Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill

GRANT ROBERTSON Link to this

That is right. It is a timely bill, I say to Ms Dyson; it certainly is. I hope we will see colleagues from across the Chamber make a number of contributions throughout this debate, because this is an important issue. This bill is about the future advancement of education and science, and the humanities, right across our great nation. I think there will be a valuable contribution that members can make, as we work our way through the 23 clauses that lie before us—

GRANT ROBERTSON Link to this

—plus the preamble, which we are now debating.

As the Chair noted, we are debating the preamble, which sets out two things that I want to discuss in some depth. The first of those explains the Royal Society. It notes that the Royal Society is constituted under both the Royal Society of New Zealand Act 1965 and the Royal Society of New Zealand Act 1997, but that does not do justice to the history of the Royal Society. The Royal Society, in fact, began life in New Zealand in 1867.

GRANT ROBERTSON Link to this

I am not sure, but we will come back to that in a future call. I look behind me to find some officials but there are none, so, unfortunately, I will have to research that myself. But in 1867 the Royal Society of New Zealand came forward and began its life leading debate and discussion on the subject of science. So it is an organisation that I think many people here would be able to say quite clearly has benefited them as they have worked through complex issues and as they have dealt with the kinds of technological and scientific changes and advancements that we see in our society.

Recital (1) advises us about the Royal Society. The society itself has been operating since 1867. Its object is the advancement and promotion of science and technology in New Zealand, and it is indeed those objects that we will be changing as we work through this bill to bring in the humanities. But the Royal Society says on its website that it promotes science and technologies in schools, industry, and society; it administers funds for science and technology; it publishes science journals; it offers advice to Government; and it fosters international scientific contact and cooperation. So it covers the full gamut of activities in the sciences.

It is important, as we look at the preamble and at recital (1), to note that broadening the objects of the Royal Society to include humanities strengthens the role of the society. There have been some in the early stages of this debate who have had concerns about whether this represents some form of dilution. I do know, from talking to Fellows of the Royal Society, that in Britain this has not occurred. There are those in the Royal Academy of Arts who would like to see this occur, but it has not occurred because they are fighting, as one person said, against 400 years of history dividing the sciences from humanities. We do not have that burden here. We have the ability to bring this together. The bringing together of the sciences and humanities has occurred in Edinburgh, it has occurred in Ireland, and I think it has also occurred in Canada. I do believe that will strengthen the Royal Society of New Zealand.

So recital (1) gives us the legislative basis. The Royal Society of New Zealand Act 1997 is the basis of the discussion that we will be having this evening, and perhaps moving into other days in the House. I think it is worthwhile reflecting, as recital (1) does, on the Royal Society of New Zealand Act 1997. It was, I think, quite confusing for members in the earlier stages of this debate when there was quite an abstract discussion about what the humanities included. Later in the debate we will come to clause 5, to which there is an amendment in the name of Te Ururoa Flavell, which I am happy to support. But I do think that in the early stages of the debate about what the humanities actually are, there was some confusion. In particular I refer to section 2 of the Royal Society of New Zealand Act 1997, which describes what science and technology are, as the law stands today: “science and technology includes the applied, biological, earth, engineering, information, mathematical, medical, physical, social and technological sciences”. I do think that in the early stages of this debate people perhaps had what I would refer to as the hard sciences in mind when they were discussing the Royal Society.

GRANT ROBERTSON Link to this

There is nothing wrong with hard science; it is very important. But the social sciences are mentioned in that definition. Earlier in the debate when people were looking to describe science, I do not think there was an understanding that the social sciences were included. In fact, my colleague Moana Mackey rather cruelly referred to my own qualification in political science and suggested that it was not mentioned at all in the definition of humanities or in the definition currently in the Act. [ Interruption] But I can reassure Mr Ardern that in fact political science is a social science and is therefore included in the current definition of the sciences. So by bringing in the humanities we broaden it, but I did want to clear up any confusion about the status of, for instance, political science within this area.

I move to recital (2), which describes what the Royal Society is looking to do with this legislation. I think we can set out the framework of these things and then go into significantly more detail as we move through the relevant clauses. But looking at recital (2) we can see that the main thing the Royal Society wants to do is incorporate the discipline of humanities into its object and functions, and I did read out those objects and functions before. This has not happened just overnight, and I want to give credit to my colleague the Hon Pete Hodgson, who I am sure will make a contribution to this debate. He was the Minister of Research, Science and Technology who brought together the humanities and the sciences. He is the person who encouraged the Council for the Humanities to meet with the Royal Society and begin this process of bringing them together, and it is good that he can be in the Chamber tonight to speak to the preamble and to other clauses.

Recital (2)(b)—which perhaps might not get as much attention as we move through the bill; so I will talk a bit about it now—is the renaming of the Academy Council as the Academy Executive Committee. This is not something that will necessarily keep people awake at night in Chris Hipkins’ electorate of Rimutaka, but it is an important change. Effectively, the Academy Council is the governance body of the Royal Society, so it is the body that has responsibility for the overall running, as most boards do. It is a board that includes not only scientists, but it does include some scientists. It includes Garth Carnaby, who is currently also the president of the council. It includes Keith Hunter from Otago University, who is a member of the council, but it also includes outsiders. It includes, for instance, Phil O’Reilly from Business New Zealand. So that is the Academy Council.

GRANT ROBERTSON Link to this

That is right! Actually, I should say that that is the council of the Royal Society—the council includes those people. Recital 2(b) renames the Academy Council as the Academy Executive Committee. Now, that is a different body from the council of the society. That is the scientific body. It makes the awards of prizes. It gives advice to the Government about scientific issues. So perhaps I should restate that; I was not totally clear. What we have within the Royal Society is the council of the Royal Society, which is the governance body, and recital 2(b) renames the Academy Council as the Academy Executive Committee, to avoid any confusion. That Academy Executive Committee is the scientific body within the Royal Society. It makes the awards and ensures that policy is commented on and advised on.

