Report of the Representation Commission 2007

SCHEDULE B

Table showing the nature of the objections and Counter-Objections received and the decision of the Commission in each case.

a	b					c								Electoral District and Nature of Objection [b = boundary; n = name; h = hearing]												Decision of Commission
N01																						Northland
N01						001								b								Objection Far North District Council Objects to the boundary of the proposed Northland electorate on the grounds of population growth, geographic size, communication facilities and community of interest. Anticipated growth on the east coast of Northland may vary considerably from the projected population figures given. Also, Northland is a predominantly rural electorate that now includes two urban areas. Given the geographic size and the communication facilities of the electorate, this will make it difficult for any MP to effectively represent the proposed electorate. Suggested solution Retain the existing boundary.				Disallowed
N08																						Te Atatu
N08						001								n								Objection G R Seymour Objects to the omission of a macron in the name of the proposed Te Atatu electorate. Suggested solution That the electorate name be spelt ‘Te Atatū’				Allowed
N09																				Waitakere
N09						001								b						Objection B L Pillay, MP – Waitakere Objects to the inclusion of Muriwai in the proposed Waitakere electorate. Muriwai is isolated by topography and transport facilities from the rest of the electorate and is part of the Rodney District, rather than Waitakere City. Suggested solution Do not include Muriwai in the Waitakere electorate.					Allowed
N09						002								b						Objection Hon Chris Carter, MP – Te Atatu Objects to the inclusion of the northern part of the suburb of Sunnyvale in the proposed Waitakere electorate. This suburb shares a community of interest with Henderson and the Te Atatu electorate. Suggested solution Run the boundary with the Te Atatu electorate along Railside Avenue, View Road, James Laurie Street, and along Great Northern Road to the boundary with Sabulite Road.					Disallowed. Quota tolerance does not permit the proposed change
N10																				New Lynn
N10						001								n						Objection B R Costley Objects to the name ‘New Lynn’ for the proposed electorate as the New Lynn area is no longer central to the electorate. Suggested solution Name the electorate ‘Titirangi’					Disallowed
N12																				Mt Roskill
N12						001								b, h						Objection B P Dove Objects the inclusion of parts of Blockhouse Bay in the proposed Mt Roskill electorate, specifically Donovan Street, Lewis Street, Shipton Place, Francis Curtis Drive, Eleanor Place and Lynbrooke Avenue. These streets share a strong community of interest and their facilities of communication and transport with the rest of Blockhouse Bay. Suggested solution Place these streets in the New Lynn electorate.					Disallowed
N12						601								b						Counter-objection Hon D Cunliffe, MP – New Lynn Relates to objection N12/001 Suggests that the streets named in the objection share a community of interest with Mt Roskill that is the same as neighbouring streets such as Gilletta Road, Lynfield Place and Tropicana Drive. Notes that the boundary along Blockhouse Bay Road splits the Glen Avon community in two and separates the school from its natural catchment area up to Terry Street. Suggested solution Run the boundary of the New Lynn electorate from Wolverton Street, up Tiverton Road to Whitney Street and along to Dundale Avenue.					Allowed. Proposed solution disallowed – outside quota tolerance
N15																				Tamaki
N15						001								n						Objection G R Seymour Objects to the omission of a macron in the name of the proposed Tamaki electorate. Suggested solution That the electorate name be spelt ‘Tāmaki’					Allowed
N15						002								n						Objection G M Papuni Similar to N15/001 Suggested solution Similar to N15/001					Allowed
N15						003								b, h						Objection New Zealand National Party – Northern Region Objects to the inclusion of the area bounded by Michaels Avenue in the west and Jellicoe Road in the east, up to the current Maungakiekie –Tamaki electorate boundary, in the proposed Tamaki electorate. This area includes all of the Stanhope Road School catchment area, and is topographically isolated from the rest of the electorate. It shares a community of interest with the Maungakiekie electorate. Suggested solution Retain the current boundary in this area.					Allowed in part
N15						601								b, h						Counter-objection R Northey Relates to objection N15/003 Notes that the area mentioned in N15/003 shares a community of interest with the suburbs of St Johns and Meadowbank, already in the Tamaki electorate. Suggested solution Use the Ellerslie-Panmure Highway as a boundary, as proposed by the Representation Commission.					Allowed in part
n15						602								b						Counter-objection R Gallagher Relates to objection N15/003 Notes that the boundary suggested in N15/003 divides a proposed new development in the old Winstone’s Quarry area. Suggested solution Similar to N15/601					Allowed in part
