Debate resumed from 15 June.
Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY (Labour) Link to this
I am delighted to have this opportunity to speak again on this very important bill, the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill. It is really very important for the people of New Zealand, the scientific community, and the humanities. This bill will include the subject of the humanities in the Royal Society.
This particular clause, clause 8, concerns scientific or technological research, and those words are to be substituted with “research in science, technology, or the humanities”. I think this is a very significant change. These few words mark a very significant change in this bill. As I said in my earlier discussion, there is a significant difference between science, research, and technology. I know some of my colleagues probably do not quite agree that there is a difference between science and research. I say that the word “science” comes from scientia, a Latin word that means knowledge.
Dr Cam CalderDr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY Link to this
It is very important for the doctor to know that the word “science” comes from scientia, which is a Latin word that means knowledge.
There is a difference between knowledge and research. Science is about creating knowledge, whereas research is something one does to achieve a scientific result, and technology is a follow-up to that research. It is very important to understand what research means because research is something we do to prove some of these theories, whether they are existing problems or new problems. To prove the theories we need to do research. So this is something very different from science. Science is knowledge. In this case we are saying that we want to change the words by omitting “scientific or technological research” and substituting “research in science, technology, or the humanities”.
For about 144 years the Royal Society has involved just science and we have not talked about or worried about the impacts of that science on humans, animals, or the environment. So a very important part of this bill is the inclusion of the humanities so that we understand how science impacts on our society. We have to understand how the work we do—whether it is in medicine, agriculture, or atomic energy, for example—impacts on human beings, the environment, our waters, and our lifestyle. So I think it is very important and timely that we have included the humanities.
Dr Rajen Prasad has worked all his life in the humanities area, so he probably understands some of the work scientists have done. He, like others, has tried to implement science and see how science—the science of agriculture or whatever science it is—impacts on the humanities. I think it is very important for us to understand that the humanities have to be part of the Royal Society’s work, because we have for too long ignored people who have done a lot of the research that creates knowledge and science, and we have had very little understanding of how it might impact on the humanities, on our waters, and on our environment. I think that a lot of significant work is going on at universities in New Zealand by people who are not necessarily involved with science itself but are doing research on understanding how scientific products and innovations impact on the daily lives of our people.
I am delighted to have this opportunity to speak on this bill and on clause 8, which deals with dividends.
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) Link to this
Just before I take the next call, I would like to refresh members’ minds that we are dealing with clause 8, which is headed “No dividend or profit to members”.
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) Link to this
Clause 8 of the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill refers to no dividend or profit being available to members. I wonder whether the member in charge of the bill, Grant Robertson, would be able tell us whether there is any ability to receive any remuneration. I am not sure whether there is any mechanism by which that occurs. I am sure that a lot of work goes on within the society that members could be potentially remunerated for, so if there is any mechanism there I would appreciate the member in charge of the bill telling us about it. Obviously, the Royal Society is a non-profit organisation that is essentially engaged in matters of promoting science and recognising scientific achievement, and under this amendment bill the society recognises “research in science, technology, or the humanities”, instead of just “scientific or technological research”. Obviously, all of those things potentially lead to opportunities for remuneration, but that is not the point of the society. The society is about promoting those things and recognising significant achievement in science, technology, and the humanities, as well.
It has not really been well recognised over the years that the humanities is an area that has a lot of potential for remuneration, but, of course, we often see that people at the leading edge of research in the humanities or at the leading edge of the creative world can generate a lot of profit for the nation. Sir Peter Jackson is a really good example of someone who works in the creative sphere. I am not sure whether he studied the humanities as such, but certainly the field he is in is, I think, one that could be described as being part of the humanities. If I look at the interpretation clause, I see that film, media studies, and drama are included in the definition of the humanities. So Peter Jackson would certainly be described as someone who has been able to derive a profit or a dividend from his work in the creative sphere. It is absolutely appropriate that we recognise achievement in the humanities, that we promote the humanities as an area of significant interest and benefit to the country, and that we bring the humanities within the Royal Society’s scope.
Of course, it is important to recognise that in clause 8 we are not talking about direct profit to members for the work they do within the Royal Society, because the society is essentially an organisation that advocates the promotion of research in science, technology, and the humanities. This area of when is an organisation purely a charity versus when is an organisation one that engages in political advocacy has, of course, been the subject of a lot of discussion lately. The issue of finance for those particular organisations has been a matter of much debate recently. I would be interested to know—I cannot tell by just reading the bill—what the two different sections, section 8(2)(d)(i) and section 8(2)(d)(ii), in clause 8, actually refer to. Again, it would be quite useful if the member in charge of the bill could give us a bit more detail on that.
I am sure that a lot of work goes on within the organisation that needs to be paid for, and I wonder whether society members who undertake that are able to receive remuneration for it. As this bill has expanded the areas in which that work could be undertaken, there may be a much wider range and I would be interested to hear about that.
SU’A WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Māngere) Link to this
This is my first contribution to the debate on this wonderful bill called the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill, which was introduced by the wonderful member for Wellington Central, Grant Robertson—the member in the chair. As it is my first contribution, Mr Chair, I have a range of questions I would like to ask that member about this bill. Just by way of preliminary comments—
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) Link to this
The member addressed the Chair and said he has a range of questions, so the Chair will respond and say that they must be pertinent to clause 8.
Absolutely, Mr Chair. They certainly will be pertinent to clause 8. Clause 8, “No dividend or profit to members”, contains two subclauses. I would like the member in the chair to comment on it. The clause talks about “no dividend or profit to members”, and I note that that is a theme that the humanities teach—protecting the many and not the few, and ensuring that we share our profits for the benefit of all New Zealanders. I ask whether the member in charge of the bill would agree with me when I say that if more members opposite had taken the humanities at university, they would now be sharing the wealth with the rest of New Zealand. They would be aiming to create more jobs, instead of lacking the aim to do that. Would the member in charge of the bill agree with me on that? Because I think the humanities—
Hon Maurice WilliamsonIf that member, Minister McCully, had taken the humanities, he would have had a plan to create jobs for this country. He would have had a plan to get our economy revving up and going. Well, I do not believe he took the humanities, so I want the member in the chair to share with us whether he agrees with my premise in that regard.
Clause 8(2) amends section 8(2)(d)(ii) of the Royal Society of New Zealand Act by omitting “science and technology” and substituting “science, technology, and the humanities”. Does the member in the chair agree with me that if more National members had taken science and technology, they would have figured out that the debt that they are increasing for this nation will put more burden not only on today’s generation but also on the next generation in the years ahead? They would have figured out a way through taking science and technology—and perhaps they would have had a bit of heart if they had taken the humanities—to recognise—
Mr Chair, I am asking some questions of the member in the chair. As I said to you earlier, this is my first contribution to the bill—
Clause 8. We go back to clause 8, which is about having no dividend or profit to members. Are the members this bill talks about specifically from the Royal Society of New Zealand? Are we looking to amend the standard for electing members of this society to ensure that they do not get unfair treatment? Would that be right? I think we are amending the election process for councillors of the society. Is that not why there is a concern about why we are changing the way of electing councillors on this? It comes back to clause 8, of having no dividend or profit to members—
—no dividend or profit to members. The feeling out in the community is that this Government is looking after itself, this Government is looking after its buddies—
—and this Government is looking after its mates, and members opposite are forgetting the reason why they are in Government. They are in Government to ensure that clause 8, “No dividend or profit to members”, is there to protect the interests of the wider community and not necessarily to protect the interests of the wealthy few, whom Mr Maurice Williamson seems so adamant to protect. There is probably more room to extend clause 8 and add other clauses, simply because I think that clause 8 suggests that under this Government, the John Key Government, we have to look at ways to protect our society from being undermined by the way this Government runs roughshod over legislation and the way this Government has no particular plan to create jobs and to address the cost of living that many families the length and breadth of New Zealand are having difficulty with.
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) Link to this
I will respond to the questions raised by my colleagues Iain Lees-Galloway and Su’a William Sio, although at the outset I should clarify that the Minister who was interjecting on Su’a William Sio was Maurice Williamson, not Murray McCully. Few insults cut deeper than being called Murray McCully, I have to say. On behalf of the Labour Party I apologise to the Minister for such an egregious insult.
Su’a William Sio asked whether bringing in the humanities to the functions of the Royal Society adds an element to the question of there being no dividend to members. In a sense, the answer to the member’s question is no, because section 8 of the Royal Society of New Zealand Act, which is amended by clause 8 of the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill, states quite clearly: “The income and property of the Society must be applied solely towards the object of the Society, and … no portion of the income … may be paid directly or indirectly by way of dividend, bonus, or otherwise to members.” So it is actually quite clear. It is comprehensive.
Section 8 then lists a series of exceptions for where money can be paid to members. Before I come to those exceptions, it is worth clarifying—again, in response to another question that Su’a William Sio asked—the nature of the members of the Royal Society. We will in debate on future clauses, I hope, be able to go through this matter in some detail. The different kinds of members include the Fellows of the Royal Society. There is quite a process to become a Fellow of the Royal Society.
Paul QuinnNo, Mr Quinn has not quite made Fellow of the Royal Society. In fact, I am looking at the list of people who can be members of the Royal Society. Section 9 of the Act goes all the way down to paragraph (h), but unfortunately there is no mention of fools. Fools are not allowed in the Royal Society at all, so Mr Quinn is out. Membership of the Royal Society includes fellows, ordinary members, companions, constituent organisations, honorary members, and honorary fellows. One can apply to be a member of the Royal Society. Mr Quinn may choose to do that at some point in the future.
I have a membership list here, I say to Mr Quinn. Would he like me to read through it? I do not think we will find Mr Quinn in the Royal Society’s membership. If he is a member, however, I may choose to withdraw my sponsorship of the bill as I would be concerned about the standards of the Royal Society.
Section 8 states that those people I have listed as members—not Mr Quinn, but the fellows, the ordinary members, and the companions—cannot have dividends or profits from the Royal Society except where remuneration is returned for services rendered or goods supplied. One example of this would be if a member or a fellow of the Royal Society was on a panel to choose the winner of one of the awards, perhaps the Rutherford Medal or something like that. They would, no doubt, have costs associated with serving on those panels, therefore they would fall under section 8(2)(a) of the current Act. They would receive some recompense from the Royal Society for doing that. That is the exception to the overall rule that no dividend or profit should be given to members.
The other specific area that is worth noting is section 8(2)(d) of the Act, which is about the grant of awards or prizes. They are the members, the fellows, and the companions of the Royal Society who win a prize from the Royal Society. I am not sure whether Mr Quinn has been awarded any medals by the Royal Society, but others have been. For example, the Rutherford Medal, which is the pre-eminent medal awarded by the Royal Society, has gone to people like Richard Faull; Paul Callaghan; the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Adviser, Peter Gluckman; and Alan MacDiarmid, the renowned physicist. They have won the Rutherford Medal. All of those people are, in addition—
Louise UpstonThere are not enough women, I say to Louise Upston. Not enough women have been given awards by the Royal Society because, sadly, science does not have enough women in it. Adding in the humanities will broaden the number of women who will be eligible for medals.