The other parts of the preamble are: “(c) amend the standard for the election of Companions of the Society;”—and we can come back to that issue later on—“and (d) amend the election process for Councillors of the Society:”. As noted in the preamble, the objects of this Act cannot be achieved without legislation. In actual fact, the Royal Society is already operating with the humanities within it, but from a legislative point of view it is important that the changes are made lest any concerns be raised by those associated with the Royal Society that this legislation had not been passed and therefore they are acting outside their mandate.

I will come back to this in later contributions, but we did note in earlier parts of the debate that in fact some members of the society, some fellows of the society, are opposed to this move, and I want to acknowledge their concerns as we go through. But I think that in general most of us here would feel confident that the preamble outlines the important discussions we will have tonight. It incorporates some history about the Royal Society but it also tells us that bringing the humanities in, and the other changes, will lead to a stronger Royal Society. I think we will all benefit from that, and I hope to hear contributions from colleagues across the Chamber on this important bill and subject this evening.

Hon PETE HODGSON Link to this

It formed in 1867 and has been going ever since. I would not say it has been going strongly ever since. It has fluctuated over the years as its fortunes have ebbed and flowed, and its importance in society has fluctuated over the years. What happened, to cut a long story short, was that in the late 1980s the Lange - Palmer - Moore Government, which was doing all sorts of things in society and was going through a restructuring phase, restructured science. So the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research came up for disbandment. There are only three countries in the world that run science as per the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research model, and they are New Zealand, Australia, and South Africa—the southern hemisphere colonies of mother England. We took out the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research and in a bipartisan approach, which began under Tizard and Austin and finished under Minister Upton, we moved into Crown research institutes. That is where we are now.

While we were going through the stage of trying to create a bit of commercial drive on our science effort and trying to use a company model instead of a State department model in an effort to try to make sure that science moved more quickly into the community and was taken up in technology transfer, intellectual property, and that sort of thing, we were also starting to wonder what was going to happen to the Royal Society. We did not know for quite a long time. Finally, Minister Upton, in the mid-1990s, got his head around it and decided to do a bit of restructuring, and that is where the 1997 legislation came from. But, more important, we as a country, we as a Government, we the polity, if you will, started interacting with the Royal Society in a much more consistent and enriched way than we ever had. We had ignored each other until then.

These days, the Royal Society is involved in delivering a range of programmes for the Minister of the day—whatever they may be. Normally, the Royal Society does so extremely well. It gets involved in stuff on a one-off basis. I will give members an example: trying to work out how best to get the Performance-based Research Fund to work. The Royal Society was very, very helpful. They were not just a bunch of stuffed shirts who were conservative, bearded, greying—

Hon PETE HODGSON Link to this

—cardigan-wearing, hopelessly introverted scientists. That era has long past. It has long past, but it did exist. Upton’s changes and the changes made by subsequent Governments have now meant that the Royal Society is a vital part of the mechanism of government, as well as being the home of scientific method, scientific thought, rational thought, or whatever we may like to call it. Both of those functions—as an institution and as a deliverer of services to Government—are now put in place and are pretty well settled. The Royal Society is a good outfit, and it used not to be.

When we rejigged science, we did not know what to call the Ministry of Research, Science and Technology, so for almost 20 years we called it the Ministry of Research, Science and Technology rather than the Ministry of Science and Technology. We wanted to let people know that not all research was science and technology but some research was—gosh, what can we call it—scholarship. Then we would instance the humanities as an example. We took the sciences, and started with the hard sciences of physics or whatever it might be; headed off towards the biological sciences, which are the medium-soft sciences; then headed off to the very soft sciences, such as political science, but not as far as Scientology, which is not a science. If members want to know what a science is and what a science is not, I tell them that if it involves scientific method and trying to remove variables in order to better examine and observe things that have not been taken out, or the things that remain, then that is the essence of science. Scholarship—the study of a poet, for example—has nothing to do with that. There is a very clear difference between sciences in their various forms, and humanities.

In the case of the humanities, New Zealand has very little structure. We have a bunch of universities with humanities departments, which is where the professionals lie, where the PhDs are supervised, and where the humanities flourish, but beyond that we are not big enough to have this, that, or the other humanities societies. There are no great literary societies in New Zealand, for example. There are some music societies, but not many. There are some societies, but humanities in general struggle in a smaller country. For that reason, humanities are hard to organise. There is another reason, which is that humanities are often done by amateurs, by people who are retiring and writing a book about something that as likely as not is contributing to humanities. But they are doing so at their kitchen table, so they are not likely to be easily organised. For all of those reasons, the society of humanities has had difficulty getting off the ground.

When I was Minister of Research, Science and Technology between 1999 and 2005 I was repeatedly asked by humanities where their home was. We came to the view that we should test the Royal Society as a home. I stopped being the Minister in 2005, and they went off to begin what turned out to be a couple of years of discussion as to whether the humanities could be accommodated within the Royal Society structure. I returned to the portfolio for 1 year, in 2008, only to find that it was all done and dusted. That is where this legislation has come from. I pay tribute to the tenacity of the people who have been leading humanities in New Zealand. I will not bother naming them. Perhaps I should name Neville Jordan, who was president of the Royal Society at the time. He is the guy who in an earlier life started Marine Air Systems Technology and who, in my view, is the only serial entrepreneur in our New Zealand economic history so far. He is not a scientist; he is an engineer, a technologist. He said the Royal Society could accommodate humanities. He did not see how the Royal Society could exclude anything. The society certainly could not exclude him as president because he is an engineer. The senior staff in the Royal Society equally embraced the idea, and I acknowledge that. It is important to acknowledge that some people did not like it. It is important to try to understand that, too. In the event, having an academic home for humanities matters. That is why this legislation matters. I am delighted we are making some progress.

