Hodgson Pete: Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Hodgson Pete: Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:672;Page:18397] 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North) 
: 
 Thank you that is really helpful. I want to raise two other matters concerning clause 1. The first is the use of the word “Royal”. My colleague Brendon Burns speaks of correspondence he has received from people in France about the fact that they would never have the Royal Society as an organisation in France because of course they had the French Revolution and we did not. That matters because the Royal Society signals that in the British tradition for the past several hundred years which is after all the entire life of scientific inquiry that inquiry has been offered the patronage of royalty which is a good thing. I am not saying that France is poorer for it; I am just saying it is a good thing that if one is to have royalty it is worthwhile that royalty patronise science because science and technology—and these days science and technology and humanities—represent the idea of further endeavour the idea of rolling back the frontiers of knowledge and the idea of progressing the insatiable desire of humans to answer questions our curiosity and so on. To have that endeavour backed by royalty is the opposite of the Dark Ages so it matters that we have “Royal Society” in the title. 
There is another thing about the title that matters and that is that it does not include the words “Royal Society of Science and Technology and Humanities”; it is just folks the “Royal Society” because no further explanation is needed. We understand. We refer to the Royal Society and those in the know know that it means the Royal Society of science. 
Moana Mackey 
: There’s a secret handshake. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: There is a certain sort of cachet about that which I do not personally pay a lot of attention to but it is worth pointing out that it is called the Royal Society. If one goes to China it is the Chinese Academy of Scientists. So they explain themselves using those words. They do not call themselves simply the Chinese Academy. I do not know what it is called in France and we will not wander around the world on that matter but it is important that in New Zealand when we refer to the Royal Society we are talking about higher learning. 
The other point I wish to raise might seem pernickety but I wonder whether the member in the chair Grant Robertson could offer some assistance. It is in relation to the use of the term “Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill” as opposed to “The Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill”. This is not minor. The Royal Society is never called “Royal Society” until we make it a creature of legislation in which case we change its name from “The Royal Society” to “Royal Society”. We did that in the 1960s we did it in the 1990s and we are doing it again now and I wonder whether we should fix it. 
Why is it that when we talk about the Royal Society in our ordinary daily lives and we know that we are referring to “the Royal Society” being the society of sciences and now of humanities as well that we will not find it under that language in the legislative index? We have to get rid of the “the” in order to find it and we find it under “R” not “T”. I do not know whether that is ideal. The member may want to reflect on that. I was never on the Education and Science Committee. I do not know whether it was raised at the select committee. I do think it would be inappropriate for me to put an amendment on the floor without a little bit of discussion backwards and forwards on it but on the other hand I do not think it is trivial. We have listed it under the wrong letter of the alphabet. I think that “the Royal Society” has been and always will be something that begins with a “the”. Is it a participle? What is it? I have forgotten what part of speech it is. Perhaps someone in humanities could tell us what it is. I see that Mr Chairperson is reaching for his button. I wonder whether he is indicating that I need to sit down just yet. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: No. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I do not. Then let me probably sit down anyway. Would that be a good idea Mr Chairperson? We do not need to waste the time of the Committee especially if my colleague is ready to offer his erudite remarks.