General Debate

Dr DON BRASH (Leader of the Opposition) Link to this

I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. The National Party was very keen indeed to ensure that New Zealand had the opportunity of hosting the Rugby World Cup. Because of that, my colleague Murray McCully met the International Rugby Board, with Mr Mallard, to make that point very clear. There was bipartisan support for New Zealand to host the cup. We also made a commitment that, for that cup, there would be a stadium that could host 60,000 people. We are still committed to that. But that does not mean we are willing to write a blank cheque for any wacky project that the Government comes up with to make sure that the games do not take place in Helen Clark’s electorate.

We very much regret that, a full year after New Zealand won the right to host the cup, the Government says that its preferred stadium option is a waterfront stadium, and gives the citizens of Auckland 2 weeks to take it or to leave it. Yesterday we advised Trevor Mallard that the National Party was willing to support legislation to facilitate the upgrading of the Eden Park stadium—with some qualifications around financing—because the project seems eminently feasible, the costing of it has been well supported by quantity surveyors, and it seems clear that the extra capacity can be built comfortably within the time frame that we have available. But we would need to be satisfied about a number of issues before agreeing to support legislation for the waterfront stadium.

First of all, it is quite unclear what the cost of that stadium would be. Trevor Mallard talks about $497 million—not $500 million, but $497 million—creating an impression of totally spurious accuracy. We have in our caucus someone who has actually built a stadium. He says that the cost of this waterfront stadium is likely to be double or treble the figure that Trevor Mallard talks about. It will be much, much higher, and the fact that the chairman of Fletcher Building has made it very clear indeed that this is a cost-plus contract makes that abundantly clear.

Secondly, there has to be huge uncertainty about whether this project can be built on time. It would not be satisfactory for us to say in the middle of 2010: “Whoops! Can we put the world cup competition back 12 months, because the stadium will not be finished?”.

It is also crucially important that the citizens of Auckland like this project, because Aucklanders will be picking up a big chunk of the tab and Aucklanders will have to live with the result. As somebody who lives in Auckland, I do not find the idea of a huge, inward-looking stadium that blocks the views of one of the finest harbours in the world, and that essentially is lifeless for most of the time, attractive at all. My own preference on this question is not relevant; what is important is that the citizens of Auckland like the project, and at this stage the indications are that Aucklanders do not like it. Trevor Mallard says that a waterfront stadium would “transform” Auckland. Well, it might do, but not for the better. If the Government wants to transform Auckland, let it support the Eden Park upgrade and use the savings to transform the Auckland roading system, so that the economy of Auckland can be transformed and so that people going to the games can get there before the first whistle.

Let me also comment briefly on the suggestion that bed taxes be used to finance the stadium. The National Party is not at all enthusiastic about a bed tax; indeed, to date, the Government itself has opposed bed taxes, with the then Minister of Tourism, Mark Burton, stating 4 years ago that it was neither fair nor credible to single out the accommodation sector for extra taxes. It is worth recalling that the tourism sector is the only part of the export sector that pays GST on its sales, and that international visitors already pay $500 million in GST every year.

GORDON COPELAND (United Future) Link to this

Last Friday the Families Commission announced the results of a study of mothers undertaken by Massey University on parenting and participation in the paid workforce. The study gave particular attention to the cultural and attitudinal norms of society around the important decision made by mothers about whether to provide at-home care for their children—particularly preschoolers—to re-enter the paid workforce, or to have some combination of both options.

The conclusions of that study are noteworthy. Firstly, the women involved think that society no longer feels that a good mother necessarily stays at home full time. Secondly, they believe that society today expects them to re-enter paid work part time and does not value stay-at-home mothers. The women feel that more should be done by the Government so that mothers have the choice to stay at home and care for their children, rather than be offered assistance with childcare only. Most women also felt that the first year was an important time for mothers, rather than for fathers, to be with their children for bonding and breastfeeding. United Future shares those concerns. At the moment, Government assistance weighs the scales in favour of workforce participation through assistance with childcare, but does nothing at all for stay-at-home mums.

The Prime Minister laid out her vision for such mothers a couple of years back. She lamented their relatively low levels of participation in the paid workforce, whilst refusing to acknowledge, in response to questions from United Future, that mothers who stay at home with their children are also making a much valued contribution to New Zealand society and its economy. She talked about choice, which is something that all of us value, but she put forward no policy for stay-at-home mums.

