Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:667;Page:14245] 
Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill 
First Reading 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 I move  
That the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
 At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be considered by the Education and Science Committee. 
Colin King 
: A very good committee. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: It is an excellent committee; I agree with the member. The Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill is a private bill which is promoted by the Royal Society of New Zealand. The society is a body corporate that has operated in New Zealand since 1867 and is currently based in the great electorate of Wellington Central. The object functions and structure of the society are set out in the Royal Society of New Zealand Act 1997. 
The current object of the society is the advancement and promotion of science and technology in New Zealand. That in turn leads to the functions of the society. The first current function is to foster in the New Zealand community a culture that supports science and technology including—without limitation—the promotion of public awareness knowledge and understanding of science and technology and the advancement of science and technology education. The second function is to encourage promote and recognise excellence in science and technology. The third function is to provide an infrastructure and other support for the professional needs and development of scientists and technologists. The fourth function is to establish and administer a code of professional standards and ethics in science and technology for members. The fifth function is to provide expert advice on important public issues to the Government and the community. The final current function is to do all other lawful things that the society considers are conducive to the advancement and promotion of science and technology in New Zealand. 
This bill seeks to amend the Royal Society of New Zealand Act to incorporate the humanities into the object and functions of the society. It will also make several other minor changes that I will outline shortly. The society has approached me to be the member in charge of this bill as I am the member of Parliament for the electorate in which the society’s head office is located. As I have said the main purpose of the bill is to amend the Royal Society of New Zealand Act to incorporate the humanities into its objects and functions. This means for example that the functions of the society will be expanded to include the functions of fostering in the New Zealand community a culture that supports the humanities and of encouraging promoting and recognising excellence in the humanities. The definition in clause 5(2) of the bill says that the humanities include: “English and other languages history religion philosophy law classics linguistics literature cultural studies media studies art history film drama and American studies”. 
Specifically the bill adds to those functions that I read out earlier: “to foster in the New Zealand community a culture that supports the humanities: to encourage promote and recognise excellence in the humanities: to establish and administer for members a code of professional standards and ethics in the humanities: and to do all other lawful things which the Council of the Society considers conducive to the advancement and promotion of the humanities in New Zealand:”. The incorporation of the humanities into the objects and functions of the society will mean that many people involved in the humanities may be admitted as members of the society and that people who have achieved distinction in research for the advancement of the humanities will be able to be elected as fellows of the Royal Society. The society will obviously also be required to establish and administer a code of professional standards and ethics in the humanities as it currently does in relation to science and technology. 
The society’s decision to expand the objects and functions of the society to include the humanities was based on three main factors: a desire to integrate the structure and function of research in New Zealand; a recognition of the need to build on and integrate the complementary knowledge provided by different disciplines; and the fact that academies of scholars in other countries such as Canada and Scotland have academies that also range across the disciplines. It is fair to say that in recent times there has been a growing awareness among the pure scientific community—I defer to my colleague Moana Mackey who comes from that community—to work more closely with the social science community. Many members of the House will be familiar with the work of Professor Sir Paul Callaghan and Bill Manhire at Victoria University who have worked very hard to try to draw together what they call the “parallel universes of writers and scientists”. It is a little bit like that. For those of us from a social science background it is fair to say that the pure scientists sometimes have some difficulty in understanding where we are coming from—and no doubt vice versa as well. 
Shane Ardern 
: Venus and Mars. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: Scientists are from Venus and social scientists are from Mars; I thank Mr Ardern for that. It is true that the work that Bill Manhire and Paul Callaghan have done has been excellent and is mirrored in many other parts of our research sector. 
Before I came into this House I worked very closely with an organisation called the Centre for Sustainable Cities which is based at Otago University’s medical school. It brings together people from the pure sciences—such as physics and energy research—right through to people in the social sciences particularly those in the public health area and those who do research into housing. It is a very good way of being able to draw together and create an inter-disciplinary approach within our broad research communities. 
I think it is very timely that the Royal Society has chosen to come to the House to amend its functions to reflect the fact that the humanities are having an increased role and increased importance in the research community. It is only right too that it does this following on from consultation with the Council for the Humanities. A memorandum of understanding was signed by the society and the Council for the Humanities on 9 February 2010 to incorporate the humanities into the society. As is the nature of a body such as the Royal Society which is governed by statute this bill has come to the House now to get our endorsement for that process. 