I will say one last thing about clause 1 before I resume my seat. We cannot count. The bill’s title is the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill 2010. We will have to amend that.

Hon PETE HODGSON Link to this

We will, will we? Can the member assure me that that is the case? Can it happen automatically? Perhaps, it can. I hope so. Thank you.

DAVID SHEARER Link to this

Possibly Aaron Gilmore. The other aspect of this debate is that restructuring is what Simon Upton did, and he did it to a particular end. We have had a little bit of discussion about restructuring over the last few weeks.

ALLAN PEACHEY Link to this

I point out to the chief Labour Party whip that whereas it takes some Opposition members 10 minutes to say what most of us could say in 2, I prefer to be one of those who can say what needs to be said in 2 minutes. I acknowledge the contribution that the previous speaker, David Shearer, made, and I recognise his acknowledgment of the work that the Education and Science Committee did on this bill. It was a very good process and he was a major contributor to it.

In a nutshell, this bill is before the Committee because the Royal Society—which is a fine, august body that has made a major contribution to intellectual thought and development in this country over a long, long time—wishes to extend its base beyond strictly the sciences to include the humanities. There is widespread support for that to happen. I think many of us acknowledge that the science community has a lot to offer the humanities, particularly in terms of the introduction of the scientific method of thinking, the gathering of research, the drawing of conclusions, and that sort of thing. If one were to criticise some of the quality of research in the humanities that has occurred in this country—and I think particularly of some of the work done in the education field—one could not avoid drawing the assumption that far too often the conclusion had determined what the inquiry would be, when it should, of course, be the other way round.

ALLAN PEACHEY Link to this

I thought we had an agreement that I would be listened to in silence—did I miss something there?

ALLAN PEACHEY Link to this

It is good that on a members’ night the Committee can enjoy itself and have a little bit of mutual fun across the floor. If members opposite did not all shout at once, I might be able to respond to them individually, but when half a dozen are coming at me I find it a little bit hard to cope.

I reinforce the view of members on this side of the Chamber that this legislation is supported. I urge members opposite not to spend all night debating it. I realise they have another agenda operating, but I ask that those members also be respectful of the Royal Society and its need to get this legislation through. I ask that it not be delayed because there is another agenda operating. Thank you.

CHARLES CHAUVEL Link to this

Well, all right, with the exception of Judith Collins—that is true. This Parliament was constituted only in 1865. That is the history of responsible democratic government in this country. One of the most respected institutions still in this nation dates from only 1865, yet here we have the Royal Society constituted in 1867 on a day yet to be revealed by the sponsor of the bill.

We owe the society the courtesy of carrying this legislation through the House, and we also owe it the duty of thoroughly debating the legislation and ensuring that it is properly understood by members. One of the things I will point out about the history of the society that has not yet been touched on in this debate is the fact that the society has its origins in the fact that New Zealand was a difficult place to get around in the years after the society was founded. In fact, the society was a federation of organisations. When it was put together in 1867 it was not called the Royal Society. It was called the New Zealand Institute. There is an interesting parallel to reflect upon, given that we have in the present day another research-based, evidence-based organisation that conducts research in order to reach conclusions on the basis of evidence that bears the name “New Zealand Institute”. That was the original name of the Royal Society when it was founded in 1867.

It was founded to coordinate the activities of different research organisations in the principal cities of New Zealand. There was the Auckland Institute, which was probably not in those days the premier scientific or research institute in the country, because Auckland was not then the major centre. There was the Wellington Philosophical Society, the Philosophical Institute of Canterbury, and the Otago Institute. One of the problems the country faced back in the latter part of the 19th century was that none of those individual research institutes had the resources to be able to coordinate their publication activity. They were not able to afford to publish the research they sponsored and undertook. So what lay behind the impetus for the creation of the New Zealand Institute—later the Royal Society—was a desire to make sure that there would be one sponsoring body to ensure the country could afford to collate and publish in one spot the scientific research that was being done in the new colony. The New Zealand Institute was set up, then, to remedy the lack of the existence of any such organisation, so that there could be published every year a single volume of transactions and proceedings on behalf of those institutions found in each of the major cities. I hope that description of the federative nature of the early institute—later the Royal Society—helps to explain a little bit of the background of what the House intends to do as far as the amendments to the Royal Society of New Zealand Act are concerned.

In terms of the provisions of recital (2) of the preamble, and as Allan Peachey said in his earlier contribution, the major thrust of this legislation is to allow the Royal Society of New Zealand to incorporate the discipline of humanities into its object and functions. There are some subsidiary parts of the legislation described in the preamble—

CHARLES CHAUVEL Link to this

When one considers recital (2)(a) of the preamble, and when one compares it with the current aims of the Royal Society of New Zealand, one can see why this legislation is necessary. The current aims of the society, as set out in the 1997 legislation, are, under section 6(a), “to foster in the New Zealand community a culture that supports science and technology, including … (i) the promotion of public awareness, knowledge, and understanding of science and technology; and (ii) the advancement of science and technology education:”. But the aims are also “(b) to encourage, promote, and recognise excellence in science and technology: (c) to provide an infrastructure and other support for the professional needs and development of scientists and technologists:”—an echo of the original purpose of the New Zealand Institute—and “(e) to provide expert advice on important public issues to the Government and the community:”

On that score I recall that the Royal New Zealand Society was one of the first scientific bodies to have made a definitive statement on climate change in New Zealand. On 10 July 2008 the Royal Society of New Zealand released a statement, which said in summary: “The globe is warming because of increasing greenhouse gas emissions. Measurements show that greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere are well above levels seen for many thousands of years. Further global climate changes are predicted, with impacts expected to become more costly as time progresses. Reducing future impacts of climate change will require substantial reductions of greenhouse gas emissions.” That was back in 1998, and it is evidence of the fulfilment of that very important third function of the Royal Society that I have just described.

