Robertson Grant: Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Robertson Grant: Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:672;Page:18381] 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 I welcome colleagues to the debate on the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill. This is a— 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Timely bill. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: That is right. It is a timely bill I say to Ms Dyson; it certainly is. I hope we will see colleagues from across the Chamber make a number of contributions throughout this debate because this is an important issue. This bill is about the future advancement of education and science and the humanities right across our great nation. I think there will be a valuable contribution that members can make as we work our way through the 23 clauses that lie before us— 
Hon Member 
: Plus the preamble. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: —plus the preamble which we are now debating. 
As the Chair noted we are debating the preamble which sets out two things that I want to discuss in some depth. The first of those explains the Royal Society. It notes that the Royal Society is constituted under both the Royal Society of New Zealand Act 1965 and the Royal Society of New Zealand Act 1997 but that does not do justice to the history of the Royal Society. The Royal Society in fact began life in New Zealand in 1867. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: What day? 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: I am not sure but we will come back to that in a future call. I look behind me to find some officials but there are none so unfortunately I will have to research that myself. But in 1867 the Royal Society of New Zealand came forward and began its life leading debate and discussion on the subject of science. So it is an organisation that I think many people here would be able to say quite clearly has benefited them as they have worked through complex issues and as they have dealt with the kinds of technological and scientific changes and advancements that we see in our society. 
Recital (1) advises us about the Royal Society. The society itself has been operating since 1867. Its object is the advancement and promotion of science and technology in New Zealand and it is indeed those objects that we will be changing as we work through this bill to bring in the humanities. But the Royal Society says on its website that it promotes science and technologies in schools industry and society; it administers funds for science and technology; it publishes science journals; it offers advice to Government; and it fosters international scientific contact and cooperation. So it covers the full gamut of activities in the sciences. 
It is important as we look at the preamble and at recital (1) to note that broadening the objects of the Royal Society to include humanities strengthens the role of the society. There have been some in the early stages of this debate who have had concerns about whether this represents some form of dilution. I do know from talking to Fellows of the Royal Society that in Britain this has not occurred. There are those in the Royal Academy of Arts who would like to see this occur but it has not occurred because they are fighting as one person said against 400 years of history dividing the sciences from humanities. We do not have that burden here. We have the ability to bring this together. The bringing together of the sciences and humanities has occurred in Edinburgh it has occurred in Ireland and I think it has also occurred in Canada. I do believe that will strengthen the Royal Society of New Zealand. 
So recital (1) gives us the legislative basis. The Royal Society of New Zealand Act 1997 is the basis of the discussion that we will be having this evening and perhaps moving into other days in the House. I think it is worthwhile reflecting as recital (1) does on the Royal Society of New Zealand Act 1997. It was I think quite confusing for members in the earlier stages of this debate when there was quite an abstract discussion about what the humanities included. Later in the debate we will come to clause 5 to which there is an amendment in the name of Te Ururoa Flavell which I am happy to support. But I do think that in the early stages of the debate about what the humanities actually are there was some confusion. In particular I refer to section 2 of the Royal Society of New Zealand Act 1997 which describes what science and technology are as the law stands today: “science and technology includes the applied biological earth engineering information mathematical medical physical social and technological sciences”. I do think that in the early stages of this debate people perhaps had what I would refer to as the hard sciences in mind when they were discussing the Royal Society. 
Hon Rick Barker 
: What’s wrong with the hard sciences? 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: There is nothing wrong with hard science; it is very important. But the social sciences are mentioned in that definition. Earlier in the debate when people were looking to describe science I do not think there was an understanding that the social sciences were included. In fact my colleague Moana Mackey rather cruelly referred to my own qualification in political science and suggested that it was not mentioned at all in the definition of humanities or in the definition currently in the Act. [ 
Interruption 
] But I can reassure Mr Ardern that in fact political science is a social science and is therefore included in the current definition of the sciences. So by bringing in the humanities we broaden it but I did want to clear up any confusion about the status of for instance political science within this area. 
I move to recital (2) which describes what the Royal Society is looking to do with this legislation. I think we can set out the framework of these things and then go into significantly more detail as we move through the relevant clauses. But looking at recital (2) we can see that the main thing the Royal Society wants to do is incorporate the discipline of humanities into its object and functions and I did read out those objects and functions before. This has not happened just overnight and I want to give credit to my colleague the Hon Pete Hodgson who I am sure will make a contribution to this debate. He was the Minister of Research Science and Technology who brought together the humanities and the sciences. He is the person who encouraged the Council for the Humanities to meet with the Royal Society and begin this process of bringing them together and it is good that he can be in the Chamber tonight to speak to the preamble and to other clauses. 
Recital (2)(b)—which perhaps might not get as much attention as we move through the bill; so I will talk a bit about it now—is the renaming of the Academy Council as the Academy Executive Committee. This is not something that will necessarily keep people awake at night in Chris Hipkins’ electorate of Rimutaka but it is an important change. Effectively the Academy Council is the governance body of the Royal Society so it is the body that has responsibility for the overall running as most boards do. It is a board that includes not only scientists but it does include some scientists. It includes Garth Carnaby who is currently also the president of the council. It includes Keith Hunter from Otago University who is a member of the council but it also includes outsiders. It includes for instance Phil O’Reilly from Business New Zealand. So that is the Academy Council. 
Charles Chauvel 
: They’ve relaxed their entry criteria. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: That is right! Actually I should say that that is the council of the Royal Society—the council includes those people. Recital 2(b) renames the Academy Council as the Academy Executive Committee. Now that is a different body from the council of the society. That is the scientific body. It makes the awards of prizes. It gives advice to the Government about scientific issues. So perhaps I should restate that; I was not totally clear. What we have within the Royal Society is the council of the Royal Society which is the governance body and recital 2(b) renames the Academy Council as the Academy Executive Committee to avoid any confusion. That Academy Executive Committee is the scientific body within the Royal Society. It makes the awards and ensures that policy is commented on and advised on. 
The other parts of the preamble are: “(c) amend the standard for the election of Companions of the Society;”—and we can come back to that issue later on—“and (d) amend the election process for Councillors of the Society:”. As noted in the preamble the objects of this Act cannot be achieved without legislation. In actual fact the Royal Society is already operating with the humanities within it but from a legislative point of view it is important that the changes are made lest any concerns be raised by those associated with the Royal Society that this legislation had not been passed and therefore they are acting outside their mandate. 
I will come back to this in later contributions but we did note in earlier parts of the debate that in fact some members of the society some fellows of the society are opposed to this move and I want to acknowledge their concerns as we go through. But I think that in general most of us here would feel confident that the preamble outlines the important discussions we will have tonight. It incorporates some history about the Royal Society but it also tells us that bringing the humanities in and the other changes will lead to a stronger Royal Society. I think we will all benefit from that and I hope to hear contributions from colleagues across the Chamber on this important bill and subject this evening.