As I mentioned at the start there are a couple of other elements to this bill that I would like to note. The first is that another purpose of the bill is to rename the academy council of the society the academy executive committee. This will be a matter of great interest to members in the House. The reason for this change is to avoid confusion between the academy council which was established to contribute to the achievement of the objects of the society by recognising and encouraging excellence and outstanding achievement in science and technology and contributing to the intellectual leadership role of the society and the overall council of the society which has a governing role. This means that the academy council of the Royal Society will after this bill has passed be called the academy executive committee and any potentially confused social or pure scientists will know the difference. 
The bill also amends the standard for the election of companions of the society to put greater focus on leadership and also to include the humanities now that they are part of the society’s wider functions. The final purpose of the bill relates to changes that were made to the council’s structure in 2008 by way of a wash-up provision to make sure that all of the constitutional changes that have been made are now reflected in the law. In particular the bill amends the election process for councillors of the society so that the process is consistent with a new council structure and it clarifies processes for councillors appointed by regional constituent organisations. 
To achieve the purposes of this bill we need to amend the Royal Society of New Zealand Act. This is a bill that should not generate too much controversy. I hope that pure scientists in the Chamber will be able to accept the arrival of the social scientists and see that they will now all be able to work together in harmony and ensure that we can support those research endeavours that are taking place right around New Zealand in many universities and other research institutions. I think this bill will make for a stronger Royal Society and I commend it to the House. 
ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tamaki) 
: 
 I am pleased to be able to join my colleague the member for Wellington Central in supporting the first reading of the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill and supporting its referral to the Education and Science Committee which I have the honour of chairing and to which the member for Wellington Central is an occasional but very very positive contributor. 
I will not cover the ground that he has covered; he gave an excellent outline of the purpose of the bill in its various provisions. But I want to make a few comments about the Royal Society of New Zealand. It is a long-established body; it was established in 1867 and known until 1933 as the New Zealand Institute. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
:How old were you then Allan? 
ALLAN PEACHEY 
: I had not quite started school. 
Grant Robertson 
: Ruapehu College. 
ALLAN PEACHEY 
: It was Ruapheu College—I thank the member. I am getting closer to my objectives tonight and there will be a couple more opportunities before we have finished. 
The Royal Society was set up as a mechanism to bring together a number of research and science organisations around the country that did not have the resources to publish the papers that were being delivered them to keep records of their meetings and their activities and that sort of thing. The Royal Society of New Zealand Act which was passed in 1997 currently legislates for the provision of the Royal Society. The society’s primary purpose has been to foster in the New Zealand community a culture that supports science and technology including the promotion of public awareness knowledge and understanding of science and technology and the advancement of science and technology education. So the Royal Society is responsible for the distribution of public funding for scientific research and public education for the publication of a number of journals for holding meetings and seminars for awarding medals like the Rutherford Medal and the Pickering Medal and for science education. 
It is on that note that I would like to take a moment to acknowledge the role that the Royal Society plays in this Parliament each year. In conjunction with Science New Zealand the Royal Society sponsors a series of lectures known as the Speaker’s Science Forum which as chair of the Education and Science Committee I get the honour to chair. This year we have had maybe a dozen lectures on a Tuesday night over the dinner break from some very eminent New Zealand scientists. Some of us like me do not have a scientific background. It was my misfortune to attend Ruapehu College and to be in the fifth form in 1965 and sitting School Certificate when the teaching of science was particularly weak. In actual fact that year it was a disgrace. I do not blame Ruapehu College for that but I do blame a particular teacher whose name is well known in this House but I had better not mention it. Ruapehu College was a great school for me by the way. 
I have the privilege of hosting the Speaker’s Science Forum and as one of the members of the Royal Society said to me one evening after a particularly successful and enjoyable occasion where else in the world in any Parliament would we have one-quarter of the members of Parliament in one room during their dinner break listening to a lecture about science? I commend these lectures to those members of the House who have not yet attended any of them. Members have missed the last one for this year as it was held a week or so ago but I commend them to members next year. Not only do we get to hear from an outstanding New Zealand scientist and learn about an aspect of science or technology that is current in New Zealand but we also get to enjoy the fellowship of members of the Royal Society of Science New Zealand and of our own colleagues. For goodness’ sake I have even been known to share a dinner table after the lecture with members of the Labour Party! I humbly apologise to my colleagues on this side of the House for that dreadful breach of protocol but I believe those members benefit from that sort of company from time to time. 
