Shearer David: Carter Observatory Act Repeal Bill — First Reading 
Shearer David: Carter Observatory Act Repeal Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:658;Page:7398] 
DAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert) 
: 
 As the Labour spokesperson on science research and technology I support the Carter Observatory Act Repeal Bill at its first reading. Specifically the bill will repeal the Carter Observatory Act 1938 which set up the astronomical observatory in the city of Wellington; dissolve the Carter Observatory board and arrange for the proper transfer of assets to the Wellington City Council; and vest the liabilities to the Crown and the Wellington City Council. 
The decision is based on a report by Michael Bessell of the Ministry of Science Research and Technology published in 2006 under the Labour Government. The report made a number of recommendations and it is worth going through one or two of them. The Carter Observatory became the national observatory of New Zealand in 1977 and faced a number of problems not only in its leadership and lack of agreement on its mission but also in its lack of financial resources. It was established on rather questionable grounds—in part the strong part played by the amateur astronomers in the area—and it did not really make sufficient linkages with Victoria University’s department of physics as the report clearly sets out. 
Bessell’s report sets out five key roles that he felt were necessary for a national observatory: “To operate and develop the national telescope as a national research facility for use by national and international researchers” “To deepen the understanding of the universe …” “To train outstanding scientists and technicians” “To promote international research activities by collaborating …” and “To conduct an effective outreach program to disseminate astronomic information …”. In short the Carter Observatory was not really meeting the functions of a national observatory; most of its effort in fact was centred on education and outreach which is laudable and an important part of an observatory—as the report itself notes—but not really sufficient for the national observatory of New Zealand. There is still very keen interest in astronomy in our communities and the state of astronomical research is in a pretty healthy state. 
The report also pointed out that the focused resources from the ministry would be placed more appropriately in association with the University of Canterbury. That would be more suitable especially given that the university has demonstrated a long-term commitment and support for astronomy. Canterbury has always welcomed outside users of its telescope particularly from the University of Otago and the University of Auckland. It would be situated in the University of Canterbury’s Mount John Observatory which is regarded and accepted as a major player in the national and international scene in terms of that sort of research. In many ways this dismisses the Carter Observatory’s fears that the change would not act in the wider national interest. That collegiality will continue across those research institutions and universities. So the country is not losing out. We are simply regrouping our resources sensibly together so that research can be best done in a peer-supported environment consolidating our precious resources in this country to make the best use of them. The Carter Observatory—as the previous speaker the Hon John Carter noted—will continue to cater to and meet the needs and outreach needs of Wellington. Placing it under the Wellington City Council will achieve that goal admirably and the observatory can be tailored to meet the needs of Wellington and Wellingtonians more appropriately. 
The discussion of science and the consolidation of resources in science stimulates thinking a little more generally around the interests of research and science. I will read a couple of quotes. The first one is: “science will be the mainstay of the transformation of New Zealand indeed it is the only way we can make a quantum leap in productivity” and “address the many challenges we will face.” The second quote is: “Science … can transform how we approach the problems of society it can protect our environment it can lead to new industries some small some perhaps large it can add to our standing in the world it can change our national psyche and in doing so reinvent us in a way that can improve our productivity.” In short science is the way in which New Zealand has made itself wealthy. Those were the quotes of Professor Gluckman the Prime Minister’s chief science adviser speaking to the AgResearch institute in Waikato. I agree with him. Who would not? I believe that it is a good decision to have Professor Gluckman as an adviser to the Prime Minister. 
The pity is that those fine words do not really match the actions of this Government. I was dismayed to hear Anne Tolley the Minister of Education on  
Morning Report  
today. She said that she was withdrawing the funding for development support in primary schools in the areas of science PE and art. She said: “Maybe the year after we might have a focus on science and the year after that we might have a focus on art.” Or maybe we might do it round the other way. The point is that science as Professor Gluckman said is one of the mainstays of our society and this Government is not walking the walk. It is certainly not walking the talk that Professor Gluckman sets out. New Zealand’s future demands that we have a bunch of well-educated scientists coming through our schools and this latest announcement certainly does not ensure that. 
New Zealand faces perhaps three big difficulties in the areas of science and research. One is tying together the science with the development the innovation and the ability to get products off and out for the benefit of New Zealand. We are really good at innovation. We are very good at doing science but often the gap is with private enterprise and how we develop it. The second difficulty I suggest is that the time lines within which science works are often not short ones but long ones. It is not 1 or 2 years but 4 5 or 6 years before we see real results in our science. The third difficulty is simply that the amount of funding that is going into research and development is very low. We have one of the lowest OECD averages in terms of science funding. During the last 9 years the previous Labour Government elevated and lifted that OECD average up from the appalling state that we inherited in 1999 but there is still some work to do. 
What did we do as a result of that OECD standing? One of the first things that we did was to introduce a very innovative and forward-thinking scheme called the Fast Forward Fund. What did it do? It brought together State research and private companies. It brought them together in a partnership. One of the real problems as I have stated was in bringing together the two aspects: the State-funded research and the innovation and development of products by private companies. That scheme was praised throughout New Zealand and praised internationally for its wisdom and foresight but what did National do in the first 100 days it was in Government? It abolished the scheme. It threw it out. It threw out this innovative scheme which would have enabled us to have guaranteed funding and to bring together in a natural partnership the State and private enterprise. 
Not only did this Government do that but also it did away with the research and development tax credit that the previous Government had set up for private companies. This tax credit was again applauded throughout New Zealand—in particular in the business community—because for the first time we were seeing the business community getting behind research and development and we were lifting our appallingly low spend on science within the private sector. The Government’s move was criticised by business groups around New Zealand—including most importantly the Employers and Manufacturers Association—and rightly so.