VZCZCXRO7378
PP RUEHCHI RUEHFK RUEHHM RUEHKSO RUEHPB
DE RUEHWL #0927/01 3280246
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
P 240246Z NOV 06
FM AMEMBASSY WELLINGTON
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 3525
INFO RUEHZU/ASIAN PACIFIC ECONOMIC COOPERATION
RUEHNZ/AMCONSUL AUCKLAND 1027
RUEAIIA/CIA WASHINGTON DC

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 WELLINGTON 000927 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SENSITIVE 
SIPDIS 
 
FOR EAP/ANP 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: PGOV NZ
SUBJECT: NEW ZEALAND: AUCKLAND STADIUM DEBATE HIGHLIGHTS 
OVERLAP, MUDDLE IN NEW ZEALAND'S ECONOMIC HEART 
 
 
WELLINGTON 00000927  001.2 OF 002 
 
 
This message is sensitive but unclassified; please protect 
accordingly. 
 
This message was drafted by ConGen Auckland. 
 
¶1.  (SBU) Summary.  Aucklanders are locked in an emotional 
debate over where to build a stadium to host the 2011 Rugby 
World Cup.  The debate has highlighted the divided nature of 
decision-making in New Zealand largest city, as well as 
Auckland's uneasy relationship with the rest of the country. 
End summary. 
 
¶2.  (U) The debate over the site for a new rugby stadium has 
dominated headlines and cocktail party chatter in New 
Zealand's largest city, and indeed in many parts of the rest 
of the country, for the better part of November.  When New 
Zealand was chosen in November 2005 to host the 2011 Rugby 
World Cup, it promised to build a 60,000 seat stadium to hold 
the event. 
 
--------------------------------------------- -------- 
A New Cathedral for the Unofficial National Religion? 
--------------------------------------------- -------- 
 
¶3.  (U) Until early November, public discussion had meandered 
over whether to renovate the sentimental but timeworn home of 
New Zealand rugby, Eden Park, or build an entirely new 
stadium.  On November 10, Minister for the Rugby World Cup 
Trevor Mallard (1) announced the government's preference for 
a new, landmark national stadium on the Auckland waterfront 
and (2) gave local government in Auckland until November 24 
to choose between a waterfront stadium and the renovation of 
Eden Park.  If the city could not decide, Mallard threatened 
to move the World Cup to Jade Stadium in Christchurch. 
Shortly thereafter, Auckland City Mayor Dick Hubbard came out 
strongly in favor of the waterfront option. 
 
¶4.  (SBU) It would be reasonable to presume that support from 
the national government and the mayor would settle the 
matter, but that would overlook the competition between 
overlapping power bases that threatens to undermine efforts 
to make Auckland a world class city by the standards (if not 
the size) of its neighbors across the Tasman Sea. 
 
------------------------------------------ 
Divided Government, Divided Public Opinion 
------------------------------------------ 
 
¶5.  (U) The greater Auckland area, home to 1.4 million of New 
Zealand's four million citizens, is not one city, but many. 
It is composed of Auckland City and three other cities, each 
of which has its own elected council and mayor, as well as 
three nearby districts.  Yet another body, the Auckland 
Regional Council (ARC), separately elected and funded, has 
authority over Auckland's waterfront and parks as well as 
responsibility for planning the development of the Auckland 
region as a whole.  Further adding to the muddle, the ARC 
oversees a holding company whose portfolio includes Ports of 
Auckland, the port management company that would have to give 
up a portion of its property for the waterfront stadium. 
 
¶6.  (SBU) Public opinion over the stadium is divided.  An 
ongoing (and unscientific) survey of the Auckland based New 
Zealand Herald readers shows two-to-one opposition to the 
waterfront stadium.  However, as the survey sample is 
self-selected, it is likely skewed towards "no" voters who 
tend to be more vehement than waterfront supporters.  Some 
oppose the waterfront stadium because of the cost.  Even 
waterfront supporters admit in private that it would cost 
considerably more than the NZ$500 million (USD 330 million) 
officially estimated.  A full upgrade of Eden Park would cost 
much less.  Others believe the stadium would be a blemish on 
the waterfront, a sterile behemoth that would be empty and 
desolate most of the time.  Still others claim that a 
waterfront stadium, built on piles in the harbor, could not 
be completed in time. 
 