One of the awards, I say to Mr Quinn and Ms Upston, given out by the Royal Society is the Dame Joan Metge Medal for social sciences. That award is given for excellence and achievement in the social sciences. Interestingly, one of the prizes and awards already available to members of the Royal Society is the Humanities Aronui Medal. So the Royal Society has actually been getting on with integrating the humanities inside the Royal Society while we work our way carefully through this bill. That medal is already available. It is an example of a dividend or profit going to a member of the Royal Society when they receive, for instance, the Dame Joan Metge Medal for social sciences. They are the main classes by which members can receive what could be considered a profit or a dividend of the society.
Another interesting exclusion is the repayment of money borrowed or the payment of interest on money borrowed. It seems odd to think that the Royal Society may at some point have to borrow money from people. I have not got an explanation for how that provision came to be part of the Act. I presume that at the beginning of the establishment of the Royal Society there may have been a need for the society to borrow money from individuals, perhaps at a branch level where smaller operations occur from time to time. I thought it was curious to see that within section 8(2)(b).
The main reasons that people can get a dividend or profit out of the Royal Society is that they have done work, perhaps on behalf of the society, in terms of being on panels that award medals. The Royal Society also undertakes research and advocacy into certain areas. When that work takes people away from their regular work, they do get recompense. In a previous life, before being in Parliament, when I worked for the University of Otago I knew of a number of Otago University academics who spent time on Royal Society projects. The university would have been reimbursed for that time by the Royal Society. That is the kind of activity that is done. I say that in answer to Mr Lees-Galloway, who asked for an example.
The other part of it is about those who win awards or prizes. In the brief time I have remaining in this call, it is worth noting that the range of prizes, awards, and medals that the Royal Society gives out reflects incredibly well on the scientific—and now humanities—community of New Zealand and its standards. The people who have received those medals and awards—and therefore received some financial gain, as allowed for under section 8 of the Act—are a catalogue of some of the highest-quality science and innovation that one could see anywhere in the world.
The Royal Society plays an excellent role in fostering that and ensuring that there is financial reward for those people. Science, and the humanities in particular, are often fragile existences: people trying to have a career in academia—and Dr Choudhary knows this—are required to do teaching, and they are required to have other responsibilities within their academic institution. To then have the ability to undertake the kind of ground-breaking research that we need in New Zealand to foster innovation and to grow our economy, those people need some financial recompense. The Royal Society can, from time to time, give that financial recompense.
I know that the Rutherford Medal, which I mentioned before, has a significant financial benefit associated with it, and that is why it has gone to scientists of the calibre of Richard Faull, Paul Callaghan, and Peter Gluckman. It has enabled them to push ahead with ground-breaking research that is outside of their normal employment within the academic institutions that those gentlemen all work in. That is why it is important that we have clause 8, because it makes sure that we are clear that nobody is in the Royal Society just to make money. It is not about the profit. But there will be occasions such as winning awards and prizes when money that the Royal Society has generated will go to members. I think that clause 8 is very well crafted.
In terms of updating the Act, we are now including the humanities, alongside science and technology, among the classes of members who will be able to get that financial benefit. As I think I have said in a previous contribution, I look forward to the day when the pre-eminent medal of the Royal Society, the Rutherford Medal, goes to someone from the humanities. That will be a sign that the Royal Society has fully embraced the new class of membership that the society has within it. It would be a great occasion for New Zealand to perhaps see someone who has worked in both the sciences and the humanities take up that provision.
BRENDON BURNS (Labour—Christchurch Central) Link to this
I am particularly pleased to take a call on clause 8 of the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill, as it relates to that important issue that members of the Royal Society shall not take part for dividend or profit. The reason I say this is that last night I was one of a number of members of the House who were privileged to attend a function to recognise the firefighters of Canterbury and the West Coast who came to our city of Christchurch on 22 February and ensuing days. The rewards they were given were nil in terms of profit or dividend. They came simply because of their humanity, I suppose. Many of them were volunteers. Certainly, some professional firefighters were amongst the ranks of those who were present last night, and there were perhaps 200 or 300 people at the former Wigram airbase museum for the awards ceremony. The Minister, Nathan Guy, was in charge of the ceremony and a number of other members were there. It really brought home to me the importance that we should continue to attach to people who serve not for profit, dividend, or personal gain but for something bigger than that, and I think we are doing that very much so in clause 8.
I want to acknowledge in this Chamber, at the first opportunity, and thank those firefighters for their valiant service to my community, particularly in the central business district at the heart of my electorate. There is no amount of reward, there is no amount of dividend, and there is no amount of profit that we could provide to them that would say thank you enough for what they did in the hours, days, and weeks that followed our nation’s national disaster of unprecedented consequence.
So I am pleased to see that the Royal Society, under this bill, is affirming the tradition that when it operates it is not doing so on the basis of profit or dividend. That is important because the Royal Society has a noble tradition; one that has been centred on the sciences. This bill, under the adept stewardship of my colleague Grant Robertson, MP for Wellington Central, is bringing through amendments that will add to the dimensions of the Royal Society those who come from a humanities background. I guess if those firefighters could be categorised, they are not intellectuals, they are not scientists, and they are not people with professional degrees in most instances. I am sure that occasionally in their ranks there might be somebody with an advanced university degree who serves simply because they love the contribution they can make through something like the New Zealand Fire Service.
Simon BridgesIf the member wants to interject on that point, he is most welcome. I am sure the people of Tauranga would like to know that he does not agree that our firefighters deserve to be recognised in this Chamber, alongside people from the Royal Society. There is a parallel there between people who serve, not for profit, not for dividend, but for public service to the people of this country. I think that does deserve to be recognised. I think our society tends to put too much focus on the cost of things, rather than on the value of things.
Clause 8 really enshrines the fact that there is something beyond dollar-sign returns; it is an issue of public service. I think the Royal Society embodies that beautifully, as do the firefighters of this nation. If we have only a short-term focus, based upon profit, then I think we will see a continued falling away of the way our society holds together and operates. If we look at it in a business setting, a company that has a focus only on short-term profit will not be investing in research and development. That is the sort of research and development that members of the Royal Society often help drive, because they are not there for the short term; they are there for the long-term haul. They can often give their whole lives to the particular study of one small, unique subsection of the sciences—and soon the humanities. But that still makes a huge contribution, because sometimes those tiny little areas of research can lead to enormous quantum leaps for us as a society.
That is why enshrining in clause 8 the fact that the Royal Society is not centred upon profit or dividends to its members will encourage them to follow their natural creed, which is that they are there for public service, they are there to contribute to society, and they are there as members of the Royal Society because they want to do their utmost and best for the communities in which they live, for the professions in which they serve, and for the disciplines that they represent. I think that is important to be upheld by this clause.
KELVIN DAVIS (Labour) Link to this
Tēnā koe, Mr Chair . Kua roa ahau e ngaro atu ana ki tēnei Whare i te mea i te Raki ahau e whakataetae ana ki te tūru o Te Tai Tokerau engari, e pai ana ki te hoki mai. I runga i te tikanga o tēnei wiki, arā, te Wiki o te Reo Māori, ko te tino tūmanako ka taea e au te whakamāramatia ōku whakaaro e pā ana ki tēnei kaupapa i roto i tō tātou reo rangatira. Ka tū hoki ahau hei tauira mō rātou e kore e taea rātou i tupu ake pēnei i ahau, arā, horekau te reo Māori te reo tuatahi. E tū ana hei tauira mō rātou kia mōhiotia, e taea ana e tātou te kōrero mō ēnei kaupapa ahakoa te hōhonu me te whānui, he whakamāramatia atu ki te tini, ki te mano.
E mīharo hoki ana ahau ki te kaha o ōku hoa hei whakamāramatia ō rātou whakaaro e pā ana ki tēnei pire, me te hōhonu o ō rātou matatau, ō rātou mōhiotanga ki wēnei kaupapa. Ahakoa e roa ana e kōrero ana mō tēnei pire, he tohu tēnei e hāpai ana i te mana o tēnei rōpū arā te Royal Society of New Zealand. E tika ana kia kōrerohia wēnei kōrero e pā ana ki tēnei rōpū, me te whāititanga hoki kia kōrero pū ahau, kia hāngai atu ahau ki tēnei te wāhanga tuawaru e kōrero ana kia kore e riro e ngā mema o tēnei rōpū i ngā pūtea, i ngā moni rānei, mō ā rātou mahi. Nā reira, mihi kau ana ki a rātou e whakapau ana ō rātou kaha i roto i te ao tōrangapū, te ao pūtaiao, te ao hangarau, te ao e pā ana ki ngā tikanga tangata, rātou e mahi ana i ō rātou mahi hōhonu mō te kore utu. Kore rātou e whiwhi he paku aha mō ā rātou mahi, mihi kau ana ki a rātou.
Engari, tua atu i a rātou, ko te wāhanga rua me tesection 8(2)(a), ka hoatu he pūtea ki a rātou ngā kaimahi o te rōpū o te Royal Society of New Zealand. E tika ana kia utua rātou mō ā rātou mahi i a rātou e mahi ana hei whakatutuki ai i ngā wawata o te Royal Society of New Zealand. Nā reira, e tika ana tēnei i te mea mōhio ana a Aotearoa ko mātou te Rōpū Reipa te rōpū e ngākaunui ana ki ngā hiahia o ngā kaimahi. Nā reira e tika ana mō rātou kia riro ai he utu, he pūtea mō ā rātou mahi mō te Royal Society of New Zealand. E tika ana hoki kia whakahokia ngā pūtea kua whakapaungia e ngā kaimahi i a rātou e mahi ana, arā i te wāhanga 8(2)(c), “the payment of expenses incurred in the performance of office;”, e tika ana kia whakahokia ngā pūtea nā rātou i whakapaungia. He āhuatanga pai hoki, mō rātou kua whiwhi i ngā taonga i roto i te wāhanga 8(2)(d), rātou i whiwhi i ngā taonga mō ā rātou mahi. Nā rātou i tae ai, i whakatutuki ai i ngā āhuatanga e pā ana ki te rangahau o te pūtaiao me te hangarau. E pai ana mō rātou kia riro ai i a rātou he pūtea hoki. Nā reira e pā ana ki tēnei wāhanga tuawaru o tēnei pire, he wāhanga pai pērā i tōku hoamahi a Grant Robertson, i whakamāramatia ai. Nā reira mihi kau ana ki a ia mō tōna kaha ki te hāpai i tēnei pire.
[Thank you, Mr Chair. I have been away from this House a long time because I was in the far north contesting the Te Tai Tokerau seat. However, it is good to be back. Because of what this week means, being Māori Language Week, the real hope is that I will be able to express my thoughts on this matter in our revered language. I stand also as an example for them who grew up like me without the Māori language being my first language. I stand as an example to them so they know that it is possible for us to address these matters, despite their depth and breadth, and explain them as well to the masses.
I admire the efforts of my colleagues in explaining their thoughts on this bill, and the depth of their knowledge and understanding about these matters. While the debate on this bill has been lengthy, this signals that it is endorsing the status of this organisation, the Royal Society of New Zealand. It is right that comments about this organisation be made, but I must confine my comments directly to and focus on section 8 of the Royal Society of New Zealand Act, which states that members of the society cannot receive funding or money for their work. So I pay tribute to those people who worked hard in the political, scientific, technology, and humanities sectors, doing their work at great depth for nothing. They receive no financial rewards for their efforts, and therefore I truly acknowledge them.
