Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill

GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) Link to this

I move, That the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill be now read a second time. The Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill is a private bill promoted by the Royal Society of New Zealand, which will amend the Royal Society of New Zealand Act. I am proud to bring it before the House as the local member for the electorate in which the Royal Society of New Zealand is housed. The Education and Science Committee has been considering the bill, and reported back to the House on 11 March. It recommended that the bill proceed with several amendments. I particularly thank the members of the Education and Science Committee for their hard work in looking at the bill, for understanding the submissions that came to the committee, and for making the amendments they have made.

The main purpose of this bill is to amend the Royal Society of New Zealand Act so as to incorporate humanities into the objects and functions of the society. This was based on a memorandum of understanding to incorporate the humanities into the society, which was signed by the society and the Council for the Humanities in February 2010. The bill expands the objects of the society to include the advancement and promotion in New Zealand of the humanities in addition to science and technology. The functions of the society will also be expanded to include functions relating to the humanities such as fostering in the New Zealand community a culture that supports the humanities, and encouraging, promoting, and recognising excellence in the humanities. The incorporation of the humanities into the objects and functions of the society will mean also that people involved in the humanities may be admitted as members of the society, and that people who have achieved distinction in research or the advancement of the humanities can be elected as fellows of the society. The society will also be required to establish and administer a code of professional standards and ethics in the humanities as it currently does in relation to science and technology.

The Education and Science Committee recommended a change to the definition of humanities in clause 5(2) of this bill, by omitting specific mentions of English and American studies. Members of the committee may choose to share with the House some of the logic in relation to that change. As I understand it, it is to do with duplication, in that English is dealt with under languages, and perhaps American studies is dealt with under cultural studies. Questions have been asked in the process of this bill about some other subject areas that are not mentioned under the definition of humanities. Although I retain an open mind, as the member sponsoring this bill, as to exactly how we should describe the humanities—and I am more than happy to talk to people as we move into the Committee stage about whether we have that definition right—it is important to note that, in addition to traditional science and technology, the social sciences are already part of the Royal Society’s work. I think social sciences will include a number of the disciplines people have been concerned about not being specifically mentioned in the list of humanities at the moment. It could, perhaps, include political science, and that is one example.

I am, as I said, more than happy as we move into the Committee stage to make sure we have a full consensus in the House about the way in which we describe the humanities in the bill. Most members of the House would acknowledge that when legislation has an exhaustive list of any particular thing under a definition, what is not there becomes a concern to people. The committee has done its best to come up with a coherent list, but we need to make sure we have consensus on that. We can talk about that as we go into the Committee stage if members of the Committee of the whole House would like to do that.

In the submission process of the select committee there was a submission from the Royal Society’s Wellington branch, and it is worth noting that the Royal Society’s Wellington branch expressed some concerns about bringing the humanities into the Royal Society. It is a good thing when bills are sent to select committees, which from time to time the current Government has not done, and this is an example of where even on a non-controversial bill there was some debate. It is important that we recognise the good faith of those people who make submissions and we can talk about the concerns over this bill now. The objections the Royal Society’s Wellington branch raised were essentially around its concern that by bringing the humanities into the objects and functions of the society there would be some dilution of the focus on science and technology. That is a concern that people who have been working in the framework of the Royal Society for many years may well have. There was concern from some branch members that the significance of science may reduce in the activities of the society. It is clear that the committee members have considered this and decided they are comfortable with where things have reached. Certainly members of the Royal Society itself feel that the process of making the decision was one that was taken seriously. The council of the Royal Society debated it thoroughly, and over quite a long period—a year or more—worked out how to make sure their incorporation of the humanities still allowed for sciences to flourish.

On a personal level, I think the incorporation of the humanities is very important, because if New Zealand really is going to grow its economy we need to bring together the innovation that comes from the humanities and social sciences and marry that up with hard-core sciences and technology. Sir Paul Callaghan, who spoke here recently at a Speakers’ Science Forum and who is a fellow of the Royal Society, spoke very much, as he has in the past, about the important issue of the merging together of the clever minds of New Zealanders—the people who brought us Weta Digital, and so on; the designers; and the people who can conceptualise design. Bringing those people together with the hard scientists is the way we will get innovation in our country. When we look at the objects of the Royal Society, as they currently stand, I think that idea is understood. Although I can appreciate that some people involved in the Royal Society may have concerns about the dilution of science and technology, I believe this bill will actually strengthen the Royal Society by bringing in humanities and by broadening out the objects and the functions of the society to take into account the humanities. It will actually start to bring together some of the synergies that have been mentioned.

I also note, because there was some concern in the Royal Society’s Wellington branch about whether there had been sufficient consultation on incorporating the humanities into the society, that the council of the Royal Society discussed this matter as far back as March 2009. Incorporation was discussed at the fellows’ AGM in November 2009, then found its way through by late November 2009 to be formally adopted, and by January 2010 to be announced. The memorandum of understanding between the Council for the Humanities and the Royal Society was signed on 9 February 2010. A process was gone through by which fellows and those involved in the Royal Society council were able to discuss this issue, and I think the decision taken was certainly the right one.