N15						603								b, h						Counter-objection L Boyle, Councillor – Auckland City, Tamaki-Maungakiekie Ward Relates to objection N15/003 Similar to N15/601 Suggested solution Similar to N15/601					Allowed in part
N16																				Maungakiekie
N16						001								b, h						Objection New Zealand National Party – Northern Region Objects to the inclusion of the area of eastern Otahuhu bounded by Great South Road, Atkinson Road and Princes Street, in the proposed Maungakiekie electorate. Suggested solution Include this area in the Manukau East electorate.					Allowed
N16						601								b						Counter-objection R Brown Relates to objection N16/001 Objects to the solution suggested in N16/001, as this would divide Otahuhu. Notes the strong community of interest within Otahuhu, including the historic Otahuhu Borough Council, and the long-lived existing boundary of the Maungakiekie electorate. Suggested solution Adopt the boundaries proposed by the Representation Commission.					Disallowed but see N19 boundaries for Manukau East
N16						602								b						Counter-objection L Holt Relates to objection N16/001 Similar to N16/601 Notes that the proposed boundary of Maungakiekie closely follows the boundary between Auckland and Manukau City Councils. Suggested solution Similar to N16/601					Disallowed
N16						603								b, h						Counter-obejction R Northey Relates to objection N16/001 Similar to N16/602 Notes the origin of Otahuhu as a fencible town and its more than 150 years history as a community. Suggested solution Similar to N16/601					Disallowed but see N19 boundaries for Manukau East
N16						604								b, h						Counter-objection L Boyle, Councillor – Auckland City, Tamaki-Maungakiekie Ward Relates to objection N16/001 Similar to N16/602 Suggested solution Similar to N16/601					Disallowed but see N19 boundaries for Manukau East
N17																				Pakuranga
N17						001							b							Objection J S Peters Objects to the inclusion of Panmure and Glen Innes in the proposed Pakuranga electorate. They fall within the established administrative boundaries of Auckland City, whereas other areas in the Pakuranga electorate are part of Manukau City. Suggested solution Consider a new electorate along the Eastern Corridor					Allowed in part. Existing boundaries retained except for Cockle Bay.
N17						002							b							Objection J Victorino Similar to N17/001 Suggested solution None given					Allowed in part. Existing boundaries retained except for Cockle Bay.
N17						003							b							Objection J E Weldon Similar to N17/001 Suggested solution Retain the current boundary					Allowed
N17						004							b							Objection G Webster & H Razak Similar to N17/001 Also objects on the grounds of geographical features as the Tamaki Estuary forms a natural boundary. Suggested solution Similar to N17/003					Allowed
N17						005							b							Objection Pakuranga Community Board Similar to N17/004 The proposed boundary also disrupts a long established distinct community of interest on the Howick edge of the electorate, and does not allow for future population growth around the Pakuranga Town Centre. Suggested solution Similar to N17/003					Allowed in part. Existing boundaries retained except for Cockle Bay.
N17						006							b							Objection M D Palmer Similar to N17/004 Objects to the proposed boundary as it does not comply with the statutory criteria for drawing electorates: Panmure and Glen Innes have little community of interest with Pakuranga The Tamaki Estuary acts as a natural topographical break between Pakuranga and Panmure/Glen Innes The only communication and transport links across the estuary are two bridges. Suggested solution Redraw the boundaries in line with the Electoral Act criteria. Two mapped options provided. This could be done by removing the area to the west of the Panmure Bridge and substituting an area from the west of the proposed Howick electorate. The Howick electorate could then be expanded eastwards to include the Whitford, Maraetai and Beachlands communities, which have a longstanding association with Howick. or Include the areas of St Heliers and St Johns, rather than Panmure and Glen Innes, as they have a stronger shared community of interest with the Pakuranga electorate.					Allowed in part. Existing boundaries retained except for Cockle Bay.
N17						007							b							Objection M Bunge-Krueger Similar to N17/001 Suggested solution None given							Allowed
N17						008							b, h							Objection E Dillimore-Muir Similar to N17/004 Suggested solution Similar to N17/003							Allowed in part. Existing boundaries retained except for Cockle Bay.
N17						009							b							Objection A C Power Similar to N17/004 Suggested solution Similar to N17/003							Allowed
N17						010							b							Objection L D Galpin Similar to N17/004 Suggested solution Similar to N17/003							Allowed in part. Existing boundaries retained except for Cockle Bay.
