Displaying
211 - 220 of
438
Number | Name | Submission | Change type | View |
---|---|---|---|---|
N20-637 | Mr Taylor Watson | Counter-Objection | Boundary | |
Mr Taylor WatsonCounter-Objection
Manukau East
Relates to objectionsN20-006, N20-007, N20-009, N20-033, N20-036, N20-037, N20-038, N20-047
This objection relates to a boundary change
This objection does not relate to a name change
Mr Taylor WatsonThe 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.Suggested solutionUse the Mt Wellington Railway Line as the boundary, its simple clean and effective. |
||||
N20-638 | Mr Taylor Watson | Counter-Objection | Boundary | |
Mr Taylor WatsonCounter-Objection
Manukau East
Relates to objectionsN20-003
This objection relates to a boundary change
This objection does not relate to a name change
Mr Taylor WatsonLabour's map separates Mt Wellington. They contradict themselves when they say "a better solution is not to split Mount Wellington" is separating the proposed Maungakiekie and Manukau East electorates along the rail line as per the Commission’s draft. This line acts as a natural boundary, compared to Labour's jaggerdy boundary that absurdly moves in and out streets splitting tight communities of interest. All of Mt Wellington has historically been in the Maungakiekie electorate, unlike Panmure and Point England. |
||||
N20-639 | Michelle Spencer | Counter-Objection | Boundary | |
Michelle SpencerCounter-Objection
Manukau East
Relates to objectionsN20-002, 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
This objection relates to a boundary change
This objection does not relate to a name change
Michelle SpencerPanmure 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. |
||||
N20-640 | Michelle Spencer | Counter-Objection | Boundary, name | |
Michelle SpencerCounter-Objection
Manukau East
Relates to objectionsN20-032 , 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
This objection relates to a boundary change
This objection relates to a name change
Michelle SpencerThe concern in these submissions about the lack of connection between Panmure and Manukau east can be solved by a new name that represents all the communities in the new electorate, such as "Panmure-Otahuhu".I believe the Commission's proposed boundary of the Mt Wellington railway line is natural. Suggested solutionRename the new Manukau East electorate |
||||
N20-641 | Sue White | Counter-Objection | Boundary | |
Sue WhiteCounter-Objection
Manukau East
Relates to objectionsN20-003
This objection relates to a boundary change
This objection does not relate to a name change
Sue WhiteThe 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.Suggested solutionKeep the boundary line as the Mt Wellington Railway line, which acts as a natural boundary. |
||||
N20-642 | Sue White | Counter-Objection | Boundary | |
Sue WhiteCounter-Objection
Manukau East
Relates to objectionsN20-006, N20-007, N20-009, N20-033, N20-036, N20-037, N20-038, N20-047
This objection relates to a boundary change
This objection does not relate to a name change
Sue WhiteDue to population growth, there needs to be some removal of suburbs along the eastern side of the Maungakiekie electorate, therefore the Mt Wellington Railway Line is a better natural boundary than the Tamaki Estuary.Suggested solutionKeep the natural boundary of the Mt Wellington Rail Line. |
||||
N20-643 | Sue White | Counter-Objection | Boundary, name | |
Sue WhiteCounter-Objection
Manukau East
Relates to objectionsN20-032 , 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
This objection relates to a boundary change
This objection relates to a name change
Sue WhiteChanging 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.Suggested solutionRename the new Manukau East electorate. |
||||
N20-644 | Dr Mary Hedges | Counter-Objection | Name | |
Dr Mary HedgesCounter-Objection
Manukau East
Relates to objectionsN20-032 , N20-061, N20-029, N20-062, N20-013, N20-051, N20-043, N20-048, N20-005, N20-014, 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
This objection does not relate to a boundary change
This objection relates to a name change
Dr Mary HedgesAll of these objections are based around the idea that Panmure in particular has no history or common interest with Manukau East, a point that I agree with. However, that relates to the proposed name of the electorate rather than the actual proposed boundary.Furthermore, although there is limited history linking these areas, the two ends of the proposed new electorate used to be unified by the employment opportunities of the historic Sylvia Park/Mt Wellington industrial area. The nature of this area has changed and become a major central retail and services hub frequented by both both ends of the proposed new electorate. Therefore the proposed new electorate boundaries actually better represent the primary services hub for all of these suburbs. Suggested solutionThe simplest solution is to change the name of this proposed electorate. While appreciating the elegance of retaining an historic name, the objectors are correct that Manukau East does not reflect the communities included in the new boundaries. No common sense approach would suggest that Pint England and Panmure are any part of Manukau.I therefore suggest a return to the historic Maori portage name of Tauoma or that either one (or both) of the relevant volcanic cones be included in the name (Maungarei and/or Mt Richmond). This would then remove the reference to Manukau in the name and better link the suburbs included in the new boundary via a significant geographic feature. |
||||
N20-645 | Dr Mary Hedges | Counter-Objection | Boundary | |
Dr Mary HedgesCounter-Objection
Manukau East
Relates to objectionsN20-001, 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
This objection relates to a boundary change
This objection does not relate to a name change
Dr Mary HedgesThe 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. Suggested solutionThere is no real solution to this. Our census system is a robust starting point to identify both growth and shifts in population at the mesh block level. In spite of the difficulties with the 2017 census this is still the most robust and accurate measure of these things available - and will continue to be available in five-yearly intervals. The system may not be perfect and some suburbs may experience more electorate movement over time than others but the short answer is that the basis on which boundary changes are made is fair, evidence based and independent. |
||||
N20-646 | Dr Mary Hedges | Counter-Objection | Boundary | |
Dr Mary HedgesCounter-Objection
Manukau East
Relates to objectionsN20-003, N20-034, N20-048, N20-052, N20-058
This objection relates to a boundary change
This objection does not relate to a name change
Dr Mary HedgesAll of these submissions reference the shape of the new electorate and claim it is impractical. This is brilliant. I suggest the submitter's take an outline of New Zealand and scale it down to the proposed electorate size - interestingly it is almost the same shape as the country, albeit a mirror image.More seriously, the shape of the proposed new electorate actually follows major NE-SW transport corridors (car, rail and bus) toward the southern motorway and airport. This is further supported by the new boundaries following the Eastern train line and then the Southern and is bisected by the Southern motorway. The shape of an electorate is largely irrelevant as it is not expected that voters travel across an electorate to vote. This is not the only electorate with a long-skinny or short-wide shape. Other examples include Christchurch Central, Nelson (the land portion), Tauranga (the land portion), the proposed North Shore and Upper Harbour. Furthermore, the new electorate is not vastly different from the current Maungakiekie electorate shape. Onehunga - Panmure is similar in length to Point England to Otara. If they object to this they should also be unhappy with the current Maungakiekie - that they want to stay in. Suggested solutionFocus on major corridors and natural, clear boundaries such as rivers, estuaries, train lines and motorways. This appears to be what the proposed changes have done and it keeps things clean and simple. |