Carter Observatory Act Repeal Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Carter Observatory Act Repeal Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:663;Page:11350] 
Carter Observatory Act Repeal Bill 
In Committee 
Part 1 Preliminary provisions 
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP (Minister of Research Science and Technology) 
: 
 The reason I am taking this initial call is that I am very conscious that the Education and Science Committee reported back to the House that it had received three submissions on the Carter Observatory Act Repeal Bill and also that it did not consider it necessary to make amendments to it. The issues have been well canvassed in the first and second reading and I understand that with the leave of the House we may be able to proceed directly to the third reading after the Committee of the whole House. I am sure the people of Wellington will be looking forward to our expediting the business through the Committee of the whole House and through the third reading. Thank you. 
DAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert) 
: 
 It is with great pleasure that I rise again to speak on the Carter Observatory Act Repeal Bill. As members have said before it has meandered its way through our Parliament for a number of years and we hope tonight to put it to bed so to speak so that we can all move on. As we know the practical work has been ongoing. The Carter Observatory effectively is already being operated by the Wellington City Council so in many ways we are simply rubber-stamping a situation that is already in existence. 
The bill as we have canvassed many times before is a sensible one. In today’s world the idea of a national observatory as set up under the 1938 Carter Observatory Act is pretty much a thing of the past. Most of the functions of what we might call a national observatory have been moved to the Mount John Observatory down in Canterbury and I know that the University of Canterbury is very willing and eager to allow other universities and other academic institutions to use that facility and that is very welcome. That means that the Carter Observatory now has more of a tourist and visitor focus rather than a highly scientific role. That does not mean that it does not have a scientific function. It has an incredibly important role in providing visitors students and others who are involved in science with a place within the Wellington region to examine the stars and to ask those most basic of questions: who are we how did we get here and what is the nature of the universe? Those questions have been occupying the minds of the human species for time immemorial. 
The transference of the Carter Observatory happened with the agreement of both sides of the House and the Wellington City Council as well. In 2008 the Government of the day the Labour Government put more than $2 million into the upkeep of the Carter Observatory. The Wellington City Council I understand spent about $1.4 million on the observatory. My understanding is that as a result of a shortfall Nathan Guy through the Lotteries Commission put another $600000 into making the observatory a real feature of Wellington City and the Wellington region as a whole. 
The Education and Science Committee canvassed the various arguments and aspects as Colin King knows. Under the leadership of Allan Peachey we talked about the bill at some length. We invited submissions. We received three. The submissioners wanted to make sure that what we were doing was both robust and the right way to proceed. I do not think we have any qualms that that is not the case. We are moving in the right direction and those submissions as I recall backed the move and our recommendations that it go forward. 
It has been a long journey for this bill. I am pleased that it has got to the stage where we might see it properly put to bed tonight—see it go through its third reading and be finished. I think that the original recommendations that Dr Bessell set out in his report were basically the right ones although I think he actually wanted to maintain the idea of a national observatory. We have moved beyond that. We felt that a national observatory in the form of the Carter Observatory was not the right way to go. 
KELVIN DAVIS (Labour) 
: 
 Labour supports the Carter Observatory Act Repeal Bill. We agree with dissolving the observatory and moving all of the functions and the assets over to the Wellington City Council. The report by Michael Bessell in 2005 said that the Carter Observatory was unable to fulfil the functions of a national observatory because of resourcing issues. It has now become more of an educational and tourism facility. I saw on the news tonight David Perks of Positively Wellington Tourism the Wellington tourism board standing outside of the Carter Observatory as they were celebrating Wellington being named the most popular winter destination. The Carter Observatory will complement that and other facilities such as Te Papa and Zealandia: The Karori Sanctuary Experience. This has become a good asset for Wellington City in terms of supporting the tourism industry here. It also provides a fantastic educational facility for school groups to come down to the observatory. It provides lesson plans for teachers and it provides support for them. So this is a good bill. 
I will talk about the facilities. There are a number of conference rooms so that groups can have meetings for up to 100 people. There are various-sized rooms. But there is a point and it is the one Te Ururoa Flavell raised last night. We accept that the observatory is transferred to the Wellington City Council. The question I have and I wonder how well it was considered is the role that local iwi play whether they have any role at all and whether there was any consideration given to the needs of the local iwi. They may have a role to play they may benefit in some way from the observatory. There are at least half-a-dozen tribes in the area: Ngati Toa Rangatira Taranaki Whanui Te Atiawa Ngati Tama Ngati Ruanui and Ngati Mutunga. I wonder whether any of the members of those tribes were involved in this decision or had any input whatsoever. It would be good to think that they in some way benefited from this facility that is on their land and in their city. 
In terms of the observatory moving to an education and tourism facility I believe that it is a good idea. I do not think in a city such as Wellington that having an observatory with all the lights and everything around makes for the best conditions for an observatory to flourish. If we look overseas we see that there is an observatory stuck on the top of the highest mountain in Hawaii. It is away from all the cities and lights so that it gets a clear view of the night skies. The Wellington skies particularly on a day like this are not the best for viewing the night skies. There would be a number of nights during the year when it would be difficult for people using telescopes to get a clear view of the skies. So as I have said dissolving the Carter Observatory board and transferring the assets of the Carter Observatory to the Wellington City Council is a good idea. 
I do think we need to consider the fact that iwi probably have not had a big say in this decision. It does not look like they are going to really benefit in any sort of way through having this facility in Wellington City. 
Jo Goodhew 
: There’s really not much to be said is there? 
KELVIN DAVIS 
: It is difficult to have much to say because we do— 
Hon Member 
: Don’t waste the precious energy. 
KELVIN DAVIS 
: They are telling me not to waste the precious time. I say OK. Labour supports this bill. Thank you. 
STUART NASH (Labour) 
: 
 This bill is the end of an era. I ask whether members know that the Carter Observatory Act Repeal Bill repeals an Act the Carter Observatory Act that was put together in 1938. Can members imagine what life was like in 1938? We did not have people like those characters whinging and complaining because the people of New Zealand had just voted in a Labour Government. Mickey Joseph Savage was standing here advocating for the people of New Zealand. We had Peter Fraser and Walter Nash. They were building a new society. They were building a better New Zealand. 
I ask whether members can imagine those great men of New Zealand those great men of the Labour movement who would have wandered up that hill and cut that ribbon. It would have been a proud moment. They would have looked over Wellington and they would never have imagined a day when a National Government would sit on that side of the House and give tax breaks to the wealthiest and nothing to the underprivileged—the underprivileged whom the 1938 Labour Government devoted its life to uplifting. Boy did they do that! 
Jo Goodhew 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I think I can anticipate what it might be—relevance is it? 
Jo Goodhew 
: Yes. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Well—[ 
Interruption 
] I am on my feet. I say to the member that this debate is about the Part 1 clauses: “Purposes” “Interpretation” and “Act binds the Crown”. The member should draw back the debate to those matters. 
