McCully Murray: General Debate 
McCully Murray: General Debate 
[Volume:635;Page:6512] 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY (National—East Coast Bays) 
: 
 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 60000-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.