Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Labour—Auckland Central) Link to this
I move, That the Auckland Domain (Auckland Tennis) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. It is my pleasure, as MP for Auckland Central, to move this bill at the request of the Auckland City Council. The Auckland Domain (Auckland Tennis) Amendment Bill is a local bill that seeks to amend the Auckland Domain Act 1987. The Auckland Domain Act relates to the control, management, and use of the Auckland Domain. Under the Act, Auckland City is able to lease certain parts of the Auckland Domain. The purpose of the bill before us is to amend that Act as it relates to the power of Auckland City to lease an area of the Auckland Domain to the Auckland Lawn Tennis Association Inc.
In particular, the bill seeks to update the reference to that body from Auckland Lawn Tennis Association Inc. to Auckland Tennis Inc.—as it is now known. It will also extend the term of lease that the Auckland City Council can grant Auckland Tennis from 21 years to 50 years. The bill will allow Auckland Tennis, with the consent of the Auckland City Council, to sublease that land, and it will amend the legal description of the land that may be leased to Auckland Tennis to reflect the land it currently occupies.
I would like to bring to the House’s attention the fact that as we go through each amendment to the Auckland Domain Act that we have seen in the last 10 or 15 years, we have had to amend the boundaries each time because they are inaccurately described. So I recommend that the Local Government and Environment Committee look very carefully at that matter. As required by the Standing Orders, at the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be considered by the Local Government and Environment Committee.
Auckland Tennis is proposing to redevelop the facility it currently leases from the Auckland City Council. In order to proceed with that development, Auckland Tennis requires the certainty provided by a lease term of 50 years rather than the current 21 years. Auckland Tennis also needs the ability to sublease the land to the proposed redeveloper, as any sublease must be with the consent of, and on terms acceptable to, the Auckland City Council.
After soccer and Formula One motor racing, tennis has the third-highest annual spectator count of any sport worldwide. Of those three major global sports, tennis is the only one that New Zealand hosts every year at the elite level. It is also one of the most popular sports amongst New Zealanders, with over half a million New Zealanders actively playing tennis in the last year. Tennis NZ has coaching facilities as the headquarters of tennis across the Auckland region, but the standout event is that every year in the first 2 weeks of January it hosts the ASB Classic WTA Tour women’s tournament and the ATP Heineken Open men’s tournament. These two major events are hosted at the ASB Tennis Centre in the Auckland Domain run by Auckland Tennis. To remain in this lucrative and important worldwide tennis circuit and retain these two events, both these tournaments must meet circuit standards, which are assessed and reported on each year. These standards include player facilities, media facilities, and spectator facilities. The facilities of a stadium that hosts tournaments are therefore extremely important.
The only stadium that can host these tournaments in New Zealand is the present ASB Tennis Centre, and the last major upgrade of the stadium took place 20 years ago, when Auckland Tennis, through its voluntary organisations and committee, raised over $2.5 million. Although incremental improvements are made each year, it is now important to significantly upgrade the stadium to maintain the international competitiveness of the tournaments. Auckland Tennis is not in a position to be able to fund the multimillion-dollar upgrade that will be required, and therefore looked to find an investor that would make the project possible. It has found such an investor, who will fund the upgrade in return for being able to operate part of the facility outside the international event dates.
The reason for the proposed amendments to the current site lease terms for Auckland Tennis is to enable the stadium upgrade to proceed, and thus to protect the hosting by New Zealand of two of the few remaining world sporting events that take place annually in New Zealand. No taxpayer or ratepayer money has gone into the capital development of the stadium, which has been entirely developed through the efforts of Auckland Tennis and its many volunteers and users. Auckland Tennis will use the income it receives from the investor to upgrade the facilities currently enjoyed most of the year by the Auckland region and the Auckland public, as well as by people from the rest of New Zealand.
