The Representation Commission ("Commission") appointed pursuant to section 28 of the Electoral Act 1993 hereby publishes, in accordance with section 38 of that Act, a summary of the objections lodged with the Commission to the proposed boundaries of the electoral districts, as set out in the Schedule hereto.
The full objections are available for public inspection at the offices of the Electoral Commission, Level 10, Sovereign House, 34-42 Manners Street, Wellington from Tuesday 14 January 2014 until Wednesday 29 January 2014. Any person requiring photocopies of the full objections may incur photocopying charges. Copies of objection summaries are available for viewing online and at the places set out in the Schedule hereto.
Counter-objections to objections can be completed online at www.elections.org.nz or made in writing to the Commission, if in the hands of the Commission no later than Wednesday 29 January 2014. Late objections cannot be considered, i.e. those received after 5.00pm on Wednesday 29 January 2014.
Counter-objections may be lodged:
by completing the online form at www.elections.org.nz
by post addressed to The Secretary
Representation Commission
PO Box 3220
Wellington 6140
by email to representation.commission@elections.govt.nz
by facsimile to (04) 495 0031
by hand delivery to Electoral Commission
Level 10, Sovereign House
34-42 Manners Street
Wellington 6140
All counter-objections should clearly state:
(i) the name, address and telephone contact number of the counter-objector;
(ii) the electorate(s) to which the counter-objection applies;
(iii) the specific objection(s) the counter-objection applies to, using where possible name(s) of the objector(s) and the objection number(s) allocated by the Commission;
(iv) the reason for the counter-objection;
(v) the solution suggested by the counter-objector; and
(iv) whether the counter-objector wishes to speak briefly to their counter-objection before meetings of the Commission to be held in Auckland, Wellington and Christchurch and possibly other locations in February 2014.
A separate counter-objection should be filed in respect of each issue which you oppose. All counter-objections will be published in summary form (which will include the counter-objector's name) in the Report of the Representation Commission published in April 2014.
Whether or not a counter-objector is heard, all written counter-objections received by 29 January 2014 will be fully considered.
Dated at Wellington this 14th day of January 2014.
B. J. KENDALL, Chairman of the Representation Commission.
Schedule of Places for Inspection
General and M?ori Electorates
1. The offices of all regional councils, district councils, city councils and council service centres.
2. The offices of all Registrars of Electors.
3. Te Puni K?kiri (regional development offices) at Auckland, Blenheim, Christchurch, Dunedin, Featherston, Gisborne, Hamilton, Hastings, Invercargill, Kaitaia, Levin, Lower Hutt, New Plymouth, Palmerston North, Rotorua, Taumarunui, Tauranga, Wairoa, Wellington, Whakatane, Whanganui and Whangarei.
4. M?ori Land Court offices at Auckland, Christchurch, Gisborne, Hamilton, Hastings, Rotorua, Wellington, Whanganui and Whangarei.
5. The offices of R?nanga (iwi offices) at Auckland, Awanui, Blenheim, Bluff, Chatham Islands, Christchurch, Coromandel, Dargaville, Dunedin, Gisborne, Gore, Hamilton, Hastings, Havelock North, Hawera, Helensville, Hokitika, Invercargill, K?eo, Kaikohe, Kait?ia, Kawhia, Levin, Lower Hutt, Manaia, Manutuke, Marton, Moeraki, Morrinsville, Mt Maunganui, Murupara, Napier, Nelson, New Plymouth, Oakura, ?hakune, ?p?tiki, ?taki, Paeroa, Palmerston North, Picton, Porirua, Rotorua, Taihape, Taneatua, Taup?, Tauranga, Te K?iti, Temuka, Te Puke, Thames, Tokeroa, Turangi, Urenui, Waikanae, Waimate, Wairoa, Wellington, Whakat?ne, Whanganui, Whangaparaoa, Whangarei, Whangateau and Whitianga.
6. Public Libraries at Akaroa, Alexandra, Amberley, Ashburton, Ashhurst, Auckland, Balclutha, Blenheim, Bluff, Bulls, Cambridge, Cannons Creek, Carterton, Chatham Islands, Cheviot, Christchurch, Clyde, Cromwell, Culverden, Dannevirke, Darfield, Dargaville, Diamond Harbour, Dunedin, Eketahuna, Eltham, Fairlie, Featherston, Feilding, Foxton, Geraldine, Gisborne, Gore, Greta Valley, Greymouth, Greytown, Hamilton, Hampden, Hanmer Springs, Hastings, Havelock North, Hawarden, H?wera, Helensville, Henderson, Hokitika, Huapai, Huntly, Lower Hutt, Inglewood, Invercargill, Kaiapoi, Kaikohe, Kaikoura, Kaitaia, Kaiwaka, Kamo, Kaponga, Katikati, Kawakawa, Kawerau, Kerikeri, Lawrence, Leeston, Levin, Little River, Lower Hutt, Lumsden, Lyttelton, Manaia, Mangakino, Mangawhai, Mangere, Mangere Bridge, Mangere East, Manukau City, Manurewa, Martinborough, Marton, Massey, Masterton, Matamata, Mataura, Maungaturoto, Milton, Morrinsville, Mosgiel, Motueka, Mt Maunganui, Murchison, Napier, Nelson, New Lynn, New Plymouth, Ngaruawahia, Ngatea, Nightcaps, Northcote, Oakura, Oamaru, ?hakune, Omarama, Onerahi, ?potiki, Opunake, Orewa, ?taki, Otautau, Otematata, Otorohanga, Owaka, Oxford, Paeroa, Pahiatua, Paihia, Pakuranga, Palmerston North, Papamoa, Paparoa, Paraparaumu, Patea, Picton, Piha, Porirua, Porirua City, Port Chalmers, Pukekohe, Putaruru, Queenstown, Raetihi, Raglan, Ranfurly, Rangiora, Reefton, Riverton, Rolleston, Rotorua, Roxburgh, Shannon, Snells Beach, Stewart Island, Stratford, Tai Tapu, Taihape, Takaka, Tapanui, Taradale, Taumarunui, Taup?, Tauranga, Te Anau, Te Aroha, Te Awamutu, Te Kauwhata, Te Kuiti, Temuka, Te Puke, Thames, Timaru, Tirau, Tokoroa, Tuakau, Turangi, Twizel, Upper Hutt, Urenui, Waiheke Island, Waihi, Waihi Beach, Waikanae, Waikouaiti, Waimate, Wainuiomata, Waipawa, Waipukurau, Wairoa, Waitakere City, Waiuku, Wanaka, Whanganui, Waverley, Wellington, Wellsford, Westport, Whakat?ne, Whangamata, Whangaparaoa, Whangarei, Whitby, Whitianga, Winton, Woodville and Wyndham.
Summary of Objections Schedule
Explanatory notes
For consistency and to avoid the need to include the same objection in more than one electorate, summarised boundary objections are listed only under the proposed electorate where the area specified in the objection is located. For example, where a person objects to an area being included in a proposed electorate, rather than remaining within the boundary of an existing neighbouring electorate, the objection has been assigned to the proposed electorate.
It is recommended that people interested in a particular electorate should also look at objections relating to neighbouring electorates as these could affect the electorate they are concerned with.
Abbreviations used:
b relates to an objection to a boundary
n relates to an objection to a name
h objector has requested a hearing
Electoral District and Nature of Objection
N01
N01-001
b Northland
Objection J Hall
Objects to the omission of the Kermadec Islands from all proposed electorates. As part of New Zealand they should have representation.
Suggested solution: Include the Kermadec Islands in the Northland electorate.
N03
N03-001
b, h Rodney
Objection R Craig and 72 others
Petition objecting to the area serviced by Haigh Access Road and East Coast Road being within the Rodney electorate when it has links with Albany and East Coast Bays. This area is within the East Coast Bays area for local body elections.
Suggested solution: Move the meshblock that covers Haigh Access Road and East Coast Road into the East Coast Bays electorate.
N04Helensville
N04-001 b Objection J Reidy
Objects to the vast size of the proposed Helensville electorate. The inclusion of Woodlands Park, Laingholm, Parau and Huia would see these areas isolated from contact with their MP. These communities have strong links to other New Lynn suburbs.
Suggested solution: Keep the area to the west of New Lynn within the New Lynn electorate. Extra population for Helensville should be taken from north of Helensville. New Lynn could lose some of New Windsor to Mt Roskill, which in turn could lose population to Mt Albert.
N04-002 b Objection M Fitter
Objects to the inclusion of Whatipu, Huia, Cornwallis, Parau and Laingholm in the Helensville electorate because they are all connected by Huia Road and it is a significant distance from Helensville town.
Suggested solution: Keep these areas in the New Lynn electorate.
N04-003 b Objection R Claytoin
Similar to N04-002
Suggested solution: Similar to N04-002
N04-004 b Objection J Schwarz
Objects to Laingholm, Titirangi, Bethells Beach and Karekare being included in the same electorate as Helensville and Coatesville. Wants to retain a west coast bush living identity for the electorate.
N04-005 b Objection D Blomfield
Objects to Laingholm being included in the Helensville electorate. Its community of interest and connections (community, schooling, work, shopping etc.) are with Titirangi and
New Lynn.
Suggested solution: Include Laingholm in New Lynn.
N04-006 b Objection G Booth
Similar to N04-005
Suggested solution: New Lynn be extended from Titirangi, including the harbour side villages of Laingholm, Parau and Huia.
N04-007 b Objection G A Wood
Objects to the inclusion of Laingholm in Helensville as it will erode the spirit of west Auckland and the electorate will not provide local representation for this community.
N04-008 b Objection T Ashton
Objects to the inclusion of Laingholm in Helensville because of its distance from Helensville town.
N04-009 b Objection G Thavat
Objects to the suburb of Laingholm being included in the Helensville electorate.
N04-010 b, n, h Objection J Conlon
Objects to the inclusion of Piha and Whatipu in the Helensville electorate because of their distance from Helensville town and their different communities of interest. Also objects to the loss of the name Waitakere.
Suggested solution: Keep the name "Waitakere".
N04-011 b Objection B Chase
Objects to the inclusion of the areas of Piha, Whatapu, Waima and Cornwallis as these areas have nothing in common with Helensville.
Suggested solution: Do not change the Waitakere and New Lynn boundaries.
N04-012 b Objection S Hogguer
Objects to the inclusion of Laingholm and Huia in the Helensville electorate as these areas are entirely different from Helensville and their interests would not be fairly represented by the boundary change.
N04-013 b Objection W Mackenzie
Objects to Whatipu, Little Huia, Huia, Cornwallis, Parau, Laingholm, Woodlands Park, Waima and parts of Waiatarua being included in the Helensville electorate. The physical distance and separation of the Waitakere Ranges will be a barrier for representation. There is also no community of interest with these native bush areas and the farming areas around Helensville.
Suggested solution: Retain these areas in New Lynn.
N04-014 b Objection J Ashcroft
Similar to N04-013
N04-015 b Objection J Newton
Objects to the inclusion of Whatipu, Huia, Cornwallis, Parau, Laingholm, Woodlands Park and Waima in Helensville. These areas have different needs from Helensville and Coatesville. Does not support increasing the size of the electorate and does not think it will be possible to represent the diverse interests of the proposed area.
N04-016 b Objection L Tanguay
Objects to the inclusion of Huia and Laingholm in Helensville. The beaches close to Titirangi are part of the New Lynn community. These areas have no connection or community of interest with Helensville.
Suggested solution: Huia and Laingholm should be in New Lynn.
N04-017 b Objection J Henderson
Objects to the suburbs south and west of Titirangi being included in Helensville as they are not connected with Helensville and are related to Titirangi.