N17						011							b, h							Objection C O Jordan Similar to N17/004 Suggested solution Similar to N17/003							Allowed in part. Existing boundaries retained except for Cockle Bay.
N17						012							b, h							Objection D E Wilson Similar to N17/004 Suggested solution Similar to N17/003							Allowed in part. Existing boundaries retained except for Cockle Bay.
N17						013							b							Objection R A Smyth Similar to N17/004 Suggested solution Use the Tamaki River as the south-eastern boundary for a new electorate called ‘Maungarei’. This electorate would have boundaries that included the areas of St Heliers, Glendowie, Glen Innes, St Johns, Point England, Lake Park, Tamaki, Mt Wellington, Sylvia Park and Otahuhu.							Allowed in part.
N17						014							b							Objection M Colquhoun Similar to N17/004 Suggested solution Similar to N17/003							Allowed in part. Existing boundaries retained except for Cockle Bay.
N17						015							b, h							Objection S Henry, The Housing Lobby Similar to N17/004 Suggested solution Place Glen Innes, Point England and Panmure in the Tamaki electorate.							Allowed in part. Glenn Innes remains in Tamaki but not Pt England or Panmure.
N17						016							b, h							Objection N J Barclay Similar to N17/005 Suggested solution Similar to N17/003							Allowed in part. Existing boundaries retained except for Cockle Bay.
N17						017							b							Objection P N Martin Similar to N17/004 Suggested solution Similar to N17/003							Allowed in part. Existing boundaries retained except for Cockle Bay.
N17						018							b, h							Objection G J Pellew Similar to N17/005 Suggested solution Similar to N17/005							Allowed in part. Existing boundaries retained except for Cockle Bay.
N17						019							b, h							Objection B R Warren Similar to N17/005 Suggested solution Similar to N17/003							Allowed in part. Existing boundaries retained except for Cockle Bay.
N17						020							b							Objection R A Barfoote Similar to N17/005 Suggested solution Similar to N17/003							Allowed
N17						021							b							Objection G S Gray Similar to N17/004 Suggested solution The Panmure area should be part of an Auckland City based electorate and the Pakuranga area part of a Manukau City based electorate.							Allowed
N17						022							b							Objection G B & K S Moore Similar to N17/004 Notes that the population of the existing electorate does not require a change to boundaries. Suggested solution Similar to N17/003							Allowed in part. Existing boundaries retained except for Cockle Bay.
N17						023							b							Objection T Doherty Similar to N17/005 Suggested solution Similar to N17/003							Allowed in part. Existing boundaries retained except for Cockle Bay.
N17						024							b							Objection J Laing Similar to N17/004 Suggested solution None given							Allowed in part. Existing boundaries retained except for Cockle Bay.
N17						025							b							Objection S McMurray Similar to N17/005 Suggested solution Similar to N17/003							Allowed in part. Existing boundaries retained except for Cockle Bay.
N17						026							b, h							Objection D J Catley Similar to N17/005 Suggested solution Similar to N17/003							Allowed in part. Existing boundaries retained except for Cockle Bay.
N17						027							b, n							Objection D Rose Similar to N17/005 Also objects to the name ‘Pakuranga’ for the proposed electorate as the name does not fully represent the electorate. Suggested solution Similar to N17/003 The Tamaki electorate boundary could be moved south into Maungakiekie and the Howick electorate boundary moved east to include Whitford, Maraetai and Beachlands. The Pakuranga electorate could be renamed ‘Ohuiarangi’ after the volcanic cone at its centre.							Allowed in part. Existing boundaries retained except for Cockle Bay. Disallowed as to name.
N17						028							b, h							Objection Manukau City Council Similar to N17/005 Suggested solution Similar to N17/003							Allowed in part. Existing boundaries retained except for Cockle Bay.
N17						029							b							Objection H L & J M Simkin Similar to N17/004 Suggested solution None given							Allowed in part. Existing boundaries retained except for Cockle Bay.