There is also a slight change being made by the select committee around the appointment of members to the academy council. The process of changing the academy council was one that, again, went through some significant discussion. It is important, obviously, when one changes the objects and functions of an organisation like the Royal Society that we are able to have the council operate in a way that goes along with those changes in the functions. But, again, in the interests of democracy it is worth noting that the fellows of the society had a vote on this and 97 of the fellows were in favour and just two against.

Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP (Minister of Science and Innovation) Link to this

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to take a brief call on the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill, and it will be relatively brief because it would be fair to say that Mr Robertson has canvassed all the issues that need to be canvassed.

I think it is important to emphasise that the change being sought was very much at the request of the Royal Society, which currently consists of the scientific and technological community. I would like the branches of the society to consider the implications of that. It was scientists and technologists who requested a broadening of their own scope and purposes to include the humanities. They recognised that the existing purposes of the society were simply too narrow, so they have incorporated the humanities. That lines up with the general view that prevailed in the funding arrangements for the Marsden Fund. Again, that was almost exclusively, prior to that, convened by the scientific community.

So this measure was, in effect, the scientific community reaching out to broaden the scope of research. It is not entirely surprising that that would be the case. In smaller nations, like New Zealand, royal societies tend to cover both science and the humanities. In larger nations, like the United Kingdom, it would, of course, be somewhat different. In our case it is necessary that the one society covers the full range of academic endeavour. So it was a somewhat unusual situation that the society, which is very significantly Government funded and, indeed, administers a number of Government funds, had to request its local member—its head office being based in Wellington Central—to advance a bill. But this is perhaps one of those occasions where it is quite a good thing that the public can see collaboration across the Parliament around a common cause.

DAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert) Link to this

As the Minister said, there is some agreement on the importance of science and innovation in our society. The question, as he quite rightly says, is the emphasis and how we go about it. I will get to that in a minute, but first I want to address the bill before us. What I did agree with the Minister on was that the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill was brought about by the Royal Society approaching Parliament. It did not come from Parliament; it was at the society’s request.

We need to remind ourselves that the Royal Society is one of the most pre-eminent, prestigious organisations that we have in New Zealand. It is a body of real academic learning and of excellence. It is something that we hold up as being at the top of the pyramid in terms of learning. I will give a couple of statistics to back that up. The Royal Society is independent, it is a national academy, and it has 1,200 members, 344 elected fellows, 10 regional branches, and 60 constituent scientific and technological societies. Nearly 20,000 scientists, technologists, and technicians are represented by the society. In other words, the society does a remarkable job. One of the things we have benefited from—and I note the chair of the Education and Science Committee is here—is the sponsoring and bringing of scientists to Parliament. This has been very well-attended by members of Parliament who have come along and listened to some of the more innovative science that is coming out of our institutions right across the board, be they Crown research institutes, universities, or the like.

This bill was given a pretty thorough reading by the Education and Science Committee. Although it appears uncontroversial, there were a number of submissions on it. The bulk of the submissions focused on the question of bringing the humanities into what they believed was a pure scientific organisation. The committee went through the bill quite carefully. We brought what is now the Ministry of Science and Innovation back twice to discuss some of the submissions, to make sure that they were given a fair reading, and I think we did that. At the end of the day, this is something that has been decided on by the Royal Society and I think we must respect its wishes.

I do not think—and we will get to this in the Committee stage, when we look at the bill more closely—that the various branches that are affiliated to the Royal Society have the constitutional ability to change what was the real wish of the Royal Society itself. As I said, we did look at changing a couple of the aspects of the bill—for example, to take out the clause on American studies and compress the definition of what constituted humanities. As my colleague Grant Robertson pointed out, this issue has gone through quite a large degree of consultation with the Royal Society. It was voted on back in 2009 and passed earlier last year, and it has come to the point where we can discuss it in the Committee of the whole House. I do not think there will be too many objections to what it says.

I want to touch on a couple of points mentioned by the Minister in his speech, as I do not feel I can let them go. I will not dispute the information from Statistics New Zealand, unlike the Prime Minister in his answers in question time today when he refuted what Statistics New Zealand was saying. There has been an increase in research and development take-up, particularly amongst our businesses. The real question for me, and I do not think the Minister actually answered this, is how much of that was due to his new initiatives—the various vouchers. As we have now waited nearly 2 years for these vouchers and transfers to take effect, there is no way that he can claim credit for those vouchers somehow lifting the amount of research and development spending by private firms by 10 percent. There is absolutely no way he can do so.

