Mackey Moana: Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Mackey Moana: Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:677;Page:691] 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 Dearie dearie dearie me! Oh my Lord! I find it particularly ironic that we are sitting here being lectured on how Labour filibustered the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill by members who are now filibustering the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill. It would be fine if the speeches showed any understanding at all of what the Royal Society is or what it does. I think members might need to go a little bit further than Wikipedia when they are researching the Royal Society. What we learnt from Colin King is that science is good. The member who just took his seat Simon O’Connor likes the fact the title has got the word “Royal” in it because he supports the monarchy and it is all about robustness and goodness and technology and science and good things like that. 
Hon Member 
: Eh. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: Eh. That is the extent of understanding on the opposite side of the House about this incredibly important organisation the Royal Society of New Zealand. 
As a member of the Royal Society I am personally affronted—personally affronted—that the Government will not let this very good piece of legislation pass so that the Royal Society can get on with doing what it has been doing as Colin King said for 145 years. I am very very comforted by the fact that Colin King informed the House that he has no reason to believe that the Royal Society will not continue for another 145 years. I am sure it will come as a great relief to this organisation that Colin King has confirmed its existence in New Zealand will carry on into the future and by the way science is really really good and important. Well the reality is the Royal Society has been operating in a multidisciplinary way for a long time and this bill merely reflects that fact. 
The member who took his seat said that science and the humanities have been at odds with each other for ever. Well that is actually not true. When Captain Cook came out on the  
Endeavour 
 he brought a number of people working in the humanities with him. He brought artists. In fact it was normal for scientists and people working in the humanities to work together all the time. In fact often that line was blurred. It has really only been in recent times that we have seen this separating out and this distinction of science versus social science versus humanities. So it is good to see the Royal Society reflecting the multidisciplinary approach. In fact when the Royal Society first started in the UK it was perfectly normal for all these different disciplines to work together and actually draw on the strengths that each different discipline brings. 
It is important to note that as my colleague Grant Robertson said this move was not unanimously supported by members of the Royal Society. There were some who were concerned that this might dilute out the focus on what is seen as pure science. But I personally think that when you look at the work that is being done you see that multidisciplinary science is incredibly important. That is why the last Labour Government set up the centres of research excellence—to try to get industries universities and Crown research institutes across all disciplines working together on topics that are of significant economic environmental and cultural importance to New Zealand. That is why we set those COREs up—as they are called—and they are working very very well. Multidisciplinary sites are the way of the future—very much so. So it is great that the Royal Society of New Zealand is picking up this approach in its constitution and in the way it organises itself. 
I do not believe that it will have a negative impact on the role the Royal Society plays in promoting science. It will merely extend out the areas in which it tries to draw public attention and political attention to what under this Government in particular is a lack of science funding and a lack of support for scientists. Getting rid of scholarships that keep postdoctoral scientists in New Zealand is not a smart idea if you really want to see science at the heart of our economy. We hear a lot of rhetoric. Over the last few years we have heard a lot of rhetoric from the National Government about the importance of science and it has not been backed up by action. All we have seen is funding cuts. 
Hon Steven Joyce 
: Rubbish! 
MOANA MACKEY 
: All we have seen—oh the Minister of Science and Innovation says “Rubbish!”. Yeah well he should perhaps go out and talk to some scientists about how happy they are. I have a friend who has a PhD and is very well qualified and she is being fired from a Crown research institute because of health funding cuts. Science funding comes from right across the budgets and the National Government manages to slice away at science funding by cutting other budgets like health funding. Well she is now looking at where she can go and work overseas because the funding simply is not here in New Zealand to have those opportunities for scientists. So it is great that Colin King thinks science is good but in fact if you are really serious— 
Colin King 
: It’s not good; it is excellent. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: Oh he thinks it is excellent. It has been upgraded from good to excellent throughout the course of my speech—good to excellent. But that has to be backed up. It has to be backed up by proper support from the Government and by more than just a photo opportunity with the Prime Minister. I like the Prime Minister’s science awards; I think they are a good idea. I like having a Prime Minister’s science adviser. I would rather see him be more independent— 
Iain Lees-Galloway 
: Well maybe if the Prime Minister listened to him from time to time. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: That is right. It would be nice if the Prime Minister actually listened to his science adviser from time to time. 
One of the things the Royal Society has been particularly effective at is promoting scientific issues. There was a lot of controversy when the Royal Society actually signed a petition in favour of genetic modification research. It has not been afraid to take controversial positions. So far from what members on the opposite side were kind of saying which is this idea that somehow the Royal Society is going to control what science is studied in New Zealand that somehow it is going to control or dictate—I think the member said there were certain parts of philosophy he did not like—the fact is it does not do that. The Royal Society is not about telling scientists what they should and should not do. It is about the promotion of science it is about the promotion of scientific issues and it is about the setting of professional and ethical standards for the members who belong to the Royal Society. 
I suggest that members on the other side might want to come along to some of the Speaker’s Science Forums which are run by the Royal Society here in Parliament. They are a very good opportunity not only to see the kind of amazing research that is going on in New Zealand but also to learn a little bit about what the Royal Society actually does—what it actually does.  
Simon O’Connor 
: You’ve got time—keep telling us. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: It is an indictment on the National Party research unit that it could not even go on to the Royal Society website and print off for the members who are filibustering and making speeches what the Royal Society actually does. 
As I said I hope we can pass this bill now. I am about to take my seat so that Catherine Delahunty can give her contribution. Let us then pass this bill into law. I congratulate Grant Robertson on the excellent role he has played in shepherding this bill through Parliament. There is no doubt that there is not a single member of Parliament who does not know about the Royal Society now and is not aware of the intricacies of the legislation governing it. I commend this bill to the House and I say could we please not have any more dreadful filibustering speeches from the National Party. As a member of the Royal Society I find very very offensive and worrying the level of scientific illiteracy on the other side of the House.