View submissions

Objection

---

Ms Linda Jordan

I live in Wattle Downs, a southern subdivision of Manurewa. We are currently part of Papakura electorate, which in itself is strange but this new idea is even stranger. Why take us out of our local area and put us with homes that are in a suburb that far away!

Counter-Objection

Relates to objections

N24-001

---

Daniel Newman

I am an Auckland Councillor representing the Manurewa-Papakura Ward. My Ward covers the majority of the existing Manurewa and Papakura electorate, and is potentially going to cover the majority of the Flat Bush electorate depending on the outcome of the current Representation Review.
I wish to make the following counter-objection to objection N24-001 by the New Zealand Labour Party (“Labour Party”), which should be read alongside my objection to the Representation Commission.
WEYMOUTH
The Labour Party’s objection to the proposed Manurewa/Flat Bush boundary is based in erroneous statements and assumptions.
Contrary to the Labour Party’s objection, Weymouth has a long history as an established community within the wider Manurewa suburban area. In 1857 the district was surveyed into small holdings and town lots.
Weymouth is both intrinsically and practically linked to Manurewa, for example:
1. public transport routes link both Weymouth and Clendon to Manurewa;
2. Weymouth school children predominantly attend primary schools in Weymouth and Clendon before graduating to James Cook High School in Manurewa;
3. evidence from the Weymouth Residents and Ratepayers’ Association in response to Oranga Tamariki’s application to change to designation of Whakatapokai to accommodate Youth Justice young people point out that the communities of interest codified for a Social Impact Assessment (SIA) include both Clendon and Manurewa West as well as the Weymouth Peninsula.
The Labour Party’s objection recommends the inclusion of the Weymouth Peninsula into the Flat Bush electorate. As Weymouth is a community on a peninsula, the Labour Party’s recommendation would in effect require the Commission to establish an electorate based on communities living in semi-isolation connected by one road (Mahia Road) while ignoring established communities of interest. At no stage in its post-war history has Weymouth existed in a parliamentary electorate separate from Manurewa.
WATTLE DOWNS
Unlike Weymouth, the Wattle Downs Peninsula has remained relatively separate from Manurewa. Over the years, Wattle Downs has existed in various parliamentary electorates, and has been within the Papakura electorate boundary over the past four general elections. The Commission is correct to identify the Wattle Downs Peninsula comprising both Wattle Downs and Mahia Park as communities of interest distinct from the Weymouth Peninsula (which is separated by the Waimahia Inlet).
Wattle Downs has a community of interest that aligns with both Takanini and Manurewa South (as opposed to Weymouth, which aligns with Clendon and Manurewa West). Recent plan change applications, traffic and road planning, and greenways planning reflects greater integration between Wattle Downs and Waiata Shores in Conifer Grove.
GREENMEADOWS AND MANUREWA SOUTH
Both the Greenmeadows and Manurewa South are established residential neighbourhoods; but neither exist in splendid isolation. There are no topographical features or infrastructure links that separate either neighbourhood from other neighbourhoods within the proposed Flat Bush parliamentary electorate. By way of example:
1. active transport infrastructure to accommodate walking and cycling is being established to link Greenmeadows and Waiata Shores in Conifer Grove;
2. a plan change has been adopted by Auckland Council to enable the establishment of a new local shopping centre at Te Napi Drive to provide shopping options specifically to meet the consumer needs of residents in Manurewa South, Greenmeadows, Wattle Downs and Conifer Grove; and
3. Greenmeadows and Manurewa South residents have a long history of shared representation with neighbourhoods in Takanini and Papakura as well as Manurewa. Indeed, the local government ward boundary includes both Greenmeadows and Manurewa South in the Manurewa-Papakura Ward alongside other proposed Flat Bush neighbourhoods such as Wattle Downs, Conifer Grove, Takanini, Randwick Park, The Gardens and Totara Park (the ward boundaries have applied over the past four local government elections).
I consider that the Representation Commission must weigh a communities of interest argument against the prevailing need to ensure one vote-one value, and create electorates that have equal representation. To this extent, I continue to support the proposed Flat Bush electorate boundary and oppose the changes recommended by the Labour Party.
DAWSON ROAD
The Botany electorate has existed since a Representation Review in 2007, and was first contested in 2008. That electorate was established to accommodate rapid residential development in the early 2000s.
The area south of Dawson Road proposed by the Labour Party for inclusion in the Flat Bush electorate does not exist in splendid isolation vis-à-vis other communities within the Botany electorate. Nor does the inclusion of an existing community within its existing electorate invite “… questions at best and mistrust of our processes at worst”. I submit that this is one example where the changes recommended by the Labour Party would practically separate that community from important communities of interest, and for an outcome that is unnecessary in terms of equal representation and existing electorate boundaries.
MURPHY’S BUSH RESERVE AND ORIMISTON
The inclusion of Murphy’s Bush Reserve and Orimiston into the Botany electorate as recommended by the Labour Party is unnecessary in terms of equal representation and existing electorate boundaries.
The Botany electorate does not need to increase to comply with the quota for a North Island electorate. The communities around Murphy’s Bush and Ormiston are part of a new community that will continue to grow over the next decade (and this is already projected by the Representation Commission). At present, this area of Auckland is broadly divided by the electorate boundary dividing the existing Hunua and Papakura electorates.
I submit that a better approach would be to amalgamate those areas of Flat Bush within the existing Hunua electorate with the communities of Redoubt within the existing Papakura electorate, and combine them within the proposed Flat Bush electorate as proposed by the Representation Commission in its proposed boundary.
Inevitably, parliamentary electorate boundaries will need to be reviewed again following the next Census. However, the scale and timing of growth within an area of Auckland that is still to be developed makes further changes unnecessary and premature at this time.
GENERAL COMMENTS
In my objection (N24-005) I objected to the name of the Flat Bush electorate. I recommended changing the name of the electorate to “Flat Bush-Takaanini” to better reflect a sense of place.
I share the concerns of other submitters who have raised objections about the name of the Flat Bush electorate and will speak to this matter before the Commission when it convenes hearings. I believe the Representation Commission got the boundaries right in its initial proposal. However, the name of the Flat Bush electorate requires further consideration noting balance of population and local history that defines its geographic place within outer suburban South Auckland.