Let us look at this initiative, which was from 2008. We must remember that during most of 2008 we were under the much more visionary plan of having 15 percent tax credits on research and development spending. Most of that increase was due to the enthusiasm of those companies. They were incredibly enthusiastic about a 15 percent tax credit on their research and development spending. I will mention one company in particular—Gallagher Group in Hamilton—

ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tāmaki) Link to this

In the spirit of the rebuttal of debate, and not unmindful of the Deputy Speaker’s recent ruling, I will take a moment to remind the member who has just resumed his seat, David Shearer, of an Education and Science Committee hearing I attended as a regular member in the previous Parliament at which the then Minister of Research, Science and Technology, Mr Maharey, was most defensive about the spend on research in New Zealand. It would behove David Shearer to acknowledge that the party he now represents in Parliament and that he speaks for on science matters had every opportunity over 9 years to do what this Government has done in less than 3 years.

I had the privilege of chairing the Education and Science Committee that held hearings on the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill. They were constructive hearings. There was broad agreement across the committee and across the House that the bill should proceed. The bill has been introduced at the request of the Royal Society of New Zealand. There really is little more to be said without wasting the time of the House, other than to reiterate that the bill has wide support. I support the bill and I urge its speedy passage through its second reading.

DAVID CLENDON (Green) Link to this

Kia ora tātou. The Greens are pleased to continue to support the progress of the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill through the House—in part as a show of support for the organisation that the bill seeks to expand, strengthen, and deepen. The Royal Society of New Zealand has an honourable and long history of doing significant good work for this country, as it has done elsewhere, and I am pleased to be a member—albeit a rather inactive member—of the society.

I think the general level of support for the bill is given notice by the fact that it came through the select committee process virtually unscathed and with very little amendment, except for the proposal to drop from clause 5(2) the specific reference to American studies. Try as we might, we in the Education and Science Committee could not quite understand why American studies was so unique and different from other cultural studies, philosophy, law, or politics—or many of the other elements that collectively we call the humanities—that it should warrant its own statement and place in the bill. Perhaps those who speak American or spell American culture with a “k” could explain why American studies was included, but, frankly, it was unnecessary.

Putting that issue aside, I recall that in the first reading I reflected on my own academic history, having both an undergrad arts degree and a postgraduate science degree. It put me in a position perhaps to appreciate the significant value, and indeed the necessity, of bringing closer together those two sets of disciplines—science and the humanities—in terms of personal development and, critically, for economic development for the many aspirations this country has. We will be stronger for having an organisation that incorporates the humanities in it.

There are so many disciplines that are key to our well-being, particularly given that we are a country that still earns a great deal of its living from primary production and from attracting people to visit us in order to enjoy our very beautiful—still stunningly beautiful—but also very fragile and threatened natural world, our ecosystems, our environment, and our outdoors. The disciplines that are primarily responsible for the management of the underpinnings to our primary production and tourism are diverse and multiple. They include geography, resource management, ecosystem management, and some branches of ecology—and particularly human ecology—which are all by their very definition, and certainly by their practice, disciplines that require people who are able to absorb, comprehend, analyse, and, critically, utilise a very broad range of information and world views. Our Royal Society, which is central to the scientific effort in this country, amalgamating with the humanities can only strengthen that.

The best decisions in the multiple disciplines I mentioned that are all critically involved in land use, production, and environmental protection are made by people who are able to understand scientific data and information, even if those people are non-specialists, at least to absorb the key lessons that science can give to us. Those people can also grapple with—at least at a general level, again, if not at a specialist level—the considerable complexity of economic and social issues and the interactions between the economy as a set of social relationships and the broader set of social relationships that make up our communities and our country. It is important that people making key decisions understand that their world view is unique to them—and perhaps collectively to a group with a similar background, education, and life experience—but often different from, for example, indigenous perspectives or the perspectives or world views of other minority groups, to the degree that we can overcome the understanding between the dominant world view and another world view and make better-informed, better-quality decisions about the management of our productive sector and natural environment. Clearly, the Royal Society, as one of the considerable pools of collective wisdom that inform this ongoing debate and work, is a very valuable addition for humanities to come into.

In a more general view, in terms of the pursuit of science and the application of science in this country, I acknowledge that the Government has done some very useful work and made some very useful changes in the structure of research and development with the different models that now apply in terms of the Crown research institutes, funding, and research capability. Some useful changes have been made, but I do think there is still some way to go to get the optimum set of circumstances. As a country we are science poor. We do not attract, educate, graduate, and retain sufficient scientists, nor do we do so, increasingly, in the humanities. We are losing skills and knowledge rather than retaining or gaining them. Some policy settings could be improved to remedy that situation. In terms of science education, we can go right back to secondary school level.

I had the pleasure of attending ASB Polyfest last week, which was an extraordinary expression of our future, particularly in our very Polynesian Auckland City. In that context I had the opportunity to speak to some secondary school teachers, particularly science teachers. They had some very interesting views on the curriculum and on necessary changes to the curriculum. I sensed some frustration that perhaps the teachers are not being heard sufficiently about changes at that very important level—the secondary schooling of our potential science graduates—and that we are missing out. For example, nowhere in the curriculum is there adequate coverage or discussion of issues around climate change. In 2011 that is an extraordinary omission. Climate change is a reality; it is a scientific reality. It is also something that requires changes to human behaviour. So the combination of scientific effort, scientific application, and good understanding of how to motivate and affect human behaviour—to effect behavioural changes in people—is very critical to that. Some work is to be done at the secondary school level in terms of science education. At the tertiary level, we are clearly exporting scientists rather than exporting science, and that continues.

