Sio Su'a William: Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Sio Su'a William: Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:673;Page:19835] 
SU’A WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Mangere) 
: 
 This is my first contribution to the debate on this wonderful bill called the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill which was introduced by the wonderful member for Wellington Central Grant Robertson—the member in the chair. As it is my first contribution Mr Chair I have a range of questions I would like to ask that member about this bill. Just by way of preliminary comments— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: The member addressed the Chair and said he has a range of questions so the Chair will respond and say that they must be pertinent to clause 8. 
SU’A WILLIAM SIO 
: Absolutely Mr Chair. They certainly will be pertinent to clause 8. Clause 8 “No dividend or profit to members” contains two subclauses. I would like the member in the chair to comment on it. The clause talks about “no dividend or profit to members” and I note that that is a theme that the humanities teach—protecting the many and not the few and ensuring that we share our profits for the benefit of all New Zealanders. I ask whether the member in charge of the bill would agree with me when I say that if more members opposite had taken the humanities at university they would now be sharing the wealth with the rest of New Zealand. They would be aiming to create more jobs instead of lacking the aim to do that. Would the member in charge of the bill agree with me on that? Because I think the humanities— 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: The last three listeners have just switched off. 
SU’A WILLIAM SIO 
: If that member Minister McCully had taken the humanities he would have had a plan to create jobs for this country. He would have had a plan to get our economy revving up and going. Well I do not believe he took the humanities so I want the member in the chair to share with us whether he agrees with my premise in that regard. 
Clause 8(2) amends section 8(2)(d)(ii) of the Royal Society of New Zealand Act by omitting “science and technology” and substituting “science technology and the humanities”. Does the member in the chair agree with me that if more National members had taken science and technology they would have figured out that the debt that they are increasing for this nation will put more burden not only on today’s generation but also on the next generation in the years ahead? They would have figured out a way through taking science and technology—and perhaps they would have had a bit of heart if they had taken the humanities—to recognise— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Relevance. 
SU’A WILLIAM SIO 
: Mr Chair I am asking some questions of the member in the chair. As I said to you earlier this is my first contribution to the bill— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Clause 8. 
SU’A WILLIAM SIO 
: Clause 8. We go back to clause 8 which is about having no dividend or profit to members. Are the members this bill talks about specifically from the Royal Society of New Zealand? Are we looking to amend the standard for electing members of this society to ensure that they do not get unfair treatment? Would that be right? I think we are amending the election process for councillors of the society. Is that not why there is a concern about why we are changing the way of electing councillors on this? It comes back to clause 8 of having no dividend or profit to members— 
Dr Ashraf Choudhary 
: No dividend. 
SU’A WILLIAM SIO 
: —no dividend or profit to members. The feeling out in the community is that this Government is looking after itself this Government is looking after its buddies— 
Dr Ashraf Choudhary 
: And their mates. 
SU’A WILLIAM SIO 
:—and this Government is looking after its mates and members opposite are forgetting the reason why they are in Government. They are in Government to ensure that clause 8 “No dividend or profit to members” is there to protect the interests of the wider community and not necessarily to protect the interests of the wealthy few whom Mr Maurice Williamson seems so adamant to protect. There is probably more room to extend clause 8 and add other clauses simply because I think that clause 8 suggests that under this Government the John Key Government we have to look at ways to protect our society from being undermined by the way this Government runs roughshod over legislation and the way this Government has no particular plan to create jobs and to address the cost of living that many families the length and breadth of New Zealand are having difficulty with.