Brash Don: General Debate 
Brash Don: General Debate 
[Volume:635;Page:6507] 
Dr DON BRASH (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 I move  
That the House take note of miscellaneous business 
. The National Party was very keen indeed to ensure that New Zealand had the opportunity of hosting the Rugby World Cup. Because of that my colleague Murray McCully met the International Rugby Board with Mr Mallard to make that point very clear. There was bipartisan support for New Zealand to host the cup. We also made a commitment that for that cup there would be a stadium that could host 60000 people. We are still committed to that. But that does not mean we are willing to write a blank cheque for any wacky project that the Government comes up with to make sure that the games do not take place in Helen Clark’s electorate. 
We very much regret that a full year after New Zealand won the right to host the cup the Government says that its preferred stadium option is a waterfront stadium and gives the citizens of Auckland 2 weeks to take it or to leave it. Yesterday we advised Trevor Mallard that the National Party was willing to support legislation to facilitate the upgrading of the Eden Park stadium—with some qualifications around financing—because the project seems eminently feasible the costing of it has been well supported by quantity surveyors and it seems clear that the extra capacity can be built comfortably within the time frame that we have available. But we would need to be satisfied about a number of issues before agreeing to support legislation for the waterfront stadium. 
First of all it is quite unclear what the cost of that stadium would be. Trevor Mallard talks about $497 million—not $500 million but $497 million—creating an impression of totally spurious accuracy. We have in our caucus someone who has actually built a stadium. He says that the cost of this waterfront stadium is likely to be double or treble the figure that Trevor Mallard talks about. It will be much much higher and the fact that the chairman of Fletcher Building has made it very clear indeed that this is a cost-plus contract makes that abundantly clear. 
Secondly there has to be huge uncertainty about whether this project can be built on time. It would not be satisfactory for us to say in the middle of 2010: “Whoops! Can we put the world cup competition back 12 months because the stadium will not be finished?”. 
It is also crucially important that the citizens of Auckland like this project because Aucklanders will be picking up a big chunk of the tab and Aucklanders will have to live with the result. As somebody who lives in Auckland I do not find the idea of a huge inward-looking stadium that blocks the views of one of the finest harbours in the world and that essentially is lifeless for most of the time attractive at all. My own preference on this question is not relevant; what is important is that the citizens of Auckland like the project and at this stage the indications are that Aucklanders do not like it. Trevor Mallard says that a waterfront stadium would “transform” Auckland. Well it might do but not for the better. If the Government wants to transform Auckland let it support the Eden Park upgrade and use the savings to transform the Auckland roading system so that the economy of Auckland can be transformed and so that people going to the games can get there before the first whistle. 
Let me also comment briefly on the suggestion that bed taxes be used to finance the stadium. The National Party is not at all enthusiastic about a bed tax; indeed to date the Government itself has opposed bed taxes with the then Minister of Tourism Mark Burton stating 4 years ago that it was neither fair nor credible to single out the accommodation sector for extra taxes. It is worth recalling that the tourism sector is the only part of the export sector that pays GST on its sales and that international visitors already pay $500 million in GST every year.