Shearer David: Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Shearer David: Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:672;Page:18386] 
DAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert) 
: 
 It is a real pleasure to speak on the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill and particularly on the preamble because it is the area of the bill where we can really pay our respects and gratitude to and express some admiration for the Royal Society. Obviously it is the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill but the Royal Society itself needs a mention in its own right. 
Pete Hodgson spoke articulately and as usual knowledgably about the Royal Society and about what it does for New Zealand. It plays an extraordinary role. The fact that it has been functioning in New Zealand since 1867 means it is one of the few institutions that have survived for that length of time. Not only has it survived but it has grown in stature competence and reach. Today the number of scientists that it draws in is in the tens of thousands. In fact I have the figure here. The number of scientists who are represented by the society is 20000. There are 20000 scientists technologists technicians and perhaps engineers represented by the society. 
In some ways I always see engineers as Pete Hodgson was mentioning just now as representing the bridge between science and its application in a commercial sense. Sometimes perhaps we do not make enough of our engineers in the way we develop our products. We also do not make enough of them in the way we encourage students coming through school to take on science and maths and go towards an engineering type of vocation. That is the area where we would be able to earn value in New Zealand. I do not think we can have enough engineers whereas we have plenty of accountants lawyers etc. There are two engineering schools and I think eight law schools in New Zealand. The Minister of Science and Innovation who is a lawyer might be able to elucidate. It is a curious coincidence. I wonder whether we have our priorities round the right way. 
As was laid out by both Grant Robertson and Pete Hodgson the bill is really about expanding the remit of the Royal Society to include humanities which I hasten to say was somewhat controversial in some of our select committee meetings. The chair of the Education and Science Committee Allan Peachey is here and I think he did a very good job as did my colleagues across the other side of the Chamber. We engaged in the process very constructively and we did a pretty thorough job of interrogating the people who came before us. I should perhaps say questioning; interrogating sounds a little bit too much like shining a light in people’s faces to get the truth. We took quite seriously some of their concerns that the work of the Royal Society and of science might be diminished in New Zealand as a result of the humanities being brought into the legislation as Grant Robertson spoke about before. 
I think it is extraordinarily important that we gave those people a really good hearing. We asked questions of the Ministry of Research Science and Technology as it was then known. It is now known as the Ministry of Science and Innovation. That is one of the most innovative things that the Minister has done. I will not list the others—not that I do not have time; it would not take very much time to do that—but bringing the word “innovation” alongside “science” is a good step. We brought back the Ministry of Research Science and Technology before the committee twice I think or perhaps three times to check up on the concerns that some of the Royal Society branches around the country had about their perception of dilution of the Royal Society. 
I will just reflect on the Royal Society itself and what it does and try to provide a context for this bill and its preamble. Some people watching this debate may have concerns that we did not do a good enough job in reflecting on what incorporating the humanities into the Royal Society might do. Some countries—for example the UK and Australia—do not follow this particular pattern of doing things. Instead they have separate societies and the royal societies of those countries jealously guard their borders. I think that in New Zealand where we obviously have a smaller country and a smaller bunch of academics—20000 is not exactly a small number but nevertheless it is smaller—we have the ability in this legislation to look a little laterally and understand how science and the associated humanities make an impact on our society. It is for that reason that we have the ability to be innovative within the Royal Society itself. 
Just to reflect on what the Royal Society has done and does beginning in 1867 it has an extraordinarily long and proud history. It promotes science and technology in schools industry and society. It also administers several funds for science and technology publishes scientific journals and offers advice to and advocates for science with the Government. It also advocates for science with the Opposition. I meet with the Royal Society frequently to hear its concerns and some of the issues it would like to push in the area of science more generally. The society even hosts a series of dinners here for MPs which are well attended to promote science within Parliament. It does an extraordinarily good job in terms of promoting and supporting science in our community. 
I will make an aside. The society has not said this to me but I imagine that it is somewhat disappointed about the science advisers in the area of education being ripped out of schools along with various science advisory services that can provide teachers with up-to-date support in science. As I said at the beginning of my address tonight the idea of science and promoting science in schools has to be one of the most important things that we do. We are ranked in the Programme for International Student Assessment listings at No. 7 in the world in terms of our science achievements in our schools. I think we face a sliding of that ranking as a result of the resources that have been pulled out of schools and from teachers in order to I guess save money. It is an extraordinarily short-sighted policy to take. At the end of the day it is not very much money and it is used for the promotion of something that is fundamentally important to our economy. Our economy is based on primary products mainly and science—using science applied to our primary products. That is what gives us the edge and we need to promote our scientists more than anything else. 
Pete Hodgson also mentioned the restructuring of the science community that has happened over the last few years. Simon Upton is a Fellow of the Royal Society. I think he is the only former Minister or MP to be made a fellow and it attests to the interest and passion for science he showed when he was the Minister of Research Science and Technology. 
Hon Member 
: And Aaron Gilmore—Aaron Gilmore was I think. 
DAVID SHEARER 
: Possibly Aaron Gilmore. The other aspect of this debate is that restructuring is what Simon Upton did and he did it to a particular end. We have had a little bit of discussion about restructuring over the last few weeks.