N17						030							b							Objection A Ho Similar to N17/005 Suggested solution Retain the existing Pakuranga electorate as much as possible. Glen Innes, Panmure and Point England should remain in the Tamaki electorate and Sylvia Park in the Maungakiekie electorate. Include Highland Park, Howick and Mellons Bay in the Pakuranga electorate. Include Cockle Bay, Shelly Park and Burswood in the proposed Howick electorate. Beachlands and Maraetai might also be included. To better reflect the new centre of this electorate, it should be called ‘Botany’ or ‘Botany-Beachlands’. Further adjustments to maintain quotas in neighbouring electorates suggested.							Allowed
N17						031							b							Objection J C Mullane Similar to N17/004 Suggested solution Similar to N17/003							Allowed
n17						032							b							Objection G E Kirk Similar to N17/004 Suggested solution Similar to N17/003							Allowed in part. Existing boundaries retained except for Cockle Bay.
N17						033							b							Objection W Thrupp Similar to N17/004 Suggested solution Similar to N17/003							Allowed in part. Existing boundaries retained except for Cockle Bay.
N17						034							b, h							Objection N Morrison & J Ross, Councillors – Manukau City Similar to N17/005 Suggested solution Similar to N17/003							Allowed
N17						035							b, h							Objection S Warren, Chairman – Bucklands & Eastern Beaches Ratepayers & Residents Association Inc Similar to N17/005 Suggested solution Similar to N17/003							Allowed in part. Existing boundaries retained except for Cockle Bay.
N17						036							b							Objection A Gautier Similar to N17/004 Suggested solution None given							Allowed
N17						037							b							Objection R N Burgham Similar to N17/004 Suggested solution Similar to N17/003							Allowed
N17						038							b							Objection M N Burgham Similar to N17/004 Suggested solution Similar to N17/003							Allowed
N17						039							b							Objection S C Burgham Similar to N17/004 Suggested solution Similar to N17/003							Allowed
N17						040							b							Objection N V & B F Holyoake Similar to N17/004 Suggested solution Similar to N17/003							Allowed in part. Existing boundaries retained except for Cockle Bay.
N17						041							b							Objection I Fox, Principal – Bucklands Beach Intermediate Similar to N17/004 Suggested solution Similar to N17/003								Allowed in part. Existing boundaries retained except for Cockle Bay.
N17						042							b, h							Objection C R Mikkelson Similar to N17/005 Suggested solution Similar to N17/003								Allowed in part. Existing boundaries retained except for Cockle Bay.
N17						043							b							Objection B & J Jones Objects to the western boundary of the proposed Pakuranga electorate as this does not follow natural divisions in the landscape. Suggested solution Use natural boundaries, such as the Tamaki Estuary and Mangemangeroa Creek, for electorate boundaries.								Allowed
N17						044							b							Objection T C & W I Hickmott Similar to N17/004 Suggested solution That the Pakuranga electorate include only the suburbs of Half Moon Bay, Pakuranga, Bucklands Beach and Howick.								Allowed in part. Existing boundaries retained except for Cockle Bay.
N17						045							b							Objection V D Robinson Similar to N17/001 Suggested solution Similar to N17/003								Allowed
N17						046							b							Objection L A Smith Similar to N17/001 Suggested solution Increase the population quota tolerance.								Allowed
N17						047							b							Objection M & B de Valk Objects to the inclusion of the peninsula of Bucklands Beach and Eastern Beach in the proposed Pakuranga electorate. This area’s community of interest lies with Howick. Suggested solution Include this area in the Howick electorate.								Disallowed
N17						048							n							Objection A Beyer Objects to the name ‘Pakuranga’ for the proposed electorate. The name does not reflect the diversity of the electorate. Suggested solution Rename the Pakuranga electorate ‘Tamaki’. The current ‘Tamaki’ electorate could be renamed ‘Kohimarama’ or ‘Eastern Bays’.								Disallowed
N17						049							b, n, h							Objection R Northey, Councillor – Auckland City Council Similar to N17/048 Objects to the inclusion of Eastern Beach and surrounds in the proposed Pakuranga electorate and to the boundary with the Maungakiekie electorate that divides the suburb of Panmure. Suggested solution Similar to N17/048 Move the south-western boundary to Barrack Road, so that all of Panmure is included in the Pakuranga electorate. Move the north-western boundary to exclude Eastern Beach and possibly Bucklands Beach.								Disallowed
N17						050							b							Objection Macleans College – Principal & Board of Trustees Objects to the boundaries of the proposed Pakuranga electorate as these divide the catchment zone for the school across more than one electorate. Suggested solution Similar to N17/003								Allowed in part. Existing boundaries retained except for Cockle Bay.
N17						051							b							Objection R C & I Peters Similar to N17/005 Suggested solution Similar to N17/044								Allowed in part. Existing boundaries retained except for Cockle Bay.