Suggested solution: Include the suburbs of Waima, Woodlands Park, Parau, Waiatarua, Laingholm, Huia, Karekare, Piha and Te Henga in the same electorate as Titirangi. To compensate, the area around Konini could be removed from New Lynn.
N04-018 b, n, h Objection Waitakere Ranges Local Board
Objects to the amalgamation of the rural, coastal and bush communities of the Waitakere Ranges into the Helensville electorate. The proposed electorate is not well supported by facilities of communication or a community of interest.
Suggested solution: Keep the name "Waitakere" for the electorate.
Adjust the boundaries to reflect the connections between west Auckland's rural and urban communities.
N04-019 b Objection A J Turner
Objects to the erosion of the west Auckland bush reserve and suburban identity by including west Auckland in the Helensville electorate with Coatesville, Dairy Flat and Helensville, which are farming communities.
Suggested solution: The proposed solution needs to recognise west Auckland's immediate suburban neighbours currently in the New Lynn electorate.
N04-020 b Objection Laingholm District Citizens Association
Objects to the inclusion of the South Waitakere Ranges heritage area in the Helensville electorate because of the distance to the town of Helensville and because there is no connection or community of interest with the Helensville area. This area's connections are with New Lynn.
Suggested solution: Keep this area in New Lynn.
N04-021 b, n Objection M O'Halloran
Objects to the Waitakere Ranges and surrounding area being included in Helensville as this is a unique bush environment and has no connection with the Helensville area.
Suggested solution: Keep the name "Waitakere". The Waitakere electorate should include Waiatarua, Oratia, Parau, Laingholm, Titirangi, Piha, Woodlands Park, Waitakere and Bethells Beach.
N04-022 b, n Objection R Reid
Similar to N04-021
Suggested solution: Same as N04-021
N04-023 b Objection A Vartzbed
Objects to the inclusion of the Waitakere Ranges in a larger electorate made up of lowlands and non bush areas like Helensville.
N04-024 b, n Objection G Ertel
Objects to Waitakere and Waiatarua becoming part of Helensville and the loss of the community's identity and name.
N04-025 b, n, h Objection P Chainey
Objects to the loss of the Waitakere electorate and considers the proposal for such a large electorate, spanning both Waitemata and Kaipara Harbours as unworkable.
Suggested solution: Keep the name "Waitakere". The boundary of Waitakere to cover the 35,000 acres of the foothills plus the coast down to Huia and Titirangi.
N04-026 b Objection R Eade
Objects to the proposed boundary as would like the size of the electorate to be smaller to ensure Titirangi retains its voice in the electorate.
N04-027 b, h Objection L Cooper
Objects to the inclusion of Swanson in the Helensville electorate as it is closely integrated with urban west Auckland and shares facilities and services with the neighbouring Ranui community in Te Atat?.
Objects to the placement of Massey High, Massey Primary School and St Paul's School within the Helensville electorate when the communities they serve are mostly covered by the Upper Harbour electorate.
Suggested solution: Swanson should be placed in the same urban electorate as the Ranui and Henderson suburbs.
Move Massey High, Massey Primary School and St Paul's School into the Upper Harbour electorate so they can be represented by an MP from the same community as the students.
N04-028 b, n Objection Dr M Harvey
Objects to the size of the proposed Helensville electorate as it will be too large and have to represent rural, bush and suburban communities. Also objects to the name Helensville which ignores regional M?ori names (such as Titirangi).
Suggested solution: The southern boundary for Helensville should lie at the northern edge of the Waitakere Ranges and Te Henga. The remainder of the proposed electorate and part
of New Lynn to form a new Waitakere electorate.
N04-029 b Objection K Martinez
Objects to the proposed Helensville electorate boundary.
N04-030 b Objection L Finlay
Objects to the proposed boundary of the Helensville electorate because of the geographical inaccessibility of Helensville. The MP best placed to represent the Titirangi community is the local New Lynn MP.
N04-031 n Objection M Hill
Objects to the loss of the name Waitakere from the electorate that contains the ranges due to its geographical, cultural and historical significance.
Suggested solution: Retain the name "Waitakere" to represent the electorate. Possibly as "Waitakere-Helensville".
N04-032 n Objection G P Curach
Objects to the loss of the name "Waitakere" as the most iconic name for west Auckland.
N04-033 n Objection M Olivier
Objects to the name Helensville as it is a small town and does not reflect the large geographical area covered by the electorate. The name "Waitakere" has more cultural and historical significance than "Helensville".
Suggested solution: Name the electorate "Waitakere".
N04-034 n Objection P Hosking
Similar to N04-033
Suggested solution: Similar to N04-033
N04-035 n Objection P Legel
Similar to N04-033
Suggested solution: Name the electorate "Waitakere". Alternatively, name it "West Auckland".
N04-036 b Objection C I Webb
Objects to the separation of the Albany Village from the rest of the suburb, dividing a community of interest.
Suggested solution: Keep the Albany Village with the remainder of the suburb in the East Coast Bays electorate.
N04-037 b Objection A Dromgool
Objects to Woodlands Park area being included in the Helensville electorate as New Lynn is the closest main shopping area and no association with Helensville.
Suggested solution: Keep Woodlands Park in the New Lynn electorate or Kelston.
N05
N05-001
n East Coast Bays
Objection C Spanhake
Objects to the name East Coast Bays as it does not adequately describe the electorate.
Suggested solution: Name the electorate "Albany".
N08
N08-001
b Upper Harbour
Objection A Smithson
Considers the new electorate disadvantages the area of Glenfield with representation likely to focus on other areas. Also concerned the socio economic needs will vary between the east and west of the electorate.
N08-002 b, h Objection Massey and Birdwood Settlers Association Inc
Objects to the division of the Massey area as there is a strong community of interest centred around Massey, West Harbour, Hobsonville, Ranui, Whenuapai and Herald Island. These areas are mostly covered by one residents and ratepayers group founded in 1925.
Suggested solution: Instead of an Upper Harbour electorate, create a more North Shore based electorate using the old Massey ward boundaries. This would have an effect on proposed Te Atat?, Kelston and Helensville electorates, which would need to be altered and could also be based on old ward boundaries. Greenhithe bridge would be a natural geographical electorate boundary.
N08-003 b Objection J Hall
Objects to the boundaries of the proposed Upper Harbour electorate as it contains two distinct communities of interest separated by the Waitamata Harbour.
Suggested solution: Redraw the proposed Upper Harbour electorate to create revised boundaries for Helensville and Waitakere. Include the western area of Upper Harbour in a Waitakere electorate using the harbour and riverhead as a guide for the Helensville electorate. Helensville electorate to include eastern areas of the proposed Upper Harbour electorate - keeping the current boundary between East Coast Bays and Helensville intact, except for movement at the south-eastern edge to meet the required population quota.
N08-004 b Objection J Machen
Objects to the electoral bias of the communities grouped together for the proposed Upper Harbour electorate.
N08-005 b Objection A Cann
Objects to the proposed Upper Harbour electorate and its size relative to other Auckland electorates.
Suggested solution: Split the proposed Upper Harbour electorate into two separate electorates.
N09
N09-001
b, h Te Atat?
Objection M Bridges
Objects to the split of the McLaren Park area between two electorates, placing much of it in the Te Atat? electorate when the social services within the community have significant ties to organisations in the Kelston electorate (such as Vision West and Moani Waititi Marae). This area's community of interest is with Glen Eden.
Suggested solution: Move the boundary from Seymour Road to either Bruce McLaren Road or Forest Hill Road.
N09-002 b, h Objection Z Vitasovich
Objects to the inclusion of McLaren Park in the Te Atat? electorate when it is has links to Sunnyvale and Glen Eden, both of which are now in the Kelston electorate.
Suggested solution: Extend the Kelston electorate further north-west from the Oratia Stream to include the McLaren Park / Henderson South area in Kelston. Use either Henderson Valley industrial area of Henderson Valley Road and Opanuku Stream as the boundary.
Consider changing the electorate name to "West Edenvale" or "Glen Eden-Sunnyvale".
N10
N10-001
b, h Kelston
Objection L Cooper
Objects to the exclusion of part of Te Atatu South (around Tirimoana School) from the
Te Atat? electorate as it divides a community of interest.
Suggested solution: Move the boundary to the Glendene roundabout to keep the Te Atatu community intact.
N10-002 b, h Objection C Geddes
Similar to N10-001
Suggested solution: Move the boundary from McLeod Road south to Tirimoana Road. From the first corner in Tirimoana Road the boundary to project to the estuary.
N10-003 b Objection R Clark
Objects to the exclusion of the Tirimoana area from the Te Atat? electorate, dividing it from transport, schools and other community links with Te Atatu.
N10-004 b,h Objection I Tvrdeich
Similar to N10-001
Suggested solution: Move the boundary from McLeod Road southward to Tirimoana Road continuing down to Whau River.
N10-005 b Objection L Stilich
Similar to N10-001
Suggested solution: Include the entire suburb of Te Atatu within the Te Atat? electorate, with a suggested border of Tirimoana Road and Valron Road. Move the McLaren Park and Henderson Valley areas to Kelston to compensate.
N10-006 b Objection N R Withers
Similar to N10-001
N10-007 b Objection C Wood
Similar to N10-001
N10-008 b Objection D R Silk
Similar to N10-001
Suggested solution: Keep Te Atatu within the Te Atat? electorate. Have Kelston grow west to compensate.
N10-009 b Objection A Cann
Objects to the proposed Kelston electorate and its size relative to other Auckland electorates.
Suggested solution: Split the proposed Kelston electorate into two separate electorates.
N10-010 n Objection K Moncur
Objects to the name of the proposed Kelston electorate as it is not representative of all the suburbs in the electorate.
Suggested solution: Name the electorate "Waitakere East".
N10-011 b, h Objection M J Watson
Objects to the inclusion of Waterview within the proposed Kelston electorate.
Suggested solution: Mt Albert electorate to include Waterview and the rest of the
Albert-Eden Ward and the southern part of the Motu Manawa Marine Reserve south of
the SH16 causeway down to Heron Park and Oakley Creek.
N10-012 b Objection B McKay, North Western Community Assosciation
Objects to the movement of the Waterview community from Mt Albert to the proposed Kelston electorate. This breaks up a long link between the Waterview area and the neighbouring suburbs of Point Chevalier and Mt Albert. Waterview has a much weaker link with Avondale and the Kelston electorate due to the greater distance involved.
Suggested solution: Keep the current electorate boundaries as they match well with the Local Board areas of the Auckland City Council.
N10-013 b, n Objection K Levi
Objects to the inclusion of Avondale and Waterview within the proposed Kelston electorate and the new electorate name.
Suggested solution: Keep Avondale and Waterview in New Lynn.
N10-014 b Objection Whau Local Board
Objects to the use of the railway line as a boundary, splitting New Lynn into two electorates. The undergrounding of the western rail line has been completed to ensure a cohesive
New Lynn community.
Suggested solution: Keep the entire suburb of New Lynn in the New Lynn electorate using West Coast Road, Great North Road, Rata Street and Ash Street as the boundary.
N10-015 b Objection Linda
Objects to the inclusion of Arawa Street and other areas of New Lynn in the proposed Kelston electorate. The New Lynn electorate offices are based in New Lynn town and Kelston is a significant distance from the community of New Lynn.
Suggested solution: Keep the New Lynn community together within the New Lynn electorate.
N10-016 b Objection R Graham
Objects to the inclusion of the Manhattan Heights area of Glendene within the proposed Kelston electorate as it shares community links with the Henderson area. The electorate boundaries also break up the Glendene retail area between two electorates.
Suggested solution: Include the area bounded by Great North Road, Kirby Street, Glendene Avenue, Tirimoana Avenue and Te Atatu Road in the Te Atat? electorate instead of the Kelston electorate.