But beyond them, there is section 8(2)(a), which provides funding to the staff of the Royal Society of New Zealand. It is right that they be paid for their work in fulfilling the goals of the Royal Society of New Zealand. This is right, because New Zealand knows that we of the Labour Party are the most committed to the needs of workers. It is right that they be paid for their work at the Royal Society of New Zealand. Workers should be reimbursed for what they spend while carrying out their duties, as in section 8(2)(c), which states “the payment of expenses incurred in the performance of office”. It is right that expenses incurred by them be reimbursed. Those who have received gifts, as provided for in section 8(2)(d), which relates to those who receive gifts for their work, have achieved and completed scientific and technological research. It is wonderful that they be paid, as well. As my colleague Grant Robertson said, section 8 is a good section. I acknowledge his efforts in promoting this bill. ]
It gives me great pleasure to return to the House after a 6-week absence while I was contesting, unsuccessfully, the seat of Te Tai Tokerau. Unlike my colleague Su’a William Sio, who today will have his first opportunity to speak on the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill, I spoke on this bill 6 weeks ago, and it is great to come back to the comfort of a bill that we have come to know and love so fondly. It is great to see that my colleagues are upholding democracy in this way. This is just a short continuation for the benefit of those who did not understand what I was saying earlier.
Briefly, in terms of honouring Te Wiki o Te Reo Māori, for people who are trying to learn to speak te reo, this is a good example of how second language learners like me are able to stand as an example and use te reo Māori to cover the breadth and depth of subjects. We should be able to speak te reo Māori regardless of what the topic is.
I also acknowledge those people who have expended a lot of energy for the Royal Society of New Zealand. They have achieved great things and have not asked for a cent in repayment. I just acknowledge them. It is wonderful that we have people working in the sciences, the technologies, and the humanities, who are able to expend their energy in areas and fields that they love for the benefit of New Zealanders and who do not expect a cent in return, although of course we in the Labour Party—the party of the workers—do agree with section 8(2)(a) of the Royal Society of New Zealand Act 1997, which states: “remuneration to employees of the Society … in return for services rendered …”. We believe that workers need to be paid justly, and congratulations go to the Royal Society of New Zealand on that. I refer also to section 8(2)(c) of that Act, which states: “the payment of expenses incurred in the performance of office;”, and section 8(2)(d), which states: “the grant of awards or prizes …”. People need to be acknowledged when they achieve great things in the sciences, the humanities, or the technologies. They receive prizes, and good on them for that.
As I said earlier, it is great to return to the House despite an unsuccessful campaign, but, of course, there is always 26 November. Kia ora.
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) Link to this
Tēnā koe, Mr Chairman Roy. I will pick up from where the previous speaker, Mr Davis, left off, because one of the important amendments that was made to the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill earlier on was to include te reo Māori as part of the interpretation of “humanities”. I thank Mr Grant Robertson for his explanation of some of the mechanisms by which members of the Royal Society could receive remuneration and I noted some of the awards that are available. Perhaps, one day, we will see someone receive an award for the work he or she is doing in the field of te reo Māori. I am not sure what research opportunities might be available, but certainly development of the language may be one. All languages develop over time. They are constantly changing and responding to the environment around them, and te reo Māori is no different in that regard. One might wonder what te reo Māori has to do with research and development, and I will get to that, Mr Chairman. I can see in your face that you are wondering where this is going, and I will get there shortly.
I was at a meeting last week in Palmerston North at the Bio Commerce Centre, which is a business incubator for innovative businesses. Many ideas come out of Massey University and the Crown research institutes in Palmerston North and the meeting was for entrepreneurs. It was an e2e meeting—an entrepreneur-to-entrepreneur meeting—and it was about sharing ideas. There was a presentation from one of the founders of Unlimited Realities, which is a Palmerston North company that employs about 70 people in Palmerston North and Wellington. It is a very innovative business and exactly the kind of business we want to see more of in New Zealand, and the presentation was made to a group of entrepreneurs. One of the people in the room wanted to start a business creating soft toys with a Māori cultural aspect to help young people in New Zealand to understand Māori culture and Māori mythology. The presenter actually said that this was really amazing. He said that part of what people are researching these days is how cultural capital can be included in new products, new design, and new ideas, and spoke about the fact that bringing that cultural capital of Māori mythology and Māori culture to something as simple as a soft toy instilled a lot more value into that object and was potentially a really profitable business. The presenter really encouraged that chap to continue with this idea and to try to take it further.
This is exactly an example, I think, of where the Royal Society might seek out someone who is researching Māori culture, or te reo Māori. It might look at the work that person is doing and see how that cultural capital might be invested into items that might prove to be profitable and that one could build a profitable business on. This is exactly the sort of thing that potentially could grow the New Zealand economy. So I think it was absolutely appropriate that Kelvin Davis used the Māori language in Te Wiki o Te Reo Māori to highlight an area that could have enormous growth. This could happen only in New Zealand; this is the really amazing thing about it, and I think it is something New Zealand does extremely well. Even in the area of tourism, which we know does not bring an awful lot of money into New Zealand per job—in productivity terms it is not the most productive enterprise, but it is an important part of our economy—there is an opportunity to research the ability to enhance the cultural aspects of tourism, and that is something New Zealand is absolutely at the forefront of. I could see members of the Royal Society doing this not for dividend or profit, of course, but, using their role in the Royal Society, to see how far they could take the use of cultural capital to enhance products in New Zealand.
COLIN KINGA party vote was called for on the question,
That the question be now put.
Ayes 73
Noes 43
Motion agreed to.
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) Link to this
Clause 9 of the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill amends the Royal Society of New Zealand Act around the questions of the Fellows of the Royal Society. It amends section 10 by omitting “Academy Council” in each place where it appears and substituting “Academy Executive Committee”, and also by omitting “science or technology” and substituting “science, technology, or the humanities”.
To take those two matters in reverse order, this particular part of the bill deals with parts of the Royal Society of New Zealand Act that talk about fellows. It is now worth doing a little bit of explanation of what it is to be a Fellow of the Royal Society. Mr Quinn earlier in the debate tried to suggest that perhaps he might be a Fellow of the Royal Society. I encourage members to listen to the description of what it is to be a Fellow of the Royal Society and to make up their own minds as to whether that is likely to be the case.
Fellowship of the Royal Society of New Zealand is an honour conferred for distinction in research or the advancement of science, technology, and now the humanities. Since its earliest days the Royal Society has made provision for there also to be honorary fellows from overseas institutions. I think we will come to discussing that in debate on clause 12, so I will not talk about those honorary fellows at this time. There are currently 366 Fellows of the Royal Society, and that, I think, says a lot about the esteem in which people who become fellows are held. It is not something that happens easily; it has to be based on a record of scholarship and of advancement of research in a way that is beyond the norm.
To anybody who is familiar with science in New Zealand—and I have here the names of the Fellows of the Royal Society—and works his or her way through the list of the Fellows of the Royal Society, it is clear that in section 9 we are talking about people of the highest achievement. Just looking here randomly, I see the name of Peter Barrett, who is from the school of earth sciences at Victoria University here in Wellington. He has been one of the people who have led, globally, the understanding of the Antarctic, and the understanding of the impact of climate change on the Antarctic. Peter has led global thinking on that issue. He has led a team of researchers from a number of academic institutions in New Zealand and overseas to understand Antarctica, and particularly the impact of climate change on the West Antarctic ice sheet, where there has been significant impact. Peter has largely moved on from full-time academic work now, but his work continues at Victoria University and I know that he continues to be involved in that issue.
Also among the Fellows of the Royal Society are people we might more traditionally associate with the humanities. They include James Belich from the Stout Research Centre, also here in Wellington at Victoria University. The Stout Research Centre, for colleagues who are not aware, is the research centre devoted to the study of New Zealand, essentially. It studies history, politics, and, in fact, the humanities. So there already are fellows who work within the humanities, and I am sure in future calls I can find my way back to the many people who have become Fellows of the Royal Society based on some excellent work. I note that there is a Fellow of the Royal Society named Alan Bollard, but it is not the Alan Bollard who is the Governor of the Reserve Bank, lest anyone be concerned about that. Clause 9 is about the fellows, and it brings the humanities within that.
In order to become a Fellow of the Royal Society, one has to be elected by an annual general meeting of the Royal Society, and that annual general meeting acts on the recommendation of the fellowship selection committee. Candidates get short-listed by fellowship selection panels from within each academic discipline. Through clause 9 we will be including the humanities as a new subpart of the selection of Fellows of the Royal Society. A process begins in December each year, so perhaps Mr Quinn could get application ready now. Ms Mackey looks alarmed—she has missed the earlier debate about Mr Quinn, who believed that he may have been a Fellow of the Royal Society. We have clarified that he definitely is not.
He proves it by his presence, I say to Mr Bridges. That is what he does.
The panels receive nomination documents, work through a short list, and then make that recommendation. It is rigorous. It takes the best part of a year for people to put their applications in and to be assessed by subject-related panels, who work their way through to deciding how many fellows will be put forward. There are currently 12 of those fellowship selection panels; I suspect there will be 13 once this bill goes through. The work of the fellowship selection committees is then approved by the academy executive committee.
That brings us back to clause 9(1), which changes the name of “Academy Council” to “Academy Executive Committee”. I appreciate that there is quite a long time between each time that we debate elements of this bill. Just to refresh members’ memories, I say that we are changing under this legislation the name of the academy council; it is now called the academy executive committee. In fact, we have already done so, under an earlier clause. The reason we are doing that is that there is something called the Royal Society of New Zealand Council, which is its overall governing body. To avoid confusion, what was called the academy council is now called the academy executive committee. Its job is the nuts and bolts of making sure the awards, the prizes, and the membership are undertaken. That is what the academy executive committee does.
The council is the governance body; the academy executive committee is really the administrative body, making sure that it goes through and does the things it does. It is populated by scientists. When the society is making decisions about who should get an award, and who should be a Fellow of the Royal Society, that is done by the academy executive committee, which is what was previously called the academy council. Here in clause 9(1) we are making that change in respect of the part of the Act that revolves around the creation of fellowships.
Each year in October the fellows have an annual general meeting, where they look at the list of recommended candidates, along with a brief citation. The academy then votes to elect the recommended candidates to fellowship. So there is actually a threefold process, starting out at the beginning with nominations, going to those discipline panels, and then a recommendation coming to the fellows’ annual general meeting via the academy executive committee. It is a rigorous process. People do not get to become Fellows of the Royal Society by accident. It is something to be proud of—
—and Paul Quinn, unfortunately, I suspect, will struggle, although he does have until December to pick up his game.
I will remind Mr Bridges of that, one day. Currently up to 12 fellows are elected annually, so that is the limitation: 12 fellows annually. One of the concerns raised at the Education and Science Committee by the Wellington branch of the Royal Society was whether bringing in the humanities, given that there are only 12 fellows in this example, could dilute or put pressure on the number of fellows. But as we have seen, there are already some fellows from the humanities area. In many ways, it makes it an even more exclusive club and the standard is even higher for becoming a Fellow of the Royal Society. To have only 300 or so of them at this time certainly recognises that level of excellence.