Then there is the wrap-up provision as to its objects: “(f) to do all other lawful things which the Council considers conducive to the advancement and promotion of science and technology in New Zealand.”

The other thing that perhaps is not realised about the Royal Society is that it is a federation of bodies—I think 41 bodies at the moment, as things stand. I could read out the names of the 41 constituent organisations, because it would give the House a very accurate flavour of the preponderance of pure science influences on the Royal Society. But if one looks through the list of constituent organisations, one can see the importance of this bill and of the purposes set out in the preamble, particularly the one that was adverted to by Allan Peachey—the need to move humanities research into the organisation, and to see that that can be done appropriately. Amongst the pure science bodies that are already members of the society, there is the New Zealand Association for Research in Education, the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research, and other non - pure science bodies such as the Association of Social Anthropologists of Aotearoa/New Zealand and the Population Association of New Zealand. Obviously, it is the case already that non - pure science bodies have begun to seek and obtain membership of the Royal Society. Accordingly, it is entirely appropriate that the bill should pass in its current form, as reported back from the Education and Science Committee.

The preamble’s description of what the bill attempts to do, in particular to broaden out the aims and objectives of the society so as to incorporate those non - pure science organisations, and to allow them to function lawfully and appropriately as members of the Royal Society, is an absolutely proper thing to see, and for this House to promote. As Grant Robertson said in his sterling introductory contribution to this debate, none of this can be achieved without legislation. It would be a terrible thing if we were to put the Royal Society in the position of operating ultra vires its legislation. I commend the preamble to the Committee.

Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY Link to this

No, not a political scientist—a real scientist.

Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY Link to this

I will talk about that. I tell the member to just hold on a moment and give me time.

I had been doing science for about 26 years before I joined Parliament. I must confess that as a scientist, as I was trained, I always thought that scientists were creatures above everything else. They did science and never really thought about social sciences or humanities. I have to make that confession. I thought a scientist’s job was to create machinery, to design something that would be useful as an economic tool, and to create wealth, and all that. I never thought about the fact that it had social implications, particularly on humanity.

I was doing research on zero-tillage technology. I do not know if people are aware of it, but it is a technology that reduces the amount of tillage one needs to grow crops. The benefits of that technology were that people could save fuel on the farm, they could save labour, they could save energy, they could save fertiliser, and they could have benefits in terms of reducing climate change. There were a lot of benefits, but we never really thought about the social impact of that technology until about 15 years ago, when we did a survey among farmers. We asked the farmers who were using the technology what were the real benefits to them. The technology is now used worldwide. Out of all the countries, most farmers are using the technology for growing crops. I was in Western Australia recently, where zero-tillage technology has become a conventional technology. Farmers are really benefiting.

We did a survey at Massey University to find out what real impact the farmers felt from that technology. One of the top three impacts was that they had more time, and they could spend that time playing golf. I thought to myself after receiving this feedback that people do think about the social part of it. The impact is not just how beneficial the technology is in terms of saving fuel, saving fertiliser, growing more crops, and all that; it actually impacts on families. In that survey the farmers also suggested they could spend more time with their families—and they could get out and play some golf. From that point onward I started thinking about including the social sciences, the humanities part of the work, in my science.

We had a number of projects overseas in terms of NZAID, the United States Agency for International Development, and the United Nations Development Programme work that I have done over the years. From that point onward I have made sure that every project has a part in it that examined the impact on the social aspects of life, which is part of the humanities.

I am really delighted that this bill includes extending to the humanities the Royal Society’s role as a provider that helps science and technology. I am really pleased after 134 years of its existence that Mr Robertson has come up with this bill that includes extending the Royal Society’s function to include the humanities. I think it is very important to recognise, as Charles Chauvel suggested earlier, how many different organisations are working in the social arena that have never been considered to be a part of science work. I think those scientists, in my view, need to be recognised; they should be made honorary fellows or fellows of the society. They are no different from scientists and engineers. Those high achievers in their own fields should be given the opportunity.

MOANA MACKEY Link to this

It is a disconnect. The work asks where the disconnect is and where science is not taking people along with it, and vice versa. The Royal Society’s bringing together the two disciplines is another step along the path of recognising that the two cannot exist separately from each other.

I will go back to the discovery of New Zealand by the English. The Royal Society supported Captain Cook’s journey to the Pacific to observe the transit of Venus. The crew that was on board the Endeavour was very representative of what one would have seen in the Enlightenment. There was a variety of people in the crew, not just pure scientists. That was very much the way the Royal Society operated. It is nice to see that the Royal Society is going back to its roots in that respect and that it is valuing the work the humanities provides and the aspect it brings.

It is also very important for the humanities to be able to benefit, as Allan Peachey said, although I do notthink I would be quite so dismissive of the social scientists in the humanities as he is. It is very good also for the humanities to be able to benefit from scientific methods and scientific disciplines. That is an area where I think we could get more young people interested in science. Science is seen by a lot of students in schools as something they just do not want to do. There is a bit of stigma about science. Students either like science or they do not; it is not one of those grey areas. If we were able to introduce far more scientific methods and far more scientific disciplines into the everyday teaching of a lot of humanities subjects, which are popular with a number of students, then even if the students do not go on to do pure science qualifications, just the development of those skills and the ability to critically analyse information and data would be of enormous importance. Sometimes people who are doing a science degree do not realise the skills they pick up along the way in terms of the ability to read research.

