Stadium, Auckland—World Cup 2011

Can the Prime Minister confirm yesterday’s statement made by the chairman of Fletcher Building, Dr Roderick Deane: “If it was to proceed, then stage one, it has been indicated to us, would be on a cost reimbursable basis.”; and will the Prime Minister tell the House just what arrangements have been made with Fletcher Building to date?

It had already been said publicly, I think, before the Prime Minister said that, that if the waterfront stadium proceeded, the platform construction would need to be on an open-book basis because there is simply not time to proceed with a full tender. However, the second stage, the building of the stadium on top of that platform, can be done through a proper tendering process.

How can giving Aucklanders only 2 weeks to decide on such a hugely expensive project be consistent with section 82 of the Local Government Act, which says that affected residents must have their views properly heard before a local authority makes a decision; and why is the Government overriding both its own Local Government Act and the Resource Management Act? [ Interruption]

Tanczos Nandor Tanczos Link to this

On the latter point, I thank Dr Smith for his interjection. Mr McCully has already written to Mr Mallard to support special legislation for the Eden Park option.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The question asked why Mr Cullen and the Government took the position, not why the National Party took its position.

The reason for my reply is quite a simple one. In the case of both the options before Auckland at the moment, it seems likely that special legislation will be needed to override the Resource Management Act.

Wilson Madam SPEAKER Link to this

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The main thrust of my question was on the Local Government Act. The Minister did not reply to the overriding—

It is a useful reminder for all members that supplementary questions should contain only one question. Ministers in reply can, in fact, reply to any of whatever questions are asked.

Can the Prime Minister confirm the statement made by Dr Deane in relation to the platform for the proposed waterfront stadium: “It would not be on the basis of a fixed price. That’s because of the risks involved and the uncertainties and the toughness of the timeframe.”; and can the Prime Minister confirm that the Government plans to enter into a contract that would see all of the costs associated with the risks, the uncertainties, and the toughness of the time frame carried by taxpayers?

The statement made by Dr Deane, in fact, mirrored a statement made by Mr Mallard publicly last week, so there is nothing new in that statement. In terms of the risks and the risk sharing, of course Eden Park does not have a fixed design, does not have a fixed cost, does not have a budget, and does not have a source of funding.

What consideration has the Government given to the Auckland City district plan, and how will the Government build a 37 metre high stadium when the district plan covering that area prescribes a maximum height of 15 metres—that is, less than half of the height of the planned stadium—and when the neighbouring residents were given an assurance that that would be the maximum height?

It is one reason why, indeed, there would need to be legislation. But, equally, if the member cares to look at the Eden Park option, he will find that it is almost certain that it will need to be higher than that limit, as well.

Does the Prime Minister have any confidence in the $120 million estimate for the platform announced by Mr Mallard, in light of the absence of a fixed-price contract and the fact that the costs associated with the risks, the uncertainties, and the toughness of the time frame will not be met in any way by a contractor appointed by the Government without any tender process?

I think somewhat more confidence than in the original estimate of $150 million for Eden Park, which has already got to $387 million, and may end up being a good deal more than that, with probably—let us be realistic—the risk being borne by the Government.

Does the Prime Minister agree with the statement of her Minister of Finance that Mr Mallard’s estimated price tag of $500 million for a waterfront stadium could rise; if so, by how much would it have to rise before the Government decided that the project was not such a smart idea?

I happen to be fully briefed on what the Minister of Finance said, and what he said was that both projects could rise in cost.

Has the Prime Minister seen the statement from the chairman of Fletcher Building that a fixed-price contract was unacceptable, and a cost reimbursable basis acceptable, to the company, because “that would minimise the risk for Fletcher Building”; and can she therefore confirm that the Government intends that all of the risk should be carried by taxpayers and ratepayers?

No. The reference is only to the platform building project, which will be done on an open-book basis, but I remind the member again—I am sorry to be repetitious—that, in the case of both projects, there are not full, detailed design projects; in the case of both projects, there are not completed final costs; in the case of both projects, there is not a source of funding; and in the case of both projects, there is not a budget.

Does the Prime Minister agree with her Minister Trevor Mallard, who stated today that Eden Park is “a poor second option, it shows a lack of imagination, it shows a city that doesn’t have a vision, but it might be that that’s what Aucklanders want.”; if not, why not?

Mark Ron Mark Link to this

I come back to what the Prime Minister says. She wants a stadium that will make Auckland and New Zealand proud. We are awaiting the results of the Auckland consultative process.

Can the Prime Minister tell the House whether any of those questions just asked of her were put by National when Murray McCully met with Trevor Mallard?

The impression I have from reports is that Mr McCully is quite an enthusiastic supporter—indeed, a supporter also of the waterfront stadium. But that member coming from the East Coast Bays district, I assume he has some residual loyalty to the North Harbour option as well.