Nash Stuart: Carter Observatory Act Repeal Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Nash Stuart: Carter Observatory Act Repeal Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:663;Page:11366] 
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.