Shearer David: Carter Observatory Act Repeal Bill — Second Reading 
Shearer David: Carter Observatory Act Repeal Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:663;Page:11037] 
DAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert) 
: 
 I would like to absolutely and positively endorse the comments of the Minister of Research Science and Technology about the Carter Observatory and Wellington in general. 
The Carter Observatory Act Repeal Bill progressed through the Education and Science Committee in a spirit of real bipartisanship. As the Minister said the select committee did not receive any submissions but felt that it was better to go out and seek some submissions in order to inform the committee make the legislative process more rigorous and ensure that we were heading down the right track. The three submissions that came back endorsed that view absolutely. 
There was a very good spirit in the select committee which was led very ably by Allan Peachey. As the Minister just said the bill should progress quickly through the parliamentary process. At times like these we realise how long it takes for a bill to progress through Parliament. This bill was talked about in 2006 and here we are in 2010 still talking about it. I have watched every day with eager anticipation the Carter Observatory Act Repeal Bill climb up the Order Paper only to see it every now and again fall to the bottom. That has disappointed the many hundreds of people who have sent me submissions and emails supporting the bill and asking what has happened to it. I am not mocking the people who got behind the observatory; I am just reflecting on the length of time it takes to move forward something that has complete support within the House. As the Minister has just said the bill rubber-stamps what is already happening on the ground. 
The repeal bill decision was based on the 2008 report by Mike Bessell and the Ministry of Research Science and Technology as was noted during its first reading. Bessell made a number of recommendations about the bill and set out what he thought some key roles of a national observatory should be. Members will remember that the Carter Observatory was in fact the national observatory of New Zealand. He felt that the Carter Observatory was not really meeting the functions of a national observatory. It was fulfilling an educational and perhaps a tourism role rather than a real science role and as a result he felt that it was better suited to being administered by the Wellington City Council rather than being run as a national observatory. 
It is important to say as the Minister intimated that there is still real interest in astronomy in our communities. This bill will and does enhance our understanding of science in a real and positive way—particularly among our young people but also obviously among others as well. The feeling was that much of the scientific work was best posited with the University of Canterbury at the Mount John Observatory. It was perceived that that observatory was the major player on the national and international scene in terms of its scientific role. Canterbury University has always welcomed experts from other universities to share that observatory—from Victoria University Otago University and Auckland University. So in a sense we are not losing anything here but are regrouping our resources in a much more sensible and efficient way. If my memory serves me correctly the previous Labour Government put about $2 million into the Carter observatory— 
Kelvin Davis 
: 2.2. 
DAVID SHEARER 
: —$2.2 million—and Minister Nathan Guy submitted some lottery money to supplement the upkeep and refurbishment of the observatory as well. 
It is I guess something of an anticlimax in many ways that this bill is moving forward. It is an anticlimax in much the same way that the Government’s science Budget announcement on Tuesday was an anticlimax. The third-largest new appropriation in the coming Budget is so important that the Prime Minister announced early that piece of positive and new news. 
There is a feeling amongst the science community and certainly to some degree within this House that science should be treated as a bipartisan issue but I do not think that an Opposition can sit by and just look at the miserable amount of money that the Government is putting up in its Budget—a miserable amount of money. I will tell members why I say it is miserable. It is miserable compared with what was taken away 18 months earlier. The research and development tax credits would have delivered at least double what this Government announced just last week. The tax credits would have doubled our research and development spend in the business community. That has gone. What do we have now? We have a system of vouchers and grants where companies come on their knees to a Government bureaucrat. 
Debate interrupted.