United Future has a very different vision. We say that full-time childcare by mothers should be both valued by society and tangibly recognised through Government policy. That is why we are passionate about income splitting for the 336,000 couples who are raising children. Income splitting would reduce income tax for many couples and boost their net household income. In addition, though, that policy would send a positive message to those mothers who freely choose to stay at home with their children that our culture does value their unique and vitally important role in training and raising the next generation of Kiwis.

Income splitting addresses the unique position of mothers holistically, and it turns the focus directly on to the family unit and its need for an adequate income. In many cases, it supplements Working for Families income support and reduces the need for such support through income tax reductions—three words that are now more and more associated with United Future. That is why United Future has included income splitting in its confidence and supply agreement. That is why the Minister of Revenue, Peter Dunne, will be issuing a discussion document on income splitting, and all couples with children can take some encouragement from that.

In this House we have consistently argued for a threshold adjustment to tax brackets, for several years now. We have consistently advocated for, and are acting on, a reduction in business taxation, and I am sure we will see both of those things delivered in next year’s Budget. We also continue to stay on the case of income splitting for couples who are raising children, because it is fair, it is just, and it recognises the tremendous and irreplaceable contribution that mothers make to the training and the welfare of our children—something that is not only our future but already, to a very significant degree, our present. Thank you.

Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health) Link to this

In the next week or two the National Party will enter its eighth year in Opposition, and still its members have not decided who is to be their leader. This is an extraordinary position to be in, and I do not know of another period in New Zealand history when a party thrown into Opposition wallowed for so long with its leadership unresolved. Last time Labour was in Opposition its members resolved their leadership in a little over 3 years. The time before that, when National was in Opposition, its members resolved their leadership in a little over 3 years. But this Opposition has gone 7 years, and in a week or two it will enter its eighth year in Opposition, and still there is no progress. The issue is unresolved.

The National Party’s favourite season of October and November, though still not closed, has only a couple of weeks to run, yet its members still have not budged. They might budge, of course, in the next fortnight, but it seems that the show-pony candidate is now losing his bottle. They might have budged yesterday, of course, but their leader scuttled back from the other side of the world to be at his caucus and to maintain his position. National members might, of course, budge early next year—in February, or perhaps at Easter—or maybe they will do so before Christmas so that they can then leave time for the splits and divisions that will result in their caucus to heal over the holidays, away from the media glare. But the point of the matter is that National members have not budged, and they have not shown any sign of doing so. They might, of course, change leaders on the basis of some future blunder by the current leader, or on the basis of a reinvigorated centre-right candidate in the form of Bill English. But right now, as National’s eighth year in Opposition gets under way, the issue is unresolved.

The far-right candidate is, of course, doggedly going nowhere, in every respect; the centre-right candidate is not showing his hand; and the show-pony candidate has his bottle slipping away from him for now. The deputy leader of the National Party is listening to this speech with a lovely grin all over his face. The issue is unresolved. This party cannot get there. It cannot amass the numbers for anything. The numbers for Don Brash, of course, are not there but he stays there anyway. The numbers for John Key might be there, but only if he is there, and he is not sure so no one else is sure. The numbers for Bill English take the form, for most people in the National caucus, of being everyone’s second preference, which is always helpful if the caucus cannot sort out who its first preference is.

The National Party is paralysed by its own indecision. Its members hang in suspended animation, waiting for something to happen, for anything to happen—anything, really, would do. A poll rise would do, a poll fall would do, a political event of some sort would do, and a walking of the plank—or whatever it is to be—would do. They wait for developments and they wait for a sign; they are paralysed by their own indecision. They wait in the hope that an event or a shift might occur, or that somehow the political scene might change—that it might nudge them towards some resolution or other. But right now, as was the case last month and the month before that, there is no resolution. That is why, of course, there is no policy in the National Party. There is no coalescing on any platform, ever. There is no certainty about where in the political spectrum National might place itself. The reason is that the three candidates for leadership are quite different people—from the far right, from the centre-right, and a show pony.

