Councillors explain their stadium vote

The $683 million stadium is going ahead only because a majority of Christchurch City councillors voted to push on. We summarise what each council member said before they cast their vote.

Thirteen councillors said yes to the $150 million cost increase, three said no, and one – Tim Scandrett – did not take part due to a conflict of interest. He is a board member of Venues O¯ tautahi, which will operate the stadium when it opens.

The vote was less than three months out from local body elections, where a majority of councillors will be seeking reelection.

Those who will not stand again are Lianne Dalziel, Andrew Turner, Jimmy Chen, Anne Galloway and Catherine Chu.

Below is a short summary of what each councillor said during their debate on the stadium on Thursday.

Each councillor was able to make a public comment after considering expert advice and the views of the public.

We have ordered their comments in the same order they spoke during the meeting.

Lianne Dalziel – yes

The overwhelming ‘‘yes’’ results of public consultation were just one thing councillors had to consider, Dalziel said.

Those wanting a pause or stop altogether put a lot of effort into their submissions, more than most of those who had just said to get on with it, she said.

Dalziel spoke passionately about the growing global audience being drawn in by Esports, saying: ‘‘We are the only venue builder that would be possibly in the position to build some of the [Esports] infrastructure requirements into it from the outset.’’

Andrew Turner – yes

The decision was about the best interests of the city, Turner said. The stadium was a key piece of infrastructure, but it was not an easy decision.

The next council would need to deal with the financial implications and Turner said he did not want to see ‘‘strategic money-making assets’’ sold or key projects, like climate change and transport, cut.

‘‘Today’s an opportunity . . . to put O¯ tautahi Christchurch fully back on the map and to allow it to fully play its rightful and natural role as the capital of the South Island.’’

Mike Davidson – yes

Davidson spoke of fond memories of Lancaster Park and said he wanted a stadium, but he was struggling with the ‘‘sickening’’ cost.

The 2012 blueprint lifted community expectations, he said. Building the stadium now would lead to high rate increases and he described the peak 8.5% rise in 2025/26 as a number that ‘‘will not be acceptable’’.

He said he would work to reduce the rates burden, but would not cut services or sell assets to do so. ‘‘Let’s not let the stadium divide us, but let it unite us.’’

James Gough – yes

Gough said ‘‘the people have clearly told us what decision they want’’ and Te Kaha was what the city ‘‘wants, needs, deserves and was promised’’.

He said it was a mark of integrity to do what you say you are going to do, and councillors should support it to honour the council’s word.

‘‘Agreeing to get on and build this facility properly will go a long way in helping [Christchurch] fulfil its potential.’’

Jimmy Chen – yes

Te Kaha would not only be a city asset, but a regional one, Chen said.

The council needed to talk as soon as possible with neighbouring councils about them helping to contribute, he said

Chen said the costs should not affect or postpone other infrastructure in the council’s Long Term Plan.

Yani Johanson – yes

While the majority of public submissions backed spending more, Johanson said they also raised very legitimate concerns about cost, location, design and need.

Johanson criticised the ‘‘imposed’’ 2012 blueprint too, saying it created ‘‘unrealistic expectations’’.

‘‘If we can afford to add a significant amount of money to the stadium, then there can be no more excuses that we cannot afford to fix our social housing, fix the basics or support the social recovery in our suburbs.’’

Melanie Coker – no

Coker said she had heard from people who believed there were higher priorities for the city and others who feared the rates increases from the rising stadium costs.

People expressing those fears wanted the city to live within its means, Coker said, adding: ‘‘this has been the majority view I have personally heard.’’

She criticised the economics of the stadium, but did say it would increase civic pride and investor confidence. ‘‘I certainly wish these outcomes for our wonderful city, but is it worth the financial risk at the moment?’’

Catherine Chu – yes

The decision was possibly one of the biggest, most important decisions the council would make, Chu said.

‘‘We have an obligation to honour the promise that we made to the community and the trust that they put in us,’’ she said.

Chu said it was time to show leadership and commitment and pushing on was the only right option for Christchurch.

Sam MacDonald – yes

Christchurch’s way forward according to MacDonald was either bold ambition and leadership to drive forward or look at the sunk costs and ‘‘have another argument for 10 years’’.

‘‘I’m always advocating for financial restraint around here, but I genuinely get stuck in this one because actually I can’t see any other way through it,’’ he said.

MacDonald said the city just needed to just get on and do it and he thought that was ‘‘the majority theme that has come through’’.

Anne Galloway – yes

Building Te Kaha would provide an opportunity to come together and celebrate who we are, she said.

‘‘I believe this project has enormous potential to unite our community at a time when we have been divided, at times bitterly, by issues around an ongoing pandemic, fires, floods and other challenges.’’

The stadium would generate jobs, improve infrastructure and stimulate economic growth in retail, real estate, manufacturing, tourism and construction, Galloway said.

Phil Mauger – yes

Mauger said he was delighted to support the stadium and businesses had invested on the basis it would be built.

‘‘It must not be a burden on ratepayers and the council must go over future budgets line-by-line to find as many savings as they can,’’ he said.

The council needed to look forward while listening to the community and giving them certainty and clarity, Mauger said.

Jake McLellan – yes

McLellan said one of the factors on his mind was the public submissions made by younger people: ‘‘They supported the extra investment at almost 90%’’.

He said the public have been clear in submissions that they want the stadium, but they have not agreed to service cuts to pay for it.

While his view was city wide, McLellan said the stadium would be good for local business in his central ward and would lead to positive urban regeneration outcomes too.

Aaron Keown – yes

Keown referenced the Roman Colosseum as he spoke and said Te Kaha was ‘‘our Colosseum’’.

He hoped all roads would lead to Christchurch. He said it was the greatest little city in the world.

‘‘Maybe one day we will be the modern day Rome.’’

Sara Templeton – no

The city deserved a stadium to feel whole again, but it was too risky to spend the money, as it would bind the next council to more debt with no plan to pay for it, Templeton said.

Increasing rates was unpalatable, any contribution from other councils would be small, and rugby was not paying a capital contribution either, she said.

‘‘We need more spent on our roads and water, on rapidly reducing our carbon emissions and on shifting our organics processing plant,’’ Templeton said, adding that the stadium’s extra cost was enough to pay for a decades-worth of public transport infrastructure.

Pauline Cotter – yes

The council has undertaken to deliver Te Kaha and although the council’s investment was higher than planned, there was a ‘‘laudable’’ fixedprice contract in place with contingency, Cotter said.

Pausing or stopping would lead to another pathway peppered with options that would take time, require consultation, and use even more of the budget, she said.

Investors had banked on Te Kaha becoming a reality and a decision would provide them with certainty, Cotter said, adding: ‘‘that’s not to be underestimated’’.

Celeste Donovan – no

Donovan said she could understand the desire to forge ahead, but she said: ‘‘we also know that because something feels good, or is politically easy, doesn’t make it right’’.

‘‘We are told that this project will bring untold riches to the city and the economic benefits are huge, that the stadium will activate our empty streets,’’ Donovan said.

‘‘But we also know a liar gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on.’’