Shearer David: Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Shearer David: Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:672;Page:18841] 
DAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert) 
: 
 What I would like to do is to follow on from Pete Hodgson’s contribution. I think he made a really important point that cuts to the very heart of the purpose of the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill which is the incorporation of the humanities into the Royal Society. I was reflecting on his contribution as he was speaking. 
The Prime Minister’s Chief Science Adviser Peter Gluckman is looking very much at the issue of evidence and scientific evidence in particular in terms of the contribution that that can make to policy. Although we support that—and of course we should be making decisions on the basis of evidence—Peter Gluckman makes it quite clear that we should at least have the evidence presented before us and as a result of that evidence we should make the decision. We may decide to take that evidence into consideration in the decision on policy or we may for political reasons decide to ignore it or take only some of it into consideration. But nevertheless that evidence is before us. Peter Gluckman makes a very good point in that regard. 
However I think what Pete Hodgson was also saying is that it is not just scientific evidence that is important in the consideration of policy but also history. He mentioned te reo the Maori language. That too is important when we are looking at policy in this particular place. 
I will go back to clause 4 the purpose clause to reflect on what the Royal Society itself says about the inclusion of the humanities in this bill. Clause 4(a) recognises that incorporating the humanities is a big step forward and an important step forward for the Royal Society to make. The explanatory note of the bill also notes that in November 2008—and Grant Robertson talked about this before in terms of the date of this particular legislation and how it came into being—the council of the Royal Society resolved that there was a need to expand the object and the functions of the society to include humanities. So we are looking at this legislation 2½ years on from when it was first considered. 
The Royal Society went on to say—and this is important—“The decision to extend and enhance the Royal Society’s Academy to include researchers from across all disciplines of science technology social sciences and the humanities is a landmark decision.” It recognises that this is not just a decision that was suddenly dreamed up by the Royal Society and the academy of the Royal Society. It was considered over a long period of time by the Royal Society and I think that was one thing that we recognised and valued when we were in the Education and Science Committee hearings—that this was not an ad hoc decision. Again I will quote from the Royal Society’s submission: “There is a growing appreciation at both national and international levels of the need for greater cross disciplinary dialogue to address the global problems that now occupy much of the research agenda.” 
That really comes back to what Pete Hodgson said in his contribution. In fact his contribution chimes very well with what the Royal Society was trying to get at and why it wanted to make this landmark change. The submission goes on to say: “The enhanced Fellowship at the centre of the Royal Society mirrors the situation in many of the world’s leading academies. This strengthening of capacity will enable the Royal Society to provide a significant contribution to present and emerging debates …”. I think that sums up the reason that we are here tonight debating this bill. I say “debating” but in many ways it is a traversing of the issues. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Hon David Carter 
: Let Parekura have a go. We need some entertainment. 
DAVID SHEARER 
: We will wait for the Hon Parekura Horomia. I did not want to be unkind; I probably should have sat down. I feel somewhat guilty now for seeking a second call to be honest. 
To come back on track with regard to the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill there were about 13 submissions on the bill which we heard very carefully. A number of those submissions were made in person and were made very passionately by people who were very concerned that the object of the Royal Society was to be eroded. I just want to reflect on the contribution of Bob Brockie— 
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: Bob who? 
DAVID SHEARER 
: —Bob Brockie—who is a weekly columnist for the  
Dominion Post  
and is also a scientist in his own right. What I would like to do is to note what he stated quite articulately about his opposition to the inclusion of the humanities into the Royal Society bill. He said: “The Royal Society might think that it is doing God’s work by bringing the Sciences and the Arts together. I don’t think this is the role of a Scientific Society which should stick to its knitting. From my observations there is very little traffic between the worlds of Science and the Arts and that is all in one direction. Science inspires a lot of artists but Artists rarely if ever inspire Science (science fiction writers are the exception). The Arts and Humanities can have their own Academy but finance it not from the Science Budget but from the Creative Arts and Heritage budget.” 
Although I think his point is probably slightly overstated compared with a lot of the other opposition that we have heard on this bill it does reflect the feeling quite strongly held that the Royal Society is going backwards in terms of bringing the humanities into the Royal Society. I think that that view is mistaken. What the Royal Society said in its submission was right. In fact the humanities are an extraordinarily important part of policy dialogue and other dialogues. As I quoted before bringing that in is enormously important. I will just wrap up on that particular point and hand over to the Hon Parekura Horomia and I will give him plenty of time to get to his feet.