N11
N11-001
n New Lynn
Objection C Spanhake
Objects to the electorate name as it does not adequately describe the area covered by the electorate.
Suggested solution: Name the electorate "Blockhouse Bay". Alternatively "Titirangi".
N11-002 b Objection B Tuipotutu
Objects to the exclusion of the White Swan area from Mt Roskill, an area with which it is closely linked. The community is centred around May Road Primary School and Christ the King Church.
Suggested solution: Keep the White Swan area in Mt Roskill.
N11-003 b, h Objection A Ryan and 109 others
Petition objecting to the inclusion of the White Swan area in the New Lynn electorate. The area is linked with Mt Roskill with shopping and schools.
Suggested solution: Use Richardson Road and White Swan Road as the boundary.
N11-004 b Objection G Taylor and 73 others
Petition objecting to the proposed boundary including properties between the south-western motorway and Richardson Road in the New Lynn electorate. Their community of interest lies with Wesley and Mt Roskill (school and shopping areas).
Suggested solution: Use Richardson Road as the boundary.
N11-005 b, h Objection New Zealand Labour Party
Objects to the New Lynn / Kelston boundary running along the railway line as it splits the New Lynn community. The undergrounding of the railway line was designed to create a cohesive New Lynn community. The New Lynn and Avondale communities are closely linked and should remain in one electorate, and the Whau Local Board of the Auckland Council would be best served by having only one MP to liaise with.
Suggested solution: Place the boundary along West Coast Road, Great North Road and Rata Street - following the main traffic thoroughfare.
N11-006 b, n Objection B Morgan
Objects to the exclusion of the New Lynn town centre from the proposed New Lynn electorate.
Suggested solution: Change the name to one that is central to the electorate such as "Blockhouse Bay', "Green Bay" or "New Windsor" or one that describes its geographic position, such as "Southern Harbour" or "Auckland Southwest".
If the name is not changed propose moving the northern boundary up to Great North Road using Portage Road as a joining boundary to include the New Lynn town within the electorate.
N12
N12-001
b Mt Albert
Objection R Thomson
Objects to the movement of Grey Lynn and Westmere to the proposed Mt Albert electorate. These communities share interests with Central Auckland, not Mt Albert.
Suggested solution: Keep the existing electorate boundaries.
N12-002 b Objection P Bieder
Similar to N12-001
Suggested solution: Similar to N12-001
N12-003 b, h Objection G Dunster
Objects to the exclusion of Grey Lynn from the Auckland Central electorate. The suburb has no common links with Mt Albert and the western connected communities in the electorate.
Suggested solution: Use the north-western motorway as a boundary between the two electorates.
N12-004 b Objection S Carey
Objects to the proposal to split the Grey Lynn community and placing part within the
Mt Albert electorate, which shares no common links with Grey Lynn.
Suggested solution: Use the north-western motorway as the divide between Auckland Central and Mt Albert.
N12-005 b Objection T Hickman
Objects to the proposed split of Grey Lynn between two electorates. This split will cause problems with coordinating planning and assistance within the community and with local projects.
Suggested solution: Keep the entire Grey Lynn suburb within the same electorate.
N12-006 b Objection M Alldred
Objects to the inclusion of Grey Lynn in the Mt Albert electorate, which is a distinctly different community and will be detrimental to the Grey Lynn community spirit.
Suggested solution: Return the suburb of Grey Lynn to the Auckland Central electorate.
N12-007 b Objection J McBride
Similar to N12-006
N12-008 b Objection A Field
Similar to N12-006
N12-009 b, h Objection C and P Patterson
Similar to N12-006
Suggested solution: Ensure all of Grey Lynn remains in one electorate.
N12-010 b, h Objection Grey Lynn Residents Association
Similar to N12-006
Suggested solution: Focus on moving the eastern boundary of the electorate, an area already split between two electorates and with less affinity with Central Auckland.
N12-011 b, h Objection Hon C Fletcher, Councillor - Albert-Eden-Roskill Ward
Similar to N12-006
N12-012 b Objection A Gifford
Objects to the proposed boundary between Mt Albert and Auckland Central, splitting the central Auckland community. The western edge of the central city between Freemans Bay and Westmere have a shared history.
Suggested solution: Move Point Chevalier out of Mt Albert. The boundary to follow Motions Creek from the motorway to the harbour. Kingsland to move into Mt Albert. The eastern boundary could be Queen Street with any surplus population going to Epsom.
N12-013 b, h Objection Grey Lynn Residents Association
Objects to the inclusion of the western side of Grey Lynn in Mt Albert. Grey Lynn is a cohesive community and the proposed boundary will split this community.
Suggested solution: For the Commission to look at alternatives. One possibility being Auckland Central losing population on its eastern boundary.
N12-014 b, h Objection New Zealand Labour Party
Objects to the splitting of Grey Lynn, a cohesive community, between two electorates.
Suggested solution: Have the boundary follow Richmond Road from Cox's Creek to Surrey Crescent, down the Bullock Track to the North Western Motorway. Instead move the Eden Terrace area into Mt Albert.
N12-015 b, h Objection S McArley
Objects to the proposed electorate changes for Auckland Central as it does not preserve the community of interest between sections of Grey Lynn. The communities of Point Chevalier, Westmere, Herne Bay and St Mary's Bay all constitute a community of interest.
Suggested solution: Move the suburbs of Point Chevalier, Westmere, Herne Bay and
St Mary's Bay into the Mt Albert electorate. Leave the entirety of Grey Lynn in Auckland Central.
N12-016 b Objection M Hine
Similar to N12-014
N12-017 b Objection K Smith
Similar to N12-014
N13Mt Roskill
N13-001 b Objection E Solomon and 387 others
Form submission from residents of Epsom who object to their homes transferring to the
Mt Roskill electorate. They have no connection or community of interest with Mt Roskill and want to remain in the Epsom electorate.
Suggested solution: Landscape Road and Selwyn Road should remain the boundary between Mt Roskill and Epsom.
N13-002 b Objection M N Neutze and 211 others
Form submission from residents objecting to their addresses being taken out of the Epsom electorate and dividing a traditional Epsom community. Their community and connections are with Epsom and not Mt Roskill. They wish to be represented by the MP for Epsom.
N13-003 b, n, h Objection Dr B Ogilvie
Objects to parts of south Epsom being included in the Mt Roskill electorate. The natural and historical divide between the two suburbs lies with Landscape Road and Selwyn Road. The suburb of Epsom has a unique character and should be represented by one MP who understands this character.
Suggested solution: That the southern boundary for the Epsom electorate remain at Landscape Road and Selwyn Road. Alternatively, rename the electorate "Epsom-Roskill".
N13-004 b, n, h Objection Dr C Ogilvie
Similar to N13-003
Suggested solution: Keep the existing boundaries or change the Epsom electorate name.
N13-005 b Objection R Troy
Similar to N13-003
Suggested solution: Keep the suburb of Epsom in the Epsom electorate. Instead change the boundary around Parnell and the city fringe.
N13-006 b Objection D and S Cavenett
Similar to N13-003
N13-007 b Objection T Geuther
Similar to N13-003
Suggested solution: Remove the area around Meadowbank from the Epsom electorate instead.
N13-008 b Objection C Smaill
Similar to N13-003
Suggested solution: Retain Landscape Road as the southern boundary.
N13-009 b, h Objection T M Astley
Similar to N13-003
Suggested solution: Keep the Landscape Road boundary.
N13-010 b Objection G Shearman
Similar to N13-003
Suggested solution: The Mt Roskill boundary should be moved west. Owairaka is more affiliated with Mt Roskill.
N13-011 b Objection A Dale
Similar to N13-003
Suggested solution: Have the boundary changes for Epsom limited to Tamaki and Mt Albert areas.
N13-012 b, h Objection A Adams
Similar to N13-003
Suggested solution: Have the southern boundary remain at Landscape Road and Selwyn Road. Change the north-western boundary to Park Road and Mountain Road to exclude Grafton and Eden Terrace. Ensure One Tree Hill remains in one single suburb.
N13-013 b Objection M Lee
Similar to N13-003
Suggested solution: Alter boundaries in other electorates and leave Epsom as it is.
N13-014 b, h Objection M Spiro
Objects to the inclusion of parts of south Epsom in the Mt Roskill electorate as the community of interest lies with Epsom. The Auckland Council plans limit the growth in
the Epsom area due to it's heritage status and this area should remain as one cohesive community and represented by one MP.
N13-015 b, h Objection C B Wildermoth
Similar to N13-014
N13-016 b, h Objection G Bryant
Similar to N13-014
N13-017 b Objection J Wilkins
Similar to N13-014
N13-018 b Objection M van Dijck
Similar to N13-014
N13-019 b Objection T Bennett
Similar to N13-014
N13-020 b Objection E Laurenson
Similar to N13-014
N13-021 b Objection Epsom & Eden District Historical Society Inc
Similar to N13-014
N13-022 b Objection Michael
Objects to the inclusion of parts of south Epsom in the Mt Roskill electorate. The community is focused north towards Epsom where schooling, extra-curricular activities, and community groups are based.
N13-023 b Objection A and S Redmond
Objects to the boundary with Epsom.
N13-024 b, h Objection H Wenley
Objects to the Greenwoods Corner community being moved from the Epsom electorate to Mt Roskill. The area's community of interest lies with the Epsom electorate rather than Mount Roskill.
N13-025 b, h Objection A Millar
Similar to N13-024
Suggested solution: Have the southern boundary remain as Selwyn Road.
N13-026 b Objection E Malloy
Similar to N13-024
Suggested solution: Ensure Greenwoods Corner remains in the Epsom electorate.
N13-027 b Objection K Malloy
Similar to N13-024
Suggested solution: Similar to N13-026
N13-028 b Objection R McMillan
Similar to N13-024
N13-029 b Objection C D Parks
Similar to N13-024
N13-030 b Objection B Young
Objects to the inclusion of parts of south Epsom in the Mt Roskill electorate. The community affiliations and interests of the residents in this area lie with Epsom.
N13-031 b Objection B McGrath
Similar to N13-030
N13-032 b Objection A Black
Similar to N13-030
N13-033 b Objection P McCall
Similar to N13-030
N13-034 b Objection A Younger
Similar to N13-030
N13-035 b Objection Y Xie
Similar to N13-030
N13-036 b, h Objection J Dobson
Similar to N13-030
N13-037 b Objection G Thomson
Similar to N13-030
N13-038 b Objection J Lothian
Similar to N13-030
N13-039 b Objection N Malhotra
Objects to the inclusion of parts of south Epsom in the Mt Roskill electorate. This will negatively affect both schooling options and house prices in the area.
Suggested solution: Retain the existing boundaries.
N13-040 b Objection P Long
Similar to N13-039
Suggested solution: Keep the boundary as Landscape Road.
N13-041 b, h Objection A Long
Similar to N13-039
Suggested solution: Keep the New Windsor area in the Mt Roskill electorate or move a smaller number of excess New Windsor dwellings into the New Lynn electorate and then move a small number of Epsom houses into Mt Roskill.
N13-042 b, h Objection M Spiro
Similar to N13-039
Suggested solution: Retain the boundary as Selwyn Road and St Leonards Road.
N13-043 b, h Objection K Williams
Similar to N13-039
Suggested solution: Retain the existing boundaries.
N13-044 b Objection K Peacock
Similar to N13-039
N13-045 b, h Objection P D and R M Lane
Similar to N13-039
N13-046 b Objection S White
Similar to N13-039
Suggested solution: Change the boundary on the eastern edge of the electorate.
N13-047 b, h Objection Dr P Lowe
Similar to N13-039
N13-048 b Objection G and K Ragg
Similar to N13-039
Suggested solution: Change the boundary around Oranga.
