Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill

GRANT ROBERTSON Link to this

It is an excellent committee; I agree with the member. The Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill is a private bill, which is promoted by the Royal Society of New Zealand. The society is a body corporate that has operated in New Zealand since 1867 and is currently based in the great electorate of Wellington Central. The object, functions, and structure of the society are set out in the Royal Society of New Zealand Act 1997.

The current object of the society is the advancement and promotion of science and technology in New Zealand. That, in turn, leads to the functions of the society. The first current function is to foster in the New Zealand community a culture that supports science and technology, including—without limitation—the promotion of public awareness, knowledge, and understanding of science and technology, and the advancement of science and technology education. The second function is to encourage, promote, and recognise excellence in science and technology. The third function is to provide an infrastructure and other support for the professional needs and development of scientists and technologists. The fourth function is to establish and administer a code of professional standards and ethics in science and technology for members. The fifth function is to provide expert advice on important public issues to the Government and the community. The final current function is to do all other lawful things that the society considers are conducive to the advancement and promotion of science and technology in New Zealand.

This bill seeks to amend the Royal Society of New Zealand Act to incorporate the humanities into the object and functions of the society. It will also make several other minor changes that I will outline shortly. The society has approached me to be the member in charge of this bill as I am the member of Parliament for the electorate in which the society’s head office is located. As I have said, the main purpose of the bill is to amend the Royal Society of New Zealand Act to incorporate the humanities into its objects and functions. This means, for example, that the functions of the society will be expanded to include the functions of fostering in the New Zealand community a culture that supports the humanities and of encouraging, promoting, and recognising excellence in the humanities. The definition in clause 5(2) of the bill says that the humanities include: “English and other languages, history, religion, philosophy, law, classics, linguistics, literature, cultural studies, media studies, art history, film, drama, and American studies”.

Specifically, the bill adds to those functions that I read out earlier: “to foster in the New Zealand community a culture that supports the humanities: to encourage, promote, and recognise excellence in the humanities: to establish and administer for members a code of professional standards and ethics in the humanities: and to do all other lawful things which the Council of the Society considers conducive to the advancement and promotion of the humanities in New Zealand:”. The incorporation of the humanities into the objects and functions of the society will mean that many people involved in the humanities may be admitted as members of the society, and that people who have achieved distinction in research for the advancement of the humanities will be able to be elected as fellows of the Royal Society. The society will obviously also be required to establish and administer a code of professional standards and ethics in the humanities, as it currently does in relation to science and technology.

The society’s decision to expand the objects and functions of the society to include the humanities was based on three main factors: a desire to integrate the structure and function of research in New Zealand; a recognition of the need to build on and integrate the complementary knowledge provided by different disciplines; and the fact that academies of scholars in other countries such as Canada and Scotland have academies that also range across the disciplines. It is fair to say that in recent times there has been a growing awareness among the pure scientific community—I defer to my colleague Moana Mackey, who comes from that community—to work more closely with the social science community. Many members of the House will be familiar with the work of Professor Sir Paul Callaghan and Bill Manhire at Victoria University, who have worked very hard to try to draw together what they call the “parallel universes of writers and scientists”. It is a little bit like that. For those of us from a social science background, it is fair to say that the pure scientists sometimes have some difficulty in understanding where we are coming from—and, no doubt, vice versa as well.

GRANT ROBERTSON Link to this

Scientists are from Venus and social scientists are from Mars; I thank Mr Ardern for that. It is true that the work that Bill Manhire and Paul Callaghan have done has been excellent and is mirrored in many other parts of our research sector.

Before I came into this House, I worked very closely with an organisation called the Centre for Sustainable Cities, which is based at Otago University’s medical school. It brings together people from the pure sciences—such as physics and energy research—right through to people in the social sciences, particularly those in the public health area and those who do research into housing. It is a very good way of being able to draw together and create an inter-disciplinary approach within our broad research communities.

I think it is very timely that the Royal Society has chosen to come to the House to amend its functions to reflect the fact that the humanities are having an increased role and increased importance in the research community. It is only right, too, that it does this following on from consultation with the Council for the Humanities. A memorandum of understanding was signed by the society and the Council for the Humanities on 9 February 2010 to incorporate the humanities into the society. As is the nature of a body such as the Royal Society, which is governed by statute, this bill has come to the House now to get our endorsement for that process.

As I mentioned at the start, there are a couple of other elements to this bill that I would like to note. The first is that another purpose of the bill is to rename the academy council of the society the academy executive committee. This will be a matter of great interest to members in the House. The reason for this change is to avoid confusion between the academy council, which was established to contribute to the achievement of the objects of the society by recognising and encouraging excellence and outstanding achievement in science and technology and contributing to the intellectual leadership role of the society, and the overall council of the society, which has a governing role. This means that the academy council of the Royal Society will, after this bill has passed, be called the academy executive committee, and any potentially confused social or pure scientists will know the difference.