Nominations to the fellowship remain valid for 5 years. If someone is not successful the first time, their nomination stands for a 5-year period. Obviously, they will continue to develop their academic career at that time. After the 5 years elapses, there is a 3-year stand-down period. One is in the ballot for 5 years and if one is not successful after that time there is a 3-year stand-down period, then one can be put forward again after that point. I think that indicates that there is a very high standard for becoming a Fellow of the Royal Society.
Effectively, clause 9 puts in place the building blocks for having people from the humanities as fellows. We are changing the language from academy council to academy executive committee, then dropping in the humanities so that people from the humanities can now be part of the process for being a fellow.
The fellowship selection committee works closely with the academy executive committee, as in clause 9(1), and I am not aware of any major conflicts in the past with the Royal Society. Other members may be aware of that, but I think it is a process whereby the people who are already Fellows of the Royal Society help bring through new people. Under clause 9(2), those people will be able to be from the humanities. I think that a very important part of the Royal Society embracing its new broader mandate is to have people from the humanities reach the highest level of membership of the organisation, and that is to be a fellow of the society.
There are a number of other matters that I can come back to if need be in future calls as to the rules and fellowship by-laws, and I will be happy to do that if members wish.
Hon STEVE CHADWICK (Labour) Link to this
It is wonderful to be back debating the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill. I think that each time we come to the Chamber, we all learn so much more. I acknowledge the sponsor of the bill, Grant Robertson, who is in the chair. He has demonstrated an in-depth knowledge of, and passion for, this subject in bringing the bill to the Committee of the whole House again today.
I was a bit disappointed to hear a usually very reasonable colleague in Government, Louise Upston, calling out about how many women were there in the society. I am sure that the member for Taupō will be delighted that women can be fellows, too. She talked about equity issues. I do not think that is for politicians to decide. Members will be pleased to know that in clause 9 it is something that is left entirely to the academy executive committee. I am not sure whether the sponsor of the bill in the chair can clarify whether the academy executive committee does look at grounds of equity and at Māori representation, as well as an extension to include the humanities, which this bill proposes at the request of the Royal Society. But I daresay we will be revisiting this bill in the future and we may be asked to include something else.
I congratulate our colleague Te Ururoa Flavell on proposing an amendment that takes te reo Māori into account. I think that is a wonderful addition along with the humanities. When we know that we have Professor Belich contributing as a fellow, along with 366 other wonderful New Zealanders, we can see that perhaps there is a role for other fantastic New Zealanders to be considered by the Royal Society of New Zealand for the status of this honorary fellowship in the future, which is clarified in clause 9(1).
One of the issues that I do not know about, and perhaps the sponsor of the bill could clarify—and it is a serious issue—is whether these fellowships are ever awarded posthumously. I want to acknowledge seriously in the Chamber today the contribution of a wonderful gentleman who was buried today here in Wellington, and that is Dr Lindsay Haas. He was a world-renowned neurologist who has worked in the field of Guillain-Barré syndrome, which is a very obscure condition linked with eating contaminated chicken. We have some neurologists in this country who may never be nominated by the Royal Society to be recognised as a fellow. In our dealings with Dr Lindsay Haas he was a very compassionate, passionate, and humane New Zealander as a neurologist and as a leading expert in this field in the world. It would be wonderful if posthumous recognition by a fellowship could be considered. I seriously do not know whether that is part of the brief of the academy executive committee, which looks at the allocation of fellowships.
When we think that there are 366 fellows on the list that Mr Robertson referred to, we see that they are our iconic New Zealanders. Having known Dr Lindsay Haas as I did, and given the acknowledgments that came from neurologists all around the world today at his funeral service, I can tell members that he was a fairly fundamental Kiwi bloke with a new migrant family from Germany who settled here in New Zealand. I do not think he ever saw himself as needing or warranting the status of a fellow in order for him to contribute to the field of medical science, but sometimes these awards are acknowledged by their own contemporaries and by their own peers, and to become a Fellow of the Royal Society is the greatest recognition of their contribution to science in New Zealand. It is a privilege to acknowledge in the Chamber the contribution of Dr Lindsay Haas to New Zealand society and to medicine. He was the sort of practitioner who had a library around him in the Wellington school of medicine that other neurologists envied. He could pull out a research proposal and say that, actually—
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato) Link to this
I am happy to take a call on the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill and I commend Grant Robertson for the types of amendments that I think, had they been introduced some 30 years ago, would have seen some of the most esteemed Māori academics come through. I can fathom that probably out of the 366 current fellows, not 2 percent would be Māori. The reason is simply this: the entry point in terms of academic excellence and the recognition of that historically amongst Māori was really in the subject area of the humanities: our language, our art, our culture. Steve Chadwick prompted me to think about some of those early experts and academics, and if I were to cast my mind back they would be people like Te Rangi Hīroa—Sir Peter Buck—Maharaia Winiata, Māui Pōmare, who was a former member of this House and a doctor, and who, by the way, introduced the Tohunga Suppression Act, Hoani Waititi, who died before his time, Professor Kāwharu, and John Rangihau. Those are but some of the recognised leaders in our academic areas who have now passed on and who could have been recognised had an amendment like this been introduced. These days I think we have more contemporary figures like Mason Durie, Dr Linda Smith, and Patu Hōhepa, and there are many more.
I think this type of amendment makes way for recognised leaders and experts who are proficient in all manner of the humanities’ subject areas, but specifically there are a number of Māori who could certainly now be recognised as leaders in their field of study. I think we can embrace that as being very much a progressive move by the Royal Society. I have heard the Royal Society referred to as an old boys’ club that prides itself on its small membership and its patch protection. So I am pleased that a Labour member has sought to advance its interests in order to open up the field, so to speak, to be more inclusive in this area.
I should mention, by the way, that if there were posthumous recognition, certainly within my own tribe we would go no further than Pei Te Hurinui Jones, who made a huge contribution to the wealth of knowledge and retention of tribal histories, language, and culture within our own tribe. He was certainly recognised with the same regard with which the people of Ngāti Porou recognised the contribution of Apirana Ngata.
Clause 10, as Grant Robertson has clarified, opens up a process for recognising people’s contribution and expertise and appointing them. I have a question for Grant, in terms of promoting this clause: was it, in fact, intended that there could be an opportunity for posthumous recognition? If that was discussed when this bill was being put together with the Royal Society, could it be an opportunity to recognise posthumously those who were involved in the humanities? I think that becomes a question of some significance, because the Royal Society is moving with the times. It is certainly broadening the inclusion of subject areas in terms of their role with the society, and the society is recognising that more and more scholarship is being done in the area of the humanities, which will help our society overall.
I look at some of the previous awarding of scholarships in the areas of the improvement of teaching and the role of teachers in the classroom. I look at a number of funded scholarship projects at Waikato University. I know that the academics there have made a huge contribution to advance teaching practices in the classroom. In fact, Te Kotahitanga is but one of the current initiatives that have been promoted through Waikato University, and it has had a huge impact on improving the achievement levels of Māori within our schools, and within our mainstream schools in particular. Kia ora.
SU’A WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Māngere) Link to this
I acknowledge at the outset that Grant Robertson, the member in the chair, explained the meaning of “fellow”, because if a worker simply picked that term up and looked at it, it would not necessarily make any sense. It could be that fellow, this fellow, that big fellow, that skinny fellow, and that black fellow. So in hearing what the member has now said, I acknowledge the fact that it is a prestigious role, and that we are looking at the cream of the crop. But I wonder why the definition of “fellow” was not included in the bill, and whether that would not be an appropriate way of allowing people who are unfamiliar with the goings-on of a society like this to know what it really means. I would like the member to respond to that request, if that is possible.
The second thing is that I want to know from the member whether, by extending the subjects to include the humanities, he foresees that we will have an expanded membership of fellows. The member has said that there is a range of about 366 fellows, so what are the projections he foresees now, with the society’s expansion to include the humanities?
The other thing I am now curious about is whether we have ever appointed Pacific fellows to the society. It is a known fact that we are not getting enough young Pacific people into the sciences, so I wonder whether the member foresees that by including the humanities we will be able to acknowledge people who are doing research in those particular areas, and acknowledge the distinction of the work they will be involved in.
I acknowledge Māui Pōmare, whom Nanaia Mahuta mentioned earlier. Pacific communities know Māui Pōmare and the area from which he hails in Taranaki. It was Māui Pōmare who visited the Samoans who were imprisoned in Mt Eden by the Government of the day when the New Zealand administration was trying to quash the protest of Samoa mo Samoa, the Mau movement for independence. It was Māui Pōmare and another elder of that particular time whose name I cannot remember. I am pointing out to the member in the chair that there is a real need for including, or at least identifying and acknowledging, Pacific people, as well, who are showing distinction in their particular areas of research, and I am hopeful that by including the humanities we will see a broader range of people being eligible.
The other thing I want to ask the member is whether including the humanities—clause 9(2) omits “science or technology” and substitutes “science, technology, or the humanities”—includes research into languages. I want to point that out to Mr Chair, because he is looking at me quite evilly. We are celebrating te reo Māori this week, and we have a group of Pacific researchers and teachers who are protesting against the cuts by the Minister of Education to Pacific languages—cuts to the promotion of the five Pacific languages, and cuts to the Tupu and Folauga series. Would the humanities include those people who are researching and showing distinction in that area of Pacific languages? I think that is an important area for the future.
I will also ask about clause 9(1) which omits “Academy Council”—
Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY (Labour) Link to this
I will follow on from what my colleagues were saying in this debate on the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill regarding the membership of the Royal Society for minorities—Māoris, Pacific people, and also women. I think it is very important to see several things there. Historically, of course, the Royal Society was more science-based. It was scientists who were the members of the Royal Society, and again, historically, it was men—mainly European, and maybe some Asian men who had done advanced studies, had done PhDs, and had done some really well-known research. They became members, then Fellows of the Royal Society. Clearly, as we go through this bill, we have the humanities included, and I am quite sure we will have a lot more women coming through to become fellows—not just members, but fellows—of the society, as well as Māoris and Pasifika people. I am sure they will be coming through to become fellows.
H V Ross RobertsonDr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY Link to this
Yes, the Palagis are already there. There are 367 fellows, so there are probably plenty of them there, I tell Mr Ross Robertson.
This is an area that is very close to my heart, because while I was at Massey University researching into agricultural engineering, I was a member of a number of societies—the American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers, the Asian Association for Agricultural Engineering, and the International Soil Tillage Research Organisation. These were the associations and societies I was a member of. Of course, I never sought to become a fellow. The question was raised earlier. Normally to become a fellow, one has to be nominated by others—nominated by one’s peers. People instigate others and nominate people to become fellows. Of course, I never sought to become a fellow. I am quite sure I would have been a fellow of those societies if I was still researching there. But the good news is that I know my son will become a Fellow of the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons very shortly. He is now into vascular surgery, and I think next year he too will become a fellow of that college.
There are many societies that have different categories of membership. People become members, then they become fellows. Often, as I said earlier, one becomes a fellow when one is at the top of one’s profession. A person who has done a lot of research, published a lot of papers, and written books and had them published, can then become a fellow. I think it is very important to recognise, as we recognise the humanities, that as we get more members involved in the Royal Society, they also become Fellows of the Royal Society. With this amendment, I am quite sure we will have more women coming through and more Pasifika and Māori people coming through to become fellows. Historically, some of these people have not done a lot of science. We are very familiar from going through university that very few Māori students have studied science and technology. Also, in previous years there have not been many women studying those subjects. Of course, nowadays we have a lot more women studying the sciences.
