View submissions

Select filters to view submissions

Displaying 211 - 220 of 438
Number Name Submission Change type View
N20-637 Mr Taylor Watson Counter-Objection Boundary

Mr Taylor Watson


Counter-Objection

Manukau East

Relates to objections

N20-006, 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 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.

Suggested solution

Use the Mt Wellington Railway Line as the boundary, its simple clean and effective.
N20-638 Mr Taylor Watson Counter-Objection Boundary

Mr Taylor Watson


Counter-Objection

Manukau East

Relates to objections

N20-003
This objection relates to a boundary change
This objection does not relate to a name change

Mr Taylor Watson

Labour'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 Spencer


Counter-Objection

Manukau East

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
This objection relates to a boundary change
This objection does not relate to a name change

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.
N20-640 Michelle Spencer Counter-Objection Boundary, name

Michelle Spencer


Counter-Objection

Manukau East

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
This objection relates to a boundary change
This objection relates to a name change

Michelle Spencer

The 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 solution

Rename the new Manukau East electorate
N20-641 Sue White Counter-Objection Boundary

Sue White


Counter-Objection

Manukau East

Relates to objections

N20-003
This objection relates to a boundary change
This objection does not relate to a name change

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.

Suggested solution

Keep the boundary line as the Mt Wellington Railway line, which acts as a natural boundary.
N20-642 Sue White Counter-Objection Boundary

Sue White


Counter-Objection

Manukau East

Relates to objections

N20-006, 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 White

Due 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 solution

Keep the natural boundary of the Mt Wellington Rail Line.
N20-643 Sue White Counter-Objection Boundary, name

Sue White


Counter-Objection

Manukau East

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
This objection relates to a boundary change
This objection relates to a name change

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.

Suggested solution

Rename the new Manukau East electorate.
N20-644 Dr Mary Hedges Counter-Objection Name

Dr Mary Hedges


Counter-Objection

Manukau East

Relates to objections

N20-032 , 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 Hedges

All 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 solution

The 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 Hedges


Counter-Objection

Manukau East

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
This objection relates to a boundary change
This objection does not relate to a name change

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.

Suggested solution

There 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 Hedges


Counter-Objection

Manukau East

Relates to objections

N20-003, 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 Hedges

All 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 solution

Focus 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.
Back to top