The bill also amends the standard for the election of companions of the society to put greater focus on leadership and also to include the humanities now that they are part of the society’s wider functions. The final purpose of the bill relates to changes that were made to the council’s structure in 2008 by way of a wash-up provision to make sure that all of the constitutional changes that have been made are now reflected in the law. In particular, the bill amends the election process for councillors of the society so that the process is consistent with a new council structure, and it clarifies processes for councillors appointed by regional constituent organisations.

To achieve the purposes of this bill, we need to amend the Royal Society of New Zealand Act. This is a bill that should not generate too much controversy. I hope that pure scientists in the Chamber will be able to accept the arrival of the social scientists and see that they will now all be able to work together in harmony and ensure that we can support those research endeavours that are taking place right around New Zealand in many universities and other research institutions. I think this bill will make for a stronger Royal Society, and I commend it to the House.

ALLAN PEACHEY Link to this

I had not quite started school.

ALLAN PEACHEY Link to this

It was Ruapheu College—I thank the member. I am getting closer to my objectives tonight, and there will be a couple more opportunities before we have finished.

The Royal Society was set up as a mechanism to bring together a number of research and science organisations around the country that did not have the resources to publish the papers that were being delivered them, to keep records of their meetings and their activities, and that sort of thing. The Royal Society of New Zealand Act, which was passed in 1997, currently legislates for the provision of the Royal Society. The society’s primary purpose has been to foster in the New Zealand community a culture that supports science and technology, including the promotion of public awareness, knowledge and understanding of science and technology, and the advancement of science and technology education. So the Royal Society is responsible for the distribution of public funding, for scientific research and public education, for the publication of a number of journals, for holding meetings and seminars, for awarding medals like the Rutherford Medal and the Pickering Medal, and for science education.

It is on that note that I would like to take a moment to acknowledge the role that the Royal Society plays in this Parliament each year. In conjunction with Science New Zealand, the Royal Society sponsors a series of lectures known as the Speaker’s Science Forum, which as chair of the Education and Science Committee I get the honour to chair. This year we have had maybe a dozen lectures on a Tuesday night, over the dinner break, from some very eminent New Zealand scientists. Some of us, like me, do not have a scientific background. It was my misfortune to attend Ruapehu College and to be in the fifth form in 1965 and sitting School Certificate, when the teaching of science was particularly weak. In actual fact, that year it was a disgrace. I do not blame Ruapehu College for that, but I do blame a particular teacher whose name is well known in this House, but I had better not mention it. Ruapehu College was a great school for me, by the way.

I have the privilege of hosting the Speaker’s Science Forum, and as one of the members of the Royal Society said to me one evening after a particularly successful and enjoyable occasion, where else in the world, in any Parliament, would we have one-quarter of the members of Parliament in one room during their dinner break listening to a lecture about science? I commend these lectures to those members of the House who have not yet attended any of them. Members have missed the last one for this year, as it was held a week or so ago, but I commend them to members next year. Not only do we get to hear from an outstanding New Zealand scientist and learn about an aspect of science or technology that is current in New Zealand, but we also get to enjoy the fellowship of members of the Royal Society, of Science New Zealand, and of our own colleagues. For goodness’ sake, I have even been known to share a dinner table, after the lecture, with members of the Labour Party! I humbly apologise to my colleagues on this side of the House for that dreadful breach of protocol, but I believe those members benefit from that sort of company from time to time.

The purpose of the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill is to enable the Royal Society to incorporate the humanities into its work, and I welcome that. I think that is a great step forward. If the Royal Society can—and I sure it will—bring to the humanities what it has brought to science and technology, it will be great for this country, and particularly for those who have studied the humanities and take a leading role in their fields.

The Royal Society resolved in November 2008 that there was a need to expand its activities. Something else happened in November 2008.

ALLAN PEACHEY Link to this

What was it? Something else very significant for this country happened in November 2008. Oh, that is right; the Labour Government got thrown out of office. So two great things happened in New Zealand in November 2008. But enough of that. In the spirit of the bipartisanship in which the Education and Science Committee operates, I am sure that the committee will enjoy holding what I assume will be a limited number of hearings on the bill. That committee has had a very heavy workload this year, and it continues to have a very heavy workload. It has had to deal with some pretty challenging issues. I think members will find dealing with this bill a particular pleasure. I commend the bill to the House.

MOANA MACKEY Link to this

I do; it is called personal growth. Look how far I have come.

I was genuinely hurt that my good friend and colleague Grant Robertson would insinuate that I would think that his qualification is any less than mine, although I do note, with absolutely no judgment, that his particular qualification is not on the list. But that is all right; I am sure that is something that can be amended at the Education and Science Committee. I am sure it is a mere oversight.

MOANA MACKEY Link to this

His politics degree. It is not on the list. But this is something that will be debated at the select committee.