STUART NASH 
: Talking of drawing back here we are in 2010. It is nearly 80 years since the Act that we are now repealing was established—nearly 80 years. A lot has happened up at that observatory in 80 years. I ask whether members can imagine the first day man walked on the moon in 1969. People would have gathered at that observatory and celebrated that milestone. The milestones that have occurred in Wellington since that observatory has been around have been numerous—they have been numerous. I can imagine the vision that these men and women of the Labour movement had in mind when they opened the observatory. It would have been world leading and now here we are repealing the Act. 
But I am not against this bill because this is one of those unusual bills where everyone is in agreement and everyone is going to win. The people of Wellington will win because now the young men and women of Wellington—and probably from all around New Zealand—can go to this icon on the hill look at it and understand science. They can see where science developed and started and they too can develop a passion for science. Maybe they can come into this Chamber and with that passion for science they have developed ratchet up the research and development spend and move this country forward. That is what I am hoping and that is what I am sure will happen. 
Tourism is another one of our great earners and this will be great for tourism in Wellington. I heard on the news tonight that Wellington was voted by people as the best place to go in winter. Obviously they had not been to Napier because at the moment in Napier it is very fine. People are outside in T-shirts drinking wine; it is pouring down with rain here. How can they vote Wellington as the best place to go in winter if they have never been to Napier? It is beyond me. 
With regard to the observatory one of the other things I like about this legislation is that we are not destroying our heritage. That is what we have done too much of in the past. Those National guys are dismantling our heritage brick by brick. This legislation allows our heritage to remain. An icon sits upon that hill. Generations of people have walked past it to Parliament they have dreamt they have developed a passion for science and for politics they have come to Wellington and they have known the observatory. I am pleased that it will still be there. It is a wonderful asset to the people of Wellington; it is a great asset to New Zealand. 
The important thing is we are not losing. As my colleague Moana Mackey said last night there is now a national observatory in Whakatane believe it or not. Of all places there is a national observatory in Whakatane so we can still study the stars. We are in a unique position here because there is very little pollution in our night skies—or at least there was not until those members did whatever they wanted to do. 
This is one of those great pieces of legislation. My colleague Grant Robertson is rapt with this bill. Grant Robertson is the member of Parliament for Wellington Central and he is rapt with this bill because it adds to the cultural heritage of this city. Grant is the associate spokesperson—or he might even be the spokesperson—on arts culture and heritage. This just adds another jewel to his portfolio crown. It is fantastic legislation because of that as it allows this tourism venture to remain. 
Kelvin Davis another colleague is the spokesperson on tourism. Who is the spokesperson on tourism on the Government side of the Chamber? I cannot remember; it must be Aaron Gilmore. Kelvin Davis knows the value of this legislation because again from a tourism perspective it just adds one more jewel to the crown of New Zealand tourism. When people come to Wellington they can go to Te Papa they can come to Parliament and have a tour and they can see the photos of the great people of New Zealand politics like Fraser Savage Nash and Clark. 
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Motion agreed to. 
Part 1 agreed to. 
Part 2 Repeal and related matters 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: The debate includes debate on the schedule. 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I was very disappointed that I did not get to take a call on Part 1 of this very important legislation the Carter Observatory Act Repeal Bill. 
Hon Member 
: So were we. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: I look forward to Mr Peachey’s contribution. He gave a very good contribution in the first reading of this bill and I look forward to his contribution in the Committee stage. If he takes this legislation seriously then he should be prepared to get on his pins and contribute particularly as he is chair of the Education and Science Committee. This part of the process is to look at what the select committee did and to challenge whether any changes truly needed to be made. The select committee came back and said— 
Jo Goodhew 
: It didn’t. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: I ask Mrs Goodhew to calm down. It is called democracy. I know she may not like it but the fact is that we need to go through this process. Part 2 deals with the repeal of the Carter Observatory Act and the transfer of property and liabilities to the Wellington City Council. It really must be put on record the gratitude that this Chamber has both for the original donation of the Carter Observatory and also to the Wellington City Council when it stepped in to provide a lifeline for this national treasure. We should not be in any doubt that the ratepayers of Wellington have had to pick this up and the rest of the country can very very rightly feel pleased that they were prepared to do that. If they had not then we may have been in a position of not having a national observatory and also not having an excellent resource for education an excellent resource for teaching and an excellent resource for the promotion of science in the Wellington area. I have visited the Carter Observatory on many occasions and have very much enjoyed it. It is with a tinge of sadness that we say goodbye to our national observatory but we look forward to its future. 
The Carter Observatory board needs to go through a number of processes in order to transfer its assets and liabilities across to the Wellington City Council. It will be very interesting to see what comes out of the final report of the board in particular because the Carter Observatory has played a very extensive role in education in this country—far more I think than most members would actually be aware of. It is New Zealand Qualifications Authority accredited and it assisted in providing curriculum support for schools. Given that we have lost our science advisers in schools that support is even more critical for groups such as the Carter Observatory— 
Hon Judith Collins 
: Science teachers. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: They are science advisers I say to Mrs Collins. 
Hon Judith Collins 
: What about science teachers? Why don’t they advise? 
MOANA MACKEY 
: Why are science teachers not advisers? I think that question sums up National’s attitude towards science. In primary schools we have relied on science advisers because most primary school teachers do not have a degree in science. 
Jo Goodhew 
: Point of order. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: I am responding to an interjection. If Mrs Collins does not want me to go off track then she should not interject. We have a point of order Mr Chairperson. 
Jo Goodhew 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I ask that you rule on relevance. I cannot find that issue. I have looked for it; it is not in Part 2. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I was indicating to the member that she was straying outside the debate. The member should desist from responding to irrelevant interjections. Let us contain ourselves to clauses 6 to 12 in Part 2 and the schedule. 
Hon Judith Collins 
: Just get some science teachers. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: I am enjoying this display of ignorance about science in our education system. 
I hope that in that final report we will see some explanation about the role that the Carter Observatory has been carrying out and how it intends to continue to carry it out. With the loss of science advisers who advise our primary school teachers on the science curriculum—because primary school teachers do not have science degrees by and large—it is more important that places like the Carter Observatory are able to come in. I hope that when the final report is prepared and presented we are able to get access to it. The report is submitted to the Minister in charge and I sincerely hope that if in that report the observatory has concerns about gaps that need to be filled with the loss of the national observatory as it becomes a tourism and educational facility the Minister will be able to take those concerns on board and will be able to guarantee that any gaps will be plugged. That is why that final report under clause 10 of this bill is so important. 
It will also be interesting to see the board’s activities and the areas it has been involved in because science seems to fly below the radar a little bit in this country. Members will be most interested to see the kinds of areas that the Carter Observatory has been getting involved in—and they are many and varied. It is a private tertiary provider; again not a lot of people know that but the observatory should be acknowledged for the work it has done in that area. 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 Part 2 of the Carter Observatory Act Repeal Bill states that on and from the day the bill comes into force the property and all rights of the Carter Observatory board vest in the Wellington City Council. We have heard a lot of people including me extolling the Carter Observatory. It is a fantastic tourism centre a fantastic education centre and a great asset to Wellington. I congratulate the Wellington City Council on stepping in and coming to the rescue of the Carter Observatory. However we have not discussed the lack of resources that essentially led to the demise of the Carter Observatory as our national observatory. 