I make these comments, which are critical, in acknowledgment that I think there is some understanding of the problem within Government. But I urge the Government to move faster and to do more to ensure that we retain the scientific capacity that makes major contributions to building our society and economy and that we can continue to do so in the future.

I will touch very briefly on some of the issues that were raised by the previous speaker, Allan Peachey, about research and development. We know that members of the Royal Society have some quite strong views about the appropriate funding mechanisms both for public-good science and for private sector science. Some useful work is to be done. I think the current model is for Government support of private sector science. It is still expensive in terms of time. It is convoluted. It is difficult, particularly for smaller companies to come to grips with, and I think changes in the current model would have major economic benefits going into the future. Kia ora koutou.

Hon HEATHER ROY (ACT) Link to this

Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker.

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki) Link to this

Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker; kia ora tātou i tēnei pō. Ēhara i te mea he nui wāku kōrero mō te pire nei hoi anō, kai te whaiwhai haere i te āhuatanga o te kōrero ā wētahi atu. Mēnā he pono taku kōrero, ēhara i te mea he tino mōhio au ki ngā hōhonutanga o te Royal Society o Aotearoa, kāo. Kāre anō au kia rongo mō tērā rōpū i ngā tau kua hipa ake ahakoa, kai roto au i te ao o te mātauranga. Hoi anō i puta te ingoa nei i roto i ngā whiriwhiringa i ngā wiki kua hipa ake, nā runga i tērā i tū te Pāti Māori i tōna pānuitanga tuatahi ki te tautoko i te mōtini, kia whakatāpirihia atu tēnei mea te humanities ki roto i ngā whāinga me ngā whakahaere o te society .

I tēnei wā e rua pea waku kōrero ki a tātou o te Whare. Tuatahi, ko te wāhanga tuarima he take nui kai reira e pā ana ki ngā whakamārama. I titiro te Education and Science Committee ki tēnei o ngā pire, anā, hei tāna me whakaae ka tika, tukuna kia haere. Ēhara i te mea he nui ngā rerekētanga ki te whakamārama i tēnei mea te humanities. Hei tā tērā komiti, he whakaae kia paku rerekē te wāhi 5(2), ki te āta titiro i te hōhonutanga o ngā whakamārama o tēnei mea te humanities. Me ki kia ūkui i ngā kōrero mō te reo Pākehā me ngā whakaakoranga o Amerika, me pērā rawa te kōrero. I roto i te reo Pākehā, ko te reo English me te American studies. E ai ki tērā komiti, he moumou tāima noa iho te kōrero mō te reo Pākehā i te mea kai roto tērā i te whakamārama whānui mō ngā momo reo. He pērā anō hoki mō te American studiesi te mea, kai reira tonu te cultural studies. Nō reira, e ai ki tā te komiti i roto i tērā whiriwhiringa, moumou tāima noa iho te tīni haere i tērā wāhanga.

Hoi anō ko tāku, ko te titiro ki ngā kōrero a te tangata nei, a Hōri Jones. Ko ia tētahi tangata ki taku mōhio, he matatau te tangata nei mō ngā whakahaere o te rōpū nei i te mea, ko ia tētahi mema o te peka o Pōneke i ngā tau e whā tekau pea kua hipa ake. Ko tētahi wāhanga, me kī, tata ki te tekau tau, ko ia tērā te perehitini o tērā rōpū. Nō reira, he tangata mōhio nei ki ngā whakahaere o te rōpū. Hei tāna, ahakoa kua pā mai ngā tikanga o Amerika ki a tātou o Aotearoa, nui noa ake te pānga o ngā tikanga Māori ki a Aotearoa nō reira, hei tāna me tāpiri tēnei mea te whakaako o ngā mea Māori ki roto i tēnei mea te cultural studies. Nō reira, kai te tino whakaae atu te Pāti Māori ki tērā momo whakaaro, me te akiaki i te Minita ki te āta titiro ki tērā take.