Auckland City Council has consulted all interested people on this bill, which include other lessees of the Auckland Domain and the area, tangata whenua, Transit New Zealand in relation to roading, the relevant Government departments, and many other groups with an interest in matters relating to the Auckland Domain. I also note that Auckland City is facing an enormous increase in its resident population in the central business district, and the proposal by Auckland Tennis will provide much better active and passive sporting facilities and open space for those people. The Auckland Domain is, of course, an absolute jewel in Auckland’s recreational crown.
Under the bill there will be no automatic right for Auckland Tennis to be granted a lease, and the granting of such a lease will be subject to the Auckland City Council’s leasing policy and any conditions that it will put on any lease. In addition, the terms and conditions of any sublease by Auckland Tennis to the proposed developer will also be subject to the approval of the Auckland City Council, and, in both cases, the council will undertake full consultation—as it has told me—before making any decision on any proposed lease or, indeed, sublease.
This bill will establish a framework for significant investment in Auckland, and in New Zealand’s sporting infrastructure, because it is necessary to ensure that we can continue to host major tennis matches in Auckland and in New Zealand. It is, I believe, a major addition to the sporting infrastructure of New Zealand and of Auckland. It gives me great pleasure to commend this bill to the House. I thank all of those who have been consulted and I give the assurance that this bill will be sent to the Local Government and Environment Committee for positive consideration. Thank you.
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) Link to this
I appreciate the opportunity to speak on the Auckland Domain (Auckland Tennis) Amendment Bill. National will support this bill going to a select committee. I think it is one of the bills that make those of us who are in the House think about the challenges that face our country. This is very much a microcosm of the fact that we have 4.5 million people, with one major city of 1.4 million people, and we have to work extremely hard to maintain ourselves on the international circuit.
As the Minister properly indicated, tennis is a global sport. There is huge competition to host the premier tournaments that Auckland has been proud and pleased to host for the last 50 years, the women’s and the men’s tennis tournaments both held in January. I know full well that in relation to those tours, cities in Asia, Eastern Europe, and elsewhere are competing vigorously to hold the tournaments. There are all sorts of promises of and blandishments regarding magnificent facilities that could be built for those tournaments. Naturally enough, the global advertisers—and tennis is very much a prestige sport; one only has to look at the brands associated with the advertising to see that it is very much at the forefront of global advertising—are looking for the best possible venues.
So Auckland Tennis and, indeed, the Auckland City Council, have been faced with a real challenge. The facilities were improved some 20 years ago, but, to be honest—and this is well recognised by Auckland Tennis—we have to work exceptionally hard as a nation to offer first-class facilities in order to attract these global competitions. That is why the bill that creates the leases has to be introduced: to enable a more flexible approach to the leases, so that a more appropriate level of investment can made.
You know, it is interesting that we see across the House today the Hon Trevor Mallard. What does one say about him? Is he the failed Minister for Sport and Recreation? Was that why that portfolio was yanked off him? Why are we not getting the promise and commitment of a cheque from the Government to rebuild Eden Park? Time is pressing. That is the reality. That competition is only 2½ years away.
I have to say that the interjections from the Minister are completely erroneous. National totally supports the redevelopment of Eden Park, and we are particularly concerned that the Government has dropped the ball on that huge, important issue. Let us just imagine the consequences for this country—for our international reputation—if we do not step up to the mark in 2011 for the Rugby World Cup. We do not have a lot of time. This is a call that will occur on the Government’s watch—on Labour’s watch in 2008. It has to step up, and Aucklanders and New Zealanders are waiting, waiting, waiting for the decisions to be made.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
Eden Park building will be starting somewhere in 2009. Get your head around it!
You know, I am really concerned, and I guess the interjections from the former Minister of Sport and Recreation—the failed Minister—actually tell us what could happen. If the Government does not act sufficiently quickly, there is a genuine and real risk that the final of the Rugby World Cup in 2011 will be played in Sydney, and that would be a terrible travesty for this Government and the nation.
