Ardern Jacinda: Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Ardern Jacinda: Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:673;Page:19885] 
JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) 
: 
 I appreciate the opportunity to speak specifically to clause 13 of the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill. I have not had an opportunity to speak to this clause which focuses on the revocation of membership or fellowship. This is set out in section 18(2) of the principal Act. It is very specific but as I think my colleagues have alluded to we hold some concerns over this clause and I ask whether we have missed an opportunity here. I would like to hear the member in the chair’s contribution on this; perhaps it will take a lengthy contribution to respond. Details are important on this because as my colleagues have raised although this clause amends only section 18(2) by omitting “Academy Council” and substituting “Academy Executive Committee” that does very little to allay the concerns that members here have over whether the revocation of membership or fellowship is a robust procedure in and of itself. I would like to know from the member in the chair what the substitution of the word “council” with “executive committee” represents. Is that a broadening of the panel that makes the decision on revocation? Would the academy executive committee for instance include other members who might not be members of the council but may have specialist knowledge? For instance if we are talking about a controversial revocation would it be possible to co-opt a lawyer on to the academy executive committee as opposed to the existing academy council? As my colleagues have outlined there is the potential here embedded within this clause for quite a significant controversy. Although we have not been able to find any examples of revocation of membership or fellowship there is the potential that if someone were to lose his or her weighty title within the Royal Society it could create great waves. 
The second point I want to raise is that the clause does not include a great amount of transparency around the process for having membership revoked. Very clear within the public details of the Royal Society is the very onerous process one must go through in order to become a member or recognised fellow but there is not that kind of transparency in relation to what happens if that role or membership is removed from someone. I think that is an omission. It is probably contained somewhere within the Royal Society’s membership guidelines but I think it would be helpful if that were made public. I know that many people would be very interested to know what it would take for Sir Paul Callaghan to have his role as a fellow removed. In fact I have heard of people who in the past have wanted to find this information but have been unable to do so. 
I also want to ask about what criteria it takes to have a revocation of one’s membership. For instance the point was raised that a revocation may be rendered if it was thought that one would teach in schools—what is it called again President Bush’s favourite— 
Chris Hipkins 
: Creationism. 
JACINDA ARDERN 
: —creationism. My question is given that there is an expert panel on climate change within the Royal Society if one was a climate change denier for example someone like Rodney Hide—oh we are blessed with the member’s presence in the Chamber—became an honorary member of the Royal Society and then tried to establish within Parliament a select committee to deny climate change which I believe actually happened in real life would that be an example of when someone would lose his or her membership or fellowship? I think we should have that question answered. Is it simply that one brings degradation of the Royal Society? Could it occur when one acts in a way unbecoming of the Royal Society? Is poor behaviour significant enough to be judged by the new academy executive committee given clause 13? Is that criterion sufficient to have one’s membership revoked? 
People have referred to the honourable role of the Royal Society and the idea that it is perceived to have great integrity which it does. I imagine that the society will be very cautious to protect that brand. Does this clause allow the academy executive committee the ability to disbar as it were someone who behaved in a way unbecoming of the Royal Society and what would that behaviour include? Would it include an appearance on  
Dancing with the Stars 
? I would not want to speculate but there could be a range of options that are deemed to be behaviour unbecoming of the Royal Society.