Me te kī anō hoki me titiro pea tātou ki te whiti tuarua o te wāhanga tuarima, arā, te wāhi whakamārama. Kei wareware i a tātōu, ko te reo Māori he reo tūturu ā-ture nei ki Aotearoa. Kei wareware i a tātou, ko te Māori Language Act o te tau 1987 i a ia e whakatau ana nō hoki, ko te reo Māori, he reo tūturu ake o Aotearoa, he mea motuhake o Aotearoa tata ki te 25 o ngā tau kua hipa ake. Nō reira, ko tā mātou ko te kī atu, ko te reo Māori he reo tūturu ake ki Aotearoa, he reo o te tangata whenua, he taonga tonu e korowaitia ana i raro i te āhuatanga o te Tiriti o Waitangi. Kāore te reo Māori e rangona ana i wāhi kē, iwi kē i tua atu o Aotearoa, pūtake mai ki konei, kōrerotia ana i konei, kei konei anake te reo Māori e kōrerotia ana. Ēngari, ka eke ki te Royal Society of New Zealand Act 1997, he ture tērā i muri mai o te Māori Language Actēngari, kāre he paku kōrero o roto mō te āhuatanga o te reo Māori. Nā reira, ko tā mātou ko te whakatakoto i tētahi Supplementary Order Paperi te wā o te Komiti ki te kōkiri i tērā take. Nō reira, tērā take tērā.

Tuarua, kai te pīrangi au ki te whakatakoto i tetahi whakaaro e hāngai tonu ana ki te Tiriti o Waitangi. Ahakoa ngā tūtohutanga i te pānuitanga tuatahi, nāku tonu i kauhau ki roto i tēnei Whare, kāre he paku kōrero o roto mō te Tiriti o Waitangi i roto i ngā akiakinga, i ngā whakanuinga o ngā take taiao, me ngā take hangarau i Aotearoa nei. Karekau. Kua kaha tohe nei mātou o te Pāti Māori me whakauru i te Tiriti o Waitangi hai whakanui i te āhuatanga o ngā mea Māori ki roto i te ao pūtaiao, ki roto i ngā mahi hangarau kia taea ai e te motu te āta titiro i ngā mea e rua e kōrerohia ake nei, nā runga i te tirohanga Māori.

Nō reira, koi nei tā mātou e āki nei. Ki a mātou he pai kē me titiro pērā rawa nā runga i te mea, i te nuinga o te wā kāore ērā take e kōrerohia ana; arā, te tirohanga o te Ao Māori ki a ia anō ki tōna ao, ka mutu, te tirohanga o te motu ki taua Ao Māori. E hia kē nei ngā momo huarahi kai mua i te aroaro kia taea e tēnei pire te whakawhānui i tōna titiro. Kia titiro whānui tēnei pire ki te āhuatanga o te mātauranga Māori, otirā, ki te whakanui i tērā momo āhuatanga. Nō reira, ko tāku tērā pea, nā runga i te āhuatanga o te kōrero mō te rangatiratanga o roto i ngā mahi pūtaiao, o roto i ngā mahi rangahau, o roto i ngā mahi pāngarau, he ao anō tērā. Nō reira, ko tā mātou ko te kī atu kāti, me titiro ki te wāhanga o te tangata whenua, me titiro ki te wāhanga o te Tiriti o Waitangi i roto i tēnei momo whiriwhiringa.

Ka mutu, he nui ngā pātai hai whakatakoto ki mua i te aroaro o te Whare i tēnei wā ēngari ko te āki tuatahi, arā, kia hoki rā anō ki taku kōrero i te tuatahi, me titiro ki te āhuatanga o te reo Māori nā runga i tōna pūtaketanga mai i Aotearoa nei. Me titiro anō rā ki te Tiriti o Waitangi hei whakawhānui tonu i te titiro ki tēnei pire. Koi nei tā mātou e āki nei. Kei reira tonu ētahi whāinga matua o roto i te Ao Māori, arā, ko te mana whenua, ko te mana tupuna, ko te whakapapa, ēnei kōrero katoa, ko te kaitiakitanga, ka taea e wai rānei te titiro ki te hōhonutanga o ēnei kaupapa. Nō reira, kāre e nui ngā kōrero i tua atu o tērā, hoi nō ko te kī atu, āe, ā te wā o te Komiti ka whakatakotohia ētahi tāpiringa kōrero hai mea wānanga mā te Whare katoa kia taea e tātou te wetewete i ēnei take hai taua wā. Nō reira, kia ora tātou.

[Greetings to you, Mr Assistant Speaker, and to us this evening. It is not as though I have much to contribute to the debate on this bill, but I merely want to follow up aspects that others before me have commented on. To be honest, I do not have an in-depth knowledge of the Royal Society of New Zealand—none at all. In years past, I had not heard about that organisation, even though I was involved in the education sector. But the name of this society has emerged in the discussions during the past weeks, and as a consequence the Māori Party got up at the first reading of the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill to support the notion of incorporating the humanities into the objectives and functions of the society.

At this stage, I have two points, perhaps, to make in my address to us of the House. The first one relates to clause 5. It contains an important matter relating to definitions. The Education and Science Committee examined this bill and agreed emphatically that it be passed and be allowed to proceed. It is not as though many changes are required to define this thing called the humanities. The committee recommended that a minor change be made to clause 5(2), in respect of examining the depth of the definition of the humanities, and to omit references to English and American studies, or words of that effect in the English language. In the view of that committee, it is a waste of time to specify English, because it is already in the broad statement about language types. The same can be said about American studies, because it is already there in cultural studies. So, according to the committee in that discussion, it is a sheer waste of time to make those changes in that clause.

