Simpson Scott: Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Simpson Scott: Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:677;Page:695] 
SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 It is very much of a privilege for me to speak in this debate on this Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill at this time particularly so as the new member for Coromandel following the previous speaker Catherine Delahunty. We have both travelled from that iconic part of New Zealand a place of beautiful beaches and lovely bush and scenic attractions to participate in this important debate. In doing so and rising to support the progress of this bill through the House I am conscious that in the entire 145 years that the Royal Society has been in existence since it was incorporated as a body corporate at no time in that 145 years has it ever probably had as much scrutiny as it has in this House over the last 12 months. The reason for that scrutiny of course was that this was the bill that ironically was used so shamefully so dramatically and so cynically by members opposite to filibuster that very very important piece of legislation around freedom of association for our university students to be members of their student unions.  
I find that shameful filibustering to have been completely reprehensible. It was indeed a misuse I think of the process of this House that such a minor piece of legislation albeit important was used in such a wilful manner. The filibuster was in fact a shameful piece of this House’s history but it did however provide an opportunity for members both at the Education and Science Committee and indeed in the House through the various stages of progress of this bill to study and investigate the Royal Society in a way that I suspect nobody fully intended when the bill was first introduced by the member for Wellington Central.  
The functions of this small piece of legislation are however very important because in a small little country like New Zealand we need to make the most of our academic and scientific study our research and our investigation and we need to make the most of what is available to us no matter what the core academic discipline. I come to this House with a background in one of the humanities in law. Although I have never practised law I did study it to keep my parents happy and qualified with an LLB from that very fine academic institution the University of Auckland. I am just delighted as a student of one of the humanities that the kind of study and research and academic rigour that can be applied from that area of academic pursuit can now be included in the good work of the Royal Society of New Zealand.  
Humanities are of course academic disciplines that study as the name would suggest the human condition. Of course those studies primarily use analytical critical and/or speculative methods of study rather than the purely empirical approaches taken with the natural sciences. Examples of the humanities studies have been alluded to by my very good friend and colleague from Kaikoura. They include the ancient and modern languages literature—as I have mentioned—the study of the law history philosophy religion which of course will be of interest to my colleague the member for Tamaki and the visual and performing arts including these days music and theatre. 
Simon O’Connor 
: Social media. 
SCOTT SIMPSON 
: Social media indeed maybe. Indeed there could be social media. These days the realms of definition are extended and I am one who supports the extension of that breadth.  
Sciences are however by definition seeking a more testable explanation in predictions about the world and what occurs in our world. Humanities look more at the human side of things as indeed the name suggests so this bill will strengthen the society by extending its work by extending its reach and by extending its output. I do not accept for one minute that by including humanities in the work and goals of the society it will in any way dilute the output and good work of the Royal Society. Indeed it is my view that the reverse will be true. By extending growing and stretching the realms of study research and investigation the society and our country New Zealand will benefit.  
Humanities share the evidenced-based approaches to science. Countries similar to our own such as Scotland and Canada are nations that have academies that already accommodate across the range of academic disciplines including the humanities. I think that is a very desirable approach and that for a small nation such as us that is an appropriate way to foster study research and innovation. Like the member for Tamaki who spoke earlier in this debate I too share a desire to see our little country continue to punch above its weight in terms of our output in terms of our academic rigour and in terms of the science and approach our sharpest brightest brains can bring to our society and our nation.  
A desire to integrate the structure and function of research in New Zealand combined with a recognition of the need to build on and integrate the very complementary knowledge provided by different academic disciplines across the range of modern studies is in my view a very good thing indeed.  
I want to just comment briefly on a matter that was raised by Catherine Delahunty in her address in this debate. Extending the rights honours and privileges of fellowship membership and recognition to those with the appropriate level of study research and innovation from the humanities section of academia is entirely appropriate and in my view completely overdue. I welcome those initiatives. I am not prepared at this stage to enter into a debate as to what may or may not be the best way of naming those things or those people but it seems to me appropriate that for a society with such a rich heritage with such a diverse background and that has been so important to our nation’s forward advancement over the 145 years that it has been in existence a name such as “fellow” is entirely appropriate. I do not think that it is in fact a sexual stereotype in terms of gender. It is a bit like using the term “chair” or “chairman”. In fact there are probably plenty of other examples.  
 The genesis of this piece of legislation goes back to November 2008. It has had a long gestation. Part of the reason for the length of the gestation of course was the way that the legislation was held up slowed down and indeed in my opinion almost ridiculed last year by members opposite. I think that that only cheapened the intent of what was a very important but relatively minor change to the structure and form of the Royal Society. The decision to make the change was based on a desire to integrate the structure and function of research in New Zealand and a recognition of the need to build on and integrate complementary knowledge provided by the full array of academic disciplines. I am in favour of that. I have risen and I have spoken now for some few minutes in support of that and it is my intention to continue to do that because that is I am sure why we have come here: it is to advance New Zealand and it is to advance our opportunities as a nation and the Royal Society does it in a most admirable way. It has a fine tradition a fine heritage and one that we as New Zealanders can all be proud of. It is with very great pride and a sense of honour and privilege that today I speak in support of this bill. Thank you.