N13-049 b Objection S Mitchell
Similar to N13-039
N13-050 b, h Objection K Patel
Similar to N13-039
N13-051 b Objection E Young
Similar to N13-039
Suggested solution: Look at boundary changes on the eastern edge and towards T?maki, Maungakiekie and Mt Albert.
N13-052 b Objection E Chuk
Similar to N13-039
Suggested solution: Alter the building of apartments in the area to ensure population stays relative.
N13-053 b Objection S Bishop
Similar to N13-039
N13-054 b, h Objection D Sharp
Similar to N13-039
N13-055 b, n, h Objection G McKeown
Objects to the area below Watling Street and Onslow Avenue being excluded from the Epsom electorate. The area to be excluded is a long standing part of Epsom, and topographical features show the area faces towards their community of interest - Epsom.
Suggested solution: The area north of Landscape Road should remain in the Epsom electorate. Also consider a name change for the electorate such as "Epsom-Hobson" or "T?maki-Orakei".
N13-056 b Objection L Malhotra
Objects to the inclusion of parts of south Epsom in the Mt Roskill electorate. It will negatively affect schooling options for residents of the area.
Suggested solution: Retain the existing boundaries.
N13-057 b, h Objection J Grigg
Similar to N13-056
N13-058 b Objection M and R Busch
Similar to N13-056
Suggested solution: Landscape Road and Selwyn Road are the traditional boundary lines for Mt Roskill and should remain the boundary.
N13-059 b Objection S Troy
Similar to N13-056
Suggested solution: Move areas of the central city and Parnell to Auckland Central rather than move the boundary in Epsom.
N13-060 b Objection B Smith, Greenwoods Corner Group
Similar to N13-056
Suggested solution: Retain the existing Epsom boundary.
N13-061 b Objection B Lowe
Similar to N13-056
N13-062 b Objection K J Tunnicliffe
Similar to N13-056
N13-063 b Objection E J Glass
Similar to N13-056
N13-064 b Objection R Harden
Objects to the area of south Epsom moving to the Mt Roskill electorate as the community is not connected to that area. The two electorates are diverse and culturally different from each other. Topographical features also link this area with Epsom.
Suggested solution: Consider moving the boundaries in other areas of the electorate.
N13-065 b Objection D Nalden
Objects to the movement of parts of the Epsom electorate to Mt Roskill as it is a cohesive community that shares similar concerns and population trends are hard to predict.
N13-066 b Objection L A McGregor
The area of Epsom contained by Mt Eden Road, Landscape Road, St Andrews Road and Watling Street is an integral part of the Epsom community. The area has no community of interest with Mt Roskill, and their concerns will get overlooked by a representative from
Mt Roskill. The main transport corridors are down Mt Eden Road, through Epsom, which also provides a natural barrier between Epsom and Mt Roskill.
Suggested solution: The block contained by Mt Eden Road, Landscape Road, St Andrews Road and Watling Street remain in the Epsom electorate.
N13-067 b Objection South Epsom Planning Group (Inc)
Similar to N13-066
N13-068 b Objection C Wildermoth and 37 others
Petition objecting to the area of south Epsom moving to the Mt Roskill electorate as the community is not connected to that area.
Suggested solution: That Manukau Road serve as the boundary between Epsom and
Mt Roskill.
N13-069 b, h Objection J Grant
Objects to the area around Selwyn Road moving from the Maungakiekie electorate to
Mt Roskill. The area is connected to Epsom, however does have some links to Maungakiekie. The area has no links to Mt Roskill.
Suggested solution: Move the area into the Epsom electorate. Alternatively, keep the area in the Maungakiekie electorate.
N13-070 b Objection N Stewart
Similar to N13-069
Suggested solution: Similar to N13-069
N13-071 b Objection A Bell
Similar to N13-069
Suggested solution: Similar to N13-069
N13-072 b Objection H K Scott
Objects to the south Epsom area being moved into the proposed Mt Roskill electorate.
Suggested solution: Keep the area bounded by Manukau Road, Lewin Road and Golf Road in the Epsom electorate.
N13-073 b Objection J D Neutze
Similar to N13-072
N13-074 b Objection C Gavin
Similar to N13-072
N13-075 b Objection S F Lau
Similar to N13-072
N13-076 b, h Objection T Walker
Similar to N13-072
N13-077 b Objection C Walker
Similar to N13-072
N13-078 b Objection H Charman
Similar to N13-072
N13-079 b, h Objection A Thorp
Similar to N13-072
Suggested solution: Change the boundary in Meadowbank instead of Epsom.
N13-080 b Objection J Mowbray
Similar to N13-072
N13-081 b Objection E Charlebois
Similar to N13-072
Suggested solution: Look at boundary changes on the eastern edge.
N13-082 b Objection J Brown
Similar to N13-072
N13-083 b, h Objection P Cammell
Similar to N13-072
N13-084 b Objection L Charlebois
Similar to N13-072
N13-085 b Objection A Fong
Similar to N13-072
N13-086 b Objection K Loo
Similar to N13-072
N13-087 b Objection R Fong
Similar to N13-072
N13-088 b Objection G and C Wilkinson
Similar to N13-072
N13-089 b Objection Marianne
Similar to N13-072
N13-090 b Objection R I Johnston
Similar to N13-072
N13-091 b Objection W Colville
Similar to N13-072
Suggested solution: Retain the existing boundary.
N13-092 b Objection P and A Trotman
Similar to N13-072
N13-093 b Objection G Burt
Similar to N13-072
N13-094 b Objection G Burt
Similar to N13-072
N13-095 b Objection C Turner
Similar to N13-072
N13-096 b Objection K Nodder
Similar to N13-072
N13-097 b Objection G Berrysmith
Similar to N13-072
N13-098 b Objection G and T Fernandez
Similar to N13-072
Suggested solution: Retain the existing boundary.
N13-099 b Objection C Cordes
Similar to N13-072
Suggested solution: Alter the boundaries in neighbouring electorates and keep the existing Epsom boundaries.
N13-100 b Objection C McKee
Similar to N13-072
Suggested solution: Change other boundaries within the electorate.
N13-101 b Objection M White
Similar to N13-072
Suggested solution: Change the boundary in the eastern areas of the electorate.
N13-102 b Objection A Hugli
Similar to N13-072
N13-103 b Objection M Seiler
Similar to N13-072
N13-104 b Objection J Mark
Similar to N13-072
N13-105 b, h Objection J Hsu
Similar to N13-072
N13-106 b Objection W and A Willoughby
Similar to N13-072
N13-107 b Objection P Wallace
Similar to N13-072
Suggested solution: Move Mt Roskill further west instead of into Epsom.
N13-108 b Objection S Fidler
Similar to N13-072
N13-109 b Objection S Mahoney
Similar to N13-072
Suggested solution: Changes to the boundary should be in areas where the population has grown, such as infill housing and apartments.
N13-110 b Objection P Harrison
Similar to N13-072
N13-111 b Objection K Kurtovich
Similar to N13-072
N13-112 b, h Objection J Chamley
Similar to N13-072
N13-113 b, h Objection Royal Oak Intermediate School
Objects to the proposed boundary splitting the Maungakiekie electorate from its intermediate school in the Mt Roskill electorate.
Suggested solution: Use Queenstown Road and Pah Road as the boundary - ensuring Royal Oak Intermediate and its community remain in the Maungakiekie electorate and have only one MP to work with.
N13-114 b, h Objection H Stuart, Chairperson of Royal Oak Intermediate School Board of Trustees
Objects to splitting Royal Oak Intermediate from the electorate and the school community. The contributing schools are mostly found in Maungakiekie and the shared school community would prefer to lobby and communicate with one MP.
Suggested solution: Move the boundary to follow Beachcroft Road, Queenstown Road, Pah Road, Greenfield Road and Manukau Road to the Cornwall Park perimeter and current boundaries. To compensate move the north-western boundary for Mt Roskill to the corner
of Balmoral Road and Sandringham Road and the north-eastern boundary to the corner of Greenland West Road and Cornwell Park.
N13-115 b, h Objection Onehunga High School
Objects to placing Royal Oak Intermediate and Onehunga High School in the Mt Roskill electorate when their community lies with Onehunga and the Maungakiekie electorate. The proposal would leave Maungakiekie without an intermediate school and place the schools in an electorate that they have no history or connection with.
Suggested solution: Use the Auckland Council local ward boundaries as a guide for the electorate boundaries. Follow Queenstown Road to Pah Road and then Mt Albert Road.
N13-116 b, h Objection N Turnbull, Onehunga Primary School Board of Trustees
Objects to splitting Onehunga High School from the electorate that the school community is linked to. The schools in the area have a shared community. Onehunga is a village community that should remain intact in the electoral boundaries.
Suggested solution: Similar to N13-115
N13-117 b, h Objection Onehunga Bowling Club
Objects to the Onehunga Bowling Club being moved into the Mt Roskill electorate. The bowling club is a feature of Onehunga and the local community is Onehunga. The club has no links with or members from Mt Roskill and should have one elected representative to cover the community.
Suggested solution: Similar to N13-115
N13-118 b, h Objection J Livingstone
Objects to One Tree Hill and Onehunga moving to the Mt Roskill electorate. The communities share no common features and are entirely separate from each other.
Suggested solution: Ensure Onehunga and One Tree Hill remain in Maungakiekie.
N13-119 b, h Objection J Jackson
Objects to splitting the Onehunga and One Tree Hill communities in two. They constitute a community of interest. Likewise, the changes are isolating the local schools in a separate electorate from the community they serve.
Suggested solution: Have the Maungakiekie electorate boundary along Queenstown Road to the corner of Pah Road and Mt Albert Road in line with the local ward boundaries.
N13-120 b, h Objection A Easterbrook
Similar to N13-119
Suggested solution: Similar to N13-119
N13-121 b Objection J Vaughan
Objects to Royal Oak and Mt Roskill being in the same electorate as they have different communities of interest.
Suggested solution: Maintain the existing boundaries.
N13-122 b Objection R Kerr
Objects to the Maungakiekie-Mt Roskill boundary cutting Onehunga in half. This move cuts schools off from their local areas.
Suggested solution: Keep Onehunga in the Maungakiekie electorate and do not move the electorate south.
N13-123 b Objection J Balzer
Objects to Trafalgar Street being moved to Mt Roskill.
Suggested solution: Use either Monte Cecilia Park or Hillsborough Road as the eastern border for Mt Roskill.
N13-124 b Objection J Guo
Objects to the proposed changes to move parts of Maungakiekie into Mt Roskill. The current electorate boundaries group communities with similar opinions and an established culture.
Suggested solution: Keep the existing Maungakiekie boundaries.
N13-125 b, n, h Objection M E Burke
Objects to splitting the Onehunga and Royal Oak communities between two electorates as it will provide less effective representation for the community.
Suggested solution: Keep the existing electorate boundaries around Royal Oak and Onehunga. Alternatively rename the Mt Roskill electorate to a more representative name such as "Three Kings" or "Waikowai".
N13-126 b Objection T Siueva
Similar to N13-125
Suggested solution: The Mt Roskill boundary to start at the corner of Pah Road and Carr Road and continue to the suburbs of Hilsborough, Three Kings and Mt Roskill.
N13-127 b, h Objection R Nauhria
Similar to N13-125
N13-128 n Objection C Spanhake
Objects to the name "Mt Roskill" for the electorate as the boundary changes have changed the electorate's focus.
Suggested solution: Change the name to "Three Kings".
N15
N15-001
n Epsom
Objection C Spanhake
Objects to the name Epsom as the electorate no longer centres around the community of Epsom.
Suggested solution: Name the electorate "Remuera".
N16
N16-001
b, h T?maki
Objection Dr I Mathias
Objects to the inclusion of the Stonefields development in the T?maki electorate as the communities of Tamaki are centred around Glen Innes. The Stonefields development is more closely aligned with Mt Wellington, part of the Maungakiekie electorate.