N17						052							b							Objection S M Schollum Objects to the inclusion of the area north of Point England Road in the proposed Pakuranga electorate as this leaves only one narrow road link for the area included in the proposed Tamaki electorate with the southern half of its electorate. Suggested solution Move the proposed boundary of West Tamaki Road south to Point England Road. This would also reunite the suburbs of Glen Innes and St Johns, which share a community of interest. To compensate for the increased population, Ellerslie could be placed in the Maungakiekie electorate.								Allowed
N17						053							n, h							Objection New Zealand Labour Party Similar to N17/048 Suggested solution Similar to N17/048								Disallowed
N17						054							b, h							Objection New Zealand Labour Party Objects to the boundary between the proposed Pakuranga and Howick electorates. Local community of interest is better represented by school enrolment zone boundaries than by the Manukau City Council Ward boundaries. Suggested solution As much as possible, run the boundary along secondary school enrolment zone boundaries, using the Pakuranga College boundary to the intersection of Botany and Cascades Roads.								Disallowed
N17						055							b							Objection Sir B Curtis, Mayor – Manukau City Council Similar to N17/005 Suggested solution Similar to N17/003								Allowed in part. Existing boundaries retained except for Cockle Bay.
N17						056							b, n, h							Objection L J Boyle, Councillor – Auckland City Council Similar to N17/049 Suggested solution Similar to N17/049								Disallowed
N17						057							b, h							Objection New Zealand National Party – Northern Region Similar to N17/052 Suggested solution Similar to N17/052								Allowed
N17						058							b, h							Objection M Williams, Chairman - Botany Community Board Similar to N17/005 Suggested solution Similar to N17/003								Allowed to the extent that the area comprising the Botany Community Board is substantially in the Botany electorate.
N17						601							b							Counter-objection M M Rowe Relates to objection N17/050 Supports the comments on divided school catchment zones, but does not support the suggested solution. Suggested solution Adopt the solution suggested in objection N17/054								Disallowed
N17						602							b							Counter-objection J A Green Relates to objection N17/047 Supports the comments on Bucklands and Eastern Beaches having stronger ties to Howick than Pakuranga, but does not support the suggested solution. Suggested solution Adopt the solution suggested in objection N17/054								Disallowed
N17						603							b, h							Counter-objection P Hine Relates to objection N17/006 and similar objections Objects to the interpretation of statutory criteria in the objection, particularly ‘community of interest’ and ‘topographical features’. Notes that all electorates contain a variety of communities, and that Pakuranga and Panmure/Glen Innes do have shared interests, including the school catchment for Edgewater College. Two busy bridges link the communities. Residents of both areas use the transport corridor which runs through Panmure and Pakuranga, which is scheduled for significant alteration in the near future. Suggested solution Adopt the western boundary proposed by the Representation Commission.								Disallowed
N17						604							b							Counter-objection R A Barfoote Relates to objection N17/049 Objects to the suggestion of excluding Eastern Beach and including Panmure in the Pakuranga electorate. The Tamaki Estuary forms a natural boundary to the electorate. Eastern beach is also a clear natural boundary. Suggested solution If change to the current electorate boundary is necessary, find extra population to the south of the electorate, as this area already has associations with Pakuranga.								Allowed
N17						605							b							Counter-objection S Stewart Relates to objection N17/004 Objects to the reliance on natural boundaries as a primary determinant of electorate boundaries. Notes the strong community of interest within Howick, including the historic Howick Borough Council, and its links with Howick South. Suggested solution Adopt the solution suggested in N17/057.								Disallowed
N17						606							b							Counter-objection D J Stewart Relates to objection N17/044 Notes that the solution suggested in the objection does not adequately address the effect on other electorates. Suggested solution Adopt the solution suggested in N17/052.								Disallowed
N17						607							b							Counter-objection J Worsnop Relates to objection N17/028 Objects to splitting the Howick area to retain the current Pakuranga electorate boundaries. The Howick area is a strong community distinct from Pakuranga. Supports objection N18/001. Suggested solution None given								Disallowed
N17						608							b							Counter-objection L Worsnop Relates to objection N17/003 Objects to the suggested solution to retain the current Pakuranga electorate boundary. Howick deserves its own electorate and MP. Suggested solution Adopt the boundaries proposed by the Representation Commission.								Disallowed
N17						609							b							Counter-objection S M Wheeler Relates to objection N17/003 Notes that the solution suggested in the objection does not address the effect on other electorate boundaries. Suggested solution Similar to N17/608								Disallowed
N17						610							b									Counter-objection C Mikkelson Relates to objection N17/049 The objection does not acknowledge the major geographical boundary made by the Tamaki River. Suggested solution Retain the Tamaki River as the western boundary of the Pakuranga electorate, by retaining the current boundary.							Allowed in part. Existing boundaries retained except for Cockle Bay.
