Hodgson Pete: Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Hodgson Pete: Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:673;Page:19417] 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North) 
: 
 I stand in the stead of Grant Robertson in whose name the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill is before the Committee. He is the member—and I would say a mighty fine member—for Wellington Central which is where the Royal Society of New Zealand is to be found just up the road in Thorndon. 
We are debating clause 5 which is an interpretation clause. The Committee is seized with the issue of how best to define “humanities”: whether to add American studies whether to specify English as a language whether to have te Tiriti in the definition and whether to have te reo as a specified part of humanities. Someone will get up and say: “What about sociology?” and someone else will get up and say that that is a social science not a humanity. We will I suppose explore where the boundary line is between the arts and the sciences. 
I will make my contribution by referring to an earlier decision of this House made 20 years ago that I think will interest the Hon Wayne Mapp. That was when the House in the dying days of the Lange-Douglas Government—or the Lange-Palmer-Moore-Douglas Government I suppose to be truthful—and the early days of the Bolger Government was going through reforms of science. Out of those reforms emerged the Ministry of Research Science and Technology; the Foundation for Research Science and Technology; the Crown research institutes; the idea of a public-good science fund; and much besides. 
It so happens that the current Minister of Science and Innovation the Hon Wayne Mapp has heralded—and in fact overseen—a recent amalgamation of the ministry and the foundation so the words “research” “science” and “technology” have been removed from our public nomenclature. The question is how they got there in the first place. If one thinks about research science and technology one can easily argue that science and technology are separate and distinct and that both have a place but what is research doing in there? Surely research is simply a way of conducting a bit of science. Why did we have the word “research” as well as “science” and “technology”? We had them for 20 years until the Hon Wayne Mapp acted in recent months oblivious I am sure of the importance of what he had done. 
Why did we have “research” as well as “science” and “technology”? I first came to Parliament at about that time and I did not know either so I asked the Hon Simon Upton. His answer was that we are interested not just in science and technology but also in a thing called scholarship. If scholarship was to be included and recognised then we needed a word. It could have been “scholarship science and technology”. That would have looked a bit strange so they went for the word “research” where the scholar might research something that is not science. The scholar might in fact research the humanities. The point I am making is that way back then—when we were reinventing science developing Crown research institutes and on you go—there was a nod and a wink towards the humanities in the thinking of the Minister of that day. 
I think it is kind of cute even if it is slightly accidental that the very year that the Hon Wayne Mapp takes the lexicon of “research science and technology” out of the New Zealand public space along comes this legislation in the name of the honourable Grant Robertson to recognise humanities in statute as part of the Royal Society and its functions a lot more explicitly than the word “research” ever did. But I suggest that there is kind of a nice little segue there and we should be pleased about that happening even if as I say it were accidental. 
I shall not partake in the debate—not now anyway—about what words should be put into the definition of “humanities” and what words should not. I think I am beholden to listen carefully to the advice of my parliamentary colleagues. But I think we are close to a definition and some parliamentary colleague may well wish to rise to his or her feet and offer his or her advice about what the definition should be: whether te reo should be left in or taken out whether te Tiriti should be left in or taken out etc.