Mackey Moana: Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Mackey Moana: Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:667;Page:14249] 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I think it is a testament to the transformative power of science that it has facilitated the breaking of bread between Allan Peachey and the evil socialists on this side of the House. I am happy to stand in this House as a member of the Labour Party and a member of the Royal Society of New Zealand to speak on the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill. I thank my caucus colleagues and my whips who apparently think I am some kind of science snob and thought it would be amusing to put me on the speaking list on a bill that introduces the humanities into the Royal Society. They thought it would be character-building. They will be very disappointed because I wholeheartedly support the introduction of humanities into the Royal Society. 
Hon Judith Collins 
: Really? 
MOANA MACKEY 
: I do; it is called personal growth. Look how far I have come. 
I was genuinely hurt that my good friend and colleague Grant Robertson would insinuate that I would think that his qualification is any less than mine although I do note with absolutely no judgment that his particular qualification is not on the list. But that is all right; I am sure that is something that can be amended at the Education and Science Committee. I am sure it is a mere oversight. 
Hon Judith Collins 
: What is it Moana? 
MOANA MACKEY 
: His politics degree. It is not on the list. But this is something that will be debated at the select committee. 
In all seriousness this bill is very important. One of the goals of the previous Labour Government was to facilitate more multidisciplinary approaches to research. We did this through the centres of research excellence of which there are a number around the country now which bring together a number of disciplines under the banner of particular areas of research. They have had enormous success in bringing the private sector the universities and the Crown research institutes to work together so that we are not doing overlapping research but are in fact coordinating that research. 
The multidisciplinary approach has often been the Holy Grail. Sometimes it is difficult and we make jokes about the hierarchy of the scientific community but it is actually very true—there is a hierarchy a pecking order and sometimes it is difficult to get around that. But when we can the outcomes are outstanding. I recently visited the centre for the study of agriculture food and environment at Otago University which is not a centre of research excellence but a multidisciplinary group. It brings together economists sociologists geographers physicists marine biologists and statisticians. All these groups work on areas of public policy. 
I think it is a shame that more MPs do not know about this group because some of the areas it works on are absolutely key to what we do here. The group looks at the gap between what the Governments try to do and what the public want and how they feel about it. It uses the example of renewable energy which New Zealanders overwhelmingly support. Then it looks at what happens whenever we try to build a wind farm or to develop tidal energy. So much expense is added because of the public backlash. The group says that sometimes politicians do not do that work and there are things it is working on now that can be put in place to make sure that when these projects come up we can save time and money and all the angst that often goes with them. This group is a very important unit. It looks at the areas of fisheries agriculture and right across the board. I recommend that members of Parliament visit this group. 
One of the problems is that its funding is now uncertain. With this new approach to funding research in New Zealand which is that everything has to be business-based this is a group that will save us money and will have public benefit for the country but because it cannot absolutely quantify exactly how much money that will be its funding is now uncertain. 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: Crazy. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: It is. I think all members of the House would think it is crazy. So I think this is a very timely bill from the Royal Society. It promotes the multidisciplinary approach which should make all members of this House think very carefully about the expectations we put on the scientific community and on the research community. Sometimes there is truth to that adage about the cost of everything and the value of nothing. I think that sometimes the scientists and the researchers in our universities and our Crown research institutes find it frustrating that politicians and parliamentarians really do not understand exactly their needs and the value they can contribute to our society. I hope that this will be part of the debate on this bill. 
Labour supports an evidence-based approach to policy. Clearly the social sciences and the humanities have a big role to play in that. I think all parliamentarians should adopt an evidence-based approach and when we are spending taxpayers’ money we should be able to point to the research that says it will work and if it will not work we should justify for example why we are spending so much money on boot camps when every single bit of research says they will not work.