The purpose of the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill is to enable the Royal Society to incorporate the humanities into its work and I welcome that. I think that is a great step forward. If the Royal Society can—and I sure it will—bring to the humanities what it has brought to science and technology it will be great for this country and particularly for those who have studied the humanities and take a leading role in their fields. 
The Royal Society resolved in November 2008 that there was a need to expand its activities. Something else happened in November 2008. 
Louise Upston 
: What was that? 
ALLAN PEACHEY 
: What was it? Something else very significant for this country happened in November 2008. Oh that is right; the Labour Government got thrown out of office. So two great things happened in New Zealand in November 2008. But enough of that. In the spirit of the bipartisanship in which the Education and Science Committee operates I am sure that the committee will enjoy holding what I assume will be a limited number of hearings on the bill. That committee has had a very heavy workload this year and it continues to have a very heavy workload. It has had to deal with some pretty challenging issues. I think members will find dealing with this bill a particular pleasure. I commend the bill to the House. 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I think it is a testament to the transformative power of science that it has facilitated the breaking of bread between Allan Peachey and the evil socialists on this side of the House. I am happy to stand in this House as a member of the Labour Party and a member of the Royal Society of New Zealand to speak on the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill. I thank my caucus colleagues and my whips who apparently think I am some kind of science snob and thought it would be amusing to put me on the speaking list on a bill that introduces the humanities into the Royal Society. They thought it would be character-building. They will be very disappointed because I wholeheartedly support the introduction of humanities into the Royal Society. 
Hon Judith Collins 
: Really? 
MOANA MACKEY 
: I do; it is called personal growth. Look how far I have come. 
I was genuinely hurt that my good friend and colleague Grant Robertson would insinuate that I would think that his qualification is any less than mine although I do note with absolutely no judgment that his particular qualification is not on the list. But that is all right; I am sure that is something that can be amended at the Education and Science Committee. I am sure it is a mere oversight. 
Hon Judith Collins 
: What is it Moana? 
MOANA MACKEY 
: His politics degree. It is not on the list. But this is something that will be debated at the select committee. 
In all seriousness this bill is very important. One of the goals of the previous Labour Government was to facilitate more multidisciplinary approaches to research. We did this through the centres of research excellence of which there are a number around the country now which bring together a number of disciplines under the banner of particular areas of research. They have had enormous success in bringing the private sector the universities and the Crown research institutes to work together so that we are not doing overlapping research but are in fact coordinating that research. 
The multidisciplinary approach has often been the Holy Grail. Sometimes it is difficult and we make jokes about the hierarchy of the scientific community but it is actually very true—there is a hierarchy a pecking order and sometimes it is difficult to get around that. But when we can the outcomes are outstanding. I recently visited the centre for the study of agriculture food and environment at Otago University which is not a centre of research excellence but a multidisciplinary group. It brings together economists sociologists geographers physicists marine biologists and statisticians. All these groups work on areas of public policy. 
I think it is a shame that more MPs do not know about this group because some of the areas it works on are absolutely key to what we do here. The group looks at the gap between what the Governments try to do and what the public want and how they feel about it. It uses the example of renewable energy which New Zealanders overwhelmingly support. Then it looks at what happens whenever we try to build a wind farm or to develop tidal energy. So much expense is added because of the public backlash. The group says that sometimes politicians do not do that work and there are things it is working on now that can be put in place to make sure that when these projects come up we can save time and money and all the angst that often goes with them. This group is a very important unit. It looks at the areas of fisheries agriculture and right across the board. I recommend that members of Parliament visit this group. 
One of the problems is that its funding is now uncertain. With this new approach to funding research in New Zealand which is that everything has to be business-based this is a group that will save us money and will have public benefit for the country but because it cannot absolutely quantify exactly how much money that will be its funding is now uncertain. 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: Crazy. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: It is. I think all members of the House would think it is crazy. So I think this is a very timely bill from the Royal Society. It promotes the multidisciplinary approach which should make all members of this House think very carefully about the expectations we put on the scientific community and on the research community. Sometimes there is truth to that adage about the cost of everything and the value of nothing. I think that sometimes the scientists and the researchers in our universities and our Crown research institutes find it frustrating that politicians and parliamentarians really do not understand exactly their needs and the value they can contribute to our society. I hope that this will be part of the debate on this bill. 