So I say to Government members that they have to act quickly on the issue of the Rugby World Cup.
The relevance of that issue to this bill is that there are relatively few international competitions that New Zealand has a realistic chance of being able to host. Tennis is one of those sports. We are doing it in large part, I guess, based on our history. We are fortunate that the Auckland tournaments precede the major tournaments in Australia a few weeks later, so a lot of players come to New Zealand to prepare for those tournaments. Indeed, a whole host of international names have played at Auckland, and many, many New Zealanders, both at courtside and by watching television, have certainly enjoyed seeing those players—who, let us be honest, we struggle to get. They include Björn Borg, Evonne Goolagong, and Lindsay Davenport, amongst many, many others.
So this is a very important bill, which we support because the core of the issue is about Auckland retaining its place as a Pacific Rim city—one of the cities that counts when people think of the Asia-Pacific region. If we do not support this bill—if we do not assist Auckland City Council and Auckland Tennis to make the steps they need to make—we are at risk. My concern when I raised the issue of the Rugby World Cup is really the point that I make to the Government. I say the Government should not put New Zealand’s reputation at risk by delaying its decisions. Not a lot of time remains on that issue. I genuinely say to the Government that it should not wait too long.
This bill is very important. This Government has an obligation—and, I would say, this Parliament and all those people who have an interest in the future of Auckland have an obligation—to give this bill a full, complete, and fair hearing. In truth this bill is necessary not just for Auckland tennis—and it is important for Auckland tennis—and for Auckland City but also to maintain New Zealand’s place in the Asia-Pacific region. Auckland is our place. It is measured alongside the Brisbanes, the Vancouvers, and the San Diegos of the region, and we must show that ours is a city that counts. I know that when I talk to many business, social, and cultural leaders in Auckland, they are deeply concerned about our city staying at the forefront of those cities. This Government has an obligation, in the 12 months it has left, to make the decisions that count, not just on this issue but also on other things, because ultimately our future as a country depends on us staying in our place. We, as parliamentarians, have an obligation across the House to do everything we can to support that.
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) Link to this
I would say to members that there are just six calls on this debate, one for each party and one in reply, and if the parties are to take their calls, then they need to take them at the time.
NATHAN GUY (Junior Whip—National) Link to this
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I have been around and talked to some of the minor parties, and my understanding from the discussions I have had with them is that they are to be speaking to this reading. I suggest that they should seek the call if that is to happen.
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) Link to this
Well, I have indicated to members that there are just six speeches, and that if the parties are to take their speeches, then they need to take them.
SUE BRADFORD (Green) Link to this
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am sorry, but the reason I did not take the call then was that I thought New Zealand First was going first, which is the normal order. I do wish to seek the call.
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) Link to this
I think the member should take her speech, because as I said, there is one for each party.
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for the Environment) Link to this
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. You did, of course, call Mark Gosche, and you cannot withdraw the call once you have given it to him. He was the only member calling at the time.
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) Link to this
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. New Zealand First is quite happy for Mark Gosche to take our spot.
Hon MARK GOSCHE (Labour—Maungakiekie) Link to this
This Auckland Domain (Auckland Tennis) Amendment Bill deals with the Auckland City Council. As the member of Parliament for Maungakiekie I represent an electorate that is in Auckland City, unlike the members opposite, who put forward somebody from the North Shore to give a speech. As the Hon Trevor Mallard asked, I ask whether the North Shore is contributing at all to this, or to any other sporting facility south of the harbour bridge. National does have a member of Parliament in Auckland City, and that is the member for Tamaki. I cannot remember his name, but he lives on the North Shore, as well.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
There used to be a really good member for Tamaki called Clem Simich.
Yes, Clem was a much better member, because he lived in the electorate and he knew its people.