Suggested solution: Include Stonefields in the Maungakiekie electorate.
N16-002 b, h Objection M Ritchie
Objects to Stonefields being in the T?maki electorate as it shares no common links with suburbs in that area.
Suggested solution: Same as N16-001
N16-003 b, h Objection D Gribben
Objects to splitting the Stonefields area from the Mt Wellington suburb as it has links to the historical pa site on Mt Wellington.
Suggested solution: Same as N16-001
N16-004 b, h Objection M Beckett
Objects to the exclusion of the Mt Wellington quarry from the Maungakiekie electorate as it is a geographical feature on the Mt Wellington suburb.
Suggested solution: Keep the quarry as part of Maungakiekie. Consider moving the Penrose South business sector out of the electorate.
N16-005 b Objection J Roberts
Objects to the inclusion of Stonefields in the T?maki electorate. The community of interest for the development lies within the Maungakiekie electorate.
Suggested solution: Use College Road as the boundary.
N16-006 b Objection S White
Objects to the proposal to split the Ellerslie community with the proposed boundary. The Stonefields area, including Lunn Avenue, has much in common with the Ellerslie area and should have the same MP.
Suggested solution: Move Stonefields and Lunn Avenue into Maungakiekie.
N17Maungakiekie
N17-001 b Objection M Crooks
Objects to the boundary between Maungakiekie and T?maki using the busy thoroughfare of Lunn Avenue (between Marua Road and Ngahue Drive). By splitting the road between two representatives neither will advocate on behalf of commuters and residents regarding traffic issues.
Suggested solution: Move the boundary to follow the back boundaries of properties in the area between Lunn Ave and Marua Road. Alternatively, move the boundary to follow
the edge of the old quarry face.
N17-002 b Objection V Hayes
Supports the proposed boundaries for Ellerslie, however the Stonefields area could be moved back into the Maungakiekie electorate as it has been in the past.
Suggested solution: Move the Stonefields subdivision into Maungakiekie.
N17-003 b Objection A White
Supports the proposed electorate boundary changes in Ellerslie. Would also like Stonefields, an area linked to Ellerslie through shared facilities such as childcare and businesses, included in Maungakiekie.
Suggested solution: Bring Stonefields into the Maungakiekie electorate.
N17-004 b Objection C Moffat
Objects to the division of the Ellerslie community in the proposed boundaries.
Suggested solution: Use the Ellerslie Racecourse as the electorate boundary. Include Stonefields in the electorate and return all of Tamaki to the T?maki electorate. Use Manukau Road as the western electorate boundary.
N17-005 b Objection D Krum, Councillor - Auckland Council
Supports the unification of Ellerslie in one electorate to ensure cohesive representation. The Ellerslie community defines itself south of Lunn Avenue, which is represented in
the proposed boundaries.
Objects to the exclusion of Stonefields from Maungakiekie as it has more in common and community links with Ellerslie and Mt Wellington.
Objects to Tamaki and Panmure being included in Maungakiekie, as their communities are closely aligned with Glen Innes and should be in the T?maki electorate.
The whole area of Onehunga and Royal Oak has a strong affinity for and around One Tree Hill. This area should remain in a single cohesive electorate.
Suggested solution: Include Stonefields in the Maungakiekie electorate. Use the Auckland Council Ward boundaries (Queenstown Road and Pah Road) as the western boundary for Maungakiekie.
N17-006 b, h Objection Ellerslie Residents Association Inc
Objects to the inclusion of Penrose, Westfield and Southdown in the Maungakiekie electorate as they are not connected to the community. Having Ellerslie unified in the electorate is a good step, but Onehunga should not be excluded from the electorate as it has similar issues and concerns, likewise Stonefields.
Suggested solution: Include Onehunga and/or Stonefields and remove Southdown, Penrose and Westfield from the electorate.
N17-007 b Objection J Hunt
Objects to the Maungakiekie - T?maki border splitting Panmure and parts of Point England. They are linked to T?maki and should be represented by an MP from that area.
Suggested solution: Have Glen Innes, Point England and Panmure united in the T?maki electorate.
N17-008 b Objection J Copeland
Objects to the split of Panmure away from the similar communities of Point England and Glen Innes.
Suggested solution: Ensure Panmure is in the T?maki electorate.
N17-009 b Objection M Zhao
Objects to the splitting of Tamaki, Panmure, Mt Wellington and Westfield in the proposed electorate boundaries. They are a naturally aligning community and should remain together.
N17-010 b, h Objection K Sharp
Objects to the division of the Panmure township between multiple electorates. The town has a long standing history in the Auckland City and its integrity should remain intact.
Suggested solution: Ensure that Panmure is placed entirely in a single electorate, and not divided between multiple electorates.
N17-011 b, h Objection A Ngaro, MP
Objects to the split of Tamaki from the T?maki electorate.
Suggested solution: That the boundaries for Point England / Tamaki in the Maungakiekie electorate be moved south to Lagoon Drive, as they were prior to 2007, to better accommodate the communities of interest of Glen Innes, Point England, Tamaki and Panmure.
N17-012 b Objection J Davies
Similar to N17-011
Suggested solution: Similar to N17-011
N17-013 b, h Objection New Zealand Labour Party
Objects to the boundary proposed between Maungakiekie and T?maki electorates running along Point England Road as this splits one quarter of Point England from the rest of the suburb, including the local school, reserve and shopping area.
Suggested solution: Move the boundary north to the Omaru Creek, moving the northern side of Point England Road into the Maungakiekie electorate. Starting at the mouth of the Omaru Creek at the Tamaki River, run along the creek, pass between Maybury Street and Taniwha Street / Rowena Crescent, before re-joining the current boundary at the beginning of Maybury Street.
N17-014 b Objection R Northey
Same as N17-013
Suggested solution: Same as N17-013
N17-015 b, h Objection Point England School
Objects to splitting the Tamaki community between two electorates. Point England School and Tamaki College and their families will be split. It will also make Tamaki redevelopment more difficult to organise.
Suggested solution: Ensure the T?maki electorate includes all of the suburbs of Glen Innes, Point England and Panmure.
N17-016 b, h Objection S Solomon
Objects to proposed boundaries splitting Panmure and Tamaki as single representation is needed for this area's social and economic issues.
Suggested solution: Keep the existing boundaries.
N17-017 b Objection G Turner
Objects to the continued split in the suburbs of Glen Innes, Point England, Tamaki and Panmure. The suburbs are all covered by the urban redevelopment programme.
Suggested solution: Ensure Glen Innes, Point England, Tamaki and Panmure are reunited in a single T?maki electorate.
N17-018 b Objection G Thompson
Objects to splitting the Tamaki community between two electorates. It is a cohesive community with common interests.
N17-019 b, h Objection United Future NZ Party, Auckland Branch
Objects to the exclusion of the area east of Onehunga Mall and Grand Drive from the Maungakiekie electorate. This area is an integral part of the One Tree Hill suburb and
the proposed boundary splits this community of interest.
Objects to the inclusion of the Westfield area in Maungakiekie, which has closer links to Otahuhu than to Mt Wellington.
Suggested solution: Retain the area east of Onehunga Mall and Grand Drive (south of Bollard Avenue, west of Moana Avenue and north of Mt Smart Road) in Maungakiekie. Instead, exclude the area of Manukau East south of the Main Trunk Railway line (Westfield to Sylvia Park) and west of the Southern Motorway.
N17-020 b, h Objection Onehunga Business Association
Objects to the removal of the western areas of the Maungakiekie electorate and the growth of the electorate to the south-east. The area has been compromised with representation in the Auckland Council, and these changes will further split a community in two - threatening
the effectiveness of representation.
N17-021 b, h Objection E Puni
Objects to the inclusion of northern Otahuhu in the Maungakiekie electorate. This community is more affiliated with the community of Manukau and the proposed boundary splits the community in two. Students at schools such as Panama Road School, Otahuhu Intermediate, Mt Richmond School and Otahuhu School will live in separate electorates from their school.
Suggested solution: Return the boundary to the current boundary agreed upon in 2007.
N17-022 b, h Objection S Solomon
Objects to the movement of the Maungakiekie electorate boundaries as the electorate is very diverse and vibrant and changing the boundaries could affect its economic growth.
Suggested solution: Keep the existing boundaries.
N17-023 b Objection M Merila
Objects to the Maungakiekie boundaries.
N17-024 n Objection C Spanhake
Objects to the electorate name as it does not represent the entire electorate.
Suggested solution: Name the electorate "Mt Wellington".
N20
N20-001
n Manukau East
Objection C Spanhake
Objects to the name "Manukau East" as it does not adequately describe the entire area covered by the electorate, particularly with the disestablishment of the Manukau City Council.
Suggested solution: Name the electorate "Otara". Alternatively "Otahuhu" or "Middlemore".
N22
N22-001
b, h Manurewa
Objection A Dalton, Manurewa Local Board
Supports the proposed electorate boundaries for the Manurewa and Papakura electorates as they are well aligned with the Council voting districts.
N23
N23-001
b, h Papakura
Objection G A Rasmussen
Supports the inclusion of the Redoubt Road area within the Papakura electorate as they are part of a distinct community of interest in the Papakura area.
N23-002 b, h Objection J Robinson
Similar to N23-001
N23-003 b, h Objection B Burrill
Supports the proposed boundaries between the Manurewa and Papakura electorates.
N23-004 b, h Objection B McEntee, Papakura Local Board
Similar to N23-001
N23-005 b Objection R and S Coles
Similar to N23-001
N23-006 b, h Objection Sir J Walker and C Penrose, Auckland Council - Manurewa-Papakura Ward Councillors
Similar to N23-001
N23-007 b Objection United Future NZ Party, Auckland Branch
Objects to the movement of the boundary between Alfriston-Ardmore Road and Fitzpatrick Road and Eastern Redoubt Road from Hunua to the Papakura electorate as the strip more naturally belongs with rural Clevedon.
Suggested solution: Retain the existing Hunua-Papakura boundary from Redoubt Road, south along Mill Road to Ranfurly Road, east along Ranfurly to Brookby Road, south along Alfriston-Ardmore Road to Clevedon-Takanini Road, eastwards to Parish Line Road, southwards to Papakura-Clevedon Road, then eastwards along Papakura-Clevedon Road to the unchanged boundary at Creightons Road.
N23-008 b, h Objection T Weeler
Supports the proposal to move Alfriston and the top end of the Papakura-Clevedon Road into the Papakura electorate. Alfriston has greater community links with Papakura than with Manurewa or Hunua.
N23-009 b, h Objection A Baker
Is concerned by the movement of the Clarks Beach and Waiau Pa area away from the Papakura electorate which could indicate the Karaka area and Hingaia Peninsula are likely to move in the future. These areas have a strong link to Papakura.
Suggested solution: Ensure the Hingaia Peninsula and Karaka remain part of the Papakura electorate.
N23-010 b Objection N Grant
Similar to N23-009
N24
N24-001
b, h Hunua
Objection S Crockett
Objects to the movement of the Waiau Pa and Clarks Beach communities from the Papakura electorate to the proposed Hunua electorate.
N24-002 b, h Objection A Seabrook
Objects to the exclusion of Waiau Pa and Clarks Beach from the Papakura electorate. The community has ties to Papakura and it is through this area that most residents work, shop and commute.
N24-003 n, h Objection A Baker
Objects to the name "Hunua" being used for the electorate as it has a very close affinity to the Auckland Council Franklin local board and the Franklin identity.
Suggested solution: Name the electorate "Franklin".
N24-004 n Objection C Spanhake
Objects to the name "Hunua" for the electorate as it is not representative of the entire area.
Suggested solution: Name the electorate "Franklin".