Labour supports an evidence-based approach to policy. Clearly the social sciences and the humanities have a big role to play in that. I think all parliamentarians should adopt an evidence-based approach and when we are spending taxpayers’ money we should be able to point to the research that says it will work and if it will not work we should justify for example why we are spending so much money on boot camps when every single bit of research says they will not work. 
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to speak on the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill. I take on board all the glowing comments made by previous speakers about the value of the humanities the social sciences and such like. When we look at the functionality of this bill we see that it is structured in a way that will advance collectively not only the fundamental sciences but also the humanities. I have to confess that although science may not have been a great subject at Ruapehu College when the chairman of the Education and Science Committee was there I had to do a bit of research to find out what humanities were. I would say that a lot of people in New Zealand would need to go to Google or something like that and inquire as to what humanities are. It is quite interesting that humanities are described as academic disciplines that study the human condition using methods that are primarily analytical critical and speculative as distinguished from the mainly empirical approaches of the natural and social sciences. So I learnt something there. 
When we sit down at the Education and Science Committee and go through this bill I am sure that there will be a fair amount of collegiality on it. I am certainly looking forward to that. I certainly can attest too to what the chairman was saying before about the Royal Society of New Zealand’s sponsored lectures in Parliament the Speaker’s lectures. They were a great series and they certainly covered an enormous range. It surprised me just how broad the Royal Society of New Zealand was in its context so it will be very interesting to see what comes out of the humanities’ involvement with the society and their incorporation into it. We look forward to this bill coming to the select committee. I am sure that it will not take too long for us to go through the process and take advice on board. On that basis I support the bill and look forward to receiving it at the select committee. 
DAVID CLENDON (Green) 
: 
 Kia ora koutou. The introduction of the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill brings us a step closer to fulfilling a commitment made by the Royal Society of New Zealand in February this year when its memorandum with Te Whainga Aronui the Council for the Humanities agreed to bring the two organisations closer. The Green Party is very happy to support this bill as seems to be the mood tonight. As a person who did an arts degree at undergraduate level and then went on to do a postgraduate science degree I will feel somewhat less divided in my membership of the Royal Society of New Zealand given that it is— 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: You’re an expert on this. 
DAVID CLENDON 
: Yes it is a very interesting place to be when one is moving between these two fundamentally different disciplines or approaches. 
Shane Ardern 
: Dangerous ground I’d say. 
DAVID CLENDON 
: Quite right. To an extent this returns the Royal Society of New Zealand to its roots back to the Royal Society in the UK. That society came together in the 1640s as a college of natural philosophers who were delving into this then new model of observation and experimentation that in time became the empirically based science that we understand now. Clearly this reintegration with the humanities is as I say coming back to the roots of that organisation. 
Natural philosophy was a branch of philosophy a theoretical branch coming from an ethical base endeavouring to understand nature as it was then comprehended—dare I say it what we would now refer to as the environment. Clearly there is a long history to the evolution of natural philosophy through to the scientific method objective observation and the like. The downside I guess of the scientific method which is clearly incredibly powerful and has been a very productive approach was the degree of hubris or pride and the disallowance of indigenous forms of knowledge investigation understanding and interpretation of the natural world. In the Western context the reaction to the success of the reliance on the scientific method were the more extreme forms of postmodernism. We are finding that pendulum swinging back closer to a centre point to acknowledge the value of both the scientific method and of a humanities or an arts-based approach to advancing knowledge and research. 
In the modern age if you like back in the late 1950s CP Snow in his lecture  
The Two Cultures 
 and then his book  
The Two Cultures and the Scientific Revolution  
described the predicament very well when he observed that academics in schools of the arts were not only unwilling to talk to the scientists and vice versa but effectively unable to. They were almost unable to communicate with one another. Clearly in the 20th and the 21st centuries that degree of division within our academic and our research bases would be simply unacceptable and would not advance us at all. In my own discipline of resource management it was clear that it was critical that resource management decisions are best made when they are not only based on good scientific understanding geology ecology earth science and all the other scientific disciplines but also within the cultural context established by law history and economics. It is only with people who are trained and who understand the powers weaknesses limitations and strengths of all of those sub-disciplines that we arrive at very good management decisions like how to deal with our natural world how to manage in the interests of our communities and how to get good economic outcomes. 