I thought it was important to take the call, because I was a little aggrieved at the way in which the Auckland City Council lawyers went about this process. I first heard about the bill on 21 September, after it had been drafted and when it had been put out for public consultation. I received a letter because the lawyers had to send me one under the rules of the Standing Orders of the House of Representatives. Although I support the bill, and I think it is a very sensible and necessary bill, it demonstrates a bit of a problem that Auckland City has had for many, many years, which is that it does not realise that it needs to actually consult its communities throughout its city boundaries—and, in particular, communities in the southern part of the Auckland City boundaries, which is the part that I represent. We are still waiting, after 35 years, for a swimming pool in Ōtāhuhu. We sit and watch sand being brought down from Northland on a barge, costing many millions of dollars, and being spread across the beautiful beaches along the Tāmaki waterfront.
That is good for Auckland, but my plea to the Auckland City Council, and to its lawyers in particular, is for them to do their job a little better in the future when they are bringing these sorts of bills to Parliament. The council should have the decency to consult widely with its communities. As the member for Maungakiekie, which covers a significant part of the Auckland City Council area, I would have thought that the council would consult with our community earlier on, because this bill is good for the Auckland region, not just for the Auckland City Council area.
This bill upgrades a facility that has served our region and our country for many, many years as the prime site for international tennis tournaments, namely the men’s and women’s tournaments that are held in the early part of the year. We have good international players coming down to New Zealand. They have an experience here that they do not have anywhere else in the world, in that they are billeted. They come back to New Zealand and to Auckland, and they play in those tournaments, year after year, even though we might not expect them to come down because their world rankings go up and they might decide to forgo tournaments like the ones held in Auckland. But they do come, because of the hospitality, the warmth, and the experience of playing in those two tournaments.
As Dr Wayne Mapp, the member for North Shore, said, our tournaments precede very important tournaments held in Australia, so we need the facilities that will continue to meet the demands of the international circuit. That is why this bill is necessary. It means that a developer will be able to come in and spend many millions of dollars upgrading the tennis centre so that it can continue to host those sorts of tournaments. Those tournaments act as a real incentive to New Zealand’s young players coming through, because not only can they see some of the best up-and-coming players in the world at those tournaments but also, if they are lucky and do well, they may qualify to play there. Some may get that chance, but they would not if we did not put this bill through, upgrade the centre, and make it a viable place to host those international tournaments.
I was utterly surprised at the speeches from National members about the Rugby World Cup, Eden Park, and all those sorts of things. Those members continue to want to put their foot in their mouth and to make cheap political points about what is an important sporting event for all New Zealanders, and particularly for Aucklanders.
I think it was the member who is mouthing off over there who had the job of being the Opposition spokesperson on Auckland issues.
Dave HereoraYes, he had the job of being the PC eradicator before that, and then he got promoted to being the spokesperson for Auckland issues by the current leader of the National Party. All he has done is to show that his view of Auckland is one that is bound by the harbour and the harbour bridge. He sees Auckland as being only the North Shore. It is interesting that National members had to get all that member’s mates around Auckland to twist his arm on the other bill that will deal with regional funding issues before he saw the light. He realised that the reason why National does so badly in Auckland is that it is narrowly focused on its electorates on the North Shore or in the southern parts of Auckland—that is all that those members see.
I am pleased that those members are supporting this Auckland Domain (Auckland Tennis) Amendment Bill. They have finally realised that they cannot get away with having that narrow focus any more. They cannot play those stupid, parochial little games when they are trying to pretend that they would be a future Government. You see, one has to have a bit of vision. That is what the tennis people have. They see a need to upgrade the facilities and they have found a developer who is prepared to put in the money so that the poor old Auckland City ratepayers do not have to. Auckland ratepayers pay for most of the regional activities in the Auckland region out of their rates, whilst others take advantage of them and then have the cheek to complain—like those members opposite from the North Shore do—about what is going on in Auckland City. At least now we can see that the National Party, through its support for this bill, has realised that there is no electoral future in behaving like that. Those members only behave like that when they think there is an electoral future in it.
