Carter Observatory Act Repeal Bill

I move, That the Carter Observatory Act Repeal Bill be now read a second time. This bill was referred to the Education and Science Committee for consideration on 22 October, and it has been reported back quite early. Of course, one of the reasons the committee was able to report back so early is indicated in its own report, which notes that the committee had to go out to seek submissions. Indeed, committee members noted: “We support the provisions in this bill, and do not recommend any amendments to the House.” The reason I mentioned those specific issues, which I know that members on the committee will cover briefly, is that this bill was voted for without dissent on its first reading, and I am looking forward to that same practice for this second reading, as well as for the Committee stage and the third reading. I am hopeful, perhaps, that when we get to the Committee stage we will be able to move immediately to the third reading on the same day, as well—by agreement of the House, of course, as Mr Speaker would appreciate. I do not intend to spend a great deal of time on this debate, because I know that the aspiration of the Wellington City Council is to take full legal ownership of the observatory as soon as possible.

I had the great pleasure of attending, as I know some other members in the House did as well, the observatory for what was effectively the practical transfer—I suppose in legal terms it is the informal transfer—of the observatory to the Wellington City Council. The council has done a fantastic job of refurbishing the facility. It is a great community asset, a great educational asset, and a great tourism asset. The council has restored the observatory from a historical perspective. The key instruments date back to the 19th century, but in fact they are in use today for tour groups, and so forth. Indeed, some useful scientific work is undertaken at the observatory. But it has moved fundamentally from being a scientific facility as such, to more of an educational facility and one that boosts the overall profile of Wellington.

In conclusion, one of the interesting things I find as a non-resident of Wellington—as someone who visits, admittedly, on a weekly basis, but nevertheless it is not my home—is that of cities of 400,000 or so people, Wellington must be one of the finest in the world. It has an extraordinary range of cultural and artistic facilities, and an amazing physical location. The Carter Observatory complements the cultural aspects of Wellington and is a further reason why Wellington can project itself, in a positive way, as it does, as a place of real intellectual firmament.

The previous Government initiated this process, of course, but shifting the observatory from essentially Government ownership through to Wellington City Council ownership, which is far more appropriate in the circumstances, has been a very good move. I think I should allow other members of the House to also acknowledge the role of the observatory in the cultural and intellectual life of Wellington. I look forward to being able to move this bill through its progressive stages, so that we can create a legal form of what has happened already as a practical reality.

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.

—$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.

The House adjourned at 10 p.m.