Hipkins Chris: Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Hipkins Chris: Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:673;Page:19418] 
CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) 
: 
 I am happy to take my first call for the night on the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill. I think this might be the first opportunity I have had to speak on any of the guts of the bill—the main parts of the bill. I had an opportunity to speak on the commencement clause previously. 
Just as a slight aside when I was on my way here this evening I mentioned to somebody that I was going to the Chamber to debate the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill. They wondered whether I would be spending the evening talking about the wedding and Pippa Middleton. I had to explain that it was in fact an entirely different topic. 
Clause 5 deals with the interpretation of in particular the word “humanities”. Subclause (2) lists what is covered by “humanities”. As a social scientist I am quite interested in the idea that we are incorporating the humanities into the mandate of the Royal Society which has dealt with just science. I am interested also in the change made by the Education and Science Committee. The first part of this definition was to read: “ ‘humanities’ includes English and other languages”. The select committee has made the decision to shorten that part of the definition to simply “languages”. Of course English is a language and therefore will be covered by that definition. 
But the ambit of the Royal Society under the definition provided here will also extend to “history religion philosophy law classics linguistics literature cultural studies media studies art history film and drama”. The term “American studies” has been crossed out. I would be interested to hear from somebody who was involved in the deliberations on this bill why the select committee decided that American studies should be taken out whether American studies could be regarded as coming under one of those other definitions and if so which one they believe it would come under. 
Dr Rajen Prasad 
: History. 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: It could well come under history but it could come under a number of other areas as well. I guess it depends which part of American studies we were referring to. It could come under any number of these other areas. 
The reason I went through the list is I am a passionate believer in the value of science but I also believe that science can lend an awful lot to the humanities. There will always be issues around the definition of “humanities” and around the definition of “science”. I myself am a political scientist. Within Victoria University of course there was heated debate about whether politics was in fact a science. For a period of time the department dropped the term “science” and it was simply the school of politics. Many years later it reinstated the term “science”. One could argue that politics fits within the definition of “humanities” rather than the definition of “science” and there are a number of areas like that. Criminology is my other area of academic study. Does criminology come under humanities? Is it a social science? Is it a science? It depends on which aspect we are talking about. I think everybody’s view of criminology is defined by watching TV shows like  
CSI 
 but the forensic part of criminology is actually only a very small part of the study of criminology; it is the scientific end of the study of criminology. There is a huge social aspect to the study of criminology as well and each lends itself to the other. So extending the ambit of the Royal Society to cover these wider issues will I think be incredibly beneficial. The Royal Society has a very important role to play in New Zealand in the pursuit of ideas in research and in the dissemination of ideas. I do not think it should be limited to purely a narrow definition of science. 
Adding the study of law into the ambit of the Royal Society is an interesting one. Of course there are many many other bodies that study our laws and our statute book. I am not convinced actually that we should include law in the definition of “humanities”—whether we want the Royal Society to be focusing on law. Yes it should focus on law in relation to some of the other issues that come under the definition like history languages or literature but not necessarily on the law in itself. I am not sure that that would fall within what I think the ambit of the Royal Society should be. 
I will run through the issues that are now being added to the ambit of the Royal Society. The Royal Society’s ambit is being extended to include the humanities. I will run through those again in a little more detail. First is languages and not specifically the English language as the former Minister Pete Hodgson just mentioned; it covers any number of languages. A very legitimate question has been raised as to whether te reo Maori should be specifically mentioned. As a New Zealander I would like to see te reo added in so that it is specifically mentioned. 
History is now to be covered by the Royal Society as well. In discussing this definition and the extension of the Royal Society’s functions to include history I want to say that I would be very reluctant to see the Royal Society picking up a much wider role that would replicate what a number of other agencies and entities do very very well. I think it is really important that the society continues to focus on the areas to which it can lend significant expertise. My hope is that the Royal Society in extending its coverage to include the humanities will do so in a way that builds on its strengths and expertise in science. I hope that it contributes the knowledge and the expertise that it has in that field to the humanities where it might add some additional value. 
I will continue to run through the issues. The study of religion is there which is quite fascinating. The role of science in religion is a very contentious issue and will continue always to be a contentious issue. 
David Shearer 
: Historically. 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: Historically it has been. History is in there as well I tell David Shearer. The role of science in religion is critically important so I am really pleased to see the Royal Society picking up that particular function. What of linguistics? There is a certain science to language and one could argue that linguistics by definition is the science of language so extending the Royal Society’s ambit to cover linguistics seems a very sensible thing to do. Also listed is cultural studies; of course there is a significant aspect of science within cultural studies as well. I guess the point I am making by going through the definition is that it makes sense to extend the remit of the Royal Society to cover the humanities because it is very difficult to draw clear distinctions and to create arbitrary barriers. 
David Shearer 
: That’s the way the world is going. 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: The world is definitely moving much more in this direction so it is a very sensible move. I congratulate my colleague Grant Robertson on bringing this very excellent piece of legislation to the House. 
I will run through the other parts of the interpretation clause that I have not addressed in any great detail—and I suspect that time will be against me. Clause 5 also deals with the definitions of “Academy bylaws” and “Academy Council”. The term “Academy Executive Committee” refers to the executive committee that is constituted under section 37 of the principal Act which we will come to later on as we debate the bill. It deals with the ability of the academy to establish by-laws which is very sensible and practical. 
Overall I think the extension of the Royal Society’s coverage to include the humanities is a very welcome move. I am looking forward to the debate on the remaining clauses of the bill as we proceed through the rest of the evening. I have uncovered some other thorny issues as I have read through this quite extensive bill that I am sure we will be debating as the evening progresses. Thank you.