A few years ago in 2005 an astronomer and Australian professor Mike Bessell of the Australian National University was commissioned by the Ministry of Research Science and Technology to review the Carter Observatory. It is very interesting to read some of the conclusions that he came to. He said that the main reason the Carter Observatory failed in its role as the national observatory of New Zealand was the lack of adequate financial resources. He said that there is general agreement in the astronomical community that the main reason is the lack of resourcing. He went on to compare the observatory with those in other countries. He said that unlike other observatories overseas like those of Australia and other nations we have a much smaller percentage of research and development funding available for astronomical research in New Zealand. It is tragic that the loss of our national observatory is due to a lack of funding that we are giving to astronomy and to science generally in New Zealand. 
He also pointed out that virtually no science centre or planetarium in the world is able to sustain its operation solely through gate takings and that a proportion of the running costs in every planetarium or science centre in the world is provided by local or national government. Although it is very well for us to wax eloquent about the Carter Observatory what we are doing in this part of the bill is transferring what was once a wonderful national observatory into what is now a tourism centre and an education centre. Yes it is a great planetarium a great education centre and a great tourism asset but the truth is that the demise of our national observatory is because of a lack of funding. The Wellington City Council has committed funding for the next 10 years but I ask what will happen after that. 
It is sad that we do not have a national observatory to replace this national observatory. There is speculation that possibly it could be the University of Canterbury’s Mount John Observatory or that the university’s physics and astronomy department could become a centre of excellence but basically unless we provide proper funding—and I am glad to see that the Minister of Research Science and Technology is here—we will not have a national observatory or centre of excellence for astronomy in New Zealand. That is an indictment on New Zealand and on our commitment to science. 
We need to remember as we sit here waxing eloquent about the Carter Observatory that in this bill we are presiding over the loss of our national observatory. We are probably one of the only developed nations that does not have a national observatory and according to research that has come about because we have not provided enough financial resources to fund astronomical research or a national observatory. Thank you very much. 
ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tamaki) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Motion agreed to. 
Part 2 agreed to. 
Schedule agreed to.  
Clause 1 agreed to.  
Clause 2 agreed to.  
Bill reported without amendment. 
Report adopted. 
Third Reading 
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP (Minister of Research Science and Technology) 
: 
 I move  
That the Carter Observatory Act Repeal Bill be now read a third time 
. I have listened with interest to the contributions on this bill in the House tonight including those from members of the Education and Science Committee. I know that many of those members will take a call during its third reading. I acknowledge the work of the select committee which sought submissions on the bill. The select committee received submissions from the Wellington City Council the Carter Observatory and indeed the Stardome Observatory and Planetarium in Auckland. The officials of course did an excellent job in advising the committee. Everyone was supportive of the bill. Indeed everyone is looking forward to it passing into law. 
The general point has been made that in 1938—under a Labour Government I might note—the Carter Observatory was established as a national observatory. At that time that was appropriate. I remember going up to the observatory when I was a student in Wellington many years ago. At that time it was noticeably—and this was many years ago now—in a careworn state. The reason was that by then—and we are talking about the 1970s—astronomical research in New Zealand had already effectively transferred to the Mount John Observatory with a number of participating universities involved. At that time the most sophisticated instrument in New Zealand was the 1-metre telescope at Mount John. Today primarily as a result of collaboration between the University of Canterbury and Japan the principal instrument there is the 2-metre telescope which is primarily involved in searching for extrasolar planets and indeed has been very successful in that regard using microlensing techniques. 
Sue Kedgley observed that New Zealand does not have a specific allocation of money for a national observatory. That is because our funding system through the Foundation for Research Science and Technology universities and international collaborations effectively achieves that purpose. We now have a fine collection of instruments suitable for a country of our size at Mount John. In addition the University of Canterbury collaborates with the Southern African Large Telescope—or SALT—in South Africa. Last year and indeed this year the Government is partnering with the Australian Government to establish in New Zealand the Square Kilometre Array or SKA which is about radio astronomy. If the two countries are successful it will be a hugely important initiative. It is a global science project. We are in a science competition if you will with South Africa primarily and a decision on where it will be built will be made in 2012. In fact I am going to the Netherlands next month to assist Senator Carr in the joint Australia - New Zealand presentation to advance our case in that regard. The New Zealand Government is committed to funding it. I mention those issues to demonstrate that under successive Governments from both sides of the House there has been a commitment—appropriate to the size of New Zealand—to astronomy both radio and optical. But astronomy is no longer appropriate for the Carter Observatory given the nature of the instruments there and indeed its location in a city. 
As I indicated in my speech during the bill’s second reading I had the pleasure along with a number of colleagues to go to what was effectively the reopening of the Carter Observatory. The Wellington City Council and the Carter Observatory have done an excellent job in refurbishing and restoring the facility—not just the instruments but also the displays libraries buildings and so forth. It will perform an important educational role for people both young and old and in addition a tourism role. The refurbishment involved a contribution of $2 million from the Government to enable it to take place and the Wellington City Council is committed to annual expense of $300000 to enable the facility to continue in operation because as has been reasonably noted an observatory cannot be run just with donations and whatever payments people make. It requires the commitment of society for societal good and benefit to ensure that these kinds of public-good facilities exist. 
The Carter Observatory is part and parcel of the cultural and intellectual life of Wellington. As I noted earlier in the proceedings on this bill Wellington can justifiably make claim to being one of the finest small cities on the planet in large part because of the richness of its cultural and intellectual life and the commitment of the city council led very ably by Mayor Prendergast—and in relation to the Carter Observatory by Alick Shaw—to promote the life of Wellington. I was not surprised to read that Wellington is the best city to visit in New Zealand in the winter. I guess that in winter people concentrate on the intellectual side of life rather than perhaps the sporting side—on the observatory the art galleries the museum and so forth. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: They can play sport in Wellington. 
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: Yes they can play sport in Wellington; that is true. There is an excellent stadium down here as well. 
It is with real pleasure to speak as Minister of Research Science and Technology on the transfer of the observatory from the Government to Wellington City. I say also as Minister that the Government has put a particular emphasis on science and we made it a particular priority in the Budget. I have heard the various comments from Opposition members in regard to that. They make various claims that Labour would have done more and so forth. They seem to have forgotten a few things. One there was a global recession; two their initiatives were not perhaps as well targeted as they could have been; and three there is also a question of taking the science system along with the funding. I think one of the important initiatives and I understand one that is well accepted by the Opposition is the innovative creation of the position of Chief Science Adviser to the Prime Minister. That has been a real fillip to the science community generally and has helped put a substantial level of shape around science policy for New Zealand. 
In closing it is a real privilege to be present in the House some 72 years after the initial establishment of the Carter Observatory. The House has recognised that Wellington is no longer suitable for a national observatory and that the responsibility for the Carter Observatory should be transferred from the Crown to the Wellington City Council. 
DAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert) 
: 
 It is very good that we are able to move so quickly tonight to get the Carter Observatory Act Repeal Bill through the House. I think that a number of people from the Carter Observatory are possibly watching this debate wondering why we use this arcane method of getting something as simple and bipartisan as this bill through the House and wondering why it is taking such a long time. I am beginning to learn the way of Parliament. 
