View submissions

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.

Objection

---

Mrs Melissa Anderson

I live in Ararimu with my family and we are currently part of the Hunua electorate. With the proposed boundary change, Ararimu and Bombay would become part of the Papakura electorate. I believe Ararimu and Bombay should remain in the same electorate which contains Pukekohe as recreationally and for shopping and services we currently use Pukekohe the majority of the time and very rarely Papakura. We identify more closely with the more rural aspect of Pukekohe and its surrounding areas and barely at all with Papakura. Most of the families we associate with in Ararimu and Bombay would be the same.

Objection

---

Mr Terence Small

It is my understanding that electrates are planned as much as possible with a like with like. i.e. small towns grouped together so an electrate as much as possible has a common theme. This seems logical and fair.
By lumping a small village like location such as Clevedon into Papakura which is a large residential area the vast majority of voters will be from a city type enviroment with the residents of a village like Clevedon overwhelmed.
THere are many small village type locations similar to Clevedon in our area which would be much more suited to being grouped together to give a much more democratic electrate. Hunua, Maraetai, Whitford, Beachlands, Alfristan, Brookby to name a few which I believe, to be democratic, should all form part of the same electrate.
To lump Clevedon in with Papakura will virtually disenfranchise the voters of Clevedon

Objection

---

Rhiannon Myers

That as a community we are not inline or even remotely similar to Papakura. We are rural communities that have very different needs to the more residential areas. Our communities have also built good relationships with our local MPs and it would be a shame to lose these connections and be lumped in with communities we don't relate too.

Objection

---

Ms Elaine Fleet

Beachlands and the other areas it encompasses do not want to be in Papakura. We voted Andrew in and want to keep him. It is a National area and Papakura is not. It looks like you are simply doing it to rake in votes. It really isn’t good enough.

Objection

---

Mr Kevin Welch

Maraetai is a rural part of Hunua - not suburban Papakura - the wants and needs of Papakura are very different to Hunua

Objection

---

Mr Denis Currie QSO

My submission is in support of the Commissions recommendation for the Papakura electorate.
My wife and I have previously been a resident in Papakura from 1970 to 2000, and will shortly be moving into ‘Karaka Lifestyle Estate’ which will be within the Papakura electorate boundary.
Papakura city is mainly urban, and should clearly remain within the Papakura electorate. However it is logical rural areas such as Karaka, Kingseat, Clevedon, Maeratai and Beachlands are included to create the perfect electorate balance.
There is tremendous growth within this area, particularly in the Drury district, and it is logical electorates need to adjust to accommodate this.
In fact I believe the proposed submission will allow for this rapid growth without need for any significant modification for some years to come.
It would seem the Commission in their research have simply confirmed the significant growth that is taking place, and have identified this fact in the recommendations made.
The Commission is to be commended for their work.
I respectfully recommend that this proposal is supported and adopted without further change.

Objection

---

Mrs Christine King

I would like to congratulate the Representation Commission on the most well thought out, carefully planned and sensibly fashioned boundary changes that have been proposed for a long time!
Electorates now make sense both from a both a constituent's or a member of Parliament's point of view.
The Electorates now seem to flow and take into account the growth in the population in South and East Auckland whilst allowing for further growth in the future. Also the community of interests within the areas are far more balanced and logical in the way the whole area is divided.

Objection

---

Ms Margaret Fleming

The change to the geographical boundaries group communities in a more logical and cohesive manner. It will be easier for the electorate to work as an entity.
I suggest that keeping the electorate name of Papakura does not reflect the significant population change within the new boundaries and may well cause confusion about to which electorate people now belong.
Changing the name to say "Clevedon" or "Franklin" for example, signifies that the electorate boundaries are not the same

Objection

---

Russell Bennison

The large population growth that has occurred in Papakura means that the Electorate is one of those where extensive changes to the boundaries was necessary. The Representation Commissions proposals for the new boundaries are sensible.
The areas of Clevedon, Whitford, Beachlands. Maraeti and Orere Point have previously been in the same Electorate as Papakura ie Clevedon Electorate.

Counter-Objection

Relates to objections

N23-007, N23-008

---

Jan Robinson

The township of Clevedon and the surrounding rural area were at one time in the electorate of Clevedon which included Maraetai, Whitford and Papakura. At the previous boundary changes Clevedon became part of the Hunua electorate.
The proposed changes puts these areas back into the Papakura electorate. The residents of Clevedon use the many facilities available in Papakura - 2 theatres, supermarkets, RSA, the Aquatic Centre and the Edmund Hillary Library to name just a few. For these reasons I disagree with the objections N23-007 and N23-008.