N17						611							b, h									Counter-objection R Northey Relates to objections N17/001, 003-006, 013, 015, 021, 022, 027, 028, 030, 043, 044, 052, 057 & 058 The solutions suggested in these objections have the consequential effect of splitting Otahuhu, which is a strong community. Notes that Panmure and Glen Innes have stronger community and transport links with Pakuranga than St Heliers, Glendowie or St Johns. Also notes that population growth in the Auckland metropolitan area makes it necessary to have an electorate crossing the Auckland-Manukau City boundary. This can be done by linking Panmure and other parts of the Tamaki Community Board area with Pakuranga. Suggested solution Change the proposed boundaries of the Pakuranga electorate to include all of Panmure and to exclude Eastern Beach and other areas that identify more with Howick.							Disallowed
N17						612							b									Counter-objection J Ross, Councillor – Manukau City, Howick Relates to objection N17/049 Supports the suggestion that the Panmure community be kept together, but objects to the suggestion that Panmure be split from Glen Innes or Point England. The Tamaki River is a significant natural boundary for communities of interest and City Councils. Suggested solution Similar to N17/003							Allowed in part. Glen Innes and Pt England are not in the same electorate.
N17						613							b, h								Counter-objection New Zealand National Party Relates to objection N17/006 Objects to the suggestion that St Heliers and St John share a stronger community of interest with Pakuranga than Panmure and Glen Innes. Also objects to the solution suggested by N17/006, as this does not best fulfil the criteria set out in the Electoral Act. While the Tamaki Estuary is a natural boundary between Pakuranga and Panmure/Glen Innes, on population grounds it is necessary for the boundary to cross the estuary. The other alternative is to push the surplus population from Auckland City into South Auckland and the Mangere electorate, which is even more disruptive to existing boundaries and communities of interest. Suggested solution Adopt the amended boundaries proposed in N17/049 and N18/002										Disallowed

N17						614							n, h								Counter-objection New Zealand National Party – Northern Region Relates to objections N17/048 & 053 Objects to the suggestion that the Pakuranga electorate be renamed ‘Tamaki’, as this would create unnecessary confusion. Two-thirds of the electorate identify with the name ‘Pakuranga’. Suggested solution Retain the name ‘Pakuranga’.										Allowed
n17					615							b, n, h					Counter-objection New Zealand National Party – Northern Region Relates to objection N17/049 The boundaries suggested in N17/049 are not consistent with the criteria set out in the Electoral Act. Mt Wellington Highway forms a clearer geographical boundary than Barrack Road. The Panmure community of interest, including most of the school catchment area, are not divided by the Representation Commission’s proposed boundary. The suggested boundaries spilt the community of interest in Bucklands and Eastern Beaches, dividing the MacLeans College catchment area and the waterfront communities of Bucklands Beach and Half Moon Bay. These areas have a long association with the Pakuranga electorate. Also notes that changing the electorate name to ‘Tamaki’ is unnecessary and would cause confusion. Suggested solution Similar to N17/614 Adopt the amended boundaries proposed in N17/057 and N18/002														Allowed
N17					616							b, h					Counter-objection New Zealand National Party – Northern Region Notes that the numerous objections requesting the retention of the current Pakuranga electorate boundaries are unrealistic. The Electoral Act has strict requirements for population tolerances. The changing demographics in Auckland and South Auckland require changes to the electorate boundaries. Suggested solution Similar to N17/615														Noted
N17					617							b, n, h					Counter-objection L Boyle, Councillor – Auckland City, Tamaki-Maungakiekie Ward Relates to objections N17/001, 004-006, 013, 021, 030, 043-044 & 047-049 Similar to N17/603, N17/606 and N17/613 Notes that population growth across the Auckland region is likely to mean more changes to electorate boundaries after the 2011 census. In the meantime, growth in the proposed Pakuranga electorate is unlikely to see it go much over the population quota tolerance. Suggested solution Supports the inclusion of Bucklands and Eastern Beaches in the Howick electorate. Supports changing the electorate name to “Tamaki’, and the current Tamaki electorate’s name to ‘Kohimarama’ or ‘Eastern Bays’.														Disallowed

N18																	Howick