But I want to pick up on the advice from George Jones. He is a person who, to my knowledge, is reliably informed about the work of the society, having been a member of the Wellington branch for 45 years, including nearly a decade as the president of that organisation. Mr Jones noted that although America has had some influence on New Zealand culture, there has certainly been far more influence from Māori, and he suggested that Māori studies could therefore be added, in addition to cultural studies. The Māori Party fully endorses that kind of thinking, and urges the Minister to examine it more closely.

Perhaps we should look at subclause (2) of clause 5, the interpretation clause. We must not forget that the Māori Language Act 1987 declared te reo Māori as an official language—almost a quarter of a century ago. We advocate that te reo Māori is the foundation language of New Zealand, the ancestral language of the indigenous people, and one of the heirlooms guaranteed protection under the Treaty of Waitangi. It also provides this country with a unique language identity in the rest of the world, as this is the only place where Māori is spoken widely. Yet the Royal Society of New Zealand Act 1997—introduced some 10 years after the Māori Language Act—has not included this major development in its text. So we will be introducing a Supplementary Order Paper at the Committee stage to have it debated there. So that is that point, which I leave there.

Secondly, I want to put a thought before us that relates specifically to the Treaty of Waitangi. Despite recommendations in the first reading that were the focus of my address in this House, there is still no reference made to the critical role of the Treaty of Waitangi in the advancement and promotion of science and technology in New Zealand—not one mention. We of the Māori Party argued strongly that the Treaty of Waitangi be included to enhance things Māori in the domain of science and technology, enabling the nation to look critically at these two things being referred to, based on a Māori perspective.

So these are our urgings. We think that it is better to look at things that way, because most times those matters are never aired—the way Māoridom views the world, compared with his or her view of the world; and, eventually, the nation’s view compared with that of Māori. There are so many ways in which this bill could stretch its view. It could have taken a wider view towards aspects of Māori knowledge in terms of broadening that aspect. Perhaps that is just my take on things, based on the kind of talk about self-determination in relation to activities concerning science, research, and technology. That is another sphere. What we are saying is enough. Give due consideration to that which pertains to the indigenous people of the land and the Treaty of Waitangi in this part of the deliberations.

Further to that, we have many questions to put before the House at this time, but first I go all the way back to my first address and urge that the situation as it relates to the Māori language be considered, because it is the founding language of New Zealand. Consider the Treaty of Waitangi again as a means of broadening the outlook towards this bill. These, then, are our urgings. But there are so many other major things that Māoridom is striving for. Land control, ancestral control, genealogy, all these talks, guardianship—who can examine the depth of these matters? So there is not much more to add further, except to say, yes, at Committee stage we will be putting forward Supplementary Order Papers for the House as a whole to debate and unravel in the future. Greetings to us .]

COLIN KING (National—Kaikōura) Link to this

It is a pleasure to address the House during the second reading of the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill. When one does so, one does so with a level of confidence that there is universal support for the bill in the House.

We had 13 submissions. Six submitters asked to be heard. One thing that was interesting to the Education and Science Committee was the disconnect between the various provincial organisations of the Royal Society and the Royal Society itself over the constitution. I think that there is a better understanding now, if not an agreed position taken by the various provincial arms of the Royal Society.

The Royal Society has been going since 1867. As has been borne out, the amendment to clause 5 was the only substantive change that the committee recommended. In doing so it amends that clause by removing the words “English and other” and “and American studies” for obvious reasons, which will, no doubt, be drawn out in the Committee stage.

Other than that, this is very tidy legislation coming before the House. I have the pleasure of supporting the bill.

MOANA MACKEY (Labour) Link to this

I am happy to stand in support of the second reading of the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill. I am happy to do so both as a member of the Labour caucus and as a member of the Royal Society itself. I congratulate my colleague Grant Robertson, the member of Parliament for Wellington Central, on bringing this important legislation to the House.

The legislation marks an evolving of the Royal Society to include the humanities. That inclusion is not universally agreed with throughout the science sector, but it is an idea whose time has come, I think it is fair to say. The reality of the kind of multidisciplinary approach to research that is undertaken by not only our universities but also our Crown research institutes and private research institutes shows that it is getting more and more difficult to draw a line between true scientific endeavours and those that enter into the humanities. I think that inclusion of the humanities makes a lot of sense. Including and promoting research in the humanities as well as in what would be considered more pure science is something the Royal Society has been doing in practice for a while. So for that reason it makes sense that in many respects the legislation brings the Royal Society’s legislation into line with its actual practice in the current day.

Some questions were raised, I understand, at the Education and Science Committee, and there were some concerns from some branches of the Royal Society, about the level of consultation. I, as a member of the Royal Society, was consulted on the bill. I received my consultation pack and my voting papers in the mail. I thought the information provided was appropriate. The information provided was fulsome, and I was quite comfortable with the level of consultation provided by the Royal Society.