It is a pity that a few years ago there was a very good rugby league ground, just down the road a little from this particular tennis centre. It was also up against the Auckland Domain. There was talk about that being turned into a future stadium for New Zealand, and Brian Donnelly and I—old rugby league players—were in favour of that. But, unfortunately, the time passed. The Auckland regional politicians of the time did not wake up and see that opportunity. We could have passed a bill like this to aid that sort of stadium and maybe there would not have been an argument at all about where we should have the Rugby World Cup.
However, rugby league people will go on, and we will support ventures like this upgrade of the tennis facilities. This bill is necessary so that there can be a sensible lease time of 50 years. Obviously, if someone wants to put big money into upgrading the facilities, that person wants to know that the facilities will have a sensible lease.
The necessity for this bill is pretty simple. After I received the original notification I wrote to the lawyers for Auckland City Council and said: “Well, you sent me this bill. I have read it. It doesn’t really tell me why you want to have this lease.” It was not until I had a further letter back on 7 November that the need for this bill became apparent. I hope the council did not charge me too much as a ratepayer for this legal advice and work. I think we deserve a discount for the lack of consultation and the lack of explanation. I know the council probably charges by the letter, so it had a bit more money out of the Auckland City ratepayer by having to respond to my request for more information.
However, we got there in the end, and, like my colleague the Hon Judith Tizard, whose electorate also sits within the boundaries of Auckland City Council, we are genuinely supportive of this bill. We look forward to its passing so that Auckland Tennis Inc. and New Zealand can look forward again to those very good tournaments into the future.
SUE BRADFORD (Green) Link to this
I will take just a very brief call to confirm that the Green Party will also be supporting this Auckland Domain (Auckland Tennis) Amendment Bill. As Mr Gosche has been saying, the Stanley Street tennis courts have been an institution in Auckland throughout my lifetime and, I am sure, long before that. I, too, regret the loss of the rugby league grounds there. Even I have attended matches there—and concerts—and it is a great pity that the grounds have gone. But I have just a few queries about this bill, which I hope have been answered. The first is around what the attitude of Ngāti Whātua might be to what is being proposed here. I have not been able to get any definitive answer on that at this stage, so the Green Party will be watching closely what happens during the select committee process to see whether there are any concerns from Ngāti Whātua, whose rohe, of course, this is.
The second concern I still have is around this private investor. I can understand the tennis association wanting the support of a private investor to help develop the facility, given the millions of dollars involved. I just hope that in doing that, the investor does not create activity or buildings that in some way infringe on the public space of the domain or any other public space around there. As a lot of people will be aware, there are cases of developers going through boundaries or creating activities that do intrude excessively into public space and I would hate to see that happen in any way in this case, given that it is, of course, part of and adjacent to the domain.
It sounds as though the third concern is shared by Mr Gosche, and that is the total lack of information or consultation that came to the Green Party on this. If there was any information that came to the Green Party, I am unaware of it. Auckland City Council seems to be unaware that all parties in this Parliament, not just the major parties, need to be informed about bills like this. We would certainly have liked to have more information about the background to the bill, and that is why, at this stage, I am quite happy to say that the Green Party will support it going through to the select committee but we will be watching what happens there, just in case there are issues coming through of which we are not aware. I would suggest to Auckland City Council that perhaps it keeps remembering that there are a number of parties in this Parliament, not just two.
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki) Link to this
Kia ora tātou katoa i tēnei pō. At first glance the Auckland Domain (Auckland Tennis) Amendment Bill appears to be a mere technical adjustment—a proposal to amend the Auckland Domain Act 1987 and update the reference to the Auckland Lawn Tennis Association Inc. by changing it to Auckland Tennis Inc. We in the Māori Party have seen many a bill like this. Such bills have appeared on the Order Paper and we have been given every assurance there was nothing to fear—“all is well, everything is sweet; game over”. The problem is that as the serve for match point arises following a deuce call, there is suddenly the dawning of the question that was raised by Sue Bradford: where do tangata whenua fit? We are pleased that as we are about to serve for the first time, with this first reading of this bill, we are taking the opportunity to call “Time out!”, and to raise the issue of the relationship between tangata whenua and tennis for the consideration of this House, as it informs this bill.
