Moroney Sue: Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Moroney Sue: Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:673;Page:19413] 
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to rise and speak to the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill and to clause 5 in particular. I had the honour last evening of co-hosting the Speaker’s Science Forum with the Royal Society of New Zealand so it seems very fitting to be speaking on this organisation’s bill today. At last evening’s forum we talked about the Square Kilometre Array and discovered that New Zealand is working with Australia to lead a bid for winning that particular contract which would be very very exciting for New Zealand indeed. Certainly all of our fingers and toes are crossed for gaining that contract which we will learn about in the course of next year. 
I really wanted to speak about clause 5 “Interpretation”. I am a member of the Education and Science Committee which considered this bill. The committee decided to amend clause 5. It was interesting to look at the definition of the word “humanities” which is of course central to what the bill is doing. I remind those listening to this debate that fundamentally this bill is bringing the humanities in and having them officially recognised for the first time. Even though the Royal Society of New Zealand has operated in such a way that it has recognised the humanities for some time now this bill is officially bringing the humanities within the recognition of the Royal Society of New Zealand so getting the definition right is pretty important and central to the purpose of the bill. 
The select committee moved to take out some of the particular subjects that had been noted in the definition because they seemed to be a little out of kilter. Originally the definition of “humanities” started off by recognising “English and other languages” and as a select committee we thought that that seemed a bit out of place. We asked why we did not talk about just “languages” because that does not give preference to any particular language and I think that was the right thing to do. 
But in reading the definition subsequently I wonder about the other things we have left out that I think come into the humanities. Putting all personal interests aside I have been reflecting on the only tertiary qualification I hold which is the Certificate in Labour and Trade Union Studies. It is a bit of a collector’s item. I imagine that not many people listening to this debate will have that certificate on their wall. I really do hold it very proudly because it is a collector’s item. Labour and Trade Union Studies was a course that was in existence for only about 3 or 4 years so it is quite an elite qualification. Not too many people in New Zealand hold this qualification and I am really proud that I am one of those people. 
During the 1990s Labour and Trade Union Studies unfortunately fell victim to the ideology of the National Government at the time and the University of Waikato felt that it could no longer continue to offer the Certificate in Labour and Trade Union Studies. Such was the ideology of the Government of the day that it really needed to drum out any notion or idea that workers’ rights and labour studies or the study of workplace relationships had any legitimacy in a university scenario. 
It caused me to reflect on why in this definition we give recognition that the humanities include media studies for example but not trade union studies and not women’s studies. I would have thought that if media studies rates a mention in the definition of “humanities” then perhaps some of these other studies would rate a mention as well. 
I certainly think in terms of my personal experience with gaining the Certificate in Labour and Trade Union Studies that it would fit under the banner of “humanities” because that is exactly what we were studying. We were studying the impact of workplace relationships. We were also writing. In fact the course I was on published a book of oral histories about workers’ rights and workers’ issues in the workplace so we were published as a group of students. I think that improved the status of that particular period of study and of that certificate which as I say proudly hangs on my wall. 
I know that other recipients of that particular certificate cashed it in so to speak as credits to put towards other qualifications and degrees but even at that stage I recognised that this certificate would be a collector’s item. I did not cash it in for further study. I very proudly kept my Certificate in Labour and Trade Union Studies on the wall. But it has not made it into the definition of “humanities” and I think that is a great shame. 
However I do support the amendment put forward by Te Ururoa Flavell because of course if we are to recognise cultural studies law classics philosophy history and religion then it makes a lot of sense to recognise Maori studies as coming within the humanities. I support what my colleague Maryan Street had to say about this amendment and also what Rahui Katene said. This amendment really locates in a way that having American studies did not locate this particular definition as being a New Zealand definition—a definition for Aotearoa. 
I feel a little embarrassed now having been part of the select committee that we did not spot that earlier because we certainly spotted the anomaly of talking particularly about American studies and singling that out as being somehow elevated and somehow more important than any other study of any other nation or any other continent. That should have caused us to think—and I ask why it did not cause us to think—about Maori studies being the obvious thing that was missing from the definition of “humanities”. It could have been a very very long definition and I think it was important that the select committee chose not to list every single one of our own personal qualifications under “humanities” because that would have caused some concern when we came to debate this definition in the Committee of the whole House. 
I imagine that if we had sat down as a select committee and listed our own personal qualifications that would come under the humanities banner we could have made clause 5 into a much longer clause. However clause 5 in its current state with the amendment from Te Ururoa Flavell gives enough of a roll call—and if not a full roll call then an idea of what the definition of “humanities” means when it comes to this clause of the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill. 
I look forward to having a National member of Parliament get to his or her feet and debate this bill particularly this clause in order to let us know how National members will be voting because— 
Louise Upston 
: You’re doing a fine job. We’re quite happy to leave this to you. 
SUE MORONEY 
: I am sure that even the Maori Party would be interested to learn whether the National Government will support the amendment put forward by Te Ururoa Flavell. In fact I wonder whether Rahui Katene would be so good as to give us an indication about whether such a discussion has been had between National and the Maori Party. She is indicating that it has been held and National members are indicating that they are—supporting? 
Rahui Katene 
: It’s ongoing. 
SUE MORONEY 
: Well National MPs might want to take some calls to ensure that the debate continues for a good measure of time so that they can come to a conclusion on the question which is clearly vexing them of whether to support the amendment put forward by Te Ururoa Flavell. I would hate us to get to the position of voting on clause 5 before National had the opportunity to reach its conclusion. 
I am sure there will be a vigorous debate within the National caucus on whether to support this amendment. I have given Rahui Katene the opportunity and I really thank her for her frankness and honesty but can we have an indication from perhaps National’s senior whip about whether the Government will support the amendment?