In the medical profession there are a lot of surgeons and physicians who are fellows. Certainly there will be encouragement for those groups, which have never been part of the membership of the Royal Society, to come to the level of being fellows of the society. Clearly, a fellow of the society is a person who has achieved at the highest level and is recognised by their profession—not only by their peers, but also by their profession internationally. As I said, this is right across the various disciplines, including engineering and the sciences.
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) Link to this
It is perhaps time now to respond to the first tranche of questions from members on the issue of clause 9 and the changes we are making to who is made a fellow and to the committee that makes the final approval.
Firstly, I will answer one set of questions that Nanaia Mahuta asked. The number of fellows has been kept at 12 new fellows each year. In effect, by including the humanities but keeping the number of fellows at 12 we are raising the bar as to who can become a fellow. That is a decision that in time the Royal Society might decide to revisit, because there will now be a much wider pool of people who can potentially put themselves forward to be fellows. But for now the number is staying at 12.
Both Steve Chadwick and Nanaia Mahuta asked about posthumous fellowships. It is clear when we look at the key clause in the rules for becoming a fellow—I am reading from clause A6 of the academy council’s bylaws of June 2010—that “No person shall be nominated or elected as a Fellow unless he or she: i) is a citizen or permanent resident of New Zealand; and ii) has been a New Zealand resident for at least three years during his or her career; and iii) normally spends at least six months in New Zealand each year.” So it is quite clear that to be a fellow of the society one has to fulfil those criteria. Sadly, if one is deceased one is not able to do that.
However—and we come back to this in a later clause, so I do not want to go into too much detail now—the question of honorary fellows of the society is much more open. It is at the absolute discretion of what is now called the academy executive committee. I would presume from that, and from reading through the by-laws of the society that cover honorary fellows, that there is nothing that would exclude a posthumous awarding of a fellowship. I certainly agree with Nanaia Mahuta that a number of people could be put forward for that. One of the very positive changes made during this Committee stage debate that shows the value of an extensive Committee stage debate was Te Ururoa Flavell’s amendment that brought te reo Māori and Māori studies within the humanities. Should people want to go down the path of recognising people from disciplines that have not previously been part of the Royal Society, there may well be a way to do that via the honorary fellowship awards. So I do think it is possible.
But it is quite clear when one goes through the list of current Royal Society fellows that there are very, very few Māori. In fact, having just flicked through it now, and at the risk of what could be called racial profiling, and at the risk of missing out some Māori because I am not familiar with them, I see only one Māori fellow and he is Mason Durie. Mason Durie is an academic of significant scholarship and research, but nobody else on the list is identifiable to me as Māori. Things get worse when we head to the Pacific sector. I cannot identify any one on the list of fellows who has a Pacific background. Su’a William Sio asked about this, and I am sure that by including the humanities there will be a change. I think of someone like Albert Wendt, who quite clearly would be deserving of a fellowship. To pick someone out is perhaps a bit unfortunate, but I am sure there will be such people.
In terms of Dr Choudhary’s intervention, there are some fellows from ethnic communities in New Zealand. Manying Yip is in here, as is Dr Choudhary’s former colleague Harjinder Singh from the Riddet Institute at Massey University. There is some representation, but I do think it is quite clear that clause 9(1) will now broaden the range of people who are likely to become fellows, and that is a very, very good thing.
The question was asked about the kinds of people who are fellows of the society now, and I can think of one person who has graced this Chamber. Simon Upton is a Fellow of the Royal Society and a person with a broad range of scientific knowledge. He was a terrific science Minister. In another life I worked for Simon Upton as a foreign affairs official, and he brought an incredibly scientific brain to that job. He was the chair of the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development when I worked with him. The commission was charged with developing an oceans policy for the United Nations, and Simon Upton was able to bring his extensive scientific knowledge to the table to ensure that both a political approach and a scientific approach were taken. He is a Fellow of the Royal Society who already has a humanities part to his background. Simon Upton has extensive experience, and is now working at the OECD on sustainable development issues.
Another couple of people whom I have had the privilege of working with are also Fellows of the Royal Society and are covered by clause 9. One of those is Richie Poulton, who runs the multidisciplinary centre at Otago University. That is the centre that works with a cohort of people born in 1972 at Queen Mary Hospital in Dunedin. That longitudinal study has the highest retention rate in the world; 96 percent of the people who started in that longitudinal study in 1972 remain in it now. It is a remarkable study, which Richie Poulton, a fellow of the Royal Society, has led. It now has not only those people; of course, a lot of those people now have children. Those people are in their late 30s and their children are now part of the study. The centre has gone back and spoken to the parents of the people in the study, as well, so three generations are involved. The work that Richie Poulton is leading down there has a whole genetic basis to it. There is a lot of work on genetic make-up. An awful lot of the work has been used by the current Government and also by previous Governments on things like conduct disorder and being able to understand and predict some of the issues that children have in early life that may lead to problems in later life.
Richie Poulton is a Fellow of the Royal Society on the basis of that work, which is internationally renowned. That is the standard we are talking about. With only 360-odd fellows, we are talking about a certain standard of research and scholarship. I absolutely respect the comments and questions that colleagues have put to me about fellows coming from backgrounds other than the traditional European male background that dominates Royal Society fellowship. I am sure that as time passes and the number of people from Māori and Pacific backgrounds who participate in tertiary education increases, which it happily did under the Labour Government, we will see those people flow through into fellowship of the Royal Society.
I have just one more point in regard to the kinds of people who have membership of the Royal Society. They are people who are at the cutting edge. Recently in the Dominion Post some colleagues may have read about the work of a father and son combination. The father is Brian Robinson, and he has developed a wound healing gel. He began by working with people who had had nose reconstructions, and his wound healing gel makes wounds heal more quickly. It is non-invasive. There are no stitches; there is nothing like that. It has been developed by a father and son combination. Brian Robinson is a chemist. His son is a dentist, actually, and he has obviously used the gel within the dental area. Brian Robinson is a Fellow of the Royal Society. Just last week the work that they have been doing was patented, and it will now be taken on by American companies, I am quite sure. That is where a lot of the work in relation to leading edge science goes. So Fellows of the Royal Society are not just people from the past who have developed a scientific record and are now in some form of semi-retirement. They are people who are at the cutting edge of science. Brian Robinson is certainly one example of that kind of person.
To sum up those questions, I think it is sobering to look at the list of Fellows of the Royal Society, and, yes, it needs to be enhanced by greater representation from Māori and Pasifika communities, and other ethnic minorities, and also women. There are a number of women on the Royal Society fellows list, but the number is not in proportion to even the number of women academics, let alone the number of women in society. I think we respect those who are Fellows of the Royal Society, but we recognise that in clause 9 today we are beginning a process that will see an expansion of the number of people who can be part of that list, and also, perhaps, a change in the demographic of the people who can be part of it. I thank my colleagues for having raised those questions, because they are important. I think fellowship of the Royal Society, which is covered by clause 9, will continue to be the pinnacle of achievement for people in the science and technology areas, and now, happily, for those in the humanities areas, as well.
SUE MORONEY (Labour) Link to this
It is very humbling to rise to speak to clause 9 of the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill, and to hear about the fellows. It is very humbling indeed to hear about some of the work that those fellows have undertaken to reach this esteemed place within the Royal Society. I think the Royal Society must be thrilled to know that we are already up to clause 9, because, as we heard in question time today, its expectation in 2010 was that it might take 5 years to get this legislation through. The fact that we are here today, already up to clause 9, I think must show that we are galloping through, are we not?
I hope—I know, in fact—that the society is very pleased with the amount of debate on this bill. Just last evening I had the opportunity to host the Speaker’s Science Forum, which is held in conjunction with the Royal Society. As it was the last in the series in this parliamentary term, I had the opportunity to talk with the president of the Royal Society, Diane McCarthy. She said to me that they are so enjoying the debate happening in relation to this bill, because what she essentially said to me was that they do not feel as though they have had as much publicity in many, many years as has arisen from the debate on this bill. So I am pleased to be up to clause 9 already, talking about the fellows.
I have some further questions for the member in charge of this bill, Grant Robertson. When he talked to us about the process, I noted that the process by which fellows become Fellows of the Royal Society is very thorough and robust. My question is about the nomination process. We heard that people appear before a panel, which assesses the nominations. Once those nominations are accepted they stay viable, I guess would be the way I would put it, for a period of 5 years. That means, as I understand it, that if they are unsuccessful in being one of the 12 esteemed people accepted as fellows the following year, they can keep their nomination coming back for 5 years before it has to be withdrawn. Then there is a period—I guess a cooling-off period—before they can be nominated again.
As we have identified in the course of debating this clause, by including people from the discipline of the humanities among the group who can now be nominated to become fellows, will we create a logjam effect? What I mean by that is that there are people now who will have been nominated before this clause is changed, and they will not be from the humanities. Therefore, for another 4 years, I imagine, their names will continue to roll through this process. Does that mean that there are fewer opportunities for people who can be newly nominated because they are in the discipline of the humanities—to get their name in the pool, so to speak?
Maybe I am exposing my ignorance of this process, because I have just realised I am talking about pools as if we are talking about a game of soccer, or something like that. I am just trying to understand how quickly we expect that by amending clause 9 we will see the sort of diversity that I think certainly this side of the Chamber has expressed a very keen interest in seeing. We are hoping that with the inclusion of the humanities, by amending clause 9, we will see more women, more Māori, some Pasifika—by the sounds of it, it seems like we do not have any Pasifika people in that category at the moment—and people from other ethnicities becoming fellows. I think we on this side of the Chamber want to see that diversity that is represented in the great academic work undertaken in this country. We want to see that happen sooner rather than later. I suspect that the process of people’s nominations staying live, as it were, for 5 years will make that somewhat difficult. We will see that it might take longer than we would hope in amending this clause.
KELVIN DAVIS (Labour) Link to this
As Grant Robertson has already said, under section 10 of the Act “The Academy Council may from time to time, in accordance with the Academy bylaws, elect as a fellow any person who in the opinion of the Academy Council has achieved distinction in research or the advancement of science or technology.” So it was quite a surprise to all of us that Paul Quinn believed he had a case to answer in order to become a Fellow of the Royal Society. I guess he was confused from his form 2 science test—you know, magnets, rocky shores, and all that—when he got six out of 10. The teacher said “Well done, Paul.”, and I think he might have thought that it meant he had achieved some sort of distinction. As Grant Robertson said, he has time before November to get his application in. I believe they may still accept applications in crayon, so if he sharpens the point a bit, and forms his letters properly, he may be in. There is old Paul there, and he is a good fulla, I have to admit. But it is probably more the case that he is a good “fulla”. I think he thought this was about fullas, not fellows, so if he does not actually get in, he might be able to form his own “Fullas Society”.