It is particularly important that we continue to support multidisciplinary approaches to research. There are some wonderful examples of multidisciplinary approaches going on around New Zealand. During the time of the previous Labour Government we started funding centres of research excellence that were based in universities, Crown research institutes, and private research institutes. Those centres really supported the notion of multidisciplinary research, which is what the Royal Society is reflecting here in the legislation.

A multidisciplinary approach draws together people from many different areas around a common focus in research. It may involve not just scientists but also economists, sociologists, lawyers, or any number of people who can all come together and work on a particular area of scientific research that is crucial for the economy of this country. That approach is something Labour very much supported when we were in Government. It makes sense that the Royal Society, which has also been supporting this multidisciplinary approach to research, also brings its own legislation and practices into line so that it is not stymied and so there are no barriers that in any way stop these different areas of the research community from collaborating as much and as fully as they possibly can.

Some of the multidisciplinary research that is going on around the country really is world class. I urge members of the House to take note of a lot of the research that is being done. I think one of the things we as parliamentarians should be able to do is say to the people who put us here that we do have regard for the research that is being done not only in New Zealand—particularly in New Zealand, where it is relevant to our own situation—but also around the world. Sometimes it concerns me—and I know that this concern came through in some of the submissions—that due consideration is not given to that research.

The multidisciplinary research that is being done at the Otago University has shown the absolutely important and crucial role that quality early childhood education can play in the long-term achievement of an individual. It is the first type of research of this kind that has been done around the world. It has shown very, very clearly that individuals who have gone through not just any kind of childcare but early childhood education that is good quality and specifically teacher-led can have far greater outcomes not just throughout the rest of their education but for the rest of their lives. That research is the kind of multidisciplinary research that needs to be taken into account by members of this House. We need to be able to say that we have regard to the research. If parliamentarians choose to ignore research, then that is their prerogative; they are elected to be here. But they should at least have to show regard to it, and they should at least have to be prepared to explain to people why they ignore the overwhelming research in a particular area when making policy decisions.

Labour has always been very supportive of this evidence-based approach to policy. I know that the Royal Society has also been particularly supportive of that approach in its work. Scientists and researchers across the board do not carry out research just for fun. They do not do it just for the hell of it. They do it because they want to contribute to the information out there, to the decision-making processes, to good-quality policy decisions, and to policy-making processes.

We have heard a lot of fine words in this debate. I welcome comments from all members in the debate on the legislation, but it has to go further than just voting in favour of the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill. It has to go much further than that. It has to go much further, and we have to be able to say as a Parliament that not only do we support the work the Royal Society does—its move to include humanities, and its move to support more multidisciplinary approaches to research—we are going to take regard of that research when it is completed, we are not going to ignore it, and if we believe the research is wrong, we will challenge it. We will give reasons why we are challenging it and why we do not believe that the research should be given due regard.

I can think of the example of boot camps. All the research told us they would not work. All the research said the participants had worse outcomes, not better, and that the camps create fitter, faster criminals. All the research about boot camps was very clear, yet a policy that disregarded the research was put in place.

A party runs on a policy platform and when it is in Government it has a mandate to bring policies into place, but the Government should have to explain to the public why it is ignoring every single piece of evidence out there and why it thinks the evidence is wrong and it is right. A lot of taxpayers’ money is being spent. The taxpayers of New Zealand deserve to know that their money is being well spent, that the research is not being ignored, and that the evidence is being listened to before money goes towards pet projects that are, frankly, doomed to failure before they even start and we flush $20 million of taxpayers’ money down the drain.

I hope that the fine words we have heard—

LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō) Link to this

I am very proud to speak in the second reading debate to support the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill. Some people will be a bit puzzled as to which legislation we are discussing in this debate. It is not contentious legislation, which some of those listening will be quite staggered to hear, but it makes a quite a simple change. All it is doing is putting into law what the Royal Society has already been doing in practice for the last 12 months, which is including the humanities in the work it does.

If we look at the preamble to the bill, we see that when the Royal Society was first set up, one of its purposes was the advancement and promotion of science and technology in New Zealand. I am a proud member of the National Government, which has a fine record in this area. Fantastic work has been done by the Minister of Science and Innovation, Dr Wayne Mapp, who is sitting behind me. I am very proud that this change to this legislation supports further work in science in this country. Thank you.

JO GOODHEW (National—Rangitata) Link to this

I rise to speak very briefly on the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill. I acknowledge the member Grant Robertson, who brought it to the House. As we know, the bill makes a fairly minor amendment, but it is actually a very big deal for the people who are involved in the Royal Society.

We have certainly heard that the consultation was far from perfect in the eyes of some of the members. However, it seems that the changes made at the request of the Royal Society are mainly minor. The inclusion of the humanities is an important step to take, and I believe that as this bill beds in, we will find over time that the concerns of some of the members are allayed as they better understand how the change can benefit the Royal Society in the future. I commend this bill to the House.

