Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP (Minister of Research, Science and Technology) Link to this
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 $300,000 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 RyallHon Dr WAYNE MAPP Link to this
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) Link to this
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 $300,000 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 CarterNot 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—
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—Tāmaki) Link to this
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) Link to this
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.
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?
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?
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—
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—Kaikōura) Link to this
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) Link to this
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
Chris HipkinsI 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.
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—
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.
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 Link to this
You’re a climate change believer now? You’ve changed your tune again.
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) Link to this
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.
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.
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?
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—Taupō) Link to this
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.
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) Link to this
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 10,000,000 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. Kaitāia 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) Link to this
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.