N24-005 b Objection R H McGregor
Objects to the proposed electorate boundaries with Waikato and Botany. Following the new Auckland boundary splits the rural communities from their local towns Pukekohe and Waiuku. The Botany boundary includes an urban area in the rural Hunua electorate.
Suggested solution: Move the urban areas around Botany into the Botany electorate (Murphy Road, Thomas Road, Flat Bush Road, Chapel Road and Ormiston Road). Have the southern boundary follow the Waikato River taking in Maioro, Otaua and Aka Aka until it reaches a point west of Tuakau then north to a point at Buckland, east to Ridge Road.
N24-006 b Objection Iris
Objects to the Mission Heights area being included within the proposed Hunua electorate. As a rapidly developing area it shares little with the mostly rural Hunua electorate.
Suggested solution: Place the Mission Heights suburb within the Botany electorate.
N24-007 b Objection A Grey
Objects to the proposed boundary between Hunua and Botany electorates as it splits the community of Flat Bush in half, placing areas of high development in a predominantly rural electorate.
Suggested solution: Include an area bound by Caldwells Road, Sandstone Road, Ormiston Road and Murphys Road within the Botany electorate.
N25
N25-001
b Waikato
Objection W R Cowie
Objects to the Hamilton East boundary not using the Waikato Expressway to define city limits as the Waikato District Council and Hamilton City Council have done since construction of the road began.
Suggested solution: Include this block of land bounded by the Waikato Expressway in the Hamilton East electorate.
N25-002 b, h Objection Hamilton City Council
Objects to the proposed Waikato electorate including the area around the Ruakura Research Centre and Percival Road, which are within the city's eastern boundary.
Suggested solution: Have two general electorates to cover Hamilton City: Hamilton East and Hamilton West. The area around Ruakura Research Centre and Percival Road to be included in Hamilton East.
N26
N26-001
b Hamilton West
Objection N and L Henderson
Supports the realignment of the electorate boundaries to bring an area east of the Waikato River within the Hamilton West electorate.
N26-002 b, h Objection W Noble
Similar to N26-001
N26-003 b Objection A Chew
Similar to N26-001
N26-004 b Objection R Hamilton
Similar to N26-001
N26-005 b, h Objection N Fitzsimmons
Similar to N26-001
N26-006 b Objection P E Hancock
Supports the inclusion of the areas east of the Waikato River in the Hamilton West electorate as the river is not a natural divide anymore.
N26-007 b Objection J Hall
Objects to the inclusion of suburbs to the east of the Waikato River being included in the Hamilton West electorate as the River is a clear boundary.
Suggested solution: Move the portions of the Hamilton West electorate to the east of the river back into Hamilton East and Waikato electorates.
N26-008 b, h Objection B Hesketh
Objects to Flagstaff being included in the Hamilton West electorate given it is situated in Hamilton East.
Suggested solution: Move the boundary along Kay Road, Sylvester Road then directly to the river.
N26-009 b Objection R Bryant
Similar to N26-008
Suggested solution: Similar to N26-008
N26-010 b Objection R Watkins
Similar to N26-008
N29
N29-001
b, n Bay of Plenty
Objection L Turner
Objects to the proposed boundaries between Tauranga and Bay of Plenty electorates and their names.
Suggested solution: Have both electorates based around the city, one based on each side of the harbour and including Te Puke.
These electorates should be re-named to reflect their communities better, "Tauranga Moana" and "Tauranga Mauoto". Alternatively rename Bay of Plenty "Matakana".
N29-002 b, n, h Objection H Anderson
Similar to N29-001
Suggested solution: Divide the electorates based on east and west areas, using the harbour as a guide. Name the electorate "Mauao" after the mountain.
N29-003 b, n Objection P A Dey
Objects to the boundary between the proposed Tauranga and Bay of Plenty electorates as it does not represent community groupings within the area.
Suggested solution: Use the harbour as a boundary to create Tauranga East (Mt Maunganui, Omanu and Windmere) and Tauranga West (Te Runa, Omokaroa and Whakamarama) electorates. Use the grouping of Pyes Pa and Greerton as a way to balance electorate numbers.
Name the electorate "Tauranga East" to better reflect the community represented.
N29-004 b Objection D Page
Objects to the inclusion of the urban Pyes Pa area in the rural Bay of Plenty electorate. The residents of Pyes Pa have links with Tauranga and no community of interest with Bay of Plenty.
Suggested solution: Include Pyes Pa in the Tauranga electorate.
N29-005 b, h Objection L Baldock
Objects to the inclusion of Pyes Pa, which is a rapidly growing area, in the Bay of Plenty electorate as it has a community of interest with Greerton and Tauranga CBD.
Suggested solution: Include the Arataki area in the Bay of Plenty instead, which has a similar population size to Pyes Pa and a community of interest with the Bay of Plenty electorate. Alternatively, consider redrawing Bay of Plenty and Tauranga as Tauranga East and Tauranga West.
N31
N31-001
b Rotorua
Objection M Dean
Objects to the proposed boundary change including the western side of the road going through Oropi Village within the Rotorua electorate as their community of interest is with the Tauranga area.
Suggested solution: All those living in upper Oropi and upper Pyes Pa should be included in the Bay of Plenty electorate.
N31-002 b, h Objection P de Monchy
Objects to the areas of Ohauiti, Oropi and Waitao being included in the Rotorua electorate. These communities are linked to Tauranga in terms of a community of interest, the road network and iwi connections.
Suggested solution: Shift the boundary south-east to the Kaimai and Otawa Ranges, placing Ohauiti, Oropi and Waitao in a Tauranga affiliated electorate, while keeping the links
Te Puke and Maketu have with Rotorua.
N32
N32-001
b, h East Coast
Objection New Zealand Labour Party
Objects to the inclusion of Maketu in the East Coast electorate as it is the landing site of the Te Arawa waka and will split the Te Arawa rohe between two electorates.
Suggested solution: Use State Highway 2 as the boundary for Rotorua, then follow the Kaikokopu canal to the sea. Retain Murupara and Galatea within the Rotorua electorate.
N32-002 b, h Objection Gisborne District Council
Objects to the proposed East Coast electorate as it would adversely affect: existing boundaries (with increasing disparity between local authority and parliamentary boundaries), community of interest (iwi affiliations and primary patterns of interaction by residents and businesses), topographical features and facilities of communication.
Suggested solution: East Coast to include Wairoa in the south and Opotiki and Whakatane in the west.
N32-003 b, h Objection J T Kurapa, Murupara Community Board
Objects to the communities of Murupara, Galatea, Ruataahuna, Minginui and Te Whaiti moving from Rotorua into the East Coast electorate because their community of interest and facilities of communications are with Rotorua.
Suggested solution: Include the community of Waiohau at the northern end of the ward in the East Coast electorate as this community has commercial, community, health, education and social ties with Whakatane.
N32-004 b, n, h Objection R Dolman
Objects to the geographical divide between Gisborne and Opotiki which are both within the proposed East Coast electorate, and the island nature of the Tauranga electorate.
Suggested solution: Disestablish the East Coast electorate and use the M?ori electorate boundary as the edge of a new "Mahia" electorate that encompasses Gisborne down towards Napier. The Bay of Plenty electorate should encompass the areas of Opotiki, Whakatane, Murupara, Kawerau and Tupeke. Extend Tauranga to the border of the Coromandel electorate.
N32-005 b Objection T Ballantyne
Objects to an area of the Rotorua electorate being moved into the East Coast electorate. The community of interest of this area and media communications are with Te Puke or Tauranga. The main centre of the East Coast electorate is Gisborne and it covers a vast area. This area is not associated with Gisborne or the East Coast region.
N32-006 b Objection A Third
Objects to the make up of the proposed East Coast electorate as parts of the electorate have no community of interest with Gisborne.
Suggested solution: The East Coast electorate should include the top of the East Cape, Gisborne and Wairoa. The Bay of Plenty electorate boundary should remain the same.
N32-007 b Objection L Russell
Objects to the movement of Maketu to the proposed East Coast electorate. It is geographically remote and does not share community links with the East Coast. Proposed electorate boundaries do not take into account the Te Arawa Iwi affiliation the area recognises.
Suggested solution: Keep the Maketu area within an electorate identified with the Bay of Plenty and the Western Bay of Plenty district.
N32-008 b, h Objection P Hickson
Objects to the inclusion of Pongakawa and surrounding areas in the proposed East Coast electorate. Their community of interest lies with the Bay of Plenty.
Suggested solution: Redraw adjacent boundaries to keep the Bay of Plenty together and for the East Coast electorate to gain population from the south east.
N32-009 b Objection A Natusch
Supports the proposed change to the eastern boundary of the East Coast electorate as this area has a greater social and commercial community of interest and communication networks with the coastal area from Maketu through to Whakatane and is more integrated with the coastal area than with Rotorua.
N33
N33-001
b, h Taranaki-King Country
Objection J Ponga
Objects to the inclusion of Temple View in the Taranaki-King Country electorate. Temple View is part of the Hamilton City Council area and has links with Hamilton as opposed to the rural Taranaki-King Country electorate.
N33-002 b Objection M Gray
Similar to N33-001
Suggested solution: Keep Temple View in the Hamilton West electorate.
N33-003 b Objection T Cassidy
Similar to N33-001
N33-004 b Objection S Kenyon
Similar to N33-001
N33-005 b Objection D and W Walmsley
Similar to N33-001
Suggested solution: Move rural and semi-rural properties into the Taranaki-King Country electorate, such as the area around Horotui, in preference to moving the Temple View suburb of Hamilton City into the electorate.
N33-006 b, h Objection S P Rose
Similar to N33-001
N33-007 b Objection C Bradley
Similar to N33-001
N33-008 b Objection K Peakman
Similar to N33-001
Suggested solution: Keep the existing boundaries.
N33-009 b Objection B and F Johnston
Similar to N33-001
N33-010 b Objection C Tamihana
Similar to N33-001
N33-011 b Objection E Pogai
Similar to N33-001
N33-012 b Objection M Walmsley
Similar to N33-001
N33-013 b Objection M R Thompson
Similar to N33-001
N33-014 b Objection C B Thomas
Similar to N33-001
Suggested solution: Keep Temple View in the Hamilton West electorate.
N33-015 b Objection Jodi
Similar to N33-001
N33-016 b, h Objection Hamilton City Council
Similar to N33-001
Suggested solution: Have two general electorates to cover Hamilton City: Hamilton East and Hamilton West. The Temple View area to be included in Hamilton West.
N33-017 b Objection Hamilton International Airport NZ
Objects to the Hamilton International Airport being included in the Taranaki-King Country electorate as it provides services to the Hamilton area, and should be affiliated with a Hamilton electorate. The airport is owned by five shareholding Councils based in the Waikato region, and has close working relationships with the Hamilton MPs.
Suggested solution: Extend the Hamilton West electorate boundary to include the Hamilton International Airport.
N33-018 b Objection Hamilton & Waikato Tourism
Similar to N33-017
Suggested solution: Similar to N33-017
N33-019 b Objection J Hall
Similar to N33-017
Suggested solution: Similar to N33-017
N33-020 n Objection C Spanhake
Objects to the name "Taranaki-King Country" as there is now very little of Taranaki included in the electorate.
Suggested solution: Name the electorate "King Country".
N33-021 n Objection M Oliver
Objects to the name of the proposed Taranaki-King Country electorate as the name does not represent a significant part of the electorate.
N33-022 b, h Objection The Temple View Residents" Association
Similar to N33-021
N33-023 b Objection J Lawson
Objects to the name and size of the Taranaki-King Country electorate. As a long thin electorate it does not meet community of interest, topographical and communication criteria. The proposed electorate covers three regional councils and nine local councils, as well as being 315km long and a four hour trip.
