Brash Don: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Brash Don: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:635;Page:6622] 
2.  
Dr DON BRASH (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does she stand by her statement to the House on 7 November 2006 that “I have formed no view whatsoever” about whether the Stadium New Zealand proposal should be preferred ahead of the rebuilding of Eden Park? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Acting Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes. As she has said she will enthusiastically support whichever option is chosen. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Has the Prime Minister seen the estimate for the cost of a waterfront Stadium New Zealand done by two separate quantity surveyors and released by the Eden Park Trust Board of more than $900 million a figure that according to Mr Mallard’s formula would lead to the region and the Government each having to come up with $375 million; and is she prepared for the project to go ahead if the cost is anything remotely close to that figure? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Should eventually a preference be expressed for the waterfront stadium then clearly further work would need to be done. Work will need to continue in relation to planning for Eden Park as a back-up. The Government will release all information into the public arena; I invite the member to release all his information into the public arena as well. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Can the Prime Minister confirm that the Minister responsible for the Rugby World Cup Trevor Mallard has proposed a $10 per head Auckland International Airport departure tax which I am advised would raise about $27 million per year—a sum too small to pay even the interest on the regional contribution if the estimate of $900 million is to be believed—and what other revenue-raising measures does her Government have under consideration? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Neither option—and I hesitate to sound like a broken record—has a fully costed budget or an explanation in full of how it is to be paid for. In one instance Eden Park the board seems to be trying to persuade the public that it is paid for but is looking to the Government to pay for it; in the other instance it is quite clear that the means will be found to pay for the stadium. Those facts will be published as they are available; I invite the member to publish all facts in his possession. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Can the Prime Minister confirm that the Government’s current offer of contribution based on Mr Mallard’s $500 million guesstimate is around $175 million if the stadium is located on the waterfront; and if Aucklanders decide on the Eden Park proposal can she tell the House what level of Government contribution it would receive? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: To the first question yes. To the second question the Eden Park board is yet to make any proposal based on full and final costings about where the money will come from for the Eden Park option. Clearly by far the cheapest option is Jade Stadium. All the facts will come into the public arena as and when they are made available. I invite the member to table all his facts—including any book he may have in his possession! 
Dr Don Brash 
: Is the Prime Minister aware that when London bid to host the 2012 Olympic Games the estimated cost of the facilities was £2.4 billion and that UK Treasury officials already expect that cost to exceed £6 billion—150 percent above the original estimate? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Yes; and I note also that the Eden Park project is already 150 percent above its original estimate and potentially still climbing. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Why more than a year after New Zealand won the right to host the Rugby World Cup is the Prime Minister’s Government giving Aucklanders just 2 weeks to choose between two very expensive projects with the cost design feasibility and financing of the project preferred by the Minister for the Rugby World Cup being entirely unclear? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The cost financing and feasibility of the Eden Park project is almost equally unclear at this point. The reason we are in this process is because the Eden Park project came back with 150 percent cost inflation on the latest estimates. At that point the Government asked whether we really want to spend $400 million on putting a stadium in the middle of a suburb that may be used only 25 days a year. I say to the member again that the full facts will come into the public arena; will he let the full facts about what he has been up to over the last 3 or 4 years come out?