Street Maryan: Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Street Maryan: Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:673;Page:19411] 
Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour) 
: 
 It gives me great pleasure to contribute to this debate on the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill. It was some time ago when we were last debating this bill on a members’ day. We have had a 2-week adjournment in between and the usual passage of time between members’ days. I would like to do a little bit of a recap particularly to address the clause at hand which is the interpretation clause. 
First of all the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill is supported by Labour and we look forward to its passage in due course. The interpretation clause is the clause that defines particular references in the bill. I will talk particularly about subclause (2) in clause 5. This refers to section 2 of the Royal Society of New Zealand Act being amended by adding the following definition in its appropriate alphabetical order. It is the definition of “humanities”. This is one of the substantial points about this bill. It is the addition of the humanities to the scope of the research and the reach of the Royal Society of New Zealand. No longer will it be simply about science and technology although they are not simple; no longer will it be solely about science and technology but it will have an expanded brief to include the humanities. 
This is absolutely critical at this point in the debate because we are seeing the definition of “humanities” in clause 5(2). The original clause in the bill stated: “ ‘humanities’ includes English and other languages history religion philosophy law classics linguistics literature cultural studies media studies art history film drama and American studies.” 
The Education and Science Committee quite rightly amended that definition because the inclusion of American studies seems a little bit odd in a definition of humanities. I have nothing against American studies but I do not think it needs to find its way into legislation that defines the scope of and brief for the Royal Society of New Zealand. The select committee saw fit not only to delete “and American studies” and insert “and” between “film” and “drama” but also to delete “English and other” from in front of “languages”. So the legislation came back from the select committee with the following definition: “ ‘humanities’ includes languages history”—all of those other things I listed—“art history film and drama” and it stops at that point. That amendment deletes the reference to American studies and deletes “English and other” from in front of “languages”. 
I will now pick up on the Supplementary Order Paper in the name of Te Ururoa Flavell which I am quite keen to support. Te Ururoa Flavell on behalf of the Maori Party one assumes has amended the definition of “humanities” further. Instead of the bill stating that “ ‘humanities’ includes languages” the Maori Party is putting up an amendment to the bill that “ ‘humanities’: includes languages and in particular te reo”. After the reference to cultural studies the Maori Party has inserted “Maori studies”. 
What are we to make of the select committee’s amendment to the definition of “humanities” to delete the reference to English and the reference to American studies and to insert a reference to te reo and Maori studies? Well this is significant because this bill is not the “Royal Society of Canada Amendment Bill” the “Royal Society of Australia Amendment Bill” or even the “Royal Society Amendment Bill”—referring to the original Royal Society—this is the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill. 
Hon Simon Power 
: The member is so much better than this. 
Hon MARYAN STREET 
: I beg your pardon? I missed that. I really want it in  
Hansard 
. The insertion of the reference to te reo and Maori studies by the Maori Party has our support and I think it enhances the definition of “humanities”. 
To be clear the definition of “humanities” with the amendment by the select committee and the Maori Party’s Supplementary Order Paper in the name of Te Ururoa Flavell would read: “ ‘humanities’: includes languages and in particular te reo history religion philosophy law classics linguistics cultural studies Maori studies media studies art history film and drama.” 
The inclusion of the two additional subjects te reo and Maori studies provides a uniqueness that reflects the uniqueness of the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill of the Royal Society of New Zealand’s governing legislation and of New Zealand. Nowhere else in the world are speakers of te reo indigenously located. In no other place in the world can Maori studies be undertaken legitimately in situ where Maori people reside. This is our uniqueness. This legislation and the fact that it extends the brief of the Royal Society of New Zealand to include humanities is rightly amended by the inclusion of te reo and Maori studies. 
In clause 5(2) which is what we are debating at the moment we have a significant enhancement not only from the select committee’s amendment but also from the Supplementary Order Paper from the Maori Party which will improve and illustrate the uniqueness of the brief of the Royal Society of New Zealand. To that end I commend both the Supplementary Order Paper and the amendment bill to the House.