It is interesting that in looking through the list of previous fellows and talking about Paul Quinn, immediately my eye went straight to the 2007 recipient Professor Richard Faull, who was recognised for his ground-breaking work in understanding the human brain. I immediately thought of Paul Quinn there. I think the difference between Richard Faull—who has studied the human brain and who has done some amazing work on the regeneration of the human brain—and Paul Quinn is that Paul Quinn thinks that the study of the brain is rolling his eyes to the back of his head and having a look, but he suffers from claustrophobia. When we go through the list of fellows there, we see some remarkable achievements by some remarkable people, and Richard Faull is one of those people. As I said, he has done some remarkable studies in the regeneration of the human brain, and it is that sort of high-level achievement that sets these people apart from ordinary, everyday scientists or researchers. They have made some huge advancements for people—for humanity. They need to be encouraged and recognised, and we need to celebrate the successes they have had. Such are the people that Grant Robertson was talking about: Brian Robinson and his son, with that gel that cures wounds. Is that it?
It is absolutely amazing stuff. That is why we really do need to invest in research and development. We should not be just relying on the work of the Royal Society of New Zealand to do amazing research and to develop amazing products, but also continuing to invest in research and development in many areas, because those are the sorts of products that will really progress New Zealand. An economist said that one entrepreneur—and I guess the people who can develop these products are very entrepreneurial—is worth a thousand farmers. If we have all these fellows who are generating this outstanding research and making these advancements for New Zealand and for the world, they need to be encouraged not just through the Royal Society of New Zealand but also through investment in the research and development funds that I know this current Government has in fact cut.
I agree entirely that there are not enough Māori or Pacific Islanders in the list. Certainly, as I scan down the list between 1991 and 2009, I see there are no women. That, to me, is a crying shame, because we know the contribution that women make to the sciences, the humanities, and technology. Women need to be recognised and encouraged, as well, for the outstanding work they do.
MELISSA LEEIAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) Link to this
I have been listening closely to the debate on clause 9 of the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill, which amends section 10 of the original Act. It refers to Fellows of the Royal Society of New Zealand. I have been listening intently as people have referred to different groups within society who we feel are underrepresented in the Fellows of the Royal Society. I share my colleagues’ hopes that those people might find they become better represented with this expansion into the humanities.
I would like to reflect on something we can all celebrate, and that is the representation of people from Palmerston North in the list of Fellows of the Royal Society of New Zealand. In a quick flick through the list on the Royal Society’s website, I found 27 people from Palmerston North. The population of Palmerston North is about 80,000 people, which is about 2 percent of New Zealand’s population. By my rough maths, 7.5 percent of the Fellows of the Royal Society of New Zealand are from Palmerston North. We are punching well above our weight and that is something to celebrate. I think it also reflects just how important research and development, science, and technology are to Palmerston North—
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY Link to this
It is something I like to celebrate wherever I go, I tell Mr Bridges. It is a very important part of the Palmerston North economy. Off the top of my head, I think of people like David Penny at the Allan Wilson centre for molecular ecology and evolution at Massey University, and I think of—
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY Link to this
I think of Mason Durie, the member is absolutely right. Mason Durie is someone who has achieved at a very high level and has become a Fellow of the Royal Society.
These names are just picked randomly. They are no more important or more significant than any other of the 27 names on the list. Brent Clothier is a soil scientist and environmental scientist. He is the leader of one of New Zealand’s major soil science research programmes, the Sustainable Land Use Research Initiative. His work is all about tracing the fate of water and chemicals in production systems and in the environment. That is such important work when we think about the impact of agriculture on our waterways. Again, this is a huge issue in the Manawatū, with the Manawatū River coming under a bit of fire for being one of the more polluted rivers in New Zealand, and the work that someone like Brent is doing to assist the agricultural sector in tracing those chemicals as they move through the environment and move through environmental systems is hugely important not only to our environment but also to our economy as we try to ensure that we maintain our “clean, green” brand internationally. Another person we could focus on is Bryce Buddle, who is at the Hopkirk Research Institute, I believe. His work is focused on immunology, microbiology, and applied science, covering a range of animal diseases. He has a very advanced understanding of livestock diseases, including mastitis in dairy cows, orf virus in sheep, pneumonia in sheep and goats, and yersiniosis—I think is the word—in deer. Of course, having a better understanding of all those diseases is, again, economically very, very important to New Zealand and to our agricultural sector. I could also talk about Dr John Caradus and his work on clover—in fact, internationally he is known as “Mr White Clover”. He is really right at the forefront of this research.
I suppose what this reflects is just how important the work of these fellows is, how important science, research, and development are to our agricultural sector, just how much agriculture has to gain from a much more concentrated focus on research and development, and how important better Government support for research and development would be to the work of those gentlemen I highlighted. I think one could highlight any number of people working in Palmerston North on research and development, which is so important to developing our agricultural products and developing the way in which we undertake agriculture in this country to improve our environmental impact.
SU’A WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Māngere) Link to this
I will try to not take my full time here. I think clause 9, “Fellows”, in the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill is really important, particularly because for me—and I speak for myself in this—this is the first time I am hearing about the work of the Royal Society of New Zealand. I would be interested to hear from the sponsor of this bill about the background of the fellows and how that name came to be. In this day and age, I would say it is a very male name. Why did they not call it “sheila”? I would be interested to know the background to how the society arrived at that particular award. I do not mean to diminish or undermine the value of the award. I recognise that it is a prestigious award and I recognise that it is probably at the same level as a Nobel Peace Prize, but I am interested to know from the sponsor of the bill the background of the particular name of “fellow” and how that has come to describe this particular award.
I would also like to hear from the sponsor—and I recognise what other speakers have said—about the low numbers of women, Māori, Pacific, and people of other ethnicities. I think it is important that the Royal Society works toward identifying and recognising the cream of the crop of researchers in these particular areas. Particularly as our nation moves forward, we need to hold them up as examples and as role models for the next generation that comes through. My question is: does the Royal Society have a plan for increasing, or at least generating, the competition out there so that we are seeing the cream of the crop coming through? I would not like to see the Royal Society follow the example of the National Government, which has no plan at all. That is why we are in the economic mess we are in at this particular time, and I do not want to see the Royal Society in a similar mess. I ask whether the Royal Society has a plan to promote that.
I come back to clause 9(1), which changes the name “Academy Council” to “Academy Executive Committee”. Will the changing of the name also change the status and the function of the council? Because I was not a member of the Education and Science Committee, which heard the submissions on this bill, I wonder what the submissions from the public said in reference to changing the name. Often when we change long-held names of societies such as the Royal Society of New Zealand that have a long history, I would suspect that there is a lot of reluctance to change. I would be interested to hear what the public have had to say.
For many working families throughout New Zealand, the work of the Royal Society of New Zealand is probably not well known. If we are to increase the number of people we identify and acknowledge as fellows, for the recognition of their work and for deserving to be held up as role models for the next generation, then the idea of having a specific plan to roll that out is really the key. As we all know, if there is no plan to make things happen, they do not happen, and we tend to then think that somebody will pluck an answer out of nothingness, as we have often heard from the other side of the Chamber.
The final matter that I raise is the cost of changing the name. What sort of impact will that have on the Royal Society? Noting that there is to be no dividend or profit for any of the members, I would be curious to know how the society will maintain its work, and, in particular, how one would be prepared to fund such a plan to promote the distinction of the work.
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) Link to this
I will speak very briefly, as I am conscious that other colleagues want to speak. Su’a William Sio asked about the origins of the term “fellow”, and using a research tool that the Royal Society may not approve of—Wikipedia—I am able to answer Su’a William Sio’s question.
The appointment of fellows was first authorised on 22 April 1663 by the original Royal Society in the United Kingdom. Originally, 94 fellows were appointed—perhaps not through the same process as that of the Royal Society of New Zealand—and another four were appointed a little later. They were known as the Original Fellows of the Royal Society. Interestingly, two-thirds of them were not scientists. Wikipedia speculates that one of the reasons for that was that the Royal Society needed money. It had no funding from the Crown and it needed money to operate, and that would appear to be the reason that those fellows were charged an entrance fee of £4 at the time. But over time, obviously, the nature of being a fellow changed in the United Kingdom, as it has in New Zealand, and the traditions about how one becomes a fellow have changed significantly.
Just while we are on the subject—because I think it is interesting to reflect on the importance of the Royal Society—I note that the Royal Society in the United Kingdom has only 1,300 fellows even today. So there are very, very few. The 300 New Zealand people can do the maths and work out that there are proportionately more here in New Zealand, but the Royal Society in the United Kingdom, from which the Royal Society of New Zealand came, is still a very exclusive club. The original members of that Royal Society included Christopher Wren and all sorts of people who were founding fathers of science. So the term “fellow” is certainly a historic one. I suspect it has been retained, despite gender connotations, because of that link to as far back as 1663. I thought I would clarify that matter for the member.
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) Link to this
The question is that the question be now put. Those of that opinion will say Aye—
I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I am sorry, Mr Chair, but I did want to raise the information that Mr Grant Robertson raised.
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) Link to this
No, I did not accept the member’s call. I accepted the call of the member over here, Mr Bridges, and that is the end of the matter. The Committee will decide whether the motion is agreed to and the question is put.
A party vote was called for on the question,
That the question be now put.
Ayes 74
Noes 42
Motion agreed to.
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) Link to this
Clause 10 brings us to another category of members of the Royal Society, and this time we move to the category of companions. This clause makes a reasonably substantial change to the current Act, so it is worth reflecting on that change in calls to come.
The class of membership called companions was introduced to the Royal Society of New Zealand Act only in 1997, which is the last time this House updated the Act in order to include social sciences in the ambit of the Royal Society. Companions are defined in the Act at the moment as “any person who, in the opinion of the Council, has achieved a high level of eminence in the promotion or encouragement of science or technology.” That is how the Act currently reads. So it is quite a different matter; it is a question of people whose responsibility is around the promotion and advancement of science and technology in New Zealand. As the Royal Society itself says, being a companion implies some level of responsibility and the people in question have responsibilities to promote and advance the society. Companions are expected, where they are able, to contribute to activities within the society and the wider community that foster a culture that is supportive of science and technology, promotes and advances science and technology, and enhances the awareness, knowledge, and understanding of science and technology in the New Zealand education system and in society generally. So companions are people whose responsibilities involve promoting science. They are not necessarily scientists themselves.
Clause 10 alters quite significantly the way in which the current section in the Act, section 12(1), reads. It does that by including the humanities, as has been done in other clauses, but also by rewording it to make it a little clearer as to what is being sought when somebody is elected as a Companion of the Royal Society. So to give people some examples of exactly what we mean by people who are involved in the promotion of science, I note that one such person who is a Companion of the Royal Society is Helen Anderson. Helen Anderson has recently finished as the chief executive of the Ministry of Science and Innovation. I had the privilege of working with Helen Anderson when she was a science adviser in the office of the Hon Pete Hodgson when he was the Minister of Research, Science and Technology. Helen Anderson is a person who does in fact have a scientific background, but the main part of her working life has been the promotion and advancement of science in her many roles in the Ministry of Research, Science and Technology, and most latterly in the role of chief executive of the new Ministry of Science and Innovation.