KELVIN DAVIS (Labour) Link to this

As Jo Goodhew has just said, the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill does mean a lot to the people of the Royal Society of New Zealand. Although only a word or so of the principal Act is being changed, the bill has huge implications, because the humanities are included in the objects and functions of the society.

We have the humanities sitting here, and science and technology sitting over there. I ask members to imagine a Venn diagram. I think the argument stems from whether science and the humanities overlap in a Venn diagram. I think it is really important, and I think Moana Mackey spelt things out quite articulately to be honest. A debate has gone on for a number of years about the merging of the humanities, the sciences, and technology. Because I am a new member to the Education and Science Committee, I missed out on the submissions. I personally was not fully aware of the Royal Society of New Zealand and what it does, so, like all good researchers, I googled it. The debate has gone on for some time. I came across The Two Cultures, an influential 1959 Rede Lecture. So the debate has gone on even since 1959. The lecture was by British scientist and novelist C P Snow, and its thesis was that “the breakdown of communication between ‘the two cultures’ of modern society, the sciences and the humanities, was a major hindrance to solving the world’s problems.” I find it quite amazing that people were thinking at that sort of level about the sciences and the humanities, and thinking that the breakdown of communication between them—calling them “the two cultures”—was a major hindrance to solving the world’s problems.

So what is science? I looked up a definition of science, and it stated science is “an enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the world.” An older and closely related meaning still in use today is that of Aristotle, for whom scientific knowledge was “a body of reliable knowledge that can be logically and rationally explained.” It is stating there that science is a body of knowledge that can be rationally and logically explained. Technology is “the usage and knowledge of tools, techniques, crafts, systems, or methods of organisation in order to solve a problem or serve some purpose. Technologies significantly affect human as well as other animal species’ ability to control and adapt to their natural environments.” I believe that science and technology are traditionally thought to be more closely related to each other than they are to the humanities. I know, from teaching technology at schools, that technology is the search for a solution to a problem or a need.

Then we come to humanities. “Humanities are the academic disciplines that study the human condition, using methods that are primarily analytical, critical, or speculative, as distinguished from the mainly empirical approaches of the natural science. Examples of the disciplines of the humanities are ancient and modern languages, literature, law, history, philosophy, religion, and visual and performing arts, including music and theatre. Additional subjects included in the humanities are technology, anthropology, area studies, communication studies, cultural studies, and linguistics, although these are also regarded as social sciences.” So the humanities look more at the human side of things—obviously, being “humanities”—compared with the sciences, which, as I said earlier, is a body of knowledge that can be logically and rationally explained.

The Royal Society does a lot of good in a lot of areas around research, the promotion of studies, and projects like that. When I was the principal at Kaitāia Intermediate School, a teacher at that school took a year’s leave with pay—paid for by the Royal Society—to undertake a study of Ninety Mile Beach and the effect of pingao, the native plant that is similar to a hard flax, on the sand dunes and erosion, and toheroa, would you believe. There is a belief that toheroa spawn attach themselves to the pingao. It was a year-long scientific study by this teacher, sponsored by the Royal Society. That is an illustration of the good work the society is doing. As I was going through the society’s website, I saw the number of ways that it supports and sponsors high school students on overseas trips to undertake higher study. The society supports all manner of research projects. I think it is important to raise this point for the people out there to whom this bill would not mean a lot. I think it is important that people hear and understand exactly the contribution that the Royal Society makes to New Zealand.

Section 5 of the Royal Society of New Zealand Act 1997 is one of the sections that is being changed. It states: “The object of the Society is the advancement and promotion of science and technology in New Zealand.” That is what the Act currently says. Section 5 is being amended, by clause 6, to state: “The object of the Society is the advancement and promotion in New Zealand of science, technology, and the humanities.”

I have explained what is involved in technology, science, and humanities. Sociology, which is one of the humanities, is the study of society. It is a social science—a term with which it is sometimes synonymous—that “uses various methods of empirical investigation and critical analysis to develop and refine a body of knowledge about human social activity, often with the goal of applying such knowledge to the pursuit of social welfare. Subject matter ranges from the micro level of agency and interaction, to the macro level of systems and social structures.” That is one of the fields of the humanities that has been brought into the amendment bill. Anthropology is another field of the humanities. It is the study of humanity, and it has origins in the natural sciences, the humanities, and the social sciences. Anthropology asks what defines humans, who the ancestors of modern humans are, what humans’ physical traits are, how humans behave, why there are variations and differences among different groups of humans, and how the evolutionary past of Homo sapiens has influenced its social organisation and culture.

That is just a broad outline for those people out there who are wondering what the Royal Society does and what this bill is about. We need to recognise the massive contribution the society makes to research and to education in New Zealand. Even though this is a non-controversial bill and it will probably slip through under most people’s radar, I think it is right that we take the time to talk about the great work the society is doing, the work that it has done, and, hopefully, the work that it will continue to do in New Zealand for many, many more years to come. Kia ora.