The Carter Observatory opened in 1938 as the Minister has just said. In 1977 it was made a national observatory. In many ways many of the scientists of the time believed that the observatory was already the national observatory even before it was formalised. It has had a pretty mixed time since then. There have been some disagreements within the management of the observatory. There were some problems in respect of the funding of the observatory and I want to come back to that. It was something that Sue Kedgley raised and it has led us to believe today that the Carter Observatory serves best as a visitor and tourist asset to the city of Wellington rather than as a national observatory. 
Many of the scientific functions have moved the Mount John Observatory which is administered largely by Canterbury University but as the Minister said in collaboration with a number of other universities throughout the world—in particular a number of US universities. It is very heartening to see that New Zealand is continuing that. I think that this is part of the bipartisan nature of science in this country and it is reflected in the Square Kilometre Array. We are putting forward a bid to take that project on with Australia. The New Zealand astronomical community will certainly get a real boost if we find we have won that when the announcement is made in 2012. 
When we look back on the Carter Observatory I think we can learn a few lessons about the way it has proceeded over time. One of the lessons is about funding and Sue Kedgley spoke up about that before. We cannot do science without funding. The Government needed to put $2 million into the Carter Observatory. The Wellington City Council put $1.4 million in and is looking to put in another $300000 a year to ensure the upkeep. That is quite an expensive commitment to take on yet the observatory is a real treasure. As an aside I mention one part of the treasure which is the fantastic library that the Carter Observatory has. That has not come up in the discussion but is an asset to the Wellington City Council. 
The funding issue is a real and pertinent one and the Minister just mentioned the amount of funding the Government is putting forward as part of its science package in the Budget. It was the third-largest commitment after health and education in terms of new money—$56 million. Nobody will scoff at that but it is a lot less than would have happened if the 15 percent tax credit had been left in place. But let us look at that $56 million because in a sense about 7 and a bit percent of the actual science budget is new money. If we take into account the inflation rate of 5.9 percent suddenly that 7 percent starts to look a little bit weak. 
If we talk to any scientist in this country any scientist at all about the amount of money that is being put in he or she will tell us that the inflation rate for science is actually quite a lot higher than our domestic inflation rate for the simple reason that we have to import most of our equipment from overseas. Suddenly that third-largest amount of money that is being poured into the science community through the Budget is starting to look rather pathetic. It is certainly pathetic in terms of the amount of money that would have gone in as part of the tax credits and the amount of money that would have stimulated businesses as an incentive—an incentive rather than a handout a grant—to increase their own commitment to research and development. 
Let us talk about another issue in terms of funding. Today we had a remarkable announcement which we have been waiting for for a long time. It was that the Primary Growth Partnership finally has agreed to fund three projects—finally. The Minister of Agriculture the Hon David Carter who happens to be in the House at the moment said he makes no apology for the delay in the delivery of the Primary Growth Partnership. My feeling is that he should apologise. He should apologise to the scientists who have been sitting there for 18 months unfunded waiting for money to be able to fund science. 
Hon David Carter 
: We announced it in September last year—6 months. The member doesn’t know what he’s talking about. 
DAVID SHEARER 
: Not only that but the business community was waiting for the Government to make its announcement so it could pledge its half of the deal as well. They have been sitting around wasting time. I say to Mr Carter that it is actually about 18 months because if we look at when the Fast Forward fund was demolished at the end of 2008 and at where we are now—I think it is May 2010—we see that we will not get any money out of the door before June or July. So it is probably closer to 20 months that have been wasted. 
Members should think about that happening in any other sector. What would have happened in the health sector or in policing? What if suddenly the police were left bereft of $60 million that they were not able to use for 18 months? Members can imagine the outcry if that had happened. But the science sector can be quietly pushed aside and discarded simply because the Minister of Research Science and Technology has not been able to push the thing through as fast as he said he could. 
The Fast Forward fund was already in place. It was already set up; the money was already in the account— 
Hon David Carter 
: Recklessly spraying money around. 
DAVID SHEARER 
: The money was in the account I say to Mr Carter; I have seen the books. The money was there and it was hauled out and put into some other trite scheme that this Government is trying to run through with the last Budget. 
We could have had $1 billion in place with that amount matched by business—that is $2 billion worth of funding going into our primary produce. Instead we allowed that to fall over. That is a real shame. I think that in 2011 when we have a change of Government we will look at making sure that continuity is maintained. I believe as I said when I opened this discussion on the Carter Observatory that bipartisanship is an important aspect of science. 
I raise one other issue in terms of science. One of the things that Labour did during its 9 years in Government was support the science sector in schools. The Carter Observatory as many people have quite rightly noted is now part of the science curriculum of many Wellington schools. What this National Government has done with its national standards is focus its attention on maths and English and discard science. Science advisers have been half-funded compared with what they were before. If members ask secondary teachers—Mr Peachey for example was a teacher and I was a secondary teacher for some time—they will say that having science support backing them up is an incredibly important means of keeping them up to date and giving them the enthusiasm to ensure that science is well taught and to ensure that the enthusiasm of students is carried forward. 
That has now gone. So what have we got? We have a Carter Observatory one of whose failings we know was the fact that it did not have enough money. Yet the Government has underfunded science in comparison with what was there—half of what it promised in 2008 and half of what the Labour Government already had in place. It has crashed the Fast Forward fund and put in the Primary Growth Partnership which has yet to deliver. Not one dollar has gone out yet. We have approved three projects and they are good projects I admit. They are very good projects. That Primary Growth Partnership is only now starting to work 20 months afterwards. We have seen science teaching being left out in the cold. 
ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tamaki) 
: 
 The third reading of the Carter Observatory Act Repeal Bill marks the final stage in a legislative process of transferring the assets of the Carter Observatory Board to the Wellington City Council. The council has actually managed the observatory since 2007. 
The decision to transfer the assets from the board to the council was made by the previous Labour Government. However it has fallen to this National Government to oversee the legislative process and it has been a pleasure to do that. The first reading debate was an interesting one certainly marked on this side of the House by passion enthusiasm and insights into how children learn. I was very pleased that members opposite were able to take the opportunity to maybe learn a little bit during that debate. The Education and Science Committee deliberations were interesting marked by cooperation enthusiasm and a desire to get the job done. So we have come to this point where tonight we will pass this bill and the formal transfer will take place. 
I found it interesting that the previous Labour speaker David Shearer decided that this was an appropriate time to raise a whole pile of other agendas and it amazes me how short some of the Opposition members’ memories are concerning the opportunities that Labour had when it was in Government for 9 years to do some of the things that its members now talk about doing. I tell Labour members that talk is cheap. I would have much preferred it—and I think it would have been a far more grateful attitude on the part of Labour—if its members had taken the opportunity to reflect on the work that the Carter Observatory has done in the past and on what that observatory has meant to generations of children who have learnt about the moon the stars the Earth and the universe. It is nothing to do with money in children’s eyes; they have just bright eyes and enthusiasm. 