It is not easy if one is the National Party spokesperson on health, say, or on economic development or foreign affairs, to know how to frame the policy, where to pitch it, whereabouts on the spectrum to place it, whether to be timid or radical, and how to triangulate the Government or head it off at the pass. These things are difficult to do if members do not know who their leader is or where their party is being led from.

So there is no policy, except tax cuts, and even then there is no detail. In health, for example, National has a 5-point plan with four points on it. The plan has four sentences, as if that adds up to something resembling a policy—of course, it does not. National cannot sort out its leader, so it cannot even sort out its portfolios.

GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) Link to this

It is a great shame that Mr Hodgson, the member who preceded me, is not back in his office doing something for those thousands of cancer patients who are unlikely to get their treatment because of his incompetence so far, rather than being here in the House and making a ridiculous speech like that. He did make one interesting point. He said that the Opposition should be trying to triangulate the Government. That is a political manoeuvre, where one tries to get the Government in trouble. Let me tell members, we do not need to do that while there are senior Ministers in this Government wandering around the halls of this Parliament referring to Helen Clark as “Queen Helen” and bemoaning her imperious decision to place the national stadium on the Auckland waterfront.

I do not want to speak this afternoon about the merits of one stadium over another. But I do want to make this clear: the National Party supported the efforts of the Rugby Union, which were also supported by the Government, to get the 2011 Rugby World Cup to New Zealand. We did so because the benefits of hosting such an event are enormous for this country. Everybody who has any idea about tourism numbers will know that they have held up in this country over the last few years, largely attributable to things like The Lord of the Rings movies and various other smaller-scale events that have meant that the rest of the world have been able to look at New Zealand and say that that is a place they would like to go to. We think those initiatives are worthwhile.

But we also know that during the time of the Rugby World Cup in excess of 2 billion people worldwide will be watching at least one rugby game in New Zealand. That will be a huge opportunity to showcase the nation and to build on an industry that now is over 40 percent of our domestic economy. We are very upset about the fact that Labour Government members have sat on their hands for 12 months and done nothing to back up the promise they made to have a 60,000-seat stadium available for the final of the Rugby World Cup. We now know that a big part of that “sitting on their hands” has been caused by the Prime Minister, who said “not in my backyard.” That sort of behaviour is just unacceptable.

Now we are in the awkward position of seeing local authorities in Auckland struggling with the decision that they must make within 14 days to commit their ratepayers to what appears to be quite an extraordinary expense. There were interesting comments from the Minister of Finance, who said that if they go for one stadium, Eden Park, there will be no Government money. But if they go for the waterfront stadium, the cheque book will be wide open. We know that there have been discussions between the Labour Government and Fletcher’s, but I do not want to suggest that this is somehow a mechanism for the Labour Government or the Labour caucus to get rid of a certain encumbrance that hangs around their necks at the present time. But I would say that $800,000 in a multi-hundred-million-dollar project is very little. So it does surprise us that we are in this situation.

But more than surprising us, it angers us. This event is too big and too great an opportunity for the country to be put at the sort of risk that Trevor Mallard is creating at the present time. If this Government were serious about New Zealand getting its maximum opportunities out of the Rugby World Cup, then it would not be some little cabal on the ninth floor making all the decisions. It would be an opportunity, I would have thought, for the Government to involve far more people than that, and to avoid the sorts of unfortunate political stand-offs that appear to be happening at the moment.

United Future is taking a wait and see position, and the New Zealand First party is saying that it wants to take a wait and see option, as well. Nobody can sit comfortably in this Parliament without the numbers in front of us, without knowing what it will cost, and without knowing who will bear that cost. We spend lots of time in this Parliament talking about the rates burden on people throughout the country and our desire to reduce it. The Government even brought in a rates rebate scheme. Let us make it clear that unless Michael Cullen is prepared to make a bigger commitment than he has so far, anybody who receives that rebate will end up losing it.

Hon RICK BARKER (Minister of Internal Affairs) Link to this

If anybody has any doubts about the paralysis in the National Party, they have only to read the transcripts of both of those National Party speeches. On the Auckland stadium options Don Brash said: “I am not going to express my opinion.”, which is short for the fact that he has no opinion. Gerry Brownlee, the second speaker for the National Party, said: “I am not going to discuss the merits of one against the other.”, or, in other words: “I have no opinion at all, either.” Parliament should be a contest of ideas, and it is very clear that on the Government side of the House there are ideas. On the Opposition side of the House there are no ideas—none, whatsoever.

