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:19858] 
CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) 
: 
 I am happy to take my first call for the evening on clause 10 of the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill which deals with— 
Hon Dr Wayne Mapp 
: The first of many I am sure Chris. 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: The first of many. I can assure the Minister there is plenty more to come. We are just getting started we are just getting warmed up we have not even cleared the vocal chords yet and there is plenty more to come. 
Clause 10 deals with Companions of the Royal Society. The member in the chair Grant Robertson raised Margaret Austin as an example of a Companion of the Royal Society. Members may be interested to know that the first time I had the opportunity to visit Parliament as a young person was at the invitation of Margaret Austin. It was at the invitation— 
Hon Member 
: Last week? 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: Now now! It was at the invitation of Margaret Austin who at that point had just left the Labour Party and was launching the education policies of the then United Party—the short-lived United Party. So I had that opportunity. It was my first chance to have a look around Parliament. I quite liked the look of the place so I came back. I just thought that little aside was interesting; the mention of Margaret Austin’s name made me think of it. 
It is interesting that the member in the chair referred to the initials CRSNZ and FRSNZ as being letters that people could put beside their names. I think there is a bit of a problem with that and it is a problem we have with our honours system—separate to this—as well. No one understands what half of the letters initials and things that people have these days actually mean. One of the arguments that members opposite used for reintroducing the knighthood was the fact that at least people knew what it meant. People could understand a “Sir” or a “Dame” but they cannot necessarily understand all of these other letters we now have. That could be one of the reasons why many of the Companions or Fellows of the Royal Society now find that they have knighthoods or dame-hoods. I wonder whether some other knights like Sir Paul Callaghan—whom admittedly I have not heard mentioned; I came in only after the dinner break—were companions or fellows. Is he a companion or a fellow? He is a fellow. Sir Peter Gluckman? He would be a fellow as well. These are people who have achieved excellence in their fields. They do many of the things that a companion or a fellow of the Royal Society would be expected to do. But they have had that contribution recognised through another system that is probably more readily understood by people. I think one of the failures of the replacement for the knighthood and the dame-hood system was that nobody understood it. I do not think that bringing back knighthoods and dame-hoods was necessary but we could have come up with something more readily understood by the public at large. So when I heard Grant Robertson talk about CRSNZ and FRSNZ my concern with adopting that system—well it is already there—would be that no one will understand it. It will probably not be widely used. 
I turn now to a forensic examination of the clause in question clause 10 which repeals section 12(1) of the principal Act and replaces it with new subsection (1). The subsection allows the council to elect as a Companion of the Royal Society people who in the opinion of the council have “(a) shown outstanding leadership in science technology or the humanities;”. I suspect that the major change there is the inclusion of the word “humanities” but if we compare this clause with clause 11 for example which simply adds “humanities” to the section about honorary members we see there is a much more substantive change going on in clause 10. I wonder whether at some point in the evening the member in charge of the bill could give us an explanation as to why a more substantive change is required to clause 10 when that change does not appear to be required in clause 11 which deals with honorary members or in fact even in clause 12 which deals with honorary fellows. The change to clause 10 could potentially make a more substantive change than the bill purports to make which is simply to extend the coverage of the Royal Society to include the humanities. 
New section 12(1)(b) substituted in clause 10 adds the additional criteria that in order for someone to be a companion they have to have “made eminent or sustained contributions to the promotion and advancement in New Zealand of science technology or the humanities.” I think that is a really really important point. The words “leadership” and “sustained contribution” are vitally important. It is all very well for the Royal Society to promote the advancement of the sciences the humanities technology and so on but the dissemination and adoption of that information the putting of that scientific and academic discovery into a practical use or purpose are also vitally important. One of the important roles of the companions is to ensure that the knowledge that is created is put to some good use. From my reading of this clause I understand that a companion—and the member in the chair Grant Robertson may clarify this if I am wrong—does not necessarily need to be an academic expert in one of these fields. In fact companions can contribute in a leadership role by promoting the work that other people do. One of the things that I have discovered when popping in and out of academia from time to time— 
Darien Fenton 
: Ha ha! 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: —in my short but distinguished career—ha ha—is that a number of academics not to put too fine a point on it are entirely incapable of communicating the work that they do. They have those magnificent minds and make those excellent discoveries but are unable to communicate them to the public at large. [ 
Interruption 
] Well I am not necessarily labelling scientists in their own category; a number of academics across the fields including those of the humanities seem unable to communicate the benefits of some of their academic advances. Therefore having some more common people involved in the promotion of these— 
Moana Mackey 
: You’re going well. 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: Ha ha! I know. It is good eh? I am doing well. Those people can be quite beneficial. One of the important distinctions then is that the companion category creates an opportunity for other people to be recognised by the Royal Society for the contribution they make in showing leadership in science technology or the humanities. That may not necessarily be in making an academic contribution; it may well be in putting the results of academic inquiry into a more readily understandable form or putting them to more practical use. 
Overall in summing up my contribution to this part of the debate I am very interested to hear from the member in charge at some point in the course of the evening why this clause appears to be more substantive than the other clauses in this block of clauses dealing with amendments. I would like to be reassured that clause 10 does not go wider than the purported scope of the bill which is simply to extend coverage to the humanities. The second point with regard to that matter is whether we may want to consider the nomenclature used to describe some of these people and whether there is a more readily identifiable and communicative way that we can recognise people who are either Fellows Companions Honorary Members or Honorary Fellows of the Royal Society 
Darien Fenton 
: Fullas. 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: I do not know that we should use that particular description. I will leave my contribution at that but I look forward to the continued debate on the remaining 13 clauses of this bill as the evening progresses. I am sure there will be a lively and sustained debate through the rest of the evening. Thank you.