In short we believe this is a good bill. It is timely. We are very pleased to see the society and the council coming together in the firm belief that the new organisation will over time become much stronger than the sum of its parts. Kia ora koutou. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker 
. 
 Kia ora ano tatou. A ko te tikanga o tenei pire e ai ki taku e kite nei he ahua marama ana. He whakawhanui i te whainga me nga mahi o te society nei kia tapirihia atu ki te mahi rangahau a-tangata ara ko te humanities. E tika ana ki te ata rangahau i te society nei i te mea mai i tona timatanga i te tau 1867 kaore ano tetahi kia to mai me ki i te ropu nei ki te ao hou. Ko te mate ke koinei anake te mea e whakaarohia nei e te Royal 
Society ki te to mai i te hunga nei ki te ao hou ara ko te humanities 
tera. Ehara i te mea he huarahi mama tenei. Kua puta te pire nei i muri mai i nga mahi a nga pukenga o Kotimana me Kanata me tetahi kirimana i waenganui i te society nei me Te Whainga Aronui mo nga humanities.  
Kua kaha whakapau te Royal 
Society ki te kupu kotahi. Ara ki ta te Pati Maori me huri ke ki nga kupu e wha: Te Tiriti o Waitangi. Na ko te whainga nui o te pire nei he hiahia no ratou ki te aki ki te whakanui ki te whakarangatira i tenei mea ko te humanities. He mea pai tera. Na reira me patai i te patai penei a etahi atu: he aha tenei mea ko te humanities? Ara ano nga momo reo nga momo tuhinga nga momo ture nga hitori nga momo kaupapa here nga momo tikanga a-hahi tae atu ki nga mahi a-rehia. Me ki technology anthropology ano hoki cultural 
studies te mea te mea. Ara ano he korero mo te ahuatanga o te tangata. Ko te mate ke kaua ko te tangata Maori kaua ko te tangata whenua ranei. Karekau he paku korero i roto i te ture ara te Royal Society of New Zealand Act 1997 ki te Tiriti o Waitangi. Ki a matou me whai wahi te tiriti i roto i tenei momo ako. Me whai wahi ano hoki tenei mea te cultural competency.  
I te mea a ko ake nei ka puta te purongo o te Wai 262 me titiro whanui tatou. Ko te tirohanga whanui e korerohia ana ko tera me ki i roto i te reo Pakeha me ki ko tetahi korero kua korerohia nei. Anei te korero tino rangatiratanga and kaitiaki by the claimants over indigenous flora and fauna and other taonga and also over matauranga Maori Maori traditional knowledge. Ana ko tera korero kua roa e korerohia ana i roto i te Wai 262. No reira koinei te tikanga o taku ki atu me titiro whanui tatou ki enei ahuatanga katoa kaua ko te humanities me tana titiro whaiti nei me whakawhanui tonu te titiro. Ka mutu kei te titiro ano hoki penei i taku e korero nei kei te titiro matou ki te ahuatanga o te piringa o te Tiriti o Waitangi ki tenei pire. Na runga i te aha? Na runga i te mea ko te Tiriti o Waitangi i tona whanuitanga he titiro ano ra ki nga rawa o Tangaroa ki te whenua e takoto nei ki te taiao me ki nga momo rangahau enei ahuatanga katoa. No reira ko ta matou ko te ki atu me titiro ano hoki ki a ngai Maori me te ahuatanga o te noho o te tangata me tana mohio ki te Ao Maori me nga mea o iwi ke. Koinei te ahuatanga o tenei mea. Te tumanako ia ka tautoko tenei ropu i te whakaputanga o Mataatua tae atu ki te whakaputanga o te ao ara i te reo Pakeha Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.  
No reira he paku whakaaro noa ake enei kua puta i a matou i te po nei mo tenei pire. Kei te tautoko ake te Pati Maori i tenei pire i tona panuitanga tuatahi me te tumanako ia ka korerohia whanuitia enei take i te komiti whaiti. 
