Mackey Moana: Carter Observatory Act Repeal Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Mackey Moana: Carter Observatory Act Repeal Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:663;Page:11360] 
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.