Robertson Grant: Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Robertson Grant: Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:673;Page:19881] 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to talk about clause 13 of the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill and a very interesting clause it is. This clause covers the question of revocation of membership or fellowship. One might think that in a body like the Royal Society which is full of serious-minded professional scientists and academics there would never be a situation where there would need to be revocation of membership lest even revocation of fellowship given that there are so few fellows for there to be a situation in which revocation could occur. 
It is worth looking in some detail at the section of the Royal Society of New Zealand Act as it now stands on revocation of membership which is section 18 given that this is such a serious matter. Section 18 of the Act tells us that the council of the Royal Society “may at any time in accordance with the rules revoke a person’s or an organisation’s membership”—and I will come back to that—“of the society if—(a) that person or organisation has not adhered to the code of professional standards and ethics; or (b) that person or organisation has acted in a manner that is inconsistent with the Society’s object or functions as set out in sections 5 and 6.” The section goes on to state: “(2) The Council may at any time in accordance with the Academy bylaws and on the recommendation of the Academy Council revoke the fellowship or honorary fellowship of a person.” 
I just clarify that in that section there are two pathways. One is for those who are members and that is where a person has breached the code of professional standards and ethics and/or where they have behaved in a way that is inconsistent with the objects and functions of the society. The threshold for revoking the fellowship of a Fellow of the Royal Society is set at a higher bar and it has to go through the academy council which is now renamed the academy executive committee. It would be a significant decision to remove someone from the Royal Society. It begs the question of whether this has happened before. That is the obvious question that it begs and my research to this point has not identified anyone. I would be interested if members have an example of somebody who has had his or her membership or fellowship revoked. It seems like a very serious sanction. 
When we look at the two ways in which one could have membership revoked we see it can happen with someone not adhering to the code of professional standards and ethics. This is important. I guess this instance could come about if somebody perhaps plagiarised some research undertook research in an unethical manner or perhaps did not get ethics committee approval for the research they were undertaking. If a member of the Royal Society became aware of that they may choose to make the academy executive committee aware of that situation. I think that would be the kind of example that would fit within section 18(1)(a). It is difficult to imagine that that could happen given the integrity of most scientists and most scientific institutions in New Zealand. But it is possible that from time to time some people will do this. We have had examples in the medical field where people have falsified their qualifications and have misrepresented themselves in order to work in New Zealand. If people like that could end up as members of the Royal Society then this would be a way in which they had breached the code of professional standards and ethics. That would potentially at least bring up the notion of revocation of membership. 
The second part of the clause is perhaps more interesting. This is currently section 18(1)(b) which is being amended by clause 13. That is where a person has acted “in a manner that is inconsistent” with the Royal Society’s objects and functions. To be honest this is quite a broad category. We know that the academy executive committee will act very cautiously but it is worth noting as we come to this point in the debate that acting inconsistently with the objects and functions of the organisation is quite broad. The object of the society is the advancement and promotion of science and technology in New Zealand. How can one act inconsistently with that—for instance would it be inconsistent if a member or a Fellow of the Royal Society went along to a school one day and said to the students: “I don’t think you should study science.”? 
Chris Hipkins 
: What about creationism? 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: Exactly. Mr Hipkins suggests that perhaps someone might go and teach creationism in a school. Would that be against the object of the Royal Society which is the advancement and promotion of science and technology in New Zealand? It is a very broad category that if somebody is seen to be acting inconsistently with the society’s object he or she could have that membership revoked. As I say I have no doubt that the academy executive committee would behave responsibly and would never let a situation arise where someone was unduly drawn in but it does create the possibility—the potential—for such things. 
Equally section 18(1)(b) also talks about someone acting inconsistently with the functions of the Royal Society. Those functions are broad. They are about fostering a culture that supports science technology—and now the humanities—public awareness and knowledge the advancement of science and technology education excellence in science and technology and about providing an infrastructure for the professional needs and development of sciences and providing expert advice on important public issues. There may be a situation in which somebody is called upon to provide advice to the Government on an important matter to do with science technology or the humanities and they do not give that advice to the highest professional standard. They perhaps let a bias come into their advice. That may well be the example we are talking about where somebody’s actions are so egregious that the Royal Society would decide that this was a time to revoke the person’s membership. As I say I have not yet been able to find an example of a revocation of membership of the Royal Society but the fact that it is provided for indicates that it is possible. Therefore we need to take seriously this clause. Obviously it alters the way in which decisions are made about that by changing the language from “Academy Council” to “Academy Executive Committee” which will have the role to make these decisions. 
Just briefly the other category that is within the revocation clause is the revocation of a fellowship. As I said before there are only 366 fellows at this time. They are people who have reached the highest level of academic excellence. It would be very surprising to think that any of them would be in a position where their fellowship would need to be revoked but there is the possibility to do that. The ability to do that is held by the council of the Royal Society which is the overall governing body of the Royal Society. So the gravity of doing something like this is recognised in section 18 which is being amended by clause 13. It is important to note that any revocation of a fellowship has to be in accordance with the academy bylaws and on the recommendation of the academy executive committee to the council. It is also possible to revoke an honorary fellowship. Given that those honorary fellows as we established in the last clause have no voting rights they are quite excluded from the process. Again there are some issues that the academy executive committee of the Royal Society would need to bear in mind. 
They are the comments that I wanted to make on this. Section 18 is actually quite a significant part of the Royal Society of New Zealand Act which we are now amending through clause 13 of the bill. We are amending it to change the name of the organisation that is making these decisions about revocation. It is important that we note that it is possible to lose one’s membership of the Royal Society. We have spent some time tonight talking about that and the significance of that.