Blumsky Mark: General Debate 
Blumsky Mark: General Debate 
[Volume:635;Page:6522] 
MARK BLUMSKY (National) 
: 
 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 60000-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 Manawatu 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.