N18					001							b					Objection C & P Smith Supports the boundaries of the proposed Howick electorate, particularly the use of the Mangemangeroa Stream/Estuary as the eastern boundary. Does not support the submission of Manukau City Council (N17/028) that would split the Howick area to retain the current Pakuranga electorate boundaries, as this does not allow for the strong community of interest within Howick.														Noted
N18					002								b, h				Objection New Zealand National Party – Northern Region Objects to the inclusion of the area to the west of Hutchinsons Road, Bleakhouse Road and Mellons Bay Road in the proposed Howick electorate. Topography and the school catchment boundaries of Pakuranga and Howick link this area to Pakuranga. Suggested solution Include this area in the Pakuranga electorate.														Allowed
N18					601								b, h				Counter-objection P Hine Relates to objection N18/002 The objection neither provides a logical boundary line between the Pakuranga and Howick school catchment areas nor follows the actual school catchment boundaries. Notes that the streets running off Bleakhouse Road north of its intersection with Hutchinsons Road descend towards the coast. Their topography links them to Howick rather than Pakuranga. This is also true of Bucklands and Eastern Beaches. The area south of Gills Road and south of Bleakhouse Road after its intersection with Hutchinsons Road are topographically linked with Pakuranga. Suggested solution Disallow N18/002.														Disallowed
N18					602								b, h				Counter-objection L Boyle, Councillor – Auckland City, Tamaki-Maungakiekie Ward Relates to objections N18/001 & 002 Supports the eastern boundary of the proposed Howick electorate, but notes that the communities of Half Moon Bay, Bucklands and Eastern Beaches also share a community of interest with Howick. Objects to the suggestion in N18/002 that the area to the west of Hutchinsons Road, Bleakhouse Road and Mellons Bay Road belongs in the Pakurnaga electorate. Suggested solution Place the communities of Half Moon Bay, Bucklands and Eastern Beaches in the Howick electorate. Otherwise, adopt the boundaries proposed by the Representation Commission.														Disallowed
N19																		Manukau East
N19			001						n									Objection B R Costley Objects to the name ‘Manukau East’ for the proposed electorate as the electorate is no longer in the east of Manukau City. Suggested solution Name the electorate ‘Manukau’ or ‘Otara’													Disallowed
N19			002						b, h									Objection B Mockridge Objects to the splitting of the Botany Ward of Manukau City Council across four electorates, and particularly to the inclusion of parts of the ward in the proposed Manukau East electorate. Suggested solution The Tamaki River should be used as a boundary. If the Pakuranga electorate retains its existing boundary, then most of the Botany Ward could be included in the Howick electorate. The Manukau East electorate could then include the whole of Otahuhu, and be renamed ‘Otahuhu’.													Allowed
N19			003						b									Objection NZ Labour Party – Botany Downs Branch Supports the boundaries for the proposed Manukau East electorate.													Disallowed
N19			004						b, h									Objection Manukau East Labour Electorate Committee Supports the majority of the boundaries of the proposed Manukau East electorate. However, would prefer the historic community of interest of Papatoetoe to be maintained by extending the boundary along the length of Portage Road.													Disallowed
N19		005					b, h								Objection New Zealand National Party – Northern Region Objects to the inclusion of the area between Te Irirangi Road and Chapel Road in the proposed Manukau East electorate. This area shares a strong community of interest with Howick and the rest of the Botany area. Suggested solution Include this area in the Howick electorate.																Allowed
N19		006					b, h								Objection M Williams, Chairman - Botany Community Board Similar to N19/002 Suggested solution Proposes a different approach to drafting electoral boundaries based around community of interest and topography. This would allow, for example: a ‘Howick/Botany’ electorate; Glen Innes and Panmure to be in the Maungakiekie electorate; Manurewa to be kept in the Manurewa electorate; Otahuhu to be in the Papatoetoe electorate; and Otara to be in a ‘South Auckland’ electorate.																Allowed
N19		601					b, n, h								Counter-objection B Mockridge Relates to objection N19/006 Otahuhu and Otara should be included in the same electorate. Otherwise, supports the objection. Suggested solution Retain the Tamaki River as the boundary of the Pakuranga electorate. Include Otahuhu and Otara in one, Otahuhu-based electorate and call that electorate ‘Otahuhu’.																Allowed. Except as to proposed name.