[ 
Greetings to you Mr Assistant Speaker and to all of us once again. The purpose of this bill appears fairly simple: to expand the objective and functions of the Royal Society to include the humanities. One would think it both logical and necessary that a society that has been operating since 1867 actually becomes updated. Believe it or not all that the Royal Society thinks is necessary to meet the contemporary need of our communities is to add one word: humanities. It is not as easy as one might think. This bill has come about only after the analysis of scholars from Scotland and Canada and as a consequence of this society signing up to a memorandum of understanding with Te Whainga Aronui / the Council for the Humanities.  
But if the energies of the Royal Society have gone into just one word— humanities—the Maori Party wants to encourage a wider focus on just four words: Te Tiriti o Waitangi. What exactly do we mean by humanities?  
Examples of the disciplines of the humanities are ancient and modern languages literature law history philosophy religion and the visual and performing arts. Other disciplines include technology anthropology and cultural studies. They are about the human condition but not about Maori humans or tangata whenua. There is no reference in the Royal Society of New Zealand Act 1997 to the Treaty of Waitangi. It is our view that the Treaty should be included in these areas. The development of these areas should occur within an environment of cultural competency.  
As the report on the Wai 262 claim draws near we should be aware of the broader vision of that claim. Basically that vision is one that promotes tino rangatiratanga and kaitiaki by the claimants over indigenous flora and fauna and other taonga and also over matauranga Maori Maori traditional knowledge. That stance has been long discussed around the Wai 262 claim. And that is why I said we should take a broad view in terms of these matters as opposed to the narrow view of the humanities. In subsequent phases of this bill we will be looking for the connection between the Treaty of Waitangi natural resources the environment the economy the arts and culture and research science and technology. We would also like to see a greater understanding between Maori and non-Maori cultures and support for indigenous declarations such as the Mataatua declaration and the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.  
These are our views expressed tonight about this bill. The Maori Party will support this bill at its first reading and looks forward to further debate on these matters in the select committee 
.] 
LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupo) 
: 
 I am pleased to stand in support of the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill in the name of Grant Robertson. He was so disappointed I did not continue my speech on the Franklin District Council (Contribution to Funding of Museums) Amendment Bill that I wanted to rise and make sure that he was able to hear some more of what I have to contribute to the House. 
I acknowledge the clarity with which the member for Wellington Central explained the purpose of this bill so I will not go into a lot of the detail other than to say that it is tidy-up legislation at the request of the Royal Society of New Zealand. I think one of the interesting things is that in effect this bill brings the humanities or the social sciences into the world of the Royal Society of New Zealand. We have heard about the potential that could occur with such a blend. I think one of the members of the House referred to it as the difference between coming from Venus and coming from Mars. It might also be seen as blending oil and water depending on one’s perspective. But I do not think anyone will disagree with me that this is an important step forward for the development of the Royal Society with the inclusion of the humanities and social sciences in its strive to foster another wing of science in New Zealand. I believe that it will enhance the work that the society already does in terms of excellence in research and science. 
I also agree with Allan Peachey the chair of the Education and Science Committee and former student of Ruapehu College that we will have a good discussion when the bill gets to the select committee. I shall look forward to seeing whether there are any additions that Mr Robertson might want to put forward in terms of aspects of the humanities that might be extended to be included. This is a bill that I believe we will all support. It is important to note that $500000 from Vote Research Science and Technology goes to the society each year to support its objectives and functions. This is a Government that supports science and technology and I am proud to support this bill. 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 This is just a brief call in reply to thank members for their support of the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill in its first reading. It has been fascinating to hear of the qualifications and scientific expertise of members across the House. 
I did not attend Ruapehu College; I went to a high school in Dunedin. I did not take science classes for very long and it is much to my regret that I did not because it is a subject that I greatly enjoy. I am a graduate in the humanities and I look to my fellow graduate in the humanities across the House the Hon Judith Collins for support. I have an honours degree in political science. 
Political science is not on the current list of humanities subjects in the bill. Obviously when the bill finds its way to the select committee we may need to discuss that matter although I do note that the bill states “includes” those subjects. Perhaps it is simply taken as read that political science is one of the leading humanities subjects. 
In all seriousness I take on board the comments made by Te Ururoa Flavell. I am sure that the Royal Society of New Zealand will be listening to this debate and they may well contact Mr Flavell to discuss his suggestions. I am sure that the committee will be interested to talk about them. I thank colleagues for their support for the bill and I look forward to its quick progress through the House. 
Bill read a first time.  
Bill referred to the Education and Science Committee.