As members of the House will know, we get sent endless amounts of research. I come back to what Allan Peachey said when he criticised a lot of the work that was being done in the education area. The way science works is not that we will only ever get one opinion because there is a right or a wrong. Science is about the reduction of doubt; it is not about the elimination of doubt. Maybe in the scientific community that fact has been dumbed down a little bit for public consumption in order to say that science can give an absolute answer of yes or no. Those who study science are taught that it is about the reduction of doubt and that there will always be competing interests and opinions. Those who study science put together those interests and opinions and look at the entire body of work.

I do not know what particular research Allan Peachey was talking about, but I know that some very, very good education research is going on. I know that it follows very, very strict scientific disciplines, in terms of the way the analysis is carried out. There is also some very bad research across the board in every single area. I have to say to those people who say that climate change is not real that some of that research is the dodgiest research I have ever read, in terms of following scientific discipline. The research is not peer reviewed because the researchers know it would not stand up to a peer review.

Maybe if we could get more of the scientific discipline taught through the humanities in our schools we would get critical thinking into a lot more of our young people, even if they do not go on to do pure science subjects. That is important, particularly, as one of my colleagues pointed out earlier, as we lose science advisers, who were critically important in terms of making sure that primary school teachers who did not have a background in science had access to the information they needed to be able to engage the youngsters who were interested in that area. We have lost those science advisers because the Government cut their funding in the Budget. They have gone. The Government said it might bring back science advisers next year. It is too late. They have gone overseas. The science advisers were people who were in very high demand around the world. They have now left. They have been picked up by other people. Our schools, and science in our schools, will be poorer for that. We do not need any kind of research to tell us that. We on this side of the Chamber know that the value those people added to science education in our schools was invaluable. It was one of the reasons why we do particularly well in science in international tests. It will be interesting to see how much that success continues with the national standards, because we have ascertained that national standards are not based on evidence, at all, but based on political rhetoric, which is one of the tragic things about politics.

GRANT ROBERTSON Link to this

Well, the problem, I say to Mr Power, is that I turned around and looked for my officials, but they were not there.

GRANT ROBERTSON Link to this

That is right, but we will resolve that issue before we complete our deliberations. I can tell members, from the research I have been doing in the meantime, that the Alexander Turnbull Library holds the transactions and proceedings of the Royal Society from 1868 to 1961, which is why I have been unable to discover what happened in 1867. That collection is obviously a rare collection. It includes statements and transactions from William Colenso, Ernest Rutherford, and Mr Hocken—a very esteemed group of people.

The two matters I will respond to are about the structure of the Royal Society. There has been some allusion during the debate to some organisations within the society that were perhaps not as happy as others about the changes being proposed in the bill, which are outlined in its preamble. I will briefly recap: the categories of membership of the society are set out in Section 9 of the Royal Society of New Zealand Act 1997, which is mentioned in the preamble. The highest level of membership is a fellowship of the Royal Society; at the time of the introduction of the bill there were 374 fellows and 56 honorary fellows. That is an esteemed form of membership of the organisation, and an important part of how the Royal Society operates.

Ordinary membership of the society is also open to anybody who thinks they can subscribe to the objectives of the society—which we have run through already—and who pays a fee. Ordinary members also have to have a university degree or 3 years’ professional experience within a field designated by the council of the society. So to be an ordinary member of the Royal Society one has to have either a degree or professional experience within a designated field of the society. There are approximately 1,200 ordinary members of the society, so that membership is quite a large part of the society.

I will respond specifically—with some noise on my right here—to the question of the regional constituent organisations. As my colleague Charles Chauvel mentioned, the original establishment of the Royal Society incorporated the four existing societies that were working in the area of science in New Zealand. One of the submissions that came to the select committee was from the Royal Society of New Zealand’s Wellington branch. The Wellington branch in its submission noted, I tell Mr Power, that it could in fact trace its history back to 1851. That obviously predates the Royal Society itself by some 16 years, so clearly one can understand why the Royal Society of New Zealand’s Wellington branch would be concerned about changes. I think it feels as a constituent organisation that it has been in existence longer than the overall organisation.

The Wellington branch put its concerns to the Education and Science Committee. Those concerns were largely about what it described as the potential for the dilution of the promotion and advancement of science, including the social sciences and technology, by the introduction of the humanities. It noted that its branch resources are quite stretched merely servicing the current objects of the society, let alone bringing in others. Obviously that is a philosophical difference, and the branch as a regional constituent organisation is part of the Royal Society but also has its own identity. I think it is important to note that that is a particular type of membership, and as we were going through the debate earlier on I think people were perhaps not as clear as they might have been about the fact that there are these different types of membership within the ruling body. [Interruption] I am glad I am holding the attention of Government members! It is important to know that the 1997 Act also had changes that the Wellington branch had some concerns about.

I will not take too much longer, but I will just refer to the other issue that the Wellington branch raised, which was the consultation undertaken in terms of the changes contained in this bill. I think it is important to note—and I also note Mr Peachey’s earlier comments in this regard—that this process has been under way for some time. It began in 2008 within the Royal Society, and, as I said in my earlier call, the society is now operating in close consultation with the humanities. So we in the Chamber today are not holding up the society’s actual work, but we are thoroughly debating an important issue.