Counter-Objection

Relates to objections

N24-006, N24-009, N24-010

---

Jan Robinson

I object to the suggestion names offered by N24-006, N24-009 and N24-010 for the Flatbush electorate.
Manukau South is vague and is not relevant to much of the area. Totara Park does not reflect the huge urban area of Flatbush.
Much of the current Flatbush area will not be in the proposed electorate therefore the name is not appropriate.

Counter-Objection

Relates to objections

N24-012

---

Mr Geoff Hall

I can see why people object to the name 'Flat Bush' The electorate covers such a vast area, all with claims to a local name. However there can only be one name and it has to reflect a general Icon for the area. Totara or Totara Park are the only names that could be embraced by the many 'local' areas included in this change. The name Totara Park, could suggest a more acceptable name that could be adopted by many cultures. I'm sure the committee working on this project are doing their best to provide the best options for all. Hopefully they will take some indications from the majority of acceptances and/or objections.

Objection

---

Bryce Collin

I couldn’t find the electorate my objection was in because it’s called Hunua not Port Waikato. While port Waikato is a cool place it does not represent the electorate as a whole which stretches from one coast to the other. Franklin would have been a much much better name choice as it refers to the entire area. Please don’t name it Port Waikato, name it Franklin - Ka Pai

Objection

---

Mr Hendricus J Habraken

Port Waikato is the name of a very small settlement and is not near the bulk of the population of this proposed electorate and means that people do not relate to this name.

Objection

---

Mr Brian Cox

During the last 4 elections in this electorate, I have constantly fielded complaints/criticism of the names "Hunua"and "Port Waikato". These rural towns are small, remote places with minimal significance to the rest of the electorate. My uninformed explanation of "probably chosen on a geographical basis, somewhere near the middle" cuts no ice with constituents.
"Why cant we be called Franklin?" they ask....Recent developments support this view.
Firstly, the proposed new boundary changes revert back, even more closely, to the old Franklin County region, especially the re-instated northern Waikato areas.
Secondly, the pending sale of extensive land/buildings in Pukekohe, formerly owned by by the Franklin Council, has revived public sentiment about Franklin. Headlines in a recent Franklin County News (28/11/2019) highlight this feeling. Voters in this electorate (35+ yrs old) still strongly identify with the name/region of Franklin.

Objection

---

Sheryn Hull

I do not feel Port Waikato is a truly reflective name for the new electorate. It's a tiny village on the verge of being washed into the ocean.

Objection

---

John Duncan

Your website asks if people want to file objections. What if a person actually wants to welcome/endorse a proposal?
The proposal to create (or re-create) the Port Waikato seat is in my opinion a brilliant move. The people to the west of the Franklin Ward, and the area to the south of it heading down to Port Waikato, have a hugely greater 'community of interest" than the elements of the old Hunua seat did, Apart from both being in the Franklin Ward of Auckland Council, the residents of Beachlands have zero in common with the citizens of Pukekohe, and I believe the decision to move away from approximating the Auckland Council boundary as the electorate boundary is extremely sensible. Pukekohe was for decades the 'market town' of the proposed new electorate. Perhaps the only desirable tweak I might suggest would have been to include the rural elements of Karaka (stopping short of including the new developments adjacent to the motorway, labelled Karaka Lakes and similar, which properly belong with Papakura) which also used Pukekohe as their market town. I would have drawn the boundary at Charles Rd, rather than Kingseat Rd (which I acknowledge is the existing boundary), but I appreciate that the balancing of numbers had to mean some little infelicities.
Dare one hope that the proposal is an indication, finally, that the Electoral Commission recognises that the inclusion of Franklin District to Auckland Council was misguided?

