Sio Su'a William: Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Sio Su'a William: Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:673;Page:19854] 
SU’A WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Mangere) 
: 
 I will try to not take my full time here. I think clause 9 “Fellows” in the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill is really important particularly because for me—and I speak for myself in this—this is the first time I am hearing about the work of the Royal Society of New Zealand. I would be interested to hear from the sponsor of this bill about the background of the fellows and how that name came to be. In this day and age I would say it is a very male name. Why did they not call it “sheila”? I would be interested to know the background to how the society arrived at that particular award. I do not mean to diminish or undermine the value of the award. I recognise that it is a prestigious award and I recognise that it is probably at the same level as a Nobel Peace Prize but I am interested to know from the sponsor of the bill the background of the particular name of “fellow” and how that has come to describe this particular award. 
I would also like to hear from the sponsor—and I recognise what other speakers have said—about the low numbers of women Maori Pacific and people of other ethnicities. I think it is important that the Royal Society works toward identifying and recognising the cream of the crop of researchers in these particular areas. Particularly as our nation moves forward we need to hold them up as examples and as role models for the next generation that comes through. My question is: does the Royal Society have a plan for increasing or at least generating the competition out there so that we are seeing the cream of the crop coming through? I would not like to see the Royal Society follow the example of the National Government which has no plan at all. That is why we are in the economic mess we are in at this particular time and I do not want to see the Royal Society in a similar mess. I ask whether the Royal Society has a plan to promote that. 
I come back to clause 9(1) which changes the name “Academy Council” to “Academy Executive Committee”. Will the changing of the name also change the status and the function of the council? Because I was not a member of the Education and Science Committee which heard the submissions on this bill I wonder what the submissions from the public said in reference to changing the name. Often when we change long-held names of societies such as the Royal Society of New Zealand that have a long history I would suspect that there is a lot of reluctance to change. I would be interested to hear what the public have had to say. 
For many working families throughout New Zealand the work of the Royal Society of New Zealand is probably not well known. If we are to increase the number of people we identify and acknowledge as fellows for the recognition of their work and for deserving to be held up as role models for the next generation then the idea of having a specific plan to roll that out is really the key. As we all know if there is no plan to make things happen they do not happen and we tend to then think that somebody will pluck an answer out of nothingness as we have often heard from the other side of the Chamber. 
The final matter that I raise is the cost of changing the name. What sort of impact will that have on the Royal Society? Noting that there is to be no dividend or profit for any of the members I would be curious to know how the society will maintain its work and in particular how one would be prepared to fund such a plan to promote the distinction of the work.