The society’s concern was that there had not been sufficient consultation. However, within the submission made to the select committee by the Royal Society itself, it was noted that in March 2009 the Royal Society of New Zealand Council resolved to work with the Council for the Humanities. From there the matter went to The Academy, which, as we have already discussed, is the peak scientific body within the Royal Society, and which had a process of consultation. It went to a fellows’ AGM in November 2009, and was discussed by the honorary fellows as well. It then went back to the council on 26 November 2009. So there was quite a thorough consultation process. I understand that the Wellington branch was concerned by that, but I think the submission indicates that the branch should be satisfied. I just wanted to make reference to those two matters that had been raised by other members—about the structure of the society and, indeed, about the process that has been gone through to bring us to the stage where we are now. Thank you.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) Link to this

I am not saying that that was inappropriate. The member should not interject while I am speaking. What I will be doing now is requiring relevancy as we go through these 23 clauses.

Hon PETE HODGSON Link to this

There is a certain sort of cachet about that, which I do not personally pay a lot of attention to, but it is worth pointing out that it is called the Royal Society. If one goes to China, it is the Chinese Academy of Scientists. So they explain themselves using those words. They do not call themselves simply the Chinese Academy. I do not know what it is called in France, and we will not wander around the world on that matter, but it is important that in New Zealand, when we refer to the Royal Society, we are talking about higher learning.

The other point I wish to raise might seem pernickety but I wonder whether the member in the chair, Grant Robertson, could offer some assistance. It is in relation to the use of the term “Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill” as opposed to “The Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill”. This is not minor. The Royal Society is never called “Royal Society” until we make it a creature of legislation, in which case we change its name from “The Royal Society” to “Royal Society”. We did that in the 1960s, we did it in the 1990s, and we are doing it again now, and I wonder whether we should fix it.

Why is it that when we talk about the Royal Society in our ordinary daily lives and we know that we are referring to “the Royal Society”, being the society of sciences and now of humanities as well, that we will not find it under that language in the legislative index? We have to get rid of the “the” in order to find it, and we find it under “R”, not “T”. I do not know whether that is ideal. The member may want to reflect on that. I was never on the Education and Science Committee. I do not know whether it was raised at the select committee. I do think it would be inappropriate for me to put an amendment on the floor without a little bit of discussion backwards and forwards on it, but on the other hand I do not think it is trivial. We have listed it under the wrong letter of the alphabet. I think that “the Royal Society” has been and always will be something that begins with a “the”. Is it a participle? What is it? I have forgotten what part of speech it is. Perhaps someone in humanities could tell us what it is. I see that Mr Chairperson is reaching for his button. I wonder whether he is indicating that I need to sit down just yet.

Hon PETE HODGSON Link to this

I do not. Then let me probably sit down, anyway. Would that be a good idea, Mr Chairperson? We do not need to waste the time of the Committee, especially if my colleague is ready to offer his erudite remarks.

KEITH LOCKE Link to this

It is important, because this is where the contradiction is. If we tried to take out “Royal”, then we might not get Royal assent. The Queen or her designated person, the Governor-General, might say: “Well, I’m not going to sign off a bill”—and they do have reserve powers—“that is taking out ‘Royal’.” because it is undermining his very being as a representative of the Queen and undermining the Queen herself.

The other thing is that the concept of royalty is totally opposed to the concept behind the Royal Society, which is about achievement. It is not about inheriting a position in society or winning an honour, but actually achieving honour in cultural, scientific, or any of the other endeavours in the purposes of the Royal Society. So there is a big contradiction there. What I suggest, and I think it fits with the title and what we conceive of what the Royal Society should be doing, is that we should charge the Royal Society to use, in respect of royalty, its expertise in areas of science like genetics—because royalty is based on genetics and inheritance—or its expertise in the cultural field in philosophy of religion, because the monarch is the head of the Anglican Church, which creates problems in a multi-religious and multicultural society. If the Royal Society mobilised all its powers to analyse royalty, it might be able to be the author of its destruction, because with all its collective wisdom and expertise it would come out with such a strong argument against our continuing with royalty that it would have to be abolished. Unlike the bill I put forward previously, the Head of State Referenda Bill, any such bill would not go down by a few votes, with some members voting against it, but would get the support of the overwhelming majority of the House for a referendum on whether we should be a republic, because of the great work of the Royal Society in arguing the case for royalty not being continued. I think this is a serious matter.

There are also the questions about royal succession raised before by Brendon Burns, and they relate very much to the title of the bill, as well. I think we could take the initiative here and instead of New Zealand chairing the meeting that Brendon Burns referred to, we could bring a bill before this House to say that there should not be any preference for a male heir, that the heir should be able to marry a Catholic, and that the heir should be able to be a Catholic. One of the problems with any changes in Britain is, even if its citizens go for some bill that states the heir is allowed to marry a Catholic and a female heir equals a male heir, the British are still faced with the problem of wiping out the monarch as head of the Anglican Church. That is the big sticking point for them. The monarch is the head of the Anglican Church in Britain—not the Anglican Church worldwide. That is the big sticking point for the British in respect of moving to a Catholic king or queen, whereas in New Zealand we do not have that problem.

Also, we have something called the Human Rights Act, which would push us down the road of getting rid of any religious discrimination in any sense of the word, and also gender discrimination. We would also be motivated to remove ethnic or racial discrimination. It is very hard, given the inheritance line, for a Māori or an Indian New Zealander—whomever—to become the head of State in New Zealand, because the monarchy is very much a European line—

KEITH LOCKE Link to this

To talk to the expertise of the Royal Society in genetics, one of the things it could analyse is the gene pool of European monarchies, including—

SUE MORONEY Link to this

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson.

SUE MORONEY Link to this

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I am seeking your advice. I was responding to interjections from the—

SUE MORONEY Link to this

I will not be responding to any interjections, but I do invite members opposite to take a call if they have something to say. I would be really interested in listening to their contributions about the title of the bill.