¶7.  (SBU) Nonetheless, advocates of a waterfront stadium 
seemed to gain some steam as the November 24 deadline 
approached.  The Herald bucked its own reader poll and came 
out on November 22 in favor of the waterfront plan.  Like the 
rest of the pro-waterfront crowd, the Herald argued in favor 
of an iconic structure that would be a catalyst to turn 
Auckland into a world-class city.  Some of the most 
starry-eyed waterfront advocates see such a stadium as 
Auckland's own Sydney Opera House that would turn the 
underutilized harbor area into a true city center, something 
 
WELLINGTON 00000927  002.2 OF 002 
 
 
Auckland lacks. 
 
-------------------- 
On The Waterfront... 
-------------------- 
 
¶8.  (U) The Auckland City Council met on the evening of 
November 23 to vote on the stadium, after a court denied an 
injunction to block the meeting requested by a group of 
waterfront opponents.  After the contentious five-hour 
discussion, a 13-7 majority of councilors backed Mayor 
Hubbard's support for the stadium.  However, a majority of 
the Council also called for the stadium to be built along the 
waterfront further east than the site Mallard proposed, a 
move that would further disrupt the operations of Ports of 
Auckland. 
 
--------- 
...Or Not 
--------- 
 
¶9.  (U) Barely twelve hours after the Auckland City Council 
supported the waterfront option, the Auckland Regional 
Council voted unanimously in favor of Eden Park.  ARC 
Chairman Mike Lee argued that the Eden Park option would be 
cheaper and less risky.  He also argued that the waterfront 
option would adversely affect the operation of the port (as 
noted above, Ports of Auckland is owned by the ARC). 
Auckland City Mayor Dick Hubbard, after the ARC vote, seemed 
to back away slightly from supporting the waterfront option, 
saying that the Auckland City Council's vote had been 
"conditional" and that he would like to have seen more 
information on the impact of the waterfront stadium on the 
port. 
 
---------------------------- 
Comment:  Unpopular Auckland 
---------------------------- 
 
¶10.  (SBU) While it is likely that Eden Park will host the 
2011 Rugby World Cup, waterfront proponents may make another 
push.  It seems still more likely that the split decision 
will renew calls for a fundamental reconsideration of the 
Auckland region's governance structure. 
 
¶11.  (SBU) The stadium debate also shed light on the testy 
relationship between Aucklanders and other New Zealanders. 
Auckland is wealthier, far larger, and much more 
multicultural than other NZ cities.  Aucklanders are seen as 
money-focused, materialistic and unfriendly and those who 
live outside Auckland believe the city absorbs more than its 
fair share of government resources.  Some argue that the 
divided nature of Auckland government suits the rest of the 
country fine, as a single, unified Auckland authority might 
greatly increase what many Kiwis believe is its already 
disproportionate influence on national affairs. 
 
¶12.  (SBU) Aucklanders, in contrast, see the city as the 
country's forward-looking, dynamic and cosmopolitan economic 
engine, and believe the city gets shortchanged in the 
resource tussle with rural areas and smaller cities.  While 
non-Aucklanders resent having to pay for a stadium that they 
believe will only benefit the city, Aucklanders resent the 
tight-fistedness of their fellow countrymen, who seem willing 
to fund prestigious but money-losing projects in other 
cities.  This may be why the government seems to have decided 
to pay for the bulk of a waterfront stadium through 
sponsorship and hotel and airport taxes that will fall 
neither on Aucklanders nor other Kiwis, but on foreign 
tourists. 
 
¶13.  (SBU) The arena debate also has national political 
implications.  We will report on these septel. 
McCormick