I commend the bill to the House and urge its rapid passage. I express the hope and the confidence that the Carter Observatory will build on its glorious past and continue to make a very fine contribution to the city of Wellington and to the country of New Zealand. 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I think the member who has just resumed his seat Mr Peachey might have forgotten his own contribution in the first reading debate of the Carter Observatory Act Repeal Bill when he went off on quite a tangent about the evils of socialism. His face was twitching. I think my colleague David Shearer’s talking about science in relation to the Carter Observatory is perhaps slightly less of a long bow to draw than that member’s speech about his continued belief that the Cold War is ongoing that the Iron Curtain never came down and that members on this side of the House are all reds under the bed waiting to tear this country apart. With the greatest of respect I disagree wholeheartedly with his speech. I point out that it was the Minister of Research Science and Technology who decided to make grandiose statements about science in his speech and he must expect that members on this side will respond to those comments. 
It is very nice to be here finally at the third reading of this bill. As has been said in the first and second reading debates we must first give a thank you to Mr Charles Rooking Carter who gifted his estate to the Royal Society of New Zealand for the establishment of an astronomical observatory. Without that extraordinary act of generosity we would not be here tonight and we would not have had the benefit of the observatory in its function as astronomical observatory since the 1930s and in its function as national observatory since 1977. The second thank you must go to the Wellington City Council for the role it has played in stepping in to ensure the ongoing survival of the Carter Observatory both in its former state and in its new exciting future as an educational and tourism facility. We should also thank the officials who worked on this bill and of course the submitters albeit a small number who took the time to submit on this legislation. 
One of the good things that has come up during this debate has been a discussion and an ability to inform members about the various roles the observatory has held. Even though its research capacity and involvement has been diminishing over a number of years—and I agree with the comments of Sue Kedgley that this is not an area into which New Zealand puts a lot of research money compared with other countries—it is certainly important that its role in an education capacity continues. In my Committee stage speech I referred to the loss of the science advisers in schools because the Carter Observatory has played a very important role in supplementing the curriculum. Members can go online and have a look at its website. It provides an enormous number of resources for teachers and an enormous amount of support for the New Zealand curriculum. That is very important because the National Government last year cut funding for advisers in primary schools including science advisers and that will have a huge impact on the teaching of science in New Zealand. 
It was interesting that during my Committee stage speech the Hon Judith Collins was interjecting and asking what science teachers are. I thought that that summed up the attitude of the National Party on the whole problem. Ms Collins asked what science teachers are if they are not science advisers. A Cabinet Minister does not understand the role of a science adviser in advising primary school teachers—some of whom may have degrees in science but I bet that pretty much all of them do not; they have degrees in primary school teaching—and that they need that sort of curriculum support to be able to deliver science education at the very time when we need to be grabbing students. That is the time when we need to provide lessons that appeal to a young person’s natural sense of curiosity about the world around them. Science advisers in New Zealand have played an enormous role; then in last year’s Budget their funding went. And—do members know—so have they. They have all gone. They have been picked up by other countries because they are enormously valuable in the education system. 
That will have an impact on the teaching of science at primary school where we need to grab young people get them interested in science and make sure that the curriculum is appropriate for the teaching of science particularly for teachers who do not have a background in science. We require our primary school teachers to teach across an enormous array of subjects in which they may not have a specialty. That is where those science advisers were so important. Thank goodness we still have the Carter Observatory working in an educational role and being able to provide some of that support which the Government cut in last year’s Budget. I was really disappointed to hear Minister Collins make those comments unless she was expecting high school teachers of science on top of everything else they have to do to go down to primary schools and assist primary school teachers in the teaching of science. Maybe that is National’s grand plan in education; I am not sure. The reality is that it will have a detrimental impact. Thank goodness we still have the Carter Observatory here to carry out at least some of that role. That is on top of its role as a private tertiary education provider because it is accredited by the New Zealand Qualifications Authority which is another thing not many people knew about the Carter Observatory. 
It was interesting that during his third reading speech the Minister of Research Science and Technology decided to go on the attack about his record in the area of research science and technology. As my colleague David Shearer quite rightly pointed out compared with what National promised before the last election the Government has fallen woefully short—another broken promise—in this year’s Budget in terms of funding particularly for the Crown research institutes. They were promised core funding which they have yet to receive. More important funding for science in this country under the National Government is roughly half what it was when Labour left Government. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Rubbish. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: It is true I say to Dr Smith. It is true. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: You had 9 years. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: To Dr Smith getting rid of the research and development tax credit was not a cut it was a change. To Dr Smith getting rid of the $700-million Fast Forward fund was a reprioritisation not a cut. The fact is that the sector knows it was a cut. Some parts of what the Government has put in place are good and there are some parts that I agree with but overall it is woefully inadequate for the needs of our country if we want to grow our economy. 
One of the biggest concerns is how the Government has absolutely shut out small business. It has said to small businesses it will not back them when it comes to innovation. Labour’s research and development tax credit did not do that. Of course the grant system National has developed is only for large companies. Even Fisher and Paykel Healthcare which expects to get a couple of million dollars out of the National Government’s grant system said that was half what it would have got out of Labour’s research and development tax credit. Some of our most innovative companies are small and they are the very ones that cannot afford to invest in research and development. They are the very ones that need that assistance to be able to move into that area. National has said those small businesses are not eligible for that assistance and that is absolutely crazy. Small businesses are eligible only for a tiny part of the package—absolute crumbs. If we are serious about innovation in this country why are we shutting some of the most innovative companies out of getting any kind of assistance at all? 
David Shearer 
: There’s no incentive. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: There is no incentive. The other interesting thing is that Dr Mapp used to talk about why he got rid of the previous Labour Government’s research and development tax credit. He always said that it was because companies were not doing new research. They would just reclassify their spending. He had talked to an accountant who told him—I think it was an accountant? 
Hon Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Accountants. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: Oh it is plural now. It was not plural last year. Clearly he has found another unnamed unknown accountant to add to his list of people he has talked to about this issue. That accountant had said to him that companies were busy restructuring everything so that they could rort that research and development tax credit of Labour’s. This Government has no trust in scientists. That is the other thing. It thinks that scientists will just rort every system out there. So why have we put in place a system for grants that those companies do not have to spend on new research and development—not even on new research and development? Not only did the Government say grants do not have to be spent on new research and development but also it has not even said they have to be spent on research and development. In fact the Prime Minister said the Government just trusts scientists to spend the funding on research and development-ish stuff. Under Labour’s tax credit we had put in place a system to say that we wanted expenditure to be on new research and development because we had learnt from the Australian experience that we had to put certain safeguards in place. The tax credit was for new research and development. Dr Mapp could not possibly have told us that none of the applications were for new research and technology because the Government cut the scheme before the first applications came in at the end of the financial year. How he somehow knew that all of the applications would be for old research and development activity I am not sure. 