I am not a person of the world of the Royal Society of New Zealand, so I do feel very humbled to be in the company of people like Moana Mackey who are members of the Royal Society of New Zealand. Also, I am very appreciative of listening to my colleague Pete Hodgson describing the reason why we call it the Royal Society of New Zealand.

I have to say that being on the Education and Science Committee and hearing the submissions on this bill left me feeling that I was a little out of my depth, because this is not the world I belong to. So the title of this bill did not mean an awful lot to me. “The Royal Society of what?”, I wondered, and I am sure that lots of other New Zealanders wonder what this Royal Society is.

It is interesting that the Royal Society, and we have discovered that this has traditionally been the case, has chosen not to describe what it is the Royal Society of. It is for those in the know—I think that is how Pete Hodgson put it—and I think that is a little sad. I am probably quite naive in terms of making this comment, but those of us who are not in the know would find it quite useful to know what it is the Royal Society of. Of course, this bill is expanding what it is officially the Royal Society of, and I think it would be useful to see that reflected in the title of the bill.

I do accept, however, that the member who brought the bill forward has adequately described that it is up to the Royal Society itself as to the title it gives to the bill. Obviously it is up to the Royal Society as to what it calls its own organisation. But it would be, I think, helpful to those of us who are lesser mortals to know what the Royal Society does.

In fact, it is a very, very impressive organisation, and certainly in the time I spent on the select committee listening to the submissions I grew to understand a great deal of what the society does. It does those things that are so important to the future of this country. It left me wondering, though: if the role of the Royal Society is as extensive as it is, then what is the role of the Chief Science Adviser to the Prime Minister? I think sometimes the Chief Science Adviser to the Prime Minister wonders what his role is, as well.

DAVID SHEARER Link to this

—and distinguished, as well—shows it is an organisation backed by history. It has a tradition, or a genealogy, if you like, in terms of the contribution it has made to New Zealand.

But the other word in the title is “Society”. This is not society as we know it; it is not society as generalised society in New Zealand. It is a society of the group of people who make up the Royal Society. I spoke earlier about who actually makes that up, and once again we come back to this idea that this is a society, a grouping of people. I think the word “society” is both poignant and traditional in this sense as well. It is a society of people, a group of people who get together in order to advance science in this country and, in effect, elsewhere. The society in this context is 20,000 scientists and technologists. It is not simply a small grouping of people; it is literally a society. So it is aptly named the Royal Society in the context of the title of this legislation.

Lastly, of course it is the Royal Society of New Zealand, because there is a Royal Society in the UK. Obviously, this ensures its specific nature as being the Royal Society of New Zealand. There are other Royal Societies across the world, and I mention that in the context of this bill, because the Royal Society of New Zealand is doing something that other Royal Societies have not done, or perhaps will not even dare to do. The society is advancing humanities and bringing humanities into a society that is ostensibly focused on the advancement of science and scientific thought, and using its scientific thought to the benefit of wider society, but particularly in New Zealand.

There is a strong traditional element in this. There is a strong ethos of that tradition being a proud, long tradition that is feeding into the future. It is a society that by its very nature is elitist. Scientists are not simply people who can walk in off the street; they are people who have undergone rigorous training, who have carried out research, and therefore they have had to earn their place in this grouping. That applies specifically to the more than 300 Fellows of the Royal Society, who are some of the best brains that we have in New Zealand. I believe that the Royal Society of New Zealand is an aptly named organisation.

CHRIS HIPKINS Link to this

I am very pleased to. I am quite looking forward to it, because, as I have said in the Committee before, commencement clauses are often underrated parts of legislation. In fact, their significance to the overall legislation is very, very important. I can see that members opposite are really excited to learn a little bit more about the significance of this clause.

Clause 2, on the surface, looks quite straightforward and simple. It states: “This Act comes into force on the day after the date on which it receives the Royal assent.” First up, that is slightly misleading because at the moment the legislation is not an Act; it is a bill. The bill, of course, could state: “This bill becomes an Act and comes into force on the day after the date on which it receives the Royal assent.”, but I think, by convention, as with so many things in this House, we use the word “Act” even though it is a bill. So much of what we do in the House, particularly when it comes to the process relating to the Royal assent, is based upon convention.

One thing that makes this bill interesting is that it is a private bill. It is not a Government bill and it is not a member’s bill. By convention, bills are given the Royal assent by the Governor-General on behalf of the head of State—in this case, the Queen—on the recommendation of the Prime Minister. Most legislation passed by the Parliament is Government legislation. The Government votes in favour of it. Under MMP, of course, we have minority government, and it is quite conceivable that a private bill or a member’s bill could be passed by the Parliament without the support of the Government. Yet the Prime Minister, of course, has to present to the head of State, or the Governor-General acting on behalf of the head of State, any legislation that needs to receive the Royal assent. The Prime Minister is obliged to do that by convention. By convention, the Governor-General, acting on behalf of the Queen as our head of State, is obliged to sign it.

But, as Keith Locke mentioned before, the Governor-General has a reserve power: the Royal assent can be refused. There is no specificity about when this bill will actually become law, because it will become law on the day after the date on which it receives the Royal assent. Of course, that assumes that Parliament will pass it and that the Prime Minister will present it to the Governor-General. We do not know how long it will be between Parliament passing it and the Prime Minister presenting it to the Governor-General. The Governor-General could withhold the Royal assent, and therefore the bill would not become law. There are no criteria in our constitutional framework for the Governor-General to withhold the Royal assent, and Parliament could do nothing about it if the Governor-General decided to do that.