It is interesting to see that this Labour Government has been promoting issues around global warming for quite some time, and that the deniers of global warming and the destroyers of the environment on the National side have been loud and clear. But what do those members say when public opinion turns around dramatically after Helen Clark’s speech on global warming at the Labour Party conference? Suddenly, John Key, the show pony of the National Party, gets attention when he appears before the cameras and says that he wants to see Al Gore. He had not expressed an opinion on global warming at all until then, but when one is looking for big ideas, one looks to the Labour Government. The Government is talking about economic transformation, it is talking about national identity, and both of these notions resonate with our community.

From the other side of the House, we had a speech today from the leader of the Opposition that was so wooden and dull, it could have been delivered only by a Haitian zombie. The single most important achievement of Don Brash in this House has been to make Gerry Brownlee look good. No one else has been able to make Gerry Brownlee look as good as that before.

Dr Brash is yesterday’s man. It is over for Don Brash; we all know that. Here is just one example. Dr Brash went to the RSA’s 90th anniversary do here in Wellington and said that he would have a review of the legislation for veterans. Well, the Government has already announced that. He also said that he would have a review of Veterans Affairs New Zealand. Well, I had already announced that. He is always picking up yesterday’s ideas. He is yesterday’s man. Mr Brownlee shows some energy and enthusiasm, but we do not get any sense of energy or enthusiasm from Dr Don Brash.

Don Brash reminds me of that fabulous quote from Winston Churchill on his political opponent Mr Attlee. He said: “An empty taxi turned up outside 10 Downing Street, and Mr Attlee got out.” Well, that is like Dr Brash. He went overseas to follow Helen Clark to the opening of the New Zealand Memorial in London. Who knew he was over there? No one seemed to know that he was over there. There were no reports of him—nothing. He drifted in and out of London. The only people who knew that he was in and out were the customs staff on the border; no one else knew about that. And he left early because he knew there was a vote going on in the National Party caucus. He is very nervous.

It is springtime in the National Party, and it is time for a change. Let us not forget that Bolger was rolled by Shipley in November, Shipley was rolled by English in October, and English was rolled by Brash at the end of the year—and Dr Don Brash knew that it would be four in a row, so he scurried home to shore up the numbers.

All the writers and commentators are saying that National has to get its leadership sorted out. Supporters of the National Party want to see strong leadership. The National Party cannot be united around Don Brash, because the writers and the public know that Don Brash will not, cannot, and will never lead the National Party to victory—and certainly not at the next election. So the question is who will lead the National Party.

Well, one obvious contender is Mr Key. If we find a television camera, there is Mr Key in front of it. He is trying to make himself more appealing, so he has suddenly found the issue of climate change. This is from the party that is determined to rip out the guts of the Resource Management Act, which is a key part of protecting our natural environment. But National has suddenly found that global warming is an issue in New Zealand, and it is coming to that issue. It is not that it is saying that the science is there or that it is committing itself to anything; it is just simply saying that it believes there should be some consideration given to the issue.

But when we look at the National Party front bench, we see that it is pretty woeful. I was interested to see in Hawke’s Bay Today the other day that Dr Nick Smith, one of the front bench members of the National Party, was referred to as being “on another planet”.

Hon MURRAY McCULLY (National—East Coast Bays) Link to this

The stadium debate, which engulfs New Zealand and, particularly, Auckland at this present time, is an important debate. It has important implications for Auckland, and it has important implications for New Zealand’s capacity to host the 2011 Rugby World Cup. The process by which we resolve that debate is even more important.

We all have our own personal views about the right way to go forward. It is no secret amongst my colleagues, and it is no secret to the Minister for Sport and Recreation, that I strongly believe that the North Harbour Stadium would be the right place for us to host the final event, and I commend Brendon O’Connor from that stadium, and Mayor George Wood, for putting forward such an effective and compelling case for North Harbour. It is the cheapest of the options; it also makes very good sense from a number of transport and other points of view. I commend my colleagues John Key, Jonathan Coleman, and Wayne Mapp for the support they have given that option.