N19				602						b, h									Counter-objection R Northey Relates to objections N19/002, 005 & 006 Objects to the proposal to include Otahuhu in a Manukau based electorate. Notes that Otahuhu is a part of Auckland City and shares a community of interest with the Maungakiekie electorate. Also notes that the Manukau East electorate’s proposed northern and eastern boundaries strongly reflect local communities of interest. Suggested solution Adopt the boundaries proposed by the Representation Commission.												Disallowed

N20																			Mangere
N20				001						b									Objection B R William Objects to the inclusion of the area on the eastern side of Mangere Road and Buckland Road in the proposed Mangere electorate. This area’s community of interest lies within the Manukau East electorate. Suggested solution Extend the Manukau East electorate boundary along the eastern side of Mangere Road and the northern side of Buckland Road as far as Mangere.												Disallowed. Outside quota tolerance
N20				002						b									Objection I McGechie Objects to the proposed boundary between the Mangere and Manukau East electorates in the area around Kohuora Park. Suggested solution Run the boundary with the Manukau East electorate along Portage Road between State Highway 20 and the North Island Main Trunk Line.												Disallowed. Outside quota tolerance
N20				003						b									Board of Trustees, Kedgley Intermediate School Similar to N20/002 Suggested solution Similar to N20/002												Disallowed. See N20 002
N20				004						n									Objection G R Seymour Objects to the omission of a macron in the name of the proposed Mangere electorate. Suggested solution That the electorate name be spelt ‘Māngere’												Allowed
N20				005						b									Objection Papatoetoe Community Board Similar to N20/002 Suggested solution Similar to N20/002												Disallowed. See N20 002
N20				006						b									Objection M S Mathiasen Similar to N20/002 Objects to the division of Papatoetoe between two electorates. Suggested solution Similar to N20/002.												Disallowed. See N20 002
N21																			Manurewa
N21				001						b									Objection G J Fryer Objects to the inclusion of the Mission Heights subdivision in the proposed Manurewa electorate. Neighbouring areas are included in the Howick electorate, where this subdivision’s community of interest also lies. Suggested solution Include Mission Heights in the Howick electorate.												Allowed
N21			002					b									Objection S T & T-M Woodward Similar to N21/001 Suggested solution Similar to N21/001														Allowed
N21			003					b									Objection A Carberry & 424 others Objects to the boundaries of the proposed Manurewa electorate as they do not align with the primary community of interest of the Manurewa area, which is based on the suburbs of Manurewa, Clendon, Weymouth, Wattle Downs, Greenmeadows and Randwick Park. Suggested solution Transfer Flat Bush and the rural areas around Murphys Road to the Howick electorate. Transfer Weymouth, Wattle Downs, Greenmeadows, Randwick Park and other residential areas north of the Papakura Creek and south of Weymouth Road from the Papakura electorate to the Manurewa electorate.														Allowed
N21			004					b									Objection G Cornwell Objects to the inclusion of Manara Place in the proposed Manurewa electorate. Suggested solution Include this street in either the Papakura or the Hunua electorate.														Allowed
N21			005					b									Objection I Marshall Similar to N21/001 Also objects to the inclusion of Regis Park, Toplands and Norwood in the proposed Manurewa electorate. Suggested solution Include these areas in the Hunua electorate. To compensate, areas around Hingaia and Drury could be moved into the Manurewa electorate.														Allowed
N21			006								b, h				Objection W J F Marshall Objects to the weight being placed on community of interest by other objectors. Suggested solution Adopt the proposed boundaries.																Disallowed
N21			007								b				Objection G J & T Ashby Similar to N21/001 Suggested solution Similar to N21/001																Allowed
N21			008								b, h				Objection D J Forsyth Similar to N21/001 Suggested solution Similar to N21/001																Allowed
N21			009								b, h				Objection F M Forsyth Similar to N21/001 Suggested solution Similar to N21/001																Allowed
N21			010								b				Objection R J Bootle, JP Objects to the inclusion of southern Botany in the proposed Manurewa electorate. Suggested solution Include this area in an electorate with the rest of Botany and Howick.																Allowed
N21			011								b				Objection L Tupu & 129 others Objects to the inclusion of the area bounded by Ormiston Road, Te Irirangi Drive, Hollyford Drive and Redoubt Road in the