The extensive oral history that we cherish amongst our koeke, our elders, reminds us that marae tennis dates back over a century. I know of many kuia and koroua from where I am from who talk of marae having tennis courts, and of highly competitive games with other iwi and hapū that were frequently contested on the courts. From 1911 the Marumaru Cup was the object of really hot rivalry between Hawke’s Bay, Taranaki, and Wanganui. We know also of the Morehu Turoa Cup, again a competition between neighbouring whānau, iwi, and hapū. The distinguishing feature of that competition was the teams of eight players: four men, and four women.
It was, in fact, that context of maintaining whānau, hapū, and iwi unity and connections that the legendary Sir Apriana Ngata drew upon in drawing together the various Māori competitions into one collective national force known as the New Zealand Māori Lawn Tennis Association. That association included a very prestigious annual tournament that hit off in 1926 with some 94 players in the men’s singles event. At the risk of sounding like a tennis infomercial for Māori tennis, what was so fascinating about the national association’s tournament was that a player was able to attend the tournament only after the provinces had completed their various elimination rounds in order to see who the best players were, and they were the only ones who were seen there.
One of our own personalities from my home town of Rotorua, Miss Ruia Morrison, was a ladies champion and our first Māori representative at Wimbledon, where, from all reports, she acquitted herself really honourably.
I have taken the time to draw out some of the history of the tangata whenua’s association with the little yellow ball to remind us all that even on an issue like extending the terms of the lease that Auckland City Council will grant to Auckland Tennis Inc. from 21 years to 50 years, it should automatically be presumed that Māori will have an interest. Although one may think that in its most basic form, this bill simply rubber-stamps the fact that Auckland Tennis Inc. requires a longer-term lease from Auckland City Council in order to redevelop its facilities, it would be useful to know what involvement, if any, Māori will have in the future direction of Auckland Tennis Inc.
Under the Local Government Act 2002, councils are, of course, required to consult with mana whenua. Therefore, we have been extremely interested in learning what consultation has been undertaken with Ngāti Whātua in relation to this bill. I am never surprised in this House that the concept of consultation with tangata whenua is tagged on as a sort of afterthought, the presumption having been made that this bill, like many others before it, is merely about administrative changes, with the two key players in this case being restricted to Auckland Tennis Inc. and the Auckland City Council. I guess if someone’s world view is void of Treaty justice, that analysis will always appear valid. In such a world view, the only requirement for consultation may be restricted to that set out in the particular statute.
So what relevance does the Auckland Domain Act 1987 have for this bill? What are the implications of section 6 of the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Act 1974 in terms of the passage of this bill through the House? What would Dick Garratt, chairman of the 80th Aotearoa Māori Tennis Championship, have to say about this bill? Then there are the marae of Ngāti Whātua and beyond, and whether they have any particular interest in the future outlook and direction of Auckland Tennis Inc.
There is, of course, a very significant issue at the root of this bill that will have particular meaning for mana whenua. This bill provides Auckland City Council with the ability to permit Auckland Tennis Inc. to grant a sublease over the land it leases from the council. That is where section 6 of the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Act 1974 enters the picture. That is the provision that is drawn on to amend the legal description of the land that may be leased to Auckland Tennis Inc. That is at the very crux of the issue for the Māori Party—the relationship and association that tangata whenua will have with the land under debate. It is important to get that right now in order to establish a precedent. We are aware that the Auckland City Council also intends to promote another local bill that will deal with other legal issues arising from the Auckland Domain Act. Part of the likely wash-up for the next bill to deal with will be a review of the current legal description and of the position of other lessees of the domain. So we ask again: how have Māori been involved in the discussions around the legislative changes up for review?
