Lees-Galloway Iain: Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Lees-Galloway Iain: Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:672;Page:18846] 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) 
: 
 It is not easy to follow a great orator like the Hon Parekura Horomia but I will give it my very best shot. I have to say that Mr Horomia showed exactly what this Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill is all about which is the bringing together of science and the humanities through the poetry with which he described some of the environmental challenges that we face through the degradation of our rivers in this country. Of course there is a lot of science involved in monitoring our rivers for the nitrate levels and the other things that we might find in them but could we have heard them more poetically described than we did when the Hon Parekura Horomia spoke this evening? 
I fully support what other members have been saying tonight. I support this bill. As someone who has taken papers in such diverse subjects as biochemistry the history of New Zealand politics inorganic chemistry and the English language I have great interest in this coming together of the humanities and science. Although there seems to be—and Mr Peachey pointed this out—a pretty uniform agreement around the Chamber on this bill I am not sure that the same can be said of the members of the Royal Society itself and of some of the practitioners of science out there in New Zealand. That was borne out I think in some of the submissions at the Education and Science Committee. I wonder whether the member in charge of the bill might be able to address some of those issues. 
When I first looked at this bill I reflected on a number of the meetings I have had with Royal Society members in Palmerston North many of whom are involved with Massey University. On a number of occasions I have heard those members lament the fact that in their opinion not enough young people in New Zealand these days are engaging with the sciences or feel so connected to the sciences through their time at secondary school that they wish to continue with a career of studying science and technology at university and maybe go on to undertake some research in science and technology. In fact they lament the fact that too many young people are perhaps taking off to the humanities and studying subjects such as English French geography and subjects like that. I wonder just how much support there is amongst the rank and file members of the Royal Society for this bill. My concern about that I think is borne out in some of the submissions that the select committee heard. 
I have to admit that I come to this debate rather belatedly. This is the first opportunity I have had to participate in the debate but while looking at some of the submissions I noted that some submitters said the exact definition of “humanities” was difficult to provide and that “humanities” was a vague term. I know we will come to that matter later in the debate on clause 5 where there is a definition of the humanities but it seems rather limited and I wonder whether it is too limited. I think some of the submitters are right as the humanities are difficult to define and I wonder whether the member in the chair has some reflections on that. There was even a submission that said there was no need to change the current Act because the Royal Society of New Zealand Act could be interpreted to include humanities fellows. Obviously there is some concern out there amongst the science fraternity that this bill in some ways waters down what they do. 
Although the Royal Society proposed this bill and asked the member Grant Robertson to bring it to Parliament I wonder about the process that it used to engage with its members. I am sure other members who were on the select committee might be able to discuss that issue. This matter is central to the purpose of the bill. Clause 4(a) states that the purpose of the bill is to “incorporate humanities into the object and functions of the Royal Society of New Zealand:”. David Shearer reflected on the submission of Dr Bob Brockie who made comments that science and the humanities were incompatible.