Suggested solution: Establish a north Waikato electorate that covers the Waikato District, and Matamata-Piako Council areas. Have the southern parts of Taranaki-King Country aligned with Rangit?kei, another electorate that could need a north-south divide.
N33-024 b, n Objection R Gallagher
Objects to geographical spread of the proposed Taranaki-King Country electorate. North to south it is 315km, covers a number of local bodies, and represents a large number of unique interests. The name of the electorate also fails to accurately represent the makeup of the electorate.
Suggested solution: Redraw the boundaries to follow local authority boundaries where possible, for example an electorate made of the Waikato District and Matamate-Piako districts would meet population quota and have a strong community of interest link. Another option is to name the electorate "Raglan - Taranaki - King Country".
N33-025 b, n, h Objection R MacLeod
Objects to the township of Raglan being part of the Taranaki-King Country electorate, an area it has nothing in common with.
Suggested solution: Place the town in the Waikato electorate. Alternatively rename the electorate "Raglan-King Country-Taranaki".
N35
N35-001
b, h Napier
Objection Tuhoe-Te Uru Taumatua Trust
Objects to Tuai, a mainly Tuhoe village, and the eastern Te Urewera National Park being included within the Napier electorate. This isolates a small section of Tuhoe land away from the rest of the Iwi and places a small section of the land that falls within the post-treaty settlement agreement within a separate electorate.
Suggested solution: Adjust the north west boundary with East Coast so that Lake Waikaremoana and Tuai are included in the East Coast electorate as well as all parts of the Te Urewera National Park.
N35-002 b Objection A Milton-Tee
Objects to part of Poverty Bay being included in the Napier electorate, splitting a community of interest. This area is a long drive from Napier and close to Gisborne and should be represented by one MP.
Suggested solution: Retain all of Poverty Bay and the East Coast north of Gisborne in one electorate.
N35-003 b Objection J Hall
Objects to the inclusion of Matawai, Rakauroa, Otoko and Waikohu in the Napier electorate as they have a stronger community of interest with Gisborne and a road connections with the rest of the Opotiki-Gisborne State Highway (State Highway 2) in the East Coast electorate.
Suggested solution: Re-draw the East Coast / Napier boundary to the south of Matawai Road (SH2), so that the communities of Matawai, Rakauroa, Otoko and Waikohu, and all of Matawai Road are included in East Coast. If offsetting land switches are required, to stay within both electorates" population tolerance, this could be achieved by shifting the southern end of the East Coast-Napier boundary to follow the Waipaoa River between Lavenham Road and the sea.
N35-004 b Objection S J Cave
Objects to the inclusion of Ngatapa and surrounding areas in the Napier electorate as they are geographically separate from Napier and have strong links to Gisborne.
N35-005 b Objection H Telfer
Objects to the movement of the proposed Napier / East Coast boundary north towards Gisborne as it disrupts a community of interest, moving small towns affiliated with Gisborne into the Napier electorate.
Suggested solution: Move the Napier electorate southwards instead of north.
N35-006 n Objection C Spanhake
The current name does not adequately describe the entire area covered by the electorate.
Suggested solution: Name the electorate "Hawkes Bay".
N36
N36-001
n New Plymouth
Objection C Spanhake
Objects to the electorate name as the boundaries have expanded to include the entire Taranaki peninsula.
Suggested solution: Name the electorate "Taranaki".
N37
N37-001
b Whanganui
Objection S Taylor
Objects to the inclusion of Stratford in the Whanganui electorate. Stratford has strong community links with the Taranaki-King Country electorate and is best served by being placed with its community of interest.
Suggested solution: Move Stratford back to Taranaki-King Country and instead make up population numbers with Opunake.
N37-002 n Objection C Spanhake
Objects to the name Whanganui being used for the electorate as it does not adequately describe the entire area covered by the electorate.
Suggested solution: Name the electorate "Waitotara".
N38
N38-001
b Rangit?kei
Objection A Bates
Objects to Shannon being included in the Rangit?kei electorate as the Shannon community shares little in common with the electorate. Shannon and Tokomaru are urban areas that identify with the ?taki electorate.
Suggested solution: Keep Shannon and Tokomaru in ?taki and extend Rangit?kei into the Whanganui electorate instead.
N38-002 b Objection Horowhenua District Council
Similar to N38-001
Suggested solution: Retain the existing boundaries.
N38-003 b Objection S Field
Similar to N38-001
Suggested solution: While the boundary needs to move a little south, Shannon should stay in the ?taki electorate.
N38-004 b, h Objection New Zealand Labour Party
Similar to N38-001
Suggested solution: Similar to N38-003
N43
N43-001
b Mana
Objection J Lacy
Objects to the inclusion of 74, 76 and 78 Victory Crescent, Tawa in the Mana electorate. The rest of the street is included in the adjacent meshblock in the ?hariu electorate. All residents of the street share a community of interest with ?hariu.
Suggested solution: Move 74, 76 and 78 Victory Crescent, Tawa into the ?hariu electorate.
N44
N44-001
b Rimutaka
Objection S Ruthven
Objects to the proposed boundary between Rimutaka and Hutt South dividing communities in the Western Hills suburbs and the inclusion of Avalon and Taita in Rimutaka.
Suggested solution: Include all of the Western Hills suburbs in the Rimutaka electorate and include all of the valley floor (including Avalon and Taita) in the Hutt South electorate.
N44-002 b, h Objection A Lawson
Objects to the boundary between Rimutaka and Hutt South electorates splitting the Western Hills community between two electorates. The proposal to bring a portion of the Western Hills into Hutt South is an improvement.
Suggested solution: Include all of the Western Hills suburbs under one electorate.
N44-003 b Objection J Cronin
Objects to the inclusion of Normandale within the Rimutaka electorate.
N45
N45-001
n ?hariu
Objection H Wylie
Objects to the name ?hariu for an electorate so close to the centre of Wellington.
Suggested solution: Name the electorate "Wellington West".
N45-002 n Objection C Spanhake
Objects to the name ?hariu being used for the electorate as it is not an identifiable place name.
Suggested solution: Name the electorate "Wellington North".
N45-003 b Objection C Baker
Objects to the movement of Wadestown from the Wellington Central electorate into ?hariu as they do not share any community links.
Suggested solution: Keep the Wadestown area in the Wellington Central electorate.
N45-004 b Objection A D Baker
Similar to N45-003
Suggested solution: Similar to N45-003
N46
N46-001
b Hutt South
Objection W Church
Supports the moving of Maungaraki and Korokoro to the Hutt South electorate, as the community of interest and infrastructure are closely linked to Lower Hutt.
Suggested solution: Consider moving Normandale to Hutt South as well, as it is similarly linked to Lower Hutt.
N46-002 b Objection R McLennan
Objects to the proposed boundary between Rimutaka and Hutt South dividing a small number of properties away from the rest of their Normandale community.
Suggested solution: Move 183 and 185 Miromiro Road to the Rimutaka electorate.
N46-003 b Objection Western Community Committee, Hutt City Council
Objects to the boundary between Hutt South and Rimutaka electorates. Communities of interest have been lost and streets split in two between the electorates.
Suggested solution: The boundary line should go across the Hutt Valley to create a definitive north south divide. Normandale and Harbour View should be linked with Maungaraki in Hutt South while all of Naenae should be included in the Rimutaka electorate.
N46-004 b Objection R Wallace, Mayor - Hutt City Council
Same as N46-003
Suggested solution: Same as N46-003
N48
N48-001
n Rongotai
Objection C Spanhake
Objects to the name Rongotai being used as it is a small and diminishing suburb within the electorate.
Suggested solution: Name the electorate "Wellington East". Alternatively name it "Miramar', "Wellington Suburbs', "Port Nicholson" or "Lyall Bay".
S02
S02-001
b West Coast-Tasman
Objection C McLellan
Objects to the inclusion of Tasman in the same electorate with the West Coast as the areas have separate interests and no linked infrastructure.
Suggested solution: Align the Tasman area with Motueka and Nelson.
S03
S03-001
b Kaik?ura
Objection J Roper-Lindsay
Objects to the Kaik?ura electorate as it is a vast size that does not take in the communities of interest and links in the North Canterbury area.
Suggested solution: The area between the Conway River and Ashley River should be moved into the Waimakariri electorate (which could be re-named "North Canterbury'). To counter this increase in the current Waimakariri electorate, electors in the south of the current area (south of the Waikmakariri River) should be moved into Christchurch East or Central as appropriate.
S04
S04-001
b Waimakariri
Objection M Fryer
Insufficient regard has been given to existing boundaries and community of interest.
Suggested solution: Move a population of around 5,000 from the southern end of Waimakariri into Christchurch Central.
S04-002 b Objection L Hills
Objects to the inclusion of areas in the north of the electorate, which have no community of interest with Rangiora.
Suggested solution: The Waimakiriri electorate to have the same boundary as the area covered by the Waimakariri District Council.
S05
S05-001
b, h Christchurch East
Objection S K Laing
Objects to the inclusion of Mairehau in Christchurch East.
S05-002 b, h Objection J M Laing
Similar to S05-001
S05-003 b Objection M and D Priestley
Similar to S05-001
S05-004 b Objection S Chisholm
Objects to the inclusion of St Albans and Mairehau in the Christchurch East electorate as they are strongly connected to the central city, Merivale and Papanui.
S05-005 b Objection B Tily
Similar to S05-004
S05-006 b, h Objection NZ First Party - Central Christchurch
Objects to the proposed boundary for Christchurch East as it splits the suburb of St Albans in two.
S05-007 b Objection N Button
Objects to the inclusion of Mairehau in the Christchurch East electorate as its connections are not with the east. Also concerned the proposed boundary will split the
St Albans/Mairehau community.
Suggested solution: There should be community discussion about a new name for Christchurch Central as the electorate is now bigger than central Christchurch.
S05-008 b, n, h Objection A Riches
Objects to the inclusion of Mairehau and St Albans suburbs in Christchurch East as they are closely connected with Christchurch Central and Redwood rather than the east. As the Highfield Park subdivision is constructed Mairehau will grow as a link to the CBD.
Suggested solution: Include Mairehau, Shirley and most of St Albans in Christchurch Central. Christchurch East should grow south rather than west. Christchurch Central should be named "Avon" or "Christchurch".
S05-009 b, h Objection D and M Gubbins
Objects to the inclusion of Mairehau in Christchurch East as church, social activities and facilities all revolve around Christchurch Central.
Suggested solution: Retain the existing boundaries.
S05-010 b Objection L Mortensen
Objects to the boundary between Christchurch East and Christchurch Central (between Queen Elizabeth II Drive and the Styx River) going through the consented Highfield Park subdivision, which could split the community in half.
Suggested solution: Move the boundary to run along the proposed Christchurch Northern Arterial motorway to be built approximately 400 metres west of the current proposed boundary, which will separate Redwood and Highfield Park.
S05-011 b, h Objection K Tanner and 202 others
Petition objecting to the community of Bromley being moved into the Christchurch East electorate when it is linked with and uses local services and public facilities in Woolston. Splitting the community between two electorates would break up this community of interest.
Suggested solution: Retain the existing boundary between the Christchurch East and Port Hills electorates.
S06
S06-001
b Christchurch Central
Objection S Thompson
Objects to the boundary between Christchurch Central and Waimakariri running along the railway splitting a community of interest. Northcote school would be in Christchurch Central but many children will come from Waimakariri.
Suggested solution: It would be more appropriate to use Main North Road as the boundary as a better division between Northcote and Redwood suburbs.
S06-002 b Objection M Moore
Similar to S06-001
Suggested solution: Similar to S06-001
S06-003 b Objection N Baker
Similar to S06-001
Suggested solution: Similar to S06-001
S06-004 b Objection M M Barry and 23 others
Petition objecting to the proposed boundary with Waimakariri, along the railway line, splitting the Casebrook community.