The reality is that this is a bad Budget for science. I think the Minister should not have taken the opportunity to brag about something that he should not be bragging about. While I am on my feet the other thing I ask is why the Minister of Research Science and Technology is not in charge of the Primary Growth Partnership. What kind of message does it send to the science community when the Minister of Research Science and Technology—albeit he does not have— 
Hon David Carter 
: Because it comes out of the MAF Budget. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: I know that it is being done under the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries but why is the Minister of Research Science and Technology not taking charge of it and showing leadership in the science community. I know that David Carter needs things to do other than steal members’ bills on animal welfare off backbenchers but the fact is that this should be led by the Minister of Research Science and Technology. It should send a strong message that this Government values science but this Government does not. 
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 It is a pleasure indeed to take a brief call during the third reading of the Carter Observatory Act Repeal Bill. Matters have been very well canvassed on the virtues of the observatory its history and things like that. 
In Wellington it is important that the Carter Observatory remains in that space of importance as an educational tool and as a tourist attraction. It would be a shame if after all the efforts and history of the observatory which has been running since 1938 it was to slowly but quietly slip under the radar screen because we would lose the piece of history it has contributed to Wellington and to New Zealand. 
I certainly encourage everyone to get on the cable car trolley up to the Wellington Botanic Gardens and become familiar with that piece of history known as the Carter Observatory. We should keep it there for education and for tourism. When the ladies are in Wellington they should think seriously about whether shopping would be better than a trip up to the Carter Observatory. 
Let us look where we have gone. Back nearly 100 years ago the observatory fulfilled a function. Science has moved on but science still remains very much a centrepiece of education. On that basis it gives me great pleasure to commend this bill to the House. 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party is very happy as is every other party in this House to support the Carter Observatory Act Repeal Bill. The bill has taken years to get through this House and there is no particular explanation as to why that is. I suppose it was just a lack of priority. But finally we are passing this bill tonight. 
Although everyone has been waxing eloquent about the wonderful national Carter Observatory the incredible asset it is to Wellington and the way it generates so much interest among schools as a science and education centre nevertheless the harsh reality is that 72 years after its founding we are presiding over the transformation of a once great national astronomical observatory into a tourism attraction—a tourism attraction—and an education centre. I think it is actually rather sad that today we are losing our national observatory. 
I made the point in the Committee stage about a very interesting report written by the Australian astronomer and professor Professor Mike Bessell in 2005 when he was commissioned to review the Carter Observatory by the Ministry of Research Science and Technology. I will quote from a couple of parts of his report because he points out that “Among all the sciences astronomy has the unique power to reveal the true scope of the outside world. This immense and enduring appeal of astronomy to the public allows it to act as a powerful ‘science magnet’:”. I think that many members have acknowledged the incredible interest of science students in astronomy. The report goes on: “At the elementary school level teachers know that the two scientific topics guaranteed to excite their students are dinosaurs and outer space … The lecturers in these courses know from long experience that a palpable hush falls over the class whenever topics such as black holes the search for other planets Earth-crossing asteroids or the origin and fate of the universe are brought up.” The report points out that “Astronomy among all sciences has the highest relative participation by non- professionals.” The report also points out that for that reason astronomical research is increasing in other countries such as in Europe the United States of America Canada and Australia so it is rather tragic that here in New Zealand we are going in the opposite direction and closing our national observatory. 
As the professor pointed out in his report and as two other reports also pointed out basically the observatory is closing for the key reason of the lack of adequate financial resources. His report talked about the way the Carter Observatory has languished over the years through lack of funding and about the fact that we have a much much smaller percentage of research and development funding available for astronomical research in New Zealand. It is extraordinary that we have such a tiny percentage of funding available for astronomical research; that is a bit of an indictment. The report talks about the fact that the funding through the Marsden Fund is simply not adequate to sustain a national observatory. For that reason and really for that reason alone we are presiding here today over the demise of a once great national observatory that has been around for 72 years. 
As I also pointed out in my speech during the Committee stage I am concerned about the continued funding and viability of the Carter Observatory even in its new guise as a tourism attraction and as an education centre. I pointed out that the professor in his report emphasised that no planetarium or science centre in the world can survive through gate takings alone; they have to be supported by local or central Government funding. That is my worry. To be sure the Wellington City Council has stepped into the breach—a breach that I guess has been caused really by central government because successive Governments have failed to provide the funding that is needed to sustain a national observatory. Now the Wellington City Council has stepped into the breach but it has guaranteed funding for only the next 10 years. So I question what will happen after that. 
Yes it is wonderful to have this science centre and yes it has been recently refurbished and it reopened just over a month ago. It is a fantastic centre; it is a great tourist asset to Wellington. We hope that it will very much continue to attract visitors. Wayne Mapp talked about a survey today that shows that Wellington is the No. 1 winter destination for tourists in New Zealand. That is largely because of all the interesting things such as the Carter Observatory and the many other assets we have here in Wellington. But it is a worry whether the Wellington City Council will provide the funding to keep the observatory as a genuine educational centre and as a world-class tourism asset. Those are the concerns that the Green Party has as we support this bill today and as we preside over the demise of our once great national observatory. Thank you. 
JOHN BOSCAWEN (ACT) 
: 
 Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker— 
Chris Hipkins 
: Here comes a speech on the ETS. 
JOHN BOSCAWEN 
: I will speak on this bill. I had not been intending to speak but I mentioned to that member’s colleague David Shearer that the speech he gave earlier this evening gave me the inspiration to speak on this bill the Carter Observatory Act Repeal Bill. 
Hon Member 
: I don’t believe it. 
JOHN BOSCAWEN 
: That is right; Mr Shearer gave me the inspiration to rise to my feet to speak on the Carter Observatory Act Repeal Bill. 
It was interesting that Mr Allan Peachey my local MP castigated Mr Shearer. He made the point—and I thought quite fairly—that the Labour Government had been in power for 9 years so of course it had had a lot of time to address some of the issues that Mr Shearer raised. But having said that Mr Peachey had been critical of Mr Shearer’s speech I have to say that I thought Mr Shearer raised some very good points—points just recently picked up by Sue Kedgley. Mr Shearer talked about the budget for research and development and Labour’s Fast Forward Fund. He talked about the Government’s commitment to put an extra $56 million a year into science and technology and he talked about the cost of running an observatory. 
Well I am sure that this has not missed the attention of any member of Parliament but in the last 24 hours two power retailers have announced increases to the price of electricity as a consequence of the emissions trading scheme from 1 July. As a consequence Mr Shearer’s points were very well made. Electricity will cost more and every individual every business every entity in the country will pay more for their electricity and it will cost more to run the Carter Observatory. As Sue Kedgley said we have to be concerned about falling budgets so I guess that this is an own goal. Certainly the announcement that was made yesterday by Mercury Energy to put up the price of electricity by 3.3 percent is essentially a hidden profit for the Government. So I guess it is an ill wind that blows no good. 
There are the Government’s three main generators including Mighty River Power which generates electricity on the Waikato River. It does not make any carbon emissions so it does not incur any emissions cost as a consequence of its generation of electricity on the Waikato River. However it has said that it will increase the wholesale price of electricity because Genesis Energy will pay for those emissions and will force up the wholesale price. As a consequence Mercury Energy can go out to its customers try to keep a straight face and say “Look we’re going to be incurring a higher wholesale price for the cost of electricity and we’re going to pass it on to you.” Of course that simply results in a windfall gain for the Government. 