Provisions in the constitutions of other countries that have similar clauses in their legislation allow them ways around a refusal to grant the Royal assent. For example—and I think this example is quite fascinating—the Belgian Parliament passed legislation and presented it to the King for the Royal assent. It was legislation to do with abortion. The King said he was morally offended by it and opposed to it, and therefore he refused to give the Royal assent. The Parliament—this is a fascinating piece of constitutional history—decided it would use a clause in its constitutional framework that allowed it to deem the King unable to execute the duties of his office, and therefore he was effectively removed as King for 1 day. If that happens, the Prime Minister can then sign the legislation and it becomes law. So Cabinet—all the Ministers—signed a letter saying they thought that the King was unable to execute his duties on that day. The Prime Minister signed the law and the next day it became the law, even though the King had refused to give the Royal assent. In New Zealand we do not have a similar provision.

The reason that situation was particularly interesting in Belgium was that that clause was designed for the possibility that the King could go mad. It was never designed to be used for just 1 day if the King did not agree with Parliament, or if Parliament did not agree with his withholding the Royal assent. It was not designed for him to be removed for 1 day, for the signing of one piece of legislation, and for the situation to then go back to normal. It was designed for the possibility of the King going mad, basically.

Of course, that situation has happened before. We need only look at the history books—and this is quite relevant to a bill to do with the Royal Society, one would think. It is quite conceivable that the head of State could go mad and refuse to give the Royal assent to this legislation, and there is not a thing that this Parliament could do about it. We do not have a provision, as they do in Belgium, whereby all the Ministers can sign a letter, remove the monarch for the duration of passing that particular legislation, and sign it off so it becomes law. Thankfully, there are very, very few instances where the head of State—the King or Queen—has refused to give the Royal assent to legislation in New Zealand. I am not aware of any, but somebody may want to correct me. I am aware that there was one instance in Australia where it did happen, rather controversially, but I do not think the Royal assent has ever been refused in New Zealand.

The point all this comes back to is that the convention we use in this House—and the wording is pretty much the same in most bills passed by this House—is that a bill comes into force on the day after the date on which it receives the Royal assent. It does not give any assurance or any certainty to anyone as to when a particular bill will become law. We might want to think about that in the review of our constitutional arrangements going on at the moment. We might want to think a little more carefully about the reserve powers of the Governor-General acting on behalf of the Queen, and about his or her ability to effectively overturn legislation passed by this democratically elected Parliament, this House of Representatives, the people’s representatives in this House. Should someone who is unelected, who holds office by virtue of who their parents are and by virtue of their gender, quite often—who is so undemocratically appointed—be able to veto legislation passed by a democratically elected Parliament? My view is that they should not, and therefore we might want to think about that in our review of the constitutional arrangements currently taking place. I think I will leave it there. Thank you.

GRANT ROBERTSON Link to this

I do not know that he is, actually.

I note that the Act amended is the Royal Society of New Zealand Act 1997, an Act passed under the previous National Government. I understand that the Hon Simon Upton was heavily involved in that legislation. That Act largely raised the status of social science within the Royal Society, so I think it is important to note, now that it is being amended to bring the humanities into it, that there has been a logical flow in the way the legislation covering the Royal Society has developed. I think it is important to note that the 1965 Act codified what had been happening for nearly 100 years in the Royal Society. The 1997 Act updated it to bring in social sciences, and today we will amend the Act, as clause 3 states, with this new 2011 legislation. I wanted to make that brief comment.

KRIS FAAFOI Link to this

I apologise; I was on the wrong page. I was ahead of myself. We were enjoying the debate so much.

KRIS FAAFOI Link to this

Yes, drama will also be included in the society. Those members will be able to be fellows and be rewarded for their achievements over the years. As I was looking at the website I saw that a number of people have received many awards from the society. Some of those people are recidivist awardees or winners of prizes from the society. I understand that a new humanities medal will be given out by the society in June this year. The Humanities Aronui Medal will be awarded by the society.

As Charles Chauvel pointed out earlier on in the debate regarding the foundation, the federation, and the future of the society, one thing that has changed is the introduction of the humanities into the society, but what will not change are some of the society’s core functions. The beauty of the society is that it looks after both ends of the spectrum. At the grassroots in schools around the country, it tries to promote awareness and acknowledge achievement of science and, once the bill becomes an Act, the humanities. The society also looks after those experts who are already working in the field of science. As I said before, when the bill is passed, it will make sure there is infrastructure, support, and professional development in the humanities disciplines to make sure they progress over time.

The society also acts as an advisory board to the Government of the day, and I think my colleague David Shearer talked about some of the great work it does in some of the research and development areas, and it needs to be rewarded for that. The society does a great job of making sure it performs those core functions of acting in an advisory role and of promoting awareness among youngsters, and also of acknowledging people who excel in their field by giving out medals, awards, and scholarships such as the Rutherford Fund and Rutherford Medal.

This 2011 bill amends the 1997 legislation. It makes sure that the society has a new, modern face by ensuring members of those disciplines I listed earlier have an equal footing with science and technology members who have been able to use the society to forward their disciplines since 1867, and that needs to be commended.

GRANT ROBERTSON Link to this

Well, I am very happy to, I tell Dr Mapp. But lest anyone be concerned about it, I reiterate that the memorandum of understanding gives 5 years for the legislation to be passed. It might not take quite as long as that. It depends, perhaps, on some matters. You know, it will certainly take some time to work through the important clauses, but the legislation will fit within the memorandum of understanding. I am sure that with the respect and depth of debate there has been tonight, people will understand why we are doing it.

The Royal Society will also ensure that the term “humanities” is included on the society’s website in all places where it should be, and it is acknowledged as a term that should be included whenever there is reference to the Act and to the way in which the Royal Society operates. In making representations to the Government, the Royal Society and agencies will include the humanities where it is relevant. A number of representations to the Government recently have been affected by that policy. One in particular is on the question of policy advice, and the importance of good quality policy advice. I know that the Royal Society has made some submissions on that issue.