But this is not the National Party’s process; it is the Government’s process. The Government holds the pen. The Government is responsible for the fact that 12 months after the bid was won, we are now embroiled in this debate with so few facts upon the table. The National Party role in this process is to deal sensibly and professionally with requests for legislation made by the Minister, to facilitate the venue that the Government identifies as the one to move forward. Legislation is required, whether it is for a waterfront stadium or an upgrade at Eden Park. In that respect it is important that we on this side of the House are able, then, to put aside our personal choices and ensure that there is a good process.

The project will not be completed in the term of this Parliament, or very likely not even in the term of the next Parliament. It has profound implications for the next Government of New Zealand. Although it is possible, with United Future and New Zealand First, that the numbers might be gathered together to help the Minister pass legislation through the House, it would be much better for Auckland, for New Zealand, and for International Rugby Board confidence in our ability to host the World Cup, if there is a consensus that spans the two major parties as we move forward with that legislation. The last thing I want to see is the International Rugby Board chief executive on the phone to the chairman of the Australian Rugby Union, asking the Australians to put together a back-up proposal because it looks as if the Kiwis cannot get their act together.

That is why, with 10 days to go before the leadership of Auckland is required to spell out a decision, the National Party has decided it should be proactive as part of this process—that we should spell out to Auckland, and to the decision makers in Wellington, what the parameters are for our decision making about the two different pieces of legislation in prospect. That is why we signalled that if the Eden Park proposal were selected by Auckland, and moves forward, we see no problem with facilitating the legislation dealing with the Resource Management Act consent process and the funding issues—with the qualifications my leader Dr Brash has talked about—to go very quickly through the House. The numbers and the design features are reasonably robust.

Rob Fisher said this morning that they are 9 months ahead with the waterfront proposal, and they are well ahead, whether or not by 9 months. We feel sufficient confidence, having looked at quite detailed plans as Mr Brownlee has indicated, to indicate our support for legislation that will facilitate that. That is important. What it says is that Auckland, provided the decisions are right, can host a Rugby World Cup in a 60,000-seat stadium in 2011. The National Party will commit to the legislation that will make that possible.

If the Government wants to take a more adventurous path and move to a waterfront proposal that has many more significant question marks hanging over it, then we have spelt out the more rigorous path we will take in regard to that legislation. That is appropriate. We have signalled to the Government that it will have to answer some very tough questions—not because they are National’s questions, not because National has a partisan view, but because they are the public’s questions. This is the public’s money and the public has a right to answers.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Minister for Building Issues) Link to this

This is one of those occasions when we start to think of contrasts. In this cup week I can think of a number of analogies that I will come to in a minute, but one starts to think of the contrast with regard to the divide between the parties. On the one hand we have a Government that has announced a whole range of measures, whether they be energy efficiency in housing, climate change initiatives, national energy strategies, ideas, visions, and a whole series of climate change and environmental initiatives, such as the solar water-heating programmes. My colleague Jeanette Fitzsimons is working on star rating systems. The ideas are oozing out of members on this side of the House, who are in Government.

Then we look across the House and see the contrast with that. We see the effort made by National’s leader, Don Brash. He staggered through—he talked about Bob Clarkson; I think he meant a bob each way—a sort of dissertation about a stadium idea or policy that he may have. He did make Gerry Brownlee’s speech look good. Then we had a contribution from Murray McCully, which was actually rather sound in some ways. He has the spokespersonship on that whole deal for the National side of the House. He was the third speaker off the rank. I will tell the House about the National Party—here is the contrast with the Government, which is pumping out ideas. I think somebody in America called it the vision thing. We have a group of people opposite us who are absolutely paralysed. They are dominated by plotting, scheming, and paralysis. They are trying to work out which horse they should jump on.

It is cup week, I am a Cantabrian, and we did host the New Zealand Cup. I am reminded of a few horse analogies—as the crazy horse walks out the door—

JILL PETTIS (Labour) Link to this

It is a pleasure to join in the Wednesday debate this afternoon because on the Labour side of the House we sure have plenty to talk about and, using a further analogy, I can say that it is not just one or two members opposite who are headed for the knacker’s yard, it is the whole National Party. I have never seen so many press releases about a National leadership challenge as I did when we were putting our files together this afternoon. What it means for the National Party is that it is paralysed. We are seeing no example of policy at all. National members have had many years in Opposition in which to put policy together. Being in Opposition is a good opportunity for a party to put policy together but we have not seen any emanating from National members. It is a waste of time on their part as nobody is listening to them because of their preoccupation with leadership changes. The impression that the public has about National members is that they just cannot get their act together and they are clearly headed for the knacker’s yard, whereas members on this side of the House are like the great horse Kiwi, from Waverley. We won the political equivalent of the Melbourne Cup and we have a very proud history in that regard.

