English Bill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
English Bill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:636;Page:6915] 
2.  
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What commitments if any did he make to funding the waterfront stadium option prior to the Government’s announcement that it was considering such an option? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 No specific commitments were made. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister confirm that he therefore agreed to allow Trevor Mallard to push the waterfront option with no financial parameters at all and why is he so unwilling to commit any further funding to Eden Park when he offered a blank cheque to an uncosted option on the waterfront? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: As we are learning there were no properly costed options for Eden Park either. As I told the House many times before the decision was taken the National Party backed Eden Park with a blank cheque. 
Hon Bill English 
: Why were no financial parameters set for the Government’s favoured option of the waterfront stadium? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: There were no financial parameters set for either option. The Eden Park Trust Board is yet to come back with a coherent funding proposal that will say how much the Government is expected to contribute. I have seen figures appearing in the media; they do not necessarily indicate certain funding from any source for Eden Park. 
Hon Bill English 
: Why did the Government abandon the Minister’s preferred option of the waterfront stadium? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: We said that we would listen to the consensus from Auckland. Auckland perhaps to our great surprise managed to disagree with itself. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister confirm that he has made a number of statements that are critical of the Eden Park option and can he confirm to the House that the reason he will not give it a blank cheque is because Labour wants to punish the Eden Park Trust Board for arguing its case and inconveniencing the Prime Minister? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: If the member is going to stay on as the seventh deputy leader of the National Party that I have faced he will have to not let his paranoia run away with him. We will come to an agreement with the Eden Park Trust Board but it will have to be based on something firmer than what the board has come up with throughout this process. It is National that committed itself to the Eden Park option with no proper design no design drawings no budget and no funding plan. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Is it possible for any member of Parliament to make a decision that is accountable to the New Zealand taxpayer when the Eden Park Trust Board—members of which some of us know very well—began with a proposition of $60 million then realising there was possibly an open-ended cheque came up with a further two propositions now reaching $350 million? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Indeed the first figure is correct but I think the latter figure is now more like $385 million plus of course additional expenditure in terms of public transport needs and related access matters etc. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister confirm that he committed the Government to the waterfront option with no budget no plans no builder no governance and a blank cheque? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No. I can confirm that I did not commit the Government to either of two options—neither of which had final plans neither of which had proper budgets neither of which had funding sources neither of which had resource consents and one of which had a blank cheque from the National Party. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister confirm that the Government’s financial statements include an unquantified uncapped contingent liability for the Rugby World Cup and when will he act consistently with his supposed reputation for fiscal credibility and put some kind of qualification or cap on the Rugby World Cup—or will he let Trevor Mallard wander around for the next few years with a blank cheque? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No. And when first of all of course the Eden Park Trust Board has a final completed proposal has consents for that has a budget has agreed with the Government on future governance for the future Eden Park and hopefully some of the member’s mates in Auckland will cough up with some of the money. 
Keith Locke 
: I seek leave to table a briefing paper from the Eden Park Trust Board last July that was presented at a briefing here in Parliament and supported by Labour Party members who attended that briefing with the listed cost of $320 million. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister understand that Parliament and the public may be concerned that he seems to have taken such a strong dog in the manger attitude towards the Eden Park proposal and does this put the timing of that project at risk just because Labour does not like it? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: As I said before the member must not let his paranoia run away with him. The Government is working with the Eden Park Trust Board. Auckland has spoken and has said it does not want a gift of a brand new stadium from the rest of the nation. Instead it wants an upgrade of the existing Eden Park stadium. We now have to work through the processes to ensure that that stadium will be ready on time. I am quite sure—as I have said many many times in this House—that Eden Park will be looking for a large sum of money from the Government. The National Party signed up to that blank cheque in a letter to Mr Mallard some time ago. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: What reports has the Minister received that suggest that the good people of Gore or for that matter Dipton want to pay as ratepayers or taxpayers for a city stadium—or regional stadium at best—that is not a national stadium which is the type of undertaking that the National Party clearly gave to the Eden Park Trust Board? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I have a strong suspicion that if we were running a great whip-round in Southland for the upgrade of Eden Park we would raise a lot less than the Labour Party has raised for its great whip-round. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I seek leave to table the letter mentioned by Michael Cullen which will make it very clear that no such undertaking was made. 
Document not tabled. 
Keith Locke 
: I seek leave to table a copy of an article from the  
Dominion Post  
that reports on Helen Clark’s speech at Dublin a year ago where she apparently committed the Government to the Rugby World Cup without any financial costing. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection.