Locke Keith: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Locke Keith: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:635;Page:6621] 
1. KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
 to the  
Minister for the Rugby World Cup 
: Is the Government prepared in the words of constitutional law expert Dr Bill Hodge to damage “the constitutional fabric of New Zealand” by ramming through a waterfront stadium requiring legislation that “would override almost every law it came across including the Local Government Act and the Public Finance Act as well as the Treaty of Waitangi”; if so why? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Acting Minister for the Rugby World Cup) 
: 
 It seems very likely that whether Eden Park or a waterfront site is preferred as the Rugby World Cup’s final venue resource consents will need to be delivered through special legislative mechanisms in order to ensure certainty of completion of the venue in time for the event. I note that the National Party has already committed to support such legislation in respect of Eden Park. 
Keith Locke 
: Is not the Government forcing Auckland City Council and the Auckland Regional Council to break the law by imposing a 2-week time limit for a stadium decision and thereby not allowing time for the formal consultative processes that are mandatory under the Local Government Act such as having development options open for public inspection inviting submissions and holding public hearings? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: That would not be my view. We have asked for views from the Auckland Regional Council as to what its preference would be. That does not mean to say that other processes would not follow in either case. In the case of either Eden Park or the waterfront there will be a need for special legislation and that legislation will go through normal parliamentary procedures with select committee hearings. 
Keith Locke 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. My question was not in relation to subsequent legislation that may override the Resource Management Act. It was about the Local Government Act procedures prior to the Auckland local bodies making decisions this Thursday and Friday. Could the Minister answer that question? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thought the Minister did actually address the question. 
Keith Locke 
: Does he agree that no matter what the design a 37-metre stadium—about the height of a 10-storey building—will dominate the Auckland vista and create a solid visual barrier between the city and the sea? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No because looking from the sea it is dominated at the moment by the Sky Tower which is much taller but was designed by the person who says that the stadium will be too tall. 
Dr Pita Sharples 
: Kia ora tatou. What meaningful discussions did the Minister have with the board of Ngati Whatua o Orakei in the light of the advice from the Waitangi Tribunal and the courts about the requirement for consultation to ensure informed decisions are made through meaningful discussion and what resolutions were arrived at? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: We are advised that the Minister for Economic Development has met with the chief executive of Ngati Whatua o Orakei. He indicated that they were not interested in pursuing the matter as Ngati Whatua had limited interest in the port land but further discussions will occur with Ngati Whatua if a waterfront option is proceeded with. 
Dr Pita Sharples 
: What implications will the construction of the stadium have on the agreements with Ngati Whatua following the deed of settlement signed on 9 June this year? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No implications other than obviously the need to maintain consultation with Ngati Whatua around any development. 
Dr Pita Sharples 
: Does he recall the words of the late Sir Hugh Kawharu: “… Maori must have an effective say in respect to the ongoing control administration and management of the area of land. The key is the retention of mana.”—authority—and in what ways will Ngati Whatua retain their mana in the ongoing issues relating to the construction of a stadium on the waterfront? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I repeat: the chief executive of Ngati Whatua o Orakei has said that Ngati Whatua has limited interest in the port land and that any further involvement would be in the usual manner with Auckland City Council around design and development issues and with Auckland City Council’s offer to meet and discuss matters further with Ngati Whatua before any decisions are taken. 
Keith Locke 
: Is the Minister aware that the ANZ bank was recently forced to take control of Sydney’s former Olympic stadium which now owes $140 million and who does the Government think will carry the financial can should its waterfront stadium costs blow out to a billion dollars and its operation incur substantial ongoing losses? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I know of no major stadium that taken within its narrow confines as a pure commercial venture would make a profit. I assume that that is why the Eden Park Trust Board has so far not presented a proposal to the Government about how it intends to fund a $387 million stadium and associated works. 
Keith Locke 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I asked who would carry the financial can. I do not think the Minister really answered that question. He just answered a question about Eden Park. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The member did actually ask several questions in his supplementary question and certainly one of them was addressed. 
Heather Roy 
: Would his Government contemplate retrospective legislation should any concerned citizen injunct the Auckland City Council or the Auckland Regional Council for not consulting Aucklanders about a waterfront stadium in the manner required by the Local Government Act 2002—law introduced and passed by his Labour Government? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The effect of any injunction on the Auckland City Council of course does not affect the ability of Parliament to pass legislation. If Dr Hodge wants to take on parliamentary sovereignty I invite him to do so.