The land referred to in this bill is located in Stanley Street, Grafton. Probably every member of this House will know it is the same land on which is located the major tennis event centre in Auckland—a site of significant international tournaments. Auckland Tennis Inc. plays host to two major international tennis tournaments each year at the ASB Tennis Centre in Parnell: the ASB Classic Women’s International, and the Heineken Open Men’s International. The Māori Party stands to merely raise the question: what interest, if any, does Ngāti Whātua have in relation to this land, and have its concerns been appropriately taken into account? We have looked carefully at the bill, the explanatory note, the digital title plan, and the advice from Buddle Findlay for some acknowledgement of how mana whenua interests have been taken into account. What did the Ngāti Whātua trust board have to say about the legislative right to the land in question, as currently held by the Auckland City Council as the lessor? If Auckland Tennis Inc. seeks the ability to sublease the land to the property developer, what are the processes that Auckland City Council must automatically follow before consent is approved?
It is vital that councils come to this House having asked the questions, and having satisfied the requirements under the Local Government Act to consult with mana whenua as a matter of course. Mr Gosche also outlined the need to discuss this proposal with the other councils involved. We cannot help but think of the dreams and challenges of Sir Apirana Ngata so many years ago that saw him not only being fully involved in the events of the day as they were debated in this Chamber, but also in ensuring that the social, economic, and cultural advancement of tangata whenua succeeded in so many areas of life, including on the tennis courts of Aotearoa. We owe it to him and to the 94 champions in the 1926 Easter tournament, to the many who lost out in the provincial draws, and to the victorious champions of the Marumaru Cup and the Morehu Turoa Cup almost 100 years ago to raise this issue.
I have seen a slogan regarding this sport that reads “Hit Me with Your Best Shot”. We urge the member in charge of this bill, the Hon Judith Tizard, and the sponsoring body for this bill, the Auckland City Council, to follow a process that will really hit the House with their best shot in making the investment to consult whānau, hapū, and iwi in the best interests of Aotearoa, or once again we will see another institution serve the ball out of court or into the net, or end up, as institutions always do, double-faulting when it comes to forming respectful, meaningful relationships with tangata whenua. It is not just a matter of having a leisurely hit up; it is about having a fair game. Mr Eric Roy learnt his lesson in progressing the Southland Agricultural and Pastoral Association Empowering Bill, Mr Simon Power learnt his lesson with the Manfeild Park legislation, and Moana Mackey learnt her lesson with the legislation regarding Alfred Cox Park in Gisborne. Hopefully, the member in charge of this bill will learn from those members.
Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (National—Northcote) Link to this
I doubt whether the member in charge of this bill is going to learn any lessons, quite frankly. When one looks at what Mark Gosche said about National’s approach to Auckland issues, I just remind him that we still have an Auckland issues spokesman. Labour thinks so little of what is going on—
Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN Link to this
Mr Mallard should settle down. That is not good for him. He should stay calm. Labour thinks so little of what is happening in Auckland that it has actually done away with the portfolio. Judith Tizard thinks so little of her obligations to Auckland Central and the people of Auckland that she has not even remained to listen to the rest of the speeches in this debate. The fact is that Labour cannot—
Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN Link to this
Labour cannot deliver on the infrastructure needs of Auckland. We heard before about Labour’s failure to deliver Trevor Mallard’s waterfront stadium. Well, members might remember that he was the Minister for Sport and Recreation when we lost the rights to co-host the 2003 Rugby World Cup. I can tell members now that we heard about the North Shore of Auckland—and I am very proud to represent the people of Northcote; we are all blue, north of the bridge now—and the one thing we do need is a second major harbour crossing. I can tell members now that that mob over there cannot deliver it. Those members are all looking away and they know they cannot deliver it. Why can they not deliver it? Because they will not use public-private partnerships. They are so critical. They are back in the 20th or the 19th century, because they see the Government as being the answer to everything. But now we have this Auckland Domain (Auckland Tennis) Amendment Bill, and it is a good example of private money being used to deliver a great facility for Auckland and for New Zealanders.
