Mallard Trevor: Eden Park Trust Amendment Bill — Second Reading Third Reading 
Mallard Trevor: Eden Park Trust Amendment Bill — Second Reading Third Reading 
[Volume:656;Page:5690] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 When speaking on the Eden Park Trust Amendment Bill there is still a degree of bitter-sweetness as far as I am concerned whenever the question of Eden Park comes up. When I hear the numbers I think back to a particular misjudgment on the part of my former colleague Dr Cullen who while Acting Prime Minister made an equal commitment to Eden Park and to the waterfront stadium. He said that we would back them both on the same basis. At that point the major leverage for economic development in central Auckland disappeared and history won. 
The side I was on in that debate is clear but the conservatism of the Auckland Regional Council in particular—the fact that it likes to get $30 a week for having cars parked on their wharf the site where the stadium would have been—is something that won on the day and I might say won in a way that I thought was fair. I have said on a number of occasions to Rob Fisher that I thought he did brilliantly in employing Linda Clark to convince the Auckland Regional Council that black was white and white was black because they were convinced. I would be very careful about using expressions to describe public relations people. I used a particular expression about Crosby/Textor that resulted in a wonderful legal letter. They do not like being called paid liars—that is for sure. I must say that in this particular case Linda Clark led a very good campaign that resulted in the decision to retain Eden Park as a centre for rugby and to a certain extent cricket in Auckland. 
That being the case the previous Government’s commitment was honoured and it is continuing to be honoured by the member Murray McCully and his team. I might say that probably as with members on this side of the House there was division during the debate. I welcomed the private support from John Key for the waterfront stadium. I was a little unhappy that the decision was in the same week that the National leader coup was occurring. He decided it was better to keep quiet publicly about that support in order to get the numbers to become the leader of the National Opposition. It was an interesting approach but that is politics I suppose; that is the way it breaks. 
Over many many years a lot of people originally from cricket but in more recent years from rugby as well in a more leading way have been involved in the development of the park. It has been and will continue to be a massive community asset for the people in Auckland. The ASB has put a lot of money into it over many many years. I am not absolutely certain that it has put enough into this redevelopment yet but I understand that some naming rights are still around. It would be good if the trust and the bank were able to line up because they are logical long-term sponsors. I think one can accept that the naming rights for the period of the Rugby World Cup might be a little bit rich for the ASB although if the economic recovery that the Minister of Finance is promising actually takes off then that could just well be pocket money for the ASB as it goes forward. 
I also thank colleagues who have been involved in the Government Administration Committee; David Parker has consulted with me on a couple of occasions. I chose not to sit on the select committee. I had confidence that it could do its work and it has. Sometimes it is better to have people with too much history and intimate knowledge a little bit further away from the actual discussion and I thought that that was the case. My successor as spokesperson on sport Chris Hipkins also made a contribution and did a couple of checks although I think it is fair to say that there was absolute unanimity around the changes. I thought one was pretty pedantic but we accept that and will keep on moving forward. 
I am looking forward to other members of the select committee contributing. I see that Nikki Kaye who was a member of the committee from 24 June is champing at the bit to have a go in the debate. I notice that a person even higher on the list of select committee members than her is Mr Bakshi and I am very much looking forward to his contribution in this debate this afternoon. In fact seeing that I think from the National Party’s perspective and certainly on an alphabetical basis of those in the House he is the senior member of that committee I am sure that he will take precedence in this discussion this afternoon. I will try to keep my discussion going in order for that to happen as I am sure he is on his way to the House. I will work hard to ensure that he can fulfil the opportunity that has been presented to him to join in these discussions today. 
This bill is of quite an unusual shape in that it is pretty rare for the schedules of a bill to be so long. In this case the bill itself goes to only five pages in length but the schedules then run through for another 26 pages. 
Chris Hipkins 
: It’s got to get better. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Well not to write the actual trustee right in there is an interesting approach to legislation but that is something I accept; it is over a period of time. I think it is also fair to say that a number of us have seen much more of the work going on at Eden Park than we wanted to over the last 6 months or so. The retirement of the previous member for Mt Albert caused one or two visits. Whenever we are coming or going through Auckland we seemed to go pretty close to Eden Park on the way. For that reason I am also looking forward to the contribution of Melissa Lee to this debate. She is someone who has spent much more time—much more time than she wanted in the end—in the vicinity of Eden Park. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: And what was the score there? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I am happy to remind the member of the score. It started in sixes did it not and it was more like cricket than rugby. It was the sort of score we have in a 20/20 match when the bowlers are dominating and I think that at that stage the maiden was certainly bowled over. I will be interested in David Shearer’s contribution to this debate as well. [ 
Interruption 
] Thank goodness I have only 2 more minutes! 
It is interesting to see Parliament working in a cooperative way. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: The great unifier! 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I think it is fair to say that Mr McCully and I have a history of working together on issues dating back to 1995. It has been great to have another one where Mr McCully and I can have discussions now that I have long retired from the Parliamentary Rugby Team. I can have a discussion on an issue that might have nothing to do with this bill and no one knows the difference. It is very good. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Two old boozers together. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I would not describe Mr McCully as an old boozer. There are one or two other words that could possibly be used but that would be a matter of bringing up things that should stay on tour. Was Georgetown the place? I am trying to remember the place just up the road from Cape Town that the member and Mr O’Connor had quite an acquaintance with. I think that at this point I should sit down.