When the Committee rose we were discussing clause 10, which is about what happens with companions of the Royal Society, a class of membership of the Royal Society devoted to people who have achieved eminence in the promotion or encouragement of science and technology. With the change being made in clause 10 this will include people both in the science and technology area and also in the humanities. As we rose I was giving some examples to the Committee of the kinds of people who are companions of the Royal Society, to give the Committee an idea of the roles these people have played. This is different from pure scientists; these are people who have promoted and advanced science, particularly in education. We were discussing Helen Anderson, the recently finished chief executive of the Ministry of Science and Innovation; Margaret Austin, a former member of Parliament—
Chester BorrowsChester Borrows is right; she was a very nice person—that is what I am sure Mr Borrows just said. Margaret Austin has had a role in education and science, and she has been on the council of Lincoln University for a significant amount of time. Bob Brockie is a Companion of the Royal Society. Residents of Wellington will be very familiar with him from his writing in the Dominion Post on a regular basis on the subject of science and ethics. There are a number of people: Len Cook, the former Government Statistician, Jean Fleming from the Centre for Science Communication at Otago University and also—I think I am right—a member of the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification, as well.
The people who play a role in educating the public about science are the ones considered for the role of Companion of the Royal Society. I will name just one more person now. If people are interested, I am happy to talk further about other companions of the Royal Society. One person who has been made a Companion of the Royal Society is Kim Hill, the broadcaster. That is as a result of the work she has done in the area of science. A lot of that began with the conversations she had with Sir Paul Callaghan on her radio show. Those conversations were the way that a lot of New Zealanders became familiar with science and scientific concepts in a way that they could understand. Kim Hill has done a lot of work with the Royal Society over recent years in helping to promote science, so she is a Companion of the Royal Society.
Under clause 10, section 12 of the Act, which currently deals with companions, is being changed reasonably significantly. The main point is that section 12(1) states: “The Council may from time to time elect, as a Companion, any person who, in the opinion of the Council, has achieved a high level of eminence in the promotion or encouragement of science and technology.” That is now being replaced and changed, for two reasons. The first of those is to include the humanities, which is obviously the main purpose of the bill before us. The new section 12(1) will read: “The Council”—and the council being referred to is obviously the council of the Royal Society, the governing body of the Royal Society—“may from time to time elect, as a Companion, any person who, in the opinion of the Council has—(a) shown outstanding leadership in science, technology, or the humanities; or (b) made eminent or sustained contributions to the promotion and advancement in New Zealand of science, technology, or the humanities.”
So that clarifies what it is to be a Companion of the Royal Society, and that is to have shown leadership—and we have the example of Helen Anderson, who has shown a great deal of leadership in the science sector—or to have made sustained contributions to the promotion and advancement of science, technology, or the humanities, and I guess Kim Hill would fall into the latter category. Clause 10 makes a major change to the wording, but it actually clarifies the kinds of people who will become companions of the Royal Society. It is a status of membership that I think is important to the way in which science and scientists interact with the community.
In previous clauses we have been debating fellows. They are obviously Fellows of the Royal Society, as Kelvin Davis said, not to be confused with fellas, which was an important distinction for Mr Quinn. Fellows of the Royal Society are the most eminent scientists, social scientists, and practitioners in the humanities now. Companions of the Royal Society are people who are similarly eminent but are working in the promotion and advancement of science. So this was a very important change made in the 1997 version of this Act. That was when companions were created within the Act, so it was a reasonably recent change. The kinds of people who are companions is reflective of the important role that science has in our community, in education, and in the wider debate we have about issues like ethics and how science can advance not only the economic growth of New Zealand but also the social and environmental situation we find ourselves in.
I have taken a bit of time over this, but I think it is important to outline the way that companions are now to be recognised. Just so members know, there are some other references to companions in the Act. There is an amended section 12(1), inserted by clause 10. It is also noted in section 12(2) that “A Companion is entitled to use, in connection with his or her name, either—(a) the letters ‘CRSNZ’, which stand for Companion of the Royal Society of New Zealand; or (b) such other letters or title as is decided from time to time by the Council.” So companion is sufficiently important to be able to be used as letters after a name.
I think whenever people involved in the sciences and now the humanities see FRSNZ after a name they know that that means a Fellow of the Royal Society and a person of esteem in the science community. We now have an addition to that—the ability to say that a companion is somebody who has contributed to assisting people’s understanding of science in our community. I think that is excellent. Clause 10 clarifies who those people will be. That is something that all of us should be very pleased to support tonight.
CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) Link to this
I am happy to take my first call for the evening on clause 10 of the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill, which deals with—
Hon Dr Wayne MappThe first of many. I can assure the Minister there is plenty more to come. We are just getting started, we are just getting warmed up, we have not even cleared the vocal chords yet, and there is plenty more to come.
Clause 10 deals with Companions of the Royal Society. The member in the chair, Grant Robertson, raised Margaret Austin as an example of a Companion of the Royal Society. Members may be interested to know that the first time I had the opportunity to visit Parliament as a young person was at the invitation of Margaret Austin. It was at the invitation—
Now, now! It was at the invitation of Margaret Austin, who at that point had just left the Labour Party and was launching the education policies of the then United Party—the short-lived United Party. So I had that opportunity. It was my first chance to have a look around Parliament. I quite liked the look of the place so I came back. I just thought that little aside was interesting; the mention of Margaret Austin’s name made me think of it.
It is interesting that the member in the chair referred to the initials CRSNZ and FRSNZ as being letters that people could put beside their names. I think there is a bit of a problem with that, and it is a problem we have with our honours system—separate to this—as well. No one understands what half of the letters, initials, and things that people have these days actually mean. One of the arguments that members opposite used for reintroducing the knighthood was the fact that at least people knew what it meant. People could understand a “Sir” or a “Dame”, but they cannot necessarily understand all of these other letters we now have. That could be one of the reasons why many of the Companions or Fellows of the Royal Society now find that they have knighthoods or dame-hoods. I wonder whether some other knights, like Sir Paul Callaghan—whom admittedly I have not heard mentioned; I came in only after the dinner break—were companions or fellows. Is he a companion or a fellow? He is a fellow. Sir Peter Gluckman? He would be a fellow, as well. These are people who have achieved excellence in their fields. They do many of the things that a companion or a fellow of the Royal Society would be expected to do. But they have had that contribution recognised through another system that is probably more readily understood by people. I think one of the failures of the replacement for the knighthood and the dame-hood system was that nobody understood it. I do not think that bringing back knighthoods and dame-hoods was necessary, but we could have come up with something more readily understood by the public at large. So when I heard Grant Robertson talk about CRSNZ and FRSNZ, my concern with adopting that system—well, it is already there—would be that no one will understand it. It will probably not be widely used.
I turn now to a forensic examination of the clause in question, clause 10, which repeals section 12(1) of the principal Act and replaces it with new subsection (1). The subsection allows the council to elect, as a Companion of the Royal Society, people who, in the opinion of the council, have “(a) shown outstanding leadership in science, technology, or the humanities;”. I suspect that the major change there is the inclusion of the word “humanities”, but if we compare this clause with clause 11, for example, which simply adds “humanities” to the section about honorary members, we see there is a much more substantive change going on in clause 10. I wonder whether at some point in the evening the member in charge of the bill could give us an explanation as to why a more substantive change is required to clause 10, when that change does not appear to be required in clause 11, which deals with honorary members, or in fact even in clause 12, which deals with honorary fellows. The change to clause 10 could potentially make a more substantive change than the bill purports to make, which is simply to extend the coverage of the Royal Society to include the humanities.
New section 12(1)(b), substituted in clause 10, adds the additional criteria that in order for someone to be a companion, they have to have “made eminent or sustained contributions to the promotion and advancement in New Zealand of science, technology, or the humanities.” I think that is a really, really important point. The words “leadership” and “sustained contribution” are vitally important. It is all very well for the Royal Society to promote the advancement of the sciences, the humanities, technology, and so on, but the dissemination and adoption of that information, the putting of that scientific and academic discovery into a practical use or purpose, are also vitally important. One of the important roles of the companions is to ensure that the knowledge that is created is put to some good use. From my reading of this clause, I understand that a companion—and the member in the chair, Grant Robertson, may clarify this if I am wrong—does not necessarily need to be an academic expert in one of these fields. In fact, companions can contribute in a leadership role by promoting the work that other people do. One of the things that I have discovered, when popping in and out of academia from time to time—
—in my short, but distinguished, career—ha, ha—is that a number of academics, not to put too fine a point on it, are entirely incapable of communicating the work that they do. They have those magnificent minds and make those excellent discoveries, but are unable to communicate them to the public at large. [ Interruption] Well, I am not necessarily labelling scientists in their own category; a number of academics across the fields, including those of the humanities, seem unable to communicate the benefits of some of their academic advances. Therefore, having some more common people involved in the promotion of these—
Ha, ha! I know. It is good, eh? I am doing well. Those people can be quite beneficial. One of the important distinctions, then, is that the companion category creates an opportunity for other people to be recognised by the Royal Society for the contribution they make in showing leadership in science, technology, or the humanities. That may not necessarily be in making an academic contribution; it may well be in putting the results of academic inquiry into a more readily understandable form, or putting them to more practical use.
Overall, in summing up my contribution to this part of the debate, I am very interested to hear from the member in charge at some point in the course of the evening why this clause appears to be more substantive than the other clauses in this block of clauses dealing with amendments. I would like to be reassured that clause 10 does not go wider than the purported scope of the bill, which is simply to extend coverage to the humanities. The second point, with regard to that matter, is whether we may want to consider the nomenclature used to describe some of these people, and whether there is a more readily identifiable and communicative way that we can recognise people who are either Fellows, Companions, Honorary Members, or Honorary Fellows of the Royal Society
I do not know that we should use that particular description. I will leave my contribution at that, but I look forward to the continued debate on the remaining 13 clauses of this bill as the evening progresses. I am sure there will be a lively and sustained debate through the rest of the evening. Thank you.
JAMI-LEE ROSS
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) Link to this
Unlike my learned colleague Chris Hipkins, I cannot claim to have popped in and out of academia my entire life, and I suspect that my contribution may be a little more lowbrow than his, but, none the less, I hope I am able to add to this debate on clause 10 of the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill. The role of Companion of the Royal Society is a very important role. The Royal Society is, of course, to be commended for the recognition of those people who advance the cause of science and education in science—those who work with the public and carry out that function of almost being an intermediary between the general public and members of the academic community who work in the area of science, and now, of course, in the area of humanities when this bill is passed into law.
I take on board the concerns of my colleague Chris Hipkins about the awarding of titles, but I do think that under clause 10(1) of this particular bill the wording is appropriate. I myself am an ordinary member of the Royal Society and as such I have the right to vote, and to nominate Companions of the Royal Society. I suspect that when we come into this role in Parliament, it becomes more evident—
I am an ordinary member of the Royal Society, and very proud to be so. I note that when we extend the ambit of the Royal Society out to the humanities, Mr Hipkins himself may suddenly become eligible to also become an ordinary member of the Royal Society and enjoy being part of this amazing organisation whose history around the world goes back hundreds of years, and which has been responsible for the enlightenment of humankind. I strongly recommend to any of my colleagues who want to join the Royal Society that they should do so. It is an eminent and very worthy organisation.