We have heard a lot about Stanley Street, and it has been a great facility over the years—there is no question about that. We have had many great players there. Björn Borg won the Benson and Hedges Open there in 1973, Nadal was there 4 years ago, and a lot of people have started their careers off there. As Wayne Mapp said, it is a real chance for New Zealand every year to get some truly international events, and it is great for tennis people—there is no question about that.
But there is a much wider spin-off. It brings a lot of people into Auckland from overseas, and those people spend money, visit the rest of our country, and see everything we have to offer here. The tennis tournaments are also shown live around the world; one would not believe it, but that little stadium holds about 3,000 people. Those matches are shown on international television, and seen by millions worldwide on satellite TV. So it is a great opportunity for New Zealand. But we cannot rest on our laurels. There is no question about that, because the Chinese will eat our lunch on this stuff. They will take this tournament. The Middle Eastern people—
Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN Link to this
Trevor is at it again. His therapist will be saying that this is not good, and that he has to calm down.
Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN Link to this
That member can deal it out but he cannot take it. Two weeks ago this happened and he is back at it again. But I tell members that if we do not secure these international rights, they will be taken off us—there is no question about that. The Yock Stand and the Redwood Stand have all done great service to New Zealand Tennis, but it was time they were knocked down and we had a true international class facility delivered there, because the benefits are going to be fantastic.
I can tell members this: if the Minister who is no longer the Minister with responsibility for Auckland Issues were in charge of delivering the stadium, it would not happen. Trevor Mallard was going to deliver the Auckland waterfront stadium and it will not happen. Do members know what he said? When he could not deliver that, he said: “Aucklanders are ignorant and lack vision.” I tell Mr Mallard that in that one statement he lost a heck of a lot of votes for his party in Auckland. North of the bridge we are all blue now, and we will see great big swathes of blue across central Auckland—
Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN Link to this
—including the Auckland Central electorate, which the sponsor of this bill actually represents. Those four Labour members sitting there know it. They have got their heads down. Mark Burton over there is on the way out as well. He is going to lose his seat of Taupo, because people have had enough of this Government. It cannot deliver. You can see the way he is reacting; it has hit a raw nerve.
Hon Mark BurtonDr JONATHAN COLEMAN Link to this
I tell the member that if I had not won my seat, I would go down and take that seat off him any day of the week. At the next election we could put a lamb with a blue ribbon there and we would take the seat off that member, because he is finished. He is out of here. He made a mess of the justice portfolio and he will be going out with the rest of his cronies. There are a number of them here, too, whom the public would like to see the end of as well.
But getting back to the Auckland Domain (Auckland Tennis) Amendment Bill, as we have said, this bill will deliver a world-class facility. It will be a great benefit to Auckland tennis—
Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN Link to this
Oh, the member is still going on about losing his Taupo seat. This will be a great facility for New Zealand, it will have a wider economic benefit, and it will make a great difference—there is no question about that. So we have to make sure that we support this bill. It is not often that we get cross-party support, but everyone supports this. The Green Party supports it. Some valid concerns were raised by Te Ururoa Flavell, and I think some of the points he raised about the lack of consultation were very valid, and I think Mr Gosche actually raised those points as well, and so did the Green Party. There were some legal aspects to do with the change in the lease that really should have been more clearly explained, and I think maybe if Auckland City had done that it would have allayed a few concerns and issues.
But we have a great season of tennis coming up. We have to watch that these tournaments are not taken by the Australians or anyone else around the world, but to make sure that we do that it is important that this bill goes through, and we get the facility for Auckland and New Zealand that New Zealand tennis deserves. So National will be supporting this bill.