Objection

---

Karapiro Riverside Estate Homeowners Association

The Electorate Boundary at Hydro Road veers off (SH 1) Tirau Road, to include Riverside Lane, alone, in the Waikato Electorate. The rest of Karapiro Village is in the Taupo Electorate.
Riverside Lane is a no exit road with only 20 houses.
Riverside Lane is in the Karapiro Village, Cambridge for Local Body Elections. i.e. Waipa District Council.
The Member of Parliament for Taupo Electorate has her Electorate Office in Cambridge. As the boundary stands at present for General Elections our Member of Parliament for Waikato lives and works on the far side of Hamilton and has nothing to do with Cambridge.
The Waikato MP does not even advertise himself in the Cambridge area!
Geographically, Riverside Lane is in the Cambridge area and not involved with Waikato.
Riverside Lane is in the Waipa District Council area for electricity, water and postal.
Riverside Lane is designated residential, not rural for town planning.
The KREHA Body Corporate believed it was in the Taupo Electorate until I pointed out the anomaly to them.

• Existing-Boundries-RIVERSIDE-LANE.PNG (PNG 120 KB)
• New-Boundary-proposed-by-Commission.PNG (PNG 247 KB)
• Our-Submission.docx (docx 17 KB)
• SUGGESTED-SOLUTION-1-NEW-Boundary-proposed-by-us.jpg (jpg 713 KB)
• SUGGESTION-SOLUTION-2-Following-Waikato-Stream.jpg (jpg 719 KB)

Objection

---

Mrs Katrina Simoson

i feel that it will segregate Tiraunfrim the rest of our Council area. it will be Tokoroa, Putaruru and then us. Also council will have two MPs to work with. Im very happy with Louise Upston in our Taupo area, she is amazing and taljs to all areas regularly, I personally like how she votea on certain issues as well. I feel we would fall through the gaps if boundary changed

Objection

---

Mr John Coles

A proposed Boundary Change of the small area of Land bounded by Hydro R, The Waikato River and the Ferguson River Bridge
This area to be incorporated into Taupo electorate from Waikato electorate. I or We live on the Waikato side of Hydro Rd

Objection

---

Mark Servian

The traditional ‘East’ and ‘West’ electorates In Hamilton do not reflect the reality that the city is now divided north-south on social, political and demographic grounds.
Most Hamiltonians would recognise this reality and, I believe, agree with the statement above.
What ‘hard’ evidence can I point to?
The Hamilton City Council’s 2018 Representation Review made the following points when considering a north-south split for their wards.
Option 3: Two ward with a North/South divide
Data which could support this option:
• Northern areas of Hamilton share similar demographic characteristics (Census 2013)
o High proportions of European
o Less ethnic diversity
o Higher incomes
o Higher median ages
• Southern areas of Hamilton share similar demographic characteristics (census 2013)
o Higher levels of ethnic diversity
o Lower incomes
o Younger population
There is a clear North/South divide when we consider where people shop relative to where they live
• Shopping patterns (community profile survey 2018)
Refer to Page 2 at https://www.hamilton.govt.nz/our-council/Council_meetings_and_public_information/Documents/Representation%20Review%202018-19%20-%20Options%20for%20representation%20-%2012%20June%202018.pdf.
Also, the mapping of the 2017 General Election results published by The Spinoff indicates that Hamilton is clearly divided north-south in terms of voting patterns.
Refer to the ‘Hamilton’ link at https://thespinoff.co.nz/politics/27-09-2017/interactive-mapping-every-booths-votes-from-the-2017-general-election/.
The facts pointed to at the links above should be further investigated by the Commission, as confirmation would suggest such a north-south divide would most closely fulfil the terms of the Act.

Objection

---

Janelle Carter

Omokoroa being proposed to add into Coromandal. We are no where near Coromandal. it makes no sense at all. Bay of Plenty / Western Bay of Plenty / Tauranga I can understand.

Objection

---

Dr Jean-Paul Thull

FACT: There is a proposal to shift the Coromandel electoral further south. Right now it, sits at Katikati and the proposal is to shift the boundary further down to Omokoroa to capture a few more people.
While I do understand some rationale, I wish to highlight the inconsistency with existing district boundaries in the first place, where Waihi would be the logical boundary. The Coromandel is very different from the Western Bay of Plenty and geographically wide-spread, to allow MPs to cover properly the issues in both areas, as they are different. While the Coromandel is closely related to tourism, resilience issues in terms of infrastructure, bio-diversity, nature conservation, small town survival modus and logging, Western Bay is mainly dealing with horticulture and peri-urban growth and all effects of these (e.g. congestion, road safety SH2, Port access, residential development).
This means that much of the work and involvement of any MP required, will play in two areas… Thames/Coromandel/Whitianga and Katikati/Omokoroa/Tauranga, both geographically/travel time-wise not convenient at all. As a member of public, I wish to have easy access to my local MP and expect my local MP to attend local or regional meetings affecting my region. Tauranga has grown quickly into Greater Tauranga region, requiring holistic leadership where local MPs need to have access to. In this case, it will be difficult to require the Coromandel MP to cover an increasing geographical area. I would even propose to shift the boundary back to Waihi, as Katikati issues are Western Bay DC issues and should be represented by a local MP like we had Hon Todd Muller so far. Right now, I am very pleased to have excellent access to my local MP and realising he has a good understanding of the issues, as he loves local.