Clendon David: Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Clendon David: Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:671;Page:17572] 
DAVID CLENDON (Green) 
: 
 Kia ora tatou. The Greens are pleased to continue to support the progress of the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill through the House—in part as a show of support for the organisation that the bill seeks to expand strengthen and deepen. The Royal Society of New Zealand has an honourable and long history of doing significant good work for this country as it has done elsewhere and I am pleased to be a member—albeit a rather inactive member—of the society. 
I think the general level of support for the bill is given notice by the fact that it came through the select committee process virtually unscathed and with very little amendment except for the proposal to drop from clause 5(2) the specific reference to American studies. Try as we might we in the Education and Science Committee could not quite understand why American studies was so unique and different from other cultural studies philosophy law or politics—or many of the other elements that collectively we call the humanities—that it should warrant its own statement and place in the bill. Perhaps those who speak American or spell American culture with a “k” could explain why American studies was included but frankly it was unnecessary. 
Putting that issue aside I recall that in the first reading I reflected on my own academic history having both an undergrad arts degree and a postgraduate science degree. It put me in a position perhaps to appreciate the significant value and indeed the necessity of bringing closer together those two sets of disciplines—science and the humanities—in terms of personal development and critically for economic development for the many aspirations this country has. We will be stronger for having an organisation that incorporates the humanities in it. 
There are so many disciplines that are key to our well-being particularly given that we are a country that still earns a great deal of its living from primary production and from attracting people to visit us in order to enjoy our very beautiful—still stunningly beautiful—but also very fragile and threatened natural world our ecosystems our environment and our outdoors. The disciplines that are primarily responsible for the management of the underpinnings to our primary production and tourism are diverse and multiple. They include geography resource management ecosystem management and some branches of ecology—and particularly human ecology—which are all by their very definition and certainly by their practice disciplines that require people who are able to absorb comprehend analyse and critically utilise a very broad range of information and world views. Our Royal Society which is central to the scientific effort in this country amalgamating with the humanities can only strengthen that. 
The best decisions in the multiple disciplines I mentioned that are all critically involved in land use production and environmental protection are made by people who are able to understand scientific data and information even if those people are non-specialists at least to absorb the key lessons that science can give to us. Those people can also grapple with—at least at a general level again if not at a specialist level—the considerable complexity of economic and social issues and the interactions between the economy as a set of social relationships and the broader set of social relationships that make up our communities and our country. It is important that people making key decisions understand that their world view is unique to them—and perhaps collectively to a group with a similar background education and life experience—but often different from for example indigenous perspectives or the perspectives or world views of other minority groups to the degree that we can overcome the understanding between the dominant world view and another world view and make better-informed better-quality decisions about the management of our productive sector and natural environment. Clearly the Royal Society as one of the considerable pools of collective wisdom that inform this ongoing debate and work is a very valuable addition for humanities to come into. 
In a more general view in terms of the pursuit of science and the application of science in this country I acknowledge that the Government has done some very useful work and made some very useful changes in the structure of research and development with the different models that now apply in terms of the Crown research institutes funding and research capability. Some useful changes have been made but I do think there is still some way to go to get the optimum set of circumstances. As a country we are science poor. We do not attract educate graduate and retain sufficient scientists nor do we do so increasingly in the humanities. We are losing skills and knowledge rather than retaining or gaining them. Some policy settings could be improved to remedy that situation. In terms of science education we can go right back to secondary school level.  
I had the pleasure of attending ASB Polyfest last week which was an extraordinary expression of our future particularly in our very Polynesian Auckland City. In that context I had the opportunity to speak to some secondary school teachers particularly science teachers. They had some very interesting views on the curriculum and on necessary changes to the curriculum. I sensed some frustration that perhaps the teachers are not being heard sufficiently about changes at that very important level—the secondary schooling of our potential science graduates—and that we are missing out. For example nowhere in the curriculum is there adequate coverage or discussion of issues around climate change. In 2011 that is an extraordinary omission. Climate change is a reality; it is a scientific reality. It is also something that requires changes to human behaviour. So the combination of scientific effort scientific application and good understanding of how to motivate and affect human behaviour—to effect behavioural changes in people—is very critical to that. Some work is to be done at the secondary school level in terms of science education. At the tertiary level we are clearly exporting scientists rather than exporting science and that continues. 
I make these comments which are critical in acknowledgment that I think there is some understanding of the problem within Government. But I urge the Government to move faster and to do more to ensure that we retain the scientific capacity that makes major contributions to building our society and economy and that we can continue to do so in the future. 
I will touch very briefly on some of the issues that were raised by the previous speaker Allan Peachey about research and development. We know that members of the Royal Society have some quite strong views about the appropriate funding mechanisms both for public-good science and for private sector science. Some useful work is to be done. I think the current model is for Government support of private sector science. It is still expensive in terms of time. It is convoluted. It is difficult particularly for smaller companies to come to grips with and I think changes in the current model would have major economic benefits going into the future. Kia ora koutou. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.