View submissions

Objection

---

Mrs Nikki Morris

I feel that moving Clevedon into the Papakura electorate is not going to be a fair reflection of unique rural nature of our community. With the current Hunua electorate most of the area covered by this electorate is rural or small settlements these area's have similar populations and priorities. By lumping Clevedon in with the Papakura electorate which is urban the wishes and voices of our smaller community will be overwhelmed by thise with a more urban outlook and i fear for the unique nature of Clevedon.

Objection

---

Rohan McGowan

The revision of the Papakura electorate, and the foundation of the new Flat Bush electorate appears the split low income elements from a fairly cohesive & contiguous community and dilutes them out by including them with far more affluent voters in both the proposed electorates. This would appear to reduce the representation of an already underrepresented cohort, as it is well established that low income individuals have lower incidence of voting, and as such splitting this group is likely to cause further harm by reducing their voice in parliament.

Objection

---

Mr Richard and Uinise Smythe

With the increased number of people in Papakura, it makes a lot of sense to offer another electorate such as the proposed Flat Bush. We live in Conifer Grove and would be happy to vote in this new electorate.
Also, with family and friends in Clevedon, Whitford, Maraetai and Orere Point, they have mentioned how delighted they'd be to return to Papakura as they had been in the past.
Uinise and I approve unreservedly the proposed changes listed in the first draft from your website.

Objection

---

Christopher Verissimo

Having developed in Papakura for the last 40 years and seeing the growth occurring in the area e.g. Drury etc I believe the Representation Commissions report is the correct approach for the new growth while keeping the communities interest. I therefore support the proposed boundary adjustments.

Objection

---

Mrs Megan Wallace

Papakura Electorate growth means that this proposed boundary change is sensible. The rural areas of Maraetai, Beachlands, Clevedon, Whitford and Orere Point used to be part of the original Clevedon Electorate and it makes more sense for them to be affiliated with Papakura.

Objection

---

Mrs Mary Ann France

I applaud your proposed Electorate Boundary Changes in order to make more equitous distribution of constituents in this area. Having been a resident of Summerset Retirement Village Karaka Papakura for nearly 2 years, I feel included in this neighbourhood. I started my teaching career at Papakura High School when this area was still “out in the country”. I Absolutely loved it.. My life has changed and I chose to move to Summerset at Karaka… I would not appreciate being part of a Hunua or the proposed Port Waikato electorate. I have no affiliation to the Pukekohe or Counties district.

Objection

---

Mr Gerard Van den Bogaart

This is a good result. It keeps the rural Papakura with the town.

Objection

---

Jenny Carter

The majority of the community commutes towards the city. The proposal of moving our electorate to Papakura, is geographically and physically impractical. We come under the East Health Trust of medical services, and our kids are zoned to go Howick College. By grouping us in with Papakura, it is a juxtaposition to the development and natural flow of the community.

Counter-Objection

Relates to objections

N23-007

---

Mrs Christine King

For many years the area through from Whitford, round the coast, including Clevedon to Orere Point were all part of the, currently called Papakura Electorate. It worked extremely well then and there is no reason why it should not do so again. Children from Clevedon are in the zone for Papakura High School and people from around the coast go into Papakura for many different requirements.

Counter-Objection

Relates to objections

N23-007

---

Mr John O'Connor

Counter objection to N23.007
The objector's contention in N23.007 appears to be a fear that smaller rural areas will tend to be overwhelmed by larger urban portions of the electorate.
These smaller areas, including Clevedon, with which the objector identifies, have previously been grouped with Papakura city, in a former electorate, and there is no evidence to support the contention that this has happened in the past.
I cannot imagine any electorate MP treating constituents differently, depending on where they lived within the electorate.
The proposed boundaries will result in a balanced, cohesive entity, and should proceed unchanged.

Objection

---

New Zealand Labour Party

We commend the Commission on its decision to draw a new electorate focussed on Auckland’s southern growth area. Some people who will vote in this electorate at the upcoming election will do so living in houses yet to be built. Inevitably their proximity as well as shared experiences in moving to these areas seeking new opportunities will mean they will face and overcome their challenges together –this is how strong communities are formed. Other communities in the proposed Flat Bush electorate, though older, share this history of opportunity presented by new suburban growth.
We question the proposal to leave the boundary at the southern end of the Botany electorate unchanged. The underlying areas have changed significantly since the electorate was originally drawn, and the inclusions and exclusions no longer make sense.
Electorates often have interesting shapes that reflect the quirks of geography and community that underpin them. However where an electoral boundary is oddly shaped without it being required by either geography or community, it invites questions at best and mistrust of our processes at worst.
Mere historic precedent should not be relied upon to dispell these concerns. This area should be redrawn to reflect the links between communitites now within it.

• Labour Party Submission to Representation Commission Dec 2019 (pdf 613 KB)

Objection

---

Liz Otter

I object to Hill Park Manurewa East being excluded from the proposed Flat Bush electorate. Hill Park Manurewa East are similar in comparison to the Gardens/Wattle Downs suburbs. A Hill Park residents group are currently collecting residents support & signatures to make a submission to officially recognise Hill Park as a suburb in its own right. This submission may have already been made. The Gardens/Wattle Downs suburbs are currently in the Papakura suburb - they are now included in the proposed Flat Bush electorate boundary. I believe Hill Park is currently, correctly viewed in as positive light as the Gardens. To be excluded from the new electorate that are proposed for the Gardens & Wattle Downs I believe will have a marked negative impact on our area and property values.

Objection

---

Daniel Newman

NAME OF THE PROPOSED FLAT BUSH ELECTORATE
I wish to make an objection to the name of the proposed Flat Bush electorate. I also wish to comment of the proposed boundaries of the Flat Bush electorate and adjacent electorates.
The Flat Bush electorate consists of communities that come from Hunua, Manurewa and Papakura. The largest concentration of population (32,800) is moved from Papakura to Flat Bush, but this coupled with 6,400 around Greenmeadows means 59 per cent of the proposed population of the new seat is broadly aligned with the south of the new electorate.
While the proposed boundary change is accepted, the Commission may wish to consider changing the name of the new electorate to better reflect the balance of communities.
It is recommended that the new seat be named: “Flat Bush-Takaanini” to reflect communities of interest.
The boundaries of the new electorate mean an electoral population that is 2.2 per cent at variance with the North Island general electorate population quota, but this is projected to increase to 8.1 per cent by 2023.
Some of the fastest growing areas of the new electorate are based on Takaanini and Flat Bush. Further growth is also occurring in Wattle Downs, which reflects the fast-changing nature of outer suburban Auckland. On balance, the proposed boundary is appropriate but a further and significant consequential change is likely to be required following the 2023 election.
PAPAKURA
The Commission has proposed that 32,800 people be moved from Papakura to Flat Bush. This is a significant change, which is offset with moving 20,200 people from Hunua to Papakura. This is a substantial change.
No further changes to the proposed Papakura boundary should be made west of the existing boundary line. Karaka, Te Hihi and Kingseat align with Papakura and the proposed boundary ensures continuity.
The Commission appears to have moved 20,200 people from Hunua to Papakura to broadly reflect the Wairoa subdivision of the Franklin Local Board (which generally reflects Whitford, Beachlands, Maraetai, Clevedon, Kawakawa Bay, Orere Point, Hunua, Paparimu, Ararimu and Bombay). This generally reflects a community of interest and ensures that Papakura is within the population quota set for the North Island.
The Commission appears to accept that the Census Area Units around Ramarama and Pukekohe East align with Drury, and this is appropriate noting communities of interest couple with projected residential and industrial development within the vicinity (Drury South) in accordance with Auckland Council’s structure plan for that area.
The Commission proposes moving 32,800 people from Papakura to Flat Bush. This means the decoupling of Wattle Downs, Takaanini. Randwick Park and The Gardens (which have a long relationship with Papakura) as well as Redoubt. While the Commission has proposed an adjustment that offends longstanding communities of interest arguments, the primary requirement is to ensure one vote-one value. It is therefore necessary to accept the proposed boundary change.
PORT WAIKATO
The Commission is to be congratulated on changes that ensure the realignment of Aka Aka, Tuakau, Port Waikato and Onewhero with Pukekohe and Franklin. This is appropriate and strongly reflects existing as well as historic communities of interest.
The Commission has proposed a boundary for Port Waikato that allows for more headroom (-4.5 per cent from quota with a 1.7 per cent projected variation to quota in 2023). Future growth in Pukekohe, Paerata, Tuakau, Pokeno and Waiuku may result in a higher variation, so the proposed boundary is prudent under the circumstances.
The Commission is right to generally base the adjacent of the population movement from Waikato to Port Waikato on the Waikato District Council’s ward boundaries (Onewhero-Te Akau, Whangamarino, and Awaroa ki Tuakau). This is appropriate and strongly reflects existing as well as historic communities of interest.

Objection

---

David Hopkins

Firstly, I appreciate the importance of the work done by the Commission and its staff to create fair and legal electorates.
Wattle Downs has almost no community of interest with Flat Bush beyond that we are all part of Auckland and New Zealand. The proposal to create this long irregular shaped electorate is surely fair in numbers but one which is not readily comprehensible to residents. People have already the experience of being ‘moved’ from Manurewa electorate to Papakura electorate. That was disconcerting but at least these are geographically adjacent. The area proposed for the new Flat Bush electorate is so spread out and not connected. The name Flat Bush is also inappropriate as it relates to another part of Auckland, some distance away.
This proposed change would not assist in promoting voting or civic engagement as it would be seen as confusing and distancing.

Objection

---

Kevin Loasby

The name of a proposed electorate is Flat Bush which relates to one part of the zone and is exclusive.