One of the other issues on which the National Party has got itself into a real quandary—

Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) Link to this

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The member Jill Pettis was doing it all over again, was she not? She has been required to withdraw and apologise, without qualification.

Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (National—Northcote) Link to this

If ever a member were headed for the knacker’s yard, quite frankly it would be the member whom we have just heard from, Jill Pettis. She is probably too tough to turn into glue. She has been in Parliament for three terms, but no one knows her, and she does not even know the Standing Orders. I can tell Mrs Pettis that very soon she will be able to collect her pointy hat, jump on the broom, and head back to Wanganui for good. Normally, I would be telling her campaign manager to do plenty of radio, but in this case I do not know whether it would be a good idea.

We have heard today that this is the Government of ideas. And it is. It is the Government of stupid ideas; it is the Government of middle-class welfare; it is the Government of retrospective legislation; and, of course, it is the Government of an unplanned stadium with no site, no costings, and no guarantee. I ask members to picture the day of the final of the Rugby World Cup 2011. The former Minister for the Rugby World Cup, the now disgraced High Commissioner for Niue, is sitting in the high commissioner’s residence, eyeing that bottle of Heineken on the table, rueing the comments he made in 2003 about John O’Neill, and turning on his TV to see the All Blacks run on to Homebush. That is what we are headed for. On that day it is quite possible that down on the Auckland waterfront we will have a half-submerged, half-built stadium, and a $1.5 billion bill for the New Zealand taxpayer.

Of course, that is what has happened throughout this whole thing. Mr Mallard has approached this whole Rugby World Cup issue with a loose wire connecting his brain and his jaw. He got very excited heading off to Dublin. He was fulfilling his boyhood dream, rubbing shoulders with the International Rugby Board, and wearing his New Zealand Rugby Union tie wherever he went. He loved being up there on stage with Tana—members should have seen him last week with Jock Hobbs—he loves the limelight. He has been captured by fulfilling this childhood dream. But that is the problem. This stadium is all about politics; it is not about sport, and it is not about what is best for New Zealand.

Contradictions are running right through Labour’s approach to this issue. Four months ago MPs were invited to a confidential briefing on Eden Park with the non-existent Minister with responsibility for Auckland Issues. She was saying that we had to get behind this stadium, and that it would be fantastic. Who is the Minister with responsibility for Auckland Issues? We were hoping she would be taking a call in this debate, because she has had a lot to say. But I guess she has pretty much been told to shut up and hide away. At that stage the Government wanted Eden Park, and everyone had to get behind it. It had to be a cross-party thing; we had to be totally supportive. Now the tack has changed, and I want to know why the Government did not come up with this proposal for a waterfront stadium a year ago. It has had plenty of time. But it is so craven that it will do anything to win the next election. Helen Clark hates rugby; I do not know why she wants this waterfront stadium. Why is it? I will tell members the reason for it.

RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour) Link to this

It is quite clear that the leaderless rabble across the Chamber have no policy, and that is why the speeches of those members lack both consistency and factual accuracy. The last speaker, Dr Coleman from the North Shore, has not yet been to see the Minister for the Rugby World Cup to put in the bid for the North Shore, and he has not let other people do so on his behalf—

MARK BLUMSKY (National) Link to this

I have a question for Trevor Mallard. The question is what has changed since 13 May 2005. What has changed? The polls have changed dramatically, and the front pages have not been very kind. On 13 May 2005 Trevor Mallard said that the Government was not prepared to fund a $300 million stadium. Now Mr Mallard is putting before all of New Zealand and all of Auckland a stadium that will cost probably twice as much—which is an estimate on the low side—and will have a much higher risk. It is a pity that he started the process just the other day and not on 13 May 2005, because that was 18 months ago, and a heck of a lot of work could have been done in that 18 months.

