows. 
I have some further questions for the member in charge of this bill Grant Robertson. When he talked to us about the process I noted that the process by which fellows become Fellows of the Royal Society is very thorough and robust. My question is about the nomination process. We heard that people appear before a panel which assesses the nominations. Once those nominations are accepted they stay viable I guess would be the way I would put it for a period of 5 years. That means as I understand it that if they are unsuccessful in being one of the 12 esteemed people accepted as fellows the following year they can keep their nomination coming back for 5 years before it has to be withdrawn. Then there is a period—I guess a cooling-off period—before they can be nominated again. 
As we have identified in the course of debating this clause by including people from the discipline of the humanities among the group who can now be nominated to become fellows will we create a logjam effect? What I mean by that is that there are people now who will have been nominated before this clause is changed and they will not be from the humanities. Therefore for another 4 years I imagine their names will continue to roll through this process. Does that mean that there are fewer opportunities for people who can be newly nominated because they are in the discipline of the humanities—to get their name in the pool so to speak? 
Maybe I am exposing my ignorance of this process because I have just realised I am talking about pools as if we are talking about a game of soccer or something like that. I am just trying to understand how quickly we expect that by amending clause 9 we will see the sort of diversity that I think certainly this side of the Chamber has expressed a very keen interest in seeing. We are hoping that with the inclusion of the humanities by amending clause 9 we will see more women more Maori some Pasifika—by the sounds of it it seems like we do not have any Pasifika people in that category at the moment—and people from other ethnicities becoming fellows. I think we on this side of the Chamber want to see that diversity that is represented in the great academic work undertaken in this country. We want to see that happen sooner rather than later. I suspect that the process of people’s nominations staying live as it were for 5 years will make that somewhat difficult. We will see that it might take longer than we would hope in amending this clause.