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:673;Page:19834] 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) 
: 
 Clause 8 of the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill refers to no dividend or profit being available to members. I wonder whether the member in charge of the bill Grant Robertson would be able tell us whether there is any ability to receive any remuneration. I am not sure whether there is any mechanism by which that occurs. I am sure that a lot of work goes on within the society that members could be potentially remunerated for so if there is any mechanism there I would appreciate the member in charge of the bill telling us about it. Obviously the Royal Society is a non-profit organisation that is essentially engaged in matters of promoting science and recognising scientific achievement and under this amendment bill the society recognises “research in science technology or the humanities” instead of just “scientific or technological research”. Obviously all of those things potentially lead to opportunities for remuneration but that is not the point of the society. The society is about promoting those things and recognising significant achievement in science technology and the humanities as well. 
It has not really been well recognised over the years that the humanities is an area that has a lot of potential for remuneration but of course we often see that people at the leading edge of research in the humanities or at the leading edge of the creative world can generate a lot of profit for the nation. Sir Peter Jackson is a really good example of someone who works in the creative sphere. I am not sure whether he studied the humanities as such but certainly the field he is in is I think one that could be described as being part of the humanities. If I look at the interpretation clause I see that film media studies and drama are included in the definition of the humanities. So Peter Jackson would certainly be described as someone who has been able to derive a profit or a dividend from his work in the creative sphere. It is absolutely appropriate that we recognise achievement in the humanities that we promote the humanities as an area of significant interest and benefit to the country and that we bring the humanities within the Royal Society’s scope. 
Of course it is important to recognise that in clause 8 we are not talking about direct profit to members for the work they do within the Royal Society because the society is essentially an organisation that advocates the promotion of research in science technology and the humanities. This area of when is an organisation purely a charity versus when is an organisation one that engages in political advocacy has of course been the subject of a lot of discussion lately. The issue of finance for those particular organisations has been a matter of much debate recently. I would be interested to know—I cannot tell by just reading the bill—what the two different sections section 8(2)(d)(i) and section 8(2)(d)(ii) in clause 8 actually refer to. Again it would be quite useful if the member in charge of the bill could give us a bit more detail on that. 
I am sure that a lot of work goes on within the organisation that needs to be paid for and I wonder whether society members who undertake that are able to receive remuneration for it. As this bill has expanded the areas in which that work could be undertaken there may be a much wider range and I would be interested to hear about that.