I find it very interesting that the figure the Government put up for the revenue it will earn from the emissions trading scheme is $350 million and that it ignores those same hidden profits—those windfall profits. As owner of Mighty River Power— 
Sue Kedgley 
: Come on back to the bill. 
JOHN BOSCAWEN 
: I am addressing the issue that Miss Kedgley raised. She was concerned about the budget and the cost of operating the Carter Observatory and the investment in science and technology. The member can laugh but I am making the point that electricity is going up from 1 July. All New Zealanders all institutions all museums and all observatories will pay for that. 
Sue Kedgley 
: What’s that got to do with the Carter Observatory? 
JOHN BOSCAWEN 
: I note that Mr Shearer devoted a large part of his speech to the cost of operating observatories and scientific institutions and that member did the same. I am making the point that we incur costs to run these things. In the last 24 hours Mercury Energy announced that it will increase the price of electricity by 3.3 percent and Contact Energy announced that it will increase the price of electricity by 3.2 percent. It is all very well for the Minister for Climate Change Issues to say that that is great news because we had forecasted electricity to go up by 5 percent but it is only going up by 3.3 percent. I say to the Minister that there are 12 more months in this financial year and I am sure by that time we would have had the 5 percent increase. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: You’re a climate change believer now? You’ve changed your tune again. 
JOHN BOSCAWEN 
: The Minister of Research Science and Technology told me that one of the things the scientists at the Carter Observatory follow is the so-called Milankovitch Cycles which Dr Smith might understand a bit about. Dr Mapp told me that the people who believe in those cycles put them as an alternative hypothesis for the changes in global temperature that we have observed. The Assistant Speaker has been very generous and I think I have made my point. The ACT Party will be supporting this bill. Thank you. 
STUART NASH (Labour) 
: 
 Whenever I hear John Boscawen speak the first thing he says is: “I was not going to take a call in this bill but I’ve changed my mind.” I think it would be better for most in the House if he went with his first call on that one. I have heard Mr Boscawen talk about the emissions trading scheme numerous times now. I put a challenge to that member that he put his money where his mouth is. Will he still vote with a Government that will implement an emissions trading scheme? That member has spent many hours of his time researching and debating the emissions trading scheme but what will he do about it? When push comes to shove will he put his money where his mouth is? 
I come back to this bill. I am supporting this bill for very good reasons. It repeals a 1938 bill. As I talked about in the Committee stage I ask members to imagine the time back in 1938 and what days they were then. They were hard days because this country was in the grip of a Depression. They were tough and dreadful days. I tell members to imagine the foresight and the vision of a Government that said that amongst all that misery we needed a beacon of light and a project that would inspire the people of New Zealand. That Government commissioned a bill to build an observatory up there as a beacon for the whole country. The bill we are repealing went through in 1938. The observatory took a few years to build and it was commissioned in 1941. 
Those were dark days as well. It was the middle of World War II and things were not going too well for the Allies. There was Stalingrad and they had been kicked out of Dunkirk. The Germans were on the rampage. Indeed those were dark days for New Zealand. Here we were with this new observatory being commissioned. I ask members to picture the imagery around this. It was an edifice that would have conveyed the image of looking forward looking to the stars looking onwards and looking upwards. This was a great symbol of where the country needed to go. It was truly aspirational as only Labour can be. 
No doubt it was opened by Peter Fraser. He would have been surrounded by the great men and women of the Labour Party who drew this country out of the Depression it was in. Labour created the social service net. 
Chris Hipkins 
: Who was his finance Minister? 
STUART NASH 
: Walter Nash was in Washington as the first overseas ambassador. He would have been there if he could have been there. This was a really uplifting project and it was fantastic. I take my hat off to that visionary Labour Government. Goodness me it achieved so much in so little time. In 1977 the observatory became our national observatory. This bill is the natural conclusion to a process that has been going on for quite a while now. In 2006 the Labour Government gave $2.2 million to provide for more education and tourism opportunities. In 2008 further funds followed to again increase its tourism opportunities. Now this bill is the official transformation from science to tourism. That is now complete. 
In my three periods in this city—first as a student the second as a contractor and now as a member of Parliament in this wonderful House—each time I have walked past that observatory to work or to varsity I looked up and it spoke as a beacon of what the Labour Government in 1938 achieved. It was always looking onwards and upwards. 
Now I come to this century. In a way maybe what is happening tonight is an analogy for research and development in the science sector and for funding in New Zealand under this Government and it saddens me. We all know that Labour set up a $700 million Fast Forward Fund because Labour understood that the only way this country would grow and compete in the globalised world of fast-paced movement was with research and development. We needed a fund and a way to help those businesses that would be the future face of this country. I ask what happened. Those chaps were elected and the fund was ripped away and gutted. We talk about the brain drain. There go all the scientists who would have been working and whom that money would have been spent on. 
My colleague the Hon Pete Hodgson tells a story of a young scientist who came to Parliament to pick up a scholarship. He was headed overseas to do his post-doctoral work. He said to Pete: “With this fund Minister I am really tempted to come back to New Zealand to work in New Zealand because I can now see a future for me as a scientist. I can see a future for research and development. This is the way forward. There is a future for me in this country.” I wonder where he is now. He is probably at Cambridge Oxford the Massachusetts Institute of Technology or Harvard but one thing is for sure: I very much doubt that he is here. Well we know that the first funding that was that Government’s replacement for the Fast Forward Fund was allocated I believe only today. 
David Shearer 
: Not even allocated just approved. 
STUART NASH 
: It was not even allocated just announced. This Government has ripped $700 million out of the research and development sector and what did it replace it with? It replaced it with the $190 million Primary Growth Partnership—$190 million. And it took it 18 months to do that. It is a disgrace. 
I will tell members an interesting story. I was in a tax debate just a couple of days ago—last week or whenever it was—and one of my colleagues threw a question across the House. My colleague asked what was in the Budget to drive research and development and what was in the Budget to drive innovation. Do members know what the Minister of Research Science and Technology said? Tax cuts. He said it was tax cuts. I could not believe that. The Minister of Research Science and Technology said that it was tax cuts. I expected him to yell across the floor that the Government would activate the productive economy in this country by providing funding to the research and development sector. He would have been a lone voice amongst his colleagues because of course the Minister has his PhD. Dr Nick Smith also has a PhD. He understands the value of science. He understands the value of innovation and research. Two Ministers sitting across the House at the moment have PhDs. Did they stand up in a Cabinet meeting and say that we need more money to grow the productive economy and that the only way we will do that is through research development and innovation? Did they? 
Hon Members 
: No. 
STUART NASH 
: No they did not. I thought they might have but the reason I know they did not is that the Minister for Research Science and Technology said that the way to grow the productive economy was through tax cuts. I could see my colleague David Shearer who has done a lot of work on this and a lot of research and who knows what every country around the world is doing in this area—I saw his shoulders drop because Dr Wayne Mapp was an ally of his. David Shearer said to me that Wayne Mapp would stand up for their sector. He said he knew that he would because he has a PhD and he understands the sector. David slumped back in his chair with his shoulders dropped because he knew that the one person whom he thought he could rely on had let him down. 
