Hodgson Pete: Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Hodgson Pete: Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:673;Page:19426] 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North) 
: 
 I have had a couple of questions put to me by successive members and I will quite quickly address them. The first question was from Ashraf Choudhary who pointed out that clause 6 of the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill does not include the word “research” and he wanted to know why not. This issue refers I think to some earlier remarks I made about the nomenclature of the phrase “research science and technology” that has been in our public lexicon for 20 years or so. Mr Choudhary asked why we have lost it now. I can understand why he asked that. I think it is a legitimate and valid question and I think it has a legitimate and valid answer. Put simply it is because the word “humanities” has been added. The word “research” can come out because the word “humanities” has been added. 
By that I mean that science and research are synonymous and technology and development are synonymous—or near enough. Synonymous is probably too strong a term but those words have at least a very similar meaning. But science and technology do not describe or begin to describe that thing called “the humanities”. So the concept of the humanities has to find expression one way or another. In clause 6 it finds expression directly. The word “humanities” has been put in in black letter law. So we now have the words “science technology and the humanities”. 
In earlier times 20 years ago when we were talking about why the Ministry of Research Science and Technology had that name we examined those words and wondered why both “research” and “science” were needed. The answer was that it was a nod to the humanities because the humanities were not explicitly mentioned. Certainly the Ministry of Research Science and Technology as an agency did not concern itself with the humanities. The Ministry for Arts Culture and Heritage did that. We had divided our State in such a way that the humanities could not be a part of the Ministry of Research Science and Technology. But it is also the case that because the humanities are a part of scholarship and because the Ministry of Research Science and Technology was seriously involved with scholarship we needed to put the word “Research” in there to give a nod to the humanities. 
I suggest to Dr Ashraf Choudhary that we are entitled to give ground here. We are entitled to say that the word “research” is no longer needed in the legislation as it is. If “the humanities” by itself in conjunction with the words “science and technology” covers the patch then we have no yawning gaps. This leads to another question in the name of another doctor. We are surrounded by doctors in the Chamber especially on the Labour side. Dr Rajen Prasad who is himself a social scientist is asking whether given that we now have the words “science technology and the humanities” sitting there we have ambiguity about where social science finishes and the humanities start. This is evidenced for example by the ordinary Mr Chris Hipkins who said that criminology is both an art and a science. Many things are both arts and sciences including something that I am familiar with called anaesthesiology. It is absolutely an art and a science. 
Chris Hipkins 
: Is that what he’s doing now? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: It is what I am doing now. 
Jo Goodhew 
: Oh that’s very rude. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: No I did not think so. I resemble that remark. I think the member is absolutely on the button here. 
But can I just say to Dr Rajen Prasad that I think he is guilty of special pleading. That is what I think. I think that if Dr Rajen Prasad were to succeed in having the words “social sciences” put into black-letter law then soon enough along would come Dr Ashraf Choudhary to ask what about the natural sciences biological sciences agricultural sciences or whatever took his fancy. Someone else said physical sciences. I say that we should leave it alone that we should let the word “science” be the broad church we all want it to be. Let the social scientists find their place in that broad church of science. Indeed the member himself has made social science a much more relevant contributor to the public debate with his work in the Families Commission. I applaud him for that. But there is no need in addition to that to plead for a special mention because the social sciences are feeling on the outer or not quite as important.