I stand here proudly as a former Mayor of Wellington. Wellington is a city that did build a stadium very close to the waterfront. That stadium has made a heck of a lot of difference. It was built on time and on budget. I congratulate all Wellingtonians on getting in behind and helping to deliver on that project. The economic spin-off has been huge. I go back to the arguments we had at the time. Would we put it in Porirua, the Hutt Valley, or Wellington? What would it do to rates? The cost of it would send rates sky-high. How could we consider changing the location from Athletic Park, which was the home of rugby?

I hear some familiar stories when I listen to the airwaves and read the newspapers at the moment. It all sounds familiar. The question is whether Auckland can do it. Can Auckland put a stadium on its waterfront? I actually hope it can, but I have huge reservations, and those reservations have been compounded by the inactivity and poor decision-making and leadership of the Labour Government.

Two debates are running at the moment. The first debate is on whether Auckland should have a national stadium. I think Auckland should be the home of a national stadium. Should it be on the waterfront? I hope so, because the economic spin-offs would be huge. Should Auckland have a 60,000-person Rugby World Cup venue? Too jolly right; it must have that for New Zealand’s benefit. Would it not be ideal if those two venues were the same? Unfortunately, I do not see that as being possible. There are too many risks before us for that to occur.

The first risk is whether the stadium can be built on time. Maybe, but it is a risk. Will it be affordable? Is that not when the guesswork really starts, I ask Mr Mallard. The most fancied figure is $500 million. In May 2005 Mr Mallard said that the economic return from the whole tournament was $408 million, so we have to weigh up whether the investment is actually worthy of that return. There is risk around the robustness of the numbers. The Government commissioned Rider Hunt, a quantity surveyor, to do the numbers. Could Rider Hunt possibly get the numbers wrong? It has costed a couple of prisons. Spring Hill prison was estimated in 2002 as costing $202 million, but it ended up being $380 million—that was only 86 percent out. The cost of the Otago prison was estimated in 2004 as $156 million, but it was delivered for $218 million—a 40 percent blowout. We have an issue. Quantity surveyors will get it wrong, because it is all guesswork, and the final plans have not yet been done. That is important.

The general manager of Fletcher Construction for the lower North Island, Bob Hall, who built the Wellington stadium, said when he was talking about preliminary budget estimates: “I would caution how this information should be interpreted, and in particular be judged against any other proposal …”. He was talking about a preliminary budget estimate for the Manawatū stadium. “It would be my expectation that the design development phase would inevitably see additional dollars added to the overall project…”. This stadium will cost more than we believe. That has to be an issue for the Government, for us, and for Aucklanders.

I sincerely hope Auckland can deliver on the Rugby World Cup opportunity. It is vital for Auckland and for us. I hope the city can show some leadership in the debate that is going on and get an answer by the time the deadline is up. That is important for the city. I give a final warning. We cannot focus just on building the stadium, whether it be on the waterfront or at Eden Park. I learnt a valuable lesson in Australia: one has also to fill a stadium with a series of events.

SUE MORONEY (Labour) Link to this

It is a great pleasure to be able to participate once again in the general debate. Last time I spoke in the general debate I was musing about the time of year. Yes, it is still springtime. I was talking about how springtime is my favourite time of the year, most importantly because that is the time of the year when the Labour Party has its conference. What a fabulous conference it was.

Last time I talked in this general debate I was looking forward to the conference; now I would like to reflect on what a fabulous conference it was. It was the best-attended conference in 20 years. Yes, it was held in provincial New Zealand—in Rotorua. My colleague the MP for Rotorua, Steve Chadwick, hosted a fantastic conference that was full of people from real New Zealand—people who came from across the board. We had great diversity, because that is the sort of party the Labour Party is. We have that sort of diversity that can inform our decision making. That is why we get decisions right. I also thank the Mayor of Rotorua, who spoke at our conference and outlined just how well his city is doing under this Labour Government, with all its forethought, planning, and vision.

The other thing that happens in springtime that is dear to my heart is the Melbourne Cup. That has come and gone. We know who the winner was. The race has been run and we know who the winner was, unlike National members, who do not know the winner of the “spring roll”. National members have a traditional “spring roll”, whereby they start to debate who their leader should or should not be. It has been going on since well before the Melbourne Cup. It still is not completed, and that party is paralysed as a result.