Suggested solution: The boundary to run along Main North Road, a stronger and more logical boundary.
S06-005 b, h Objection Sigjaws Trust - Neighbourhood Support
Objects to the proposed boundary with Waimakariri along the railway line as it would make more sense to divide Redwood and Northcote which are two separate communities already.
Suggested solution: Change the boundary to Main North Road.
S06-006 b, h Objection Casebrook Intermediate School
Casebrook Intermediate is located on Veitches Road, in the Waimakariri electorate, but near the boundary with Christchurch Central and Ilam electorates. It is the preference of the school for as much of its community as possible to be covered by a single electorate. The proposed change splits off a large part of this community, along the railway line.
Suggested solution: Ideally all of Redwood to remain within Waimakariri. If this is not possible, a compromise would be for the boundary to follow Main North Road (a busy four lane carriageway) as a more logical boundary line.
S06-007 b Objection M Barry
Objects to the proposed changes on the basis it will split the Redwood community.
S06-008 b Objection N Wagner, MP for Christchurch Central
Objects to the loss of Mairehau to Christchurch East, as their community of interest is with St Albans, Merivale and Papanui, and to the proposed boundaries in the northern part of the electorate splitting communities.
Suggested solution: Marshland Road and Queen Elizabeth II Drive are the natural boundaries of the community. Keep Mairehau in Christchurch Central.
S06-009 b, h Objection L Chandler
Objects to the lack of cohesive community being represented by the Christchurch Central electorate. It is being dominated by northern suburbs.
Suggested solution: The northern boundary of Christchurch Central should be moved closer to the city and extend the western boundary.
S06-010 b Objection S Butters
Objects to North Linwood being included in Christchurch Central as demographically the area is more like Christchurch East and it will help with consistency of representation if most of the red zone is in one electorate.
Suggested solution: Between Avonside Drive and the north east side of Linwood Avenue to the north west side of Buckleys Road should be included in Christchurch East.
S06-011 b, n, h Objection D A Unka
Objects to the boundaries for Christchurch Central being redrawn while the area is in a constant state of flux because of redevelopment following the earthquakes. Also objects to Mairehau being moved to Christchurch East as this area looks west to St Albans, Merivale and Papanui as part of their community.
Suggested solution: The boundaries for Christchurch Central to remain the same until there is a clearer picture of the city's population for the long term.
Name the electorate "Otakaro".
S06-012 b, n, h Objection NZ First Party - Central Christchurch
Objects to the proposed boundary at Cranford Street which cuts St Albans in two, dividing a close knit community. Does not support a change of name, as the district covers the central city and the CBD the name "Christchurch Central" should be kept.
S06-013 n Objection J Simpson
Objects to the name of the electorate as it does not reflect the proposed new boundaries.
Suggested solution: Name the electorate "Avon" or "Avon/Otakaro".
S06-014 n Objection M Doocey
Objects to the name of the electorate, as the boundary extends so far north the name is no longer relevant.
Suggested solution: Name the electorate "Avon".
S06-015 n, h Objection K Varley
Considers that, in recognition of the devastation and loss associated with Central Christchurch, the name should be changed. Also the proposed boundary changes mean the area can no longer be identified as Christchurch Central.
Suggested solution: Change the name of the electorate to "Avon" or "Otakaro".
S08
S08-001
b Port Hills
Objection D Taylor
Objects to the inclusion of Halswell in the Port Hills electorate. Does not want any change to the boundary while housing subdivisions in the Halswell area are being built.
Suggested solution: Retain the existing boundaries.
S08-002 b Objection L Dawson
Objects to the movement of Halswell between the Port Hills and Selwyn electorates given it was moved into Selwyn within the last decade. Halswell has strong community links to Selwyn, more so than Christchurch.
Suggested solution: Keep the Halswell area in the Selwyn electorate.
S08-003 b, h Objection G Jones and 68 others
Petition objecting to Halswell and the surrounding area being moved into the Port Hills electorate. The community of interest is much stronger with Ellesmere townships in the Selwyn electorate, and will provide continuity of representation for the residents.
Suggested solution: Keep the existing boundary to the north of Halswell, Oaklands and Aidanfield and along Worsleys Road to Summit Road.
S08-004 b, h Objection G Jones
Objects to Halswell and the surrounding area being moved from Selwyn to Port Hills.
Its community of interest lies with Selwyn and this will also ensure continuity of representation.
Suggested solution: Retain the existing boundaries.
S08-005 b Objection M Fryer
Objects to the proposed boundaries on the basis they do not have sufficient regard for community of interest.
Suggested solution: Leave Banks Peninsula in Selwyn, but move populations from the Somerfield/Spreydon area and the Prebbleton area into Port Hills. Christchurch East to reach quota by gaining population from Bromley, Woolston and Ferrymead.
S08-006 b, n, h Objection R Ellery
Supports the proposed changes to include Banks Peninsula within the Port Hills electorate. However, there are some inconsistencies around the suburb of Aidanfield which has been isolated from the rest of its community in Port Hills.
Suggested solution: Name the electorate "Banks Peninsula". Redraw the boundary around Aidanfield to ensure the community stays together.
S08-007 n Objection P Moore
Supports the inclusion of Akaroa in the Port Hills electorate due to the similar urban nature of the areas.
Suggested solution: Name the electorate "Banks Peninsula".
S08-008 n Objection S Moore
Supports the movement of areas of Selwyn into the Port Hills electorate.
Suggested solution: Name the electorate "Banks Peninsula".
S08-009 n Objection C Moore
Supports the movement of areas of Selwyn into the Port Hills electorate. Port Hills is a more urban electorate that shares much more identity with the area. However, does not support the name "Port Hills".
S08-010 b, n, h Objection M Bishop
Supports the boundary changes for the proposed Port Hills electorate. The communities of Westmorland, Halswell, Oaklands and Aidanfield are within the city council area and are considered suburbs of Christchurch and are not affiliated with rural Selwyn. The proposed changes split the Aidanfield community and the electorate name is not representative of the community.
Suggested solution: Name the electorate "Banks Peninsula". Redraw the boundary around Aidanfield to ensure the community stays together.
S08-011 b Objection M Moore
Objects to Aidanfield being split in half by the proposed Wigram electorate boundary.
Suggested solution: Include the entire suburb of Aidanfield in the Port Hills electorate.
S08-012 b, n Objection H Eksteen
Supports the inclusion of Aidanfield and Halswell in the Port Hills electorate as their community of interest and connections are with Port Hills .
Suggested solution: Name the electorate "Banks Peninsula".
S08-013 b Objection D J Martin
Objects to the inclusion of the rural area of Sutherlands Road in the Port Hills electorate. Port Hills is an urban electorate that will not fairly represent the interests of farmers.
Suggested solution: Keep the boundaries as close as possible to the existing boundaries.
S08-014 n Objection B Moore
Supports the unification of Governors Bay in the proposed Port Hills electorate, however the name does not represent the electorate.
Suggested solution: Name the electorate "Banks Peninsula".
S08-015 n Objection A Knops
Objects to the name of Port Hills as it is only one geographic feature of the electorate which is based upon the wider Banks Peninsula area.
Suggested solution: Name the electorate "Banks Peninsula".
S08-016 n Objection G Marks
Similar to S08-015
Suggested solution: Name the electorate "Banks Peninsula".
S08-017 n Objection D Aitken-Edwards
Similar to S08-015
Suggested solution: Name the electorate "Banks Peninsula".
S08-018 n Objection C Spanhake
Similar to S08-015
Suggested solution: Name the electorate "Banks Peninsula".
S08-019 n, h Objection H Ring
Similar to S08-015
Suggested solution: Name the electorate "Banks Peninsula".
S10
S10-001
b, h Selwyn
Objection N Moffett
Objects to the communities of Hornby, Islington and Hei Hei moving from the Wigram electorate to Selwyn.
Suggested solution: Keep these areas of Hornby within the Wigram electorate.
S10-002 b Objection E Moffett
Similar to S10-001
Suggested solution: Similar to S10-001
S10-003 b, h Objection N R Wederell
Similar to S10-001
Suggested solution: Similar to S10-001
S10-004 b, h Objection N L Mayo
Similar to S10-001
Suggested solution: Similar to S10-001
S10-005 b, h Objection M Mora, Chair of Riccarton Wigram Community Board
Similar to S10-001
Suggested solution: Similar to S10-001
S10-006 b, h Objection New Zealand Labour Party and 180 signatories
Petition objecting to the inclusion of the suburbs of Broomfield, Islington, Marsham and Hei Hei in Selwyn, removing their link with Wigram. These areas have no historic ties to Selwyn.
Suggested solution: Keep these suburbs in Wigram.
S10-007 b Objection Hon A Adams, MP for Selwyn
Supports the proposed Selwyn electorate boundaries, however it leaves two small areas isolated from their communities.
Suggested solution: Include all houses on Old Tai Tapu Road in the Selwyn electorate by cutting through paddock land between the end of Halswell and before Old Tai Tapu Road.
Remove the detour down Sawyers Arms Road and Harewood Road and have the boundary run consistently along Russley Road.
S10-008 b Objection Hornby High School
Objects to the movement of Hornby High School from the Wigram electorate into Selwyn. The Hornby schools operate as a distinct cluster and should be represented together with their community.
Suggested solution: Keep Hornby High School in the Wigram electorate.
S10-009 b Objection Ashburton District Council
Objects to the exclusion of the Rakaia community from the Rangitata electorate that contains Ashburton, as the two areas are linked under the Ashburton District Council, have common social and economic interests as well as sharing common population demographics.
Suggested solution: Keep Rakaia within the Rangitata electorate.
S10-010 b Objection A Burnip and J Richards
Objects to Rakaia and a narrow strip of land to the coast being moved from the Rangitata electorate to Selwyn.
Suggested solution: Keep the area in Rangitata.
S16
S16-001
b Invercargill
Objection J Hall
Objects to the omission of the Antipodes, Auckland, Bounty and Campbell Islands from all proposed electorates. As part of New Zealand they should have representation.
Suggested solution: Include the islands in the Invercargill electorate.
M01
M01-001
b Te Tai Tokerau
Objection M Waddell
Objects to the large size of the Te Tai Tokerau electorate and the long distances people have to travel to reach an electorate office, which does not provide equal representation for M?ori.
Suggested solution: Establish a Kaupapa M?ori Parliament through the M?ori electoral seats and in association with Te Waiaminega onga Hapu o Aotearoa.
M06
M06-001
b, h Ikaroa-R?whiti
Objection Tuhoe-Te Uru Taumatua Trust
Objects to Tuai, a mainly Tuhoe village, and the eastern Te Urewera National Park being included within the Ikaroa-R?whiti electorate. This isolates a small section of Tuhoe land away from the rest of the Iwi and places a small section of the land that falls within the
post-treaty settlement agreement within a separate electorate.
Suggested solution: Reallocate 20 meshblocks that cover Tuhoe land from Ikaroa-R?whiti to the Waiariki electorate.
GGG
GGG-001
Non Specific Electorate
Objection B Jacobson
Recommends the discontinuance of the M?ori electorates since the introduction of MMP has ensured representation of all ethnic or minority groups are better served and there is no advantage in maintaining a separate M?ori roll.
GGG-002 h Objection A Work
Similar to GGG-001
GGG-003Objection J Darragh
Objects to the boundary changes on the basis they favour the National Party.
Suggested solution: Keep the current electorates as they are balanced.
GGG-004Objection Dr M Harvey
Objects to the loss of one list seat as the MMP system will be less democratically representative of demographic and political perspectives of voters.
Suggested solution: That the number and proportion of list MP's to electorate MP's be kept the same.