In all seriousness, this bill is very important. One of the goals of the previous Labour Government was to facilitate more multidisciplinary approaches to research. We did this through the centres of research excellence, of which there are a number around the country now, which bring together a number of disciplines under the banner of particular areas of research. They have had enormous success in bringing the private sector, the universities, and the Crown research institutes to work together so that we are not doing overlapping research but are, in fact, coordinating that research.

The multidisciplinary approach has often been the Holy Grail. Sometimes it is difficult, and we make jokes about the hierarchy of the scientific community, but it is actually very true—there is a hierarchy, a pecking order, and sometimes it is difficult to get around that. But when we can, the outcomes are outstanding. I recently visited the centre for the study of agriculture, food and environment at Otago University, which is not a centre of research excellence but a multidisciplinary group. It brings together economists, sociologists, geographers, physicists, marine biologists, and statisticians. All these groups work on areas of public policy.

I think it is a shame that more MPs do not know about this group, because some of the areas it works on are absolutely key to what we do here. The group looks at the gap between what the Governments try to do and what the public want and how they feel about it. It uses the example of renewable energy, which New Zealanders overwhelmingly support. Then it looks at what happens whenever we try to build a wind farm or to develop tidal energy. So much expense is added because of the public backlash. The group says that sometimes politicians do not do that work, and there are things it is working on now that can be put in place to make sure that when these projects come up, we can save time and money and all the angst that often goes with them. This group is a very important unit. It looks at the areas of fisheries, agriculture, and right across the board. I recommend that members of Parliament visit this group.

One of the problems is that its funding is now uncertain. With this new approach to funding research in New Zealand, which is that everything has to be business-based, this is a group that will save us money and will have public benefit for the country, but because it cannot absolutely quantify exactly how much money that will be, its funding is now uncertain.

MOANA MACKEY Link to this

It is. I think all members of the House would think it is crazy. So I think this is a very timely bill from the Royal Society. It promotes the multidisciplinary approach, which should make all members of this House think very carefully about the expectations we put on the scientific community and on the research community. Sometimes there is truth to that adage about the cost of everything and the value of nothing. I think that sometimes the scientists and the researchers in our universities and our Crown research institutes find it frustrating that politicians and parliamentarians really do not understand exactly their needs and the value they can contribute to our society. I hope that this will be part of the debate on this bill.

Labour supports an evidence-based approach to policy. Clearly, the social sciences and the humanities have a big role to play in that. I think all parliamentarians should adopt an evidence-based approach and when we are spending taxpayers’ money we should be able to point to the research that says it will work, and if it will not work we should justify, for example, why we are spending so much money on boot camps when every single bit of research says they will not work.

DAVID CLENDON Link to this

Yes, it is a very interesting place to be when one is moving between these two fundamentally different disciplines or approaches.

DAVID CLENDON Link to this

Quite right. To an extent this returns the Royal Society of New Zealand to its roots, back to the Royal Society in the UK. That society came together in the 1640s as a college of natural philosophers, who were delving into this then new model of observation and experimentation that in time became the empirically based science that we understand now. Clearly, this reintegration with the humanities is, as I say, coming back to the roots of that organisation.

Natural philosophy was a branch of philosophy, a theoretical branch coming from an ethical base endeavouring to understand nature as it was then comprehended—dare I say it, what we would now refer to as the environment. Clearly, there is a long history to the evolution of natural philosophy through to the scientific method, objective observation and the like. The downside, I guess, of the scientific method, which is clearly incredibly powerful and has been a very productive approach, was the degree of hubris or pride and the disallowance of indigenous forms of knowledge, investigation, understanding, and interpretation of the natural world. In the Western context, the reaction to the success of the reliance on the scientific method were the more extreme forms of postmodernism. We are finding that pendulum swinging back closer to a centre point, to acknowledge the value of both the scientific method and of a humanities or an arts-based approach to advancing knowledge and research.

In the modern age, if you like, back in the late 1950s, CP Snow, in his lecture The Two Cultures and then his book The Two Cultures and the Scientific Revolution, described the predicament very well when he observed that academics in schools of the arts were not only unwilling to talk to the scientists and vice versa but effectively unable to. They were almost unable to communicate with one another. Clearly in the 20th and the 21st centuries that degree of division within our academic and our research bases would be simply unacceptable and would not advance us, at all. In my own discipline of resource management it was clear that it was critical that resource management decisions are best made when they are not only based on good scientific understanding, geology, ecology, earth science, and all the other scientific disciplines, but also within the cultural context established by law, history, and economics. It is only with people who are trained and who understand the powers, weaknesses, limitations, and strengths of all of those sub-disciplines that we arrive at very good management decisions, like how to deal with our natural world, how to manage in the interests of our communities, and how to get good economic outcomes.

In short, we believe this is a good bill. It is timely. We are very pleased to see the society and the council coming together in the firm belief that the new organisation will, over time, become much stronger than the sum of its parts. Kia ora koutou.