The Minister said that tax cuts would save this economy. Well all I can say is God help this economy if that is the way it is. That was hugely frustrating no doubt for everyone who operates in the productive economy and who needs just a little bit of incentive to drive growth. They need just a little bit of funding a little bit of support from the Government to drive innovation and to drive research and development so that they can take their products globally so that we can start competing in the global environment. 
Anyway this analogy is saddening but perhaps under this Government our economy will also move from one of scientific endeavour to purely tourism. That is why I say that perhaps this bill tonight under which the Carter Observatory has moved from science to tourism—let us hope that it has not—could be an analogy. I am fearful that in fact this bill is an analogy for the way this economy will go under this Government. But then again my colleague Kelvin Davis would ask how that could be because the Government is going to mine schedule 4 land which is our prime tourism competitive advantage. So I do not know what the hell we will end up with but I do know that this is a good bill. I support it and I commend it to the House. Thank you very much. 
LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupo) 
: 
 I am very pleased to speak in support of this third and final reading of the Carter Observatory Act Repeal Bill. If people think about this particular bill and have listened to some of the speakers before me they will probably think that those members should visit the Carter Observatory so that they can figure out what planet they are on. Perhaps it is the “Planet of the Apes”; perhaps it is not this planet at all. 
Before I move on to the bill I will address one comment that was made about the current Government’s investment in science. This Government under the fine leadership of Dr Wayne Mapp in the area of science research and technology is putting real money into science. It is not hot air which is perhaps something else members could see if they visited the Carter Observatory. It might be a useful trip for them. If they look upwards they will realise that pennies do not fall from heaven. It is real money that we are looking for. 
If members think about what they might do if they were to go to the Carter Observatory—I have looked at the great information on its website and yes there is a focus on tourism now but a lot of science education goes on there—they will learn about the big bang black holes the Milky Way and the universe. 
Hon Dr Wayne Mapp 
: They’ve suffered a big bang. 
LOUISE UPSTON 
: Yes that is correct. Goodness me those members have fallen into a deep dark black hole. If members went to the Carter Observatory they could look at the Thomas Cooke telescope for star-gazing. I think that perhaps the Opposition needs to do some serious navel-gazing instead. 
Anyway this bill has the support of the House and I am proud to speak in support of it. It is very simple. It repeals the Carter Observatory Act and dissolves the Carter Observatory board. The Wellington City Council is excited about having this asset so that it can use it to promote its beautiful city and wonderful science hand in hand with tourism. Thank you. 
KELVIN DAVIS (Labour) 
: 
 I agree with the previous speaker Louise Upston that the Carter Observatory Act Repeal Bill is a simple bill. Everyone in the House basically agrees with it. But I also take Sue Kedgley’s point that this is a sad day because we are losing a scientific and research asset after it has served New Zealand for 70-odd years. Since 1977 the Carter Observatory has been our national observatory and this is a sad day because we are losing that aspect of it. 
Sue Kedgley is also correct to say that astronomy is one of the subjects in a class that really grabs students’ imaginations. If we go into any class in any school it does not take us long to see the planets lined up in order from Mercury through to Pluto. We can hear people talking about the moon and how the moon moves around Earth about the relationship of the gravity of the sun to all the planets and about how those things all interrelate. We hear kids talking about black holes sunspots and Saturn’s rings. In fact today there was a news report that astronomers have seen a planet that is travelling so close to a particular sun that it will be eaten up over the next 10000000 years. Those are the types of learning situations that children really enjoy. They motivate them and get them into science. It is unfortunate that the observatory is being closed because as Dr Bessell reported there is a lack of resourcing for it. 
A number of people today have brought up the issue of the lack of resourcing for science advisers. As a former principal I can say that in Tai Tokerau in the far north there was a lack of advisers full stop. Science advisers were as scarce as hens’ teeth. Even if when we did find a science adviser that person would have unfortunately a huge geographic area to cover in Tai Tokerau. Advisers had over 100 schools to cover which made it almost impossible for any one school to get a science adviser—and that was when there were more advisers than there are now; before their number was halved. So partly as a result of the lack of advisers science is not a subject that is particularly well taught in schools. 
As a result of that we have students going through into secondary school who are not particularly motivated about science. When they have been taught science it is normally about electronics—putting batteries and bits of wire together—water-based science and those sorts of things. Because students are not learning science well it means that they do not go on to take up science courses at university in the numbers that we would expect. Kaitaia College mentioned to me when I was the principal of Kaitaia Intermediate School that pupils were coming through who were lacking in science skills. Also the focus—and this is moving a bit off the point—of national standards on numeracy and literacy is a disincentive for teachers to teach science because if teachers’ performance is to be measured on the basis of how well their students do in numeracy and literacy then they are best suited to focus on those areas not on teaching science and not on taking their students to the observatory. Instead students should be sitting in classrooms and learning about numeracy and literacy. That is a great disincentive to broadening the curriculum; it does narrow it down. 
It is great though that the observatory has a big focus on supporting teachers. Teachers are able to come in before they bring their classes to the observatory and get a bunch of resources that will help them to plan their units. Science such as astronomy appeals to gifted students. People tend to think that gifted students are the students who achieve really well when in fact gifted students tend to underachieve because their needs are not being met by the school curriculum. Science and astronomy are among the subjects that really help gifted students to get involved in the curriculum. It is the gifted students who will make a big difference in the world. They will become the scientists they will go into the technological courses and they will make the big changes that are really important to the world. 
So we do have to thank Charles Carter who back in the 1930s decided to set up this observatory for astronomy. The observatory has over the years been the basis of research. Amateur astronomers have been able to conduct their own research. I believe it was amateur astronomers who first spotted the Shoemaker-Levy 9 asteroid which people followed through the Internet eventually tracking its path. I think it was the Shoemaker-Levy 9 asteroid that ended up crashing into Jupiter. These are the sorts of experiences that the observatory would get kids to be motivated by and to observe. That is how education outside the classroom really does engage and motivate students into learning. 
As other members have said it is very disappointing that the $750 million research and development Fast Forward Fund was cut. As I have said it is the people who engage in science and technology who will make the breakthrough developments for the world. They are the people who will develop the cures for ailments and diseases. Also as we have heard from Stuart Nash the way to grow the productive economy is through investing in research and development. It is not just through having tax cuts as the only way forward for the country. 
The other aspect of the observatory is the tourism side of things. Tourism is really important to New Zealand’s economy; over $20 billion was brought in through tourism last year. It is great that the observatory complements the tourism scene in Wellington and in fact in all of New Zealand. The observatory adds to Wellington’s attractions such as Te Papa and Zealandia: The Karori Sanctuary Experience. With that I thank you very much. 
JO GOODHEW (National—Rangitata) 
: 
 The Carter Observatory Act Repeal Bill is very good. It should not spend any more time in the House. I am looking forward to the vote. Therefore I commend the bill to the House. 
Bill read a third time.