In terms of the companions, as politicians we should know better than most the importance of communication around issues of science and issues of technology. We need think back no longer than the issue of genetic modification, and I think of the inability of politicians at that time to be able to grasp an issue that was incredibly divisive and inflamed passions on both sides of the debate. I hope we have learnt from that and realise that issues of science and technology will be commonplace in our country from now on. We will have to debate them as politicians. We do not necessarily need to understand them down to the same level that the practitioners do. But this is where the Companions of the Royal Society really do show their worth. I note there are relatively few Companions of the Royal Society, as opposed to other classes. I hope that over time, and as a result of this debate where we are discussing in detail the workings of this very important organisation, we can promote the role of companions—promote the role of those people who can be the intermediary between those who are carrying out the technology and those who ultimately want to feel safe that that technology is OK, and that it will not cause any damage. These people play an incredibly important role, and it is perhaps a role that has been undervalued in the past and a role that I hope will see more people introduced into this area of companions.
I remember that when we were in Government we set up the Science Media Centre, which ended up being tendered to the Royal Society, so the Royal Society carries out this role. The centre’s role is to act in the way that a companion of the Royal Society would act. Say if we want to get issues around science and technology out into the mass media, we have to appreciate that maybe those journalists who are running the stories might look at something and think: “That’s very complicated; it’s going to take me a lot of time to get my head around it—
Kris FaafoiI was not just looking at Kris Faafoi when I said that. Then they may go with another story. This unit has proactively gone out and told the media that when they want a story, they should go to the Science Media Centre and it will give them the people to contact. It will tell them who to get in touch with and give them all the background. That has worked very well. It has resulted in some of the daily news shows having a regular spot for science and technology because they know they can get that information. This is the kind of role Companions of the Royal Society carry out, and they should not be undervalued.
I look at some of the names of people who are on the list of Companions of the Royal Society and I see Mr Jim Salinger’s name. I want to talk more about him. He was the principal scientist at NIWA. He was the person whom Jim Hickey would go to on a regular basis. Jim Hickey would say what was happening and that he wanted to understand it more. He would ask Mr Salinger to tell him more about it, and Mr Salinger would provide that help. Unfortunately, a couple of years ago Mr Jim Salinger was dismissed from NIWA. It was a decision that I personally very, very strongly disagreed with. Mr Salinger was actually a member of a team that won a Nobel Prize. He is one of the few Nobel Prize - winning New Zealanders we have, and he won for his role in the science of climate change. He is incredibly well known on the international stage, and incredibly well respected. We were very lucky to have him as our principal scientist at NIWA and I personally very, very strongly disagreed with the terms of termination of his employment from NIWA. I registered my disappointment personally with the Minister of Science and Innovation at the time. I said that something needed to be done about this because Nobel Prize - winning scientists who are prepared to be principal scientists at our Crown research institutes do not come along every day. We cannot afford to burn them off because of what ended up being personality clashes and disagreements over things that I think, in the broader scale of things, were minute compared with the contribution he made to science in New Zealand.
Mr Jim Salinger is a very worthy Companion of the Royal Society of New Zealand. He has worked tirelessly, particularly with media outlets, to make sure that science was easily understood, and when one reads the reason why he was dismissed, it was for doing his job. It was because he had not sought approval from a manager to talk to a weatherman, even though NIWA had a relationship with the organisation concerned, and even though it had an agreement that he would do that. The weatherman rang him and asked him about something. He had a discussion with the weatherman and was then told it was not appropriate to do that without going through a manager. I think that that is bureaucracy gone mad. For a Government that says it hates bureaucracy, this Government did nothing to step in in the case of Jim Salinger to keep that Nobel Laureate in our Crown research institute.
The other person’s name I saw on the list is very interesting: Helen Hughes, a former Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment. I did not know she even existed until last week on Back Benches, when she opened a can of the proverbial on Peter Dunne regarding 1080. Helen Hughes, I have since learnt, is a formidable woman. She is an environmental champion from a long time back. She carried out the role of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment when it was not quite as high profile a role as it is now and, as anyone who watched Back Benches last week would have seen, she is a passionate advocate for the environment. She is pragmatic in the extreme when it comes to issues like 1080. I invite members to watch Back Benches from last week if they have any concerns about 1080 to hear what she said, which was pragmatic, which was true, and which was evidence-based. Helen Hughes, even just based on her performance last week on Back Benches, is the kind of person who well deserves to be a Companion of the Royal Society and who, under the amendment to section 12 of the Royal Society of New Zealand Act in clause 10 of this legislation, will be the kind of person who I hope we will see continually promoted.
Also I believe that Shaun Coffey, who is the chief executive of Industrial Research Ltd, is also a Companion of the Royal Society. I mention him—
—as long as he does not move to Auckland. I mention him specifically because I have been so impressed with the work that Industrial Research Ltd has done. I used to work on the Industrial Research Ltd campus when I worked for the Institute of Environmental Science and Research and then for AgriQuality. We were based on the same campus as Industrial Research Ltd. We all used to mix together and talk about what it was doing, and it really is at the cutting edge of science and technology. It is doing the stuff that Sir Paul Callaghan talks about, which is the stuff that perhaps not many of us know about, but will bring enormous wealth to this country. Again I urge the Government not to mess with Industrial Research Ltd and not to make ideological decisions about the future of that organisation. Again, Shaun Coffey is another person who has done a very good job. Industrial Research Ltd promoted the What’s Your Problem New Zealand? Competition, where it put up a prize and said it would invest in something. Scientists and innovators were asked to go out there and come back with what they thought would make money. The competition induced an enormous response from the scientific community and showed just how much potential is out there if we are able to properly invest in science and innovation. Industrial Research Ltd had the money to invest in only a very small proportion of the ideas that came through—
SHANE ARDERN
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) Link to this
It is my very great pleasure to take a call on clause 10 of the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill. This is my first contribution. I have been down here week after week trying to make a contribution, because this is one of the most exciting bills that I have ever seen come through this Parliament. I have never seen anything so well debated. It has been such an education for people like me who do not have any background in science or, actually, in academia. I congratulate the member in the chair, Grant Robertson, who has brought this bill forward. I congratulate him on his wonderful work, and I also congratulate all of my colleagues who have brought to New Zealand’s attention the whole debate about the importance of the Royal Society, which none of us knew about.
It is very enriching, that is right. I agree with my colleague Chris Hipkins. This has been a very educational debate, because, to be honest, I did not know much about the Royal Society. This is my working-class prejudice talking here, but for me anything called “royal” would have been something I did not know much about. I would have thought it did not apply to me because I am from a working-class background. It would have sounded like it was about those important people out there who have studied, worked hard, and done important stuff, but I did not get it because I come from a working-class background. I have always stood up for people who are at the bottom—the vulnerable workers, and the vulnerable people in society. However, this debate has stimulated my thinking, and I want to say that it is great that something like this exists.
The Royal Society started in, what was it, 1867, and I think King George is mentioned somewhere there, and now Queen Elizabeth. For those of us who have republican tendencies, that is always a little bit difficult, but I do think it is great that the pursuit of intellectual argument and debate—
Jo GoodhewI raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I raise this point of order reluctantly because I realise that this is an important debate for the members opposite, but I have not heard the word “companion” used once in this member’s speech, so I seriously doubt the relevance to this clause.
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) Link to this
I will uphold the point of order. The member must debate clause 10.
Thank you. I was getting there, Mr Chair, I assure you. I was talking about my history, my understanding, and my background, and I was thinking about clause 10 and companions. To me, as a working-class person, a companion is somebody who has been given a conferment by the Queen, which is something that is way, way above any of the associations that I have. It made me think quite a lot about this.
I know there is a whole process under clause 10. I have read the Royal Society of New Zealand website, which talks about the selection of companions. I do not want to denigrate them in any way because I think they are very, very important people. But I will say that I have never been a companion of anyone apart from my beloved partner—he would describe me as a companion—but I am a fellow. When I thought about it, I am a fellow—
—not a fella, but a fellow—of Trinity College London. I do not know how one becomes a companion of Trinity College London, but I am a fellow. I had to go quite a long way back into my history, and that is all to do with music, being a musical kind of person, and studying performance—I was good at that all those years ago. I do not think there was such a thing as a companion of Trinity College London, but when I looked back I thought that being a fellow of Trinity College London was quite a good thing to be, actually—I thought that was quite good.
I tend to think, and many other people tend to think, that these things do not matter—being a companion, being a fellow, or being an honorary member, which we will get on to in the next clause. But these things do matter, because they recognise that there are a whole lot of people in our society who contribute in a whole lot of areas. That is why I am really pleased that this whole bill has been about expanding the role of the Royal Society into the humanities, which goes into a whole range of areas, and maybe one day there will be a companion of trade union studies.
My colleague Sue Moroney talked about her qualification, and I have the same one, which is about trade union and labour studies. Maybe, in terms of expanding the humanities, there might be a companion of trade union and worker and labour studies; I think that is a very, very important part of our society. I think it is wonderful that clause 10 is recognising that the Royal Society—
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) Link to this
Clause 11 brings us to the question of honorary members, yet another form of membership of the Royal Society. Before I go into that, I will correct something that my very good colleague Moana Mackey said before, because she undersold herself—and it is unlike Moana Mackey to undersell herself. She is a person of—[ Interruption]; hear me out—great talent, and someone who should celebrate her achievements. She described herself as an ordinary member of the Royal Society of New Zealand, but, in fact, a brief check of the website of the Royal Society will reveal that Moana Mackey is in fact what is described as a professional member of the Royal Society of New Zealand. That is where a person who joins the Royal Society has their qualifications and professional experience recognised, and the Royal Society—
—I will come to that, I say to Mr Hipkins—then undertakes a process. When they assess that a person’s qualifications and professional experience are sufficiently good, they become a professional member and are entitled to have after their name the letters MRSNZ—Member of the Royal Society of New Zealand. So Moana Mackey is more than an ordinary member of the Royal Society, and I think the House should celebrate the fact that she is a professional member.
But clause 11 is not about either ordinary members or professional members; it is about honorary members of the Royal Society. I say to Ms Mackey that we have been celebrating her professional membership of the Royal Society.
Yes. It is a surprise to her that she is a professional member. It is something for the member to celebrate tonight.
That is right. Section 16 of the Royal Society of New Zealand Act covers who honorary members are, and section 16(1) tells us that “The Council may, from time to time, grant Honorary Membership of the Society to any Ordinary Member who, in the opinion of the Council, has rendered eminent service to science or technology, or to the Society.” Perhaps significantly, subsection (2) tells us that “Honorary Members are not required to pay any levies to the Society.” I think other members may wish to go into that a little more. But that is what describes an honorary member. In clause 11 we are making sure that people who have provided eminent service are not only those who provided that service to science and technology but also to the humanities.
It has been useful to work through the debate tonight on the different types of membership of the society—from fellows through to companions, and now on to honorary members—to recognise that the society has processes in place to enable special recognition of those who are eminent scientists, through the fellows, those who have contributed to the advancement and the knowledge of science, companions, and now those people who have chosen, as Moana Mackey noted before, as any of us could do, to join the Royal Society. If those members who have joined the Royal Society are people who have made a contribution or have been shown to be eminent in some way, then they are able to be described as an honorary member. I think this is an important additional class of membership within the Royal Society, because there are many, many members of the Royal Society, and those who are professional members, like Moana Mackey, and have made their contribution, can, in time, find themselves to be honorary members of the Royal Society. So clause 11 of the bill that is before us tonight—
[... plus a further 95 contributions not shown here]