View submissions

Counter-Objection

Relates to objections

N20-032 , N20-061, N20-029, N20-062, N20-013, N20-051, N20-043, N20-048, N20-005, N20-014, N20-015, N20-016, N20-019, N20-018, N20-020, N20-021, N20-022, N20-023, N20-026, N20-024, N20-063, N20-030, N20-031, N20-001, N20-056, N20-002, N20-035, N20-038, N20-039, N20-040, N20-041, N20-004, N20-058, N20-059, N20-045, N20-046, N20-049, N20-047, N20-050, N20-052, N20-007, N20-008, N20-055, N20-057, N20-027, N20-010, N20-009

---

Mr Russell Grainger

The argument that Panmure doesn't identify with South Auckland suburbs or has no history or common interest with Manukau East is resolved by changing the proposed Manukau East electorate. The new name should reflect all communities and be one that all new and old residents identify with. "Otahuhu" or "Panmure-Otara" come to mind.

Counter-Objection

Relates to objections

N20-008, N20-024

---

Mr Russell Grainger

The idea that Panmure has been subjected to too many changes and therefore should be left alone now is weak. Panmure was last part of a boundary change following the 2006 census- 14 years ago. Regardless, if population changes, boundaries need to change.

Counter-Objection

Relates to objections

N20-007, N20-012, N20-025, N20-037, N20-044

---

Dr Lee Mathias

DHB boundaries are unrelated to general electorate boundaries and are established under different legislation. DHB boundaries are not changing as a result of this boundary review, therefore Jennifer Andrews, Dr Oliver Mudford, Sandra Gordon and others submission point regarding DHBs is irrelevant.
I am a former CMDHB Chairman and ADHB DepChairman.

Counter-Objection

Relates to objections

N20-003

---

Tony Woodcock

Labour's map separates Mt Wellington more so than the Commission's recommendation, which is extremely odd as they say "a better solution is not to split Mount Wellington". They are contradicting themselves. All of Mt Wellington should remain in the Maungakiekie electorate and the suburb should be kept as a whole. Not awkwardly split like the submission suggests. This has been historical practice and should remain that way. The better solution is separating the proposed Maungakiekie and Manukau East electorates along the Mt Wellington Rail Line as originally proposed.

Counter-Objection

Relates to objections

N20-002, N20-005, N20-007, N20-009, N20-014, N20-020, N20-026, N20-028, N20-030, N20-034, N20-039, N20-040, N20-041, N20-043, N20-045, N20-046, N20-049, N20-051, N20-055, N20-059, N20-062

---

Tony Woodcock

The point made in these submissions that Panmure will not be adequately represented and its issues second to "South Auckland" cannot be assumed or made. This will be determined on the new elected MP for the seat to which Panmure residents will be able to have a say on.

Counter-Objection

Relates to objections

N20-006, N20-007, N20-009, N20-033, N20-036, N20-037, N20-038, N20-047

---

Mr Taylor Watson

The Mt Wellington Railway Line, Is a far more natural and clean boundary than the Tamaki Estuary. The Estuary moves through to many electorates to be considered a clean boundary line it does not make rational or economical sense.

Counter-Objection

Relates to objections

N20-002, N20-003, N20-008, N20-009, N20-020, N20-026, N20-029, N20-030, N20-039, N20-040, N20-041, N20-042, N20-043, N20-045, N20-046, N20-049, N20-050, N20-055, N20-058

---

Michelle Spencer

Panmure and Mt Wellington have previously been in different electorates. The last time was in 2006 after the census. I believe Panmure is more connected to Point England and Glen Innes. Glen Innes is currently in a different electorate to Panmure and Point England- it’s in the Tamaki electorate, so the argument that separating Panmure from Mt Wellington will lessen its bond is weak.

Counter-Objection

Relates to objections

N20-003

---

Sue White

The submission's map divides Mt Wellington and its suggested boundary cuts several Mt Wellington streets in half, creating a nonsensical boundary. The submission wording contradicts the map as wording suggests keeping Mt Wellington altogether, while the map shows otherwise. The better solution is keeping the Mt Wellington Rail Line as the natural boundary between the proposed Maungakiekie and Manukau East electorates.

Counter-Objection

Relates to objections

N20-032 , N20-061, N20-029, N20-062, N20-013, N20-051, N20-043, N20-048, N20-005, N20-014, N20-015, N20-016, N20-019, N20-018, N20-020, N20-021, N20-022, N20-023, N20-026, N20-024, N20-063, N20-030, N20-031, N20-001, N20-056, N20-002, N20-035, N20-038, N20-039, N20-040, N20-041, N20-004, N20-058, N20-059, N20-045, N20-046, N20-049, N20-047, N20-050, N20-052, N20-007, N20-008, N20-055, N20-057, N20-027, N20-010, N20-009

---

Sue White

Changing the name of the proposed Manukau East electorate to one that encompasses the new communities in the boundary, such as "Panmure-Otahuhu", is the best resolution. Otahuhu is the middle joining suburb between the original Manukau East communities and the suggested new ones being added. Mt Wellington Railway Line also forms a natural boundary.

Counter-Objection

Relates to objections

N20-001, N20-005, N20-007, N20-009, N20-010, N20-011, N20-015, N20-016, N20-020, N20-023, N20-026, N20-028, N20-029, N20-030, N20-039, N20-040, N20-041, N20-043, N20-045, N20-046, N20-049, N20-050, N20-051, N20-052, N20-055, N20-059

---

Dr Mary Hedges

The above objections all reference the growth in population in the Glen Innes-Point England-Panmure areas as a part of the Tamaki regeneration project (TRC) as a reason to not be moved out of the Maungakiekie electorate. This appears to miss some fundamental points.
1. That the entire point of electoral boundary review is to account for shifts in population location, as well as growth in population, to ensure that electorates are of broadly similar size.
2. That TRC is not the only major regeneration project and/or intensification project currently underway. There are also large Kainga Ora projects in Oranga and Onehunga as well as significant private development of higher density residential units in these areas.
3. Any suburb on an electoral boundary will, unfortunately, bear the brunt of population density shifts. This is the trade-off between continuity of electorates over time and shifts in the size and location that people live in.

Counter-Objection

Relates to objections

N20-003

---

Dr Mary Hedges

My basic objection is that the argument makes no logical sense. The Labour Party submission argues that contiguous suburbs shouldn't be split and then the suggested solution splits Mt Wellington right across the middle. Furthermore their proposed boundary on this Eastern side of the new electorate is extremely unclear in their submission. The only way to get a good guestimate of where the new boundary may be is at mesh block level which means nothing to 99.9% of the population.
In addition, their proposal focuses on the Eastern boundary of the electorate and makes no reference whatsoever to the addition on the Western side of the electorate. This has major implications based on the premise that electorate review takes place to ensure ongoing balance between electorate size - Labour's suggestion totally ignores/undermines this premise based on the following calculations.

Changes proposed by panel:
Moved into MKK (ex Mt Roskill) +9152 (112 mesh blocks)
Moving out of MKK (to ME) -10877 (191 mesh blocks)
Net change -1725

However, Labour's proposal results in:
Moved into MKK (ex Mt Roskill) +9152 (112 mesh blocks)
Retained Pt England etc. 6245 (99 mesh blocks) (not counted in net change)

Loses part of Mt Wgtn -4280 (48 mesh blocks)
Net change +4872

Working at this mesh block level highlights the other difficulty with their plan – it splits streets as it doesn’t follow any natural boundary (such as train, motorway, river, coast). It appears to split the following streets:
Penrose Road
Panorama Road
Barrack Road
Bertrand Road
Malone Road
Mt Wellington Highway
Ireland Road

For all of these reasons I argue that the proposed boundaries suggested by the panel are much cleaner, better future proofed against population growth and focused around clear, natural boundary lines.

Counter-Objection

Relates to objections

N20-032 , N20-061, N20-029, N20-062, N20-013, N20-051, N20-043, N20-048, N20-005, N20-014, N20-015, N20-016, N20-019, N20-018, N20-020, N20-021, N20-022, N20-023, N20-026, N20-024, N20-063, N20-030, N20-031, N20-001, N20-056, N20-002, N20-035, N20-038, N20-039, N20-040, N20-041, N20-004, N20-058, N20-059, N20-045, N20-046, N20-049, N20-047, N20-050, N20-052, N20-007, N20-008, N20-055, N20-057, N20-027, N20-010, N20-009

---

Ainsley Siegel

These submissions highlight Panmure's lack of history, common interest, or identification with Manukau East. However, the name of the Manukau East electorate contributes to this disconnect. If you're moving new communities into an old established electorate, it's common sense to change the identity of that electorate to cater for everyone. A name change is the first step.

Objection

---

Jacinda Prattley

Wattle Downs is part of Manurewa, and nowhere near Flat Bush. In Wattle Downs we are proud to be part of Manurewa and you should keep us in the south, not put us in the east. Manurewa town centre is literally minutes from our door. Flatbush is ages away and on the other side of the motorway! It just doesn't make sense.

Objection

---

Mrs Adrienne O'Connor

The commission has done a great job, in my opinion. I would like to thank you for all the research and work that you must have done to sort out an extra Electorate in the Auckland area. We all have to lose constituents to make this work and you seem to have done this in a very balanced manner.
You seem to have taken into account the growth that we are going to see in the current Papakura Electorate. We accept that Drury and the current area around that is likely to become a highly built up area and should stay with Papakura. To keep this in balance Ardmore, Clevedon, Maraetai and Beachlands seem to be ideal to add to the mix. Kingseat and Karaka have always been thought of as part of Papakura.
I have been a resident of Papakura for over 40 years. My husband and I have had a significant rental property portfolio in Papakura and Manurewa. I have previously sold Real Estate in Papakura for 5 years so feel that I understand this area really well.

Objection

---

Mr Peter O'Brien

I support the proposed change to the Papakura Electorate boundaries. I have lived in Papakura for over 50 years and find the proposed boundaries as the most acceptable as a Papakura centric Electorate. It includes the fast developing areas in Karaka and Drury as well as our close rural areas. It should be demanding of an elected Member of Parliament to represent a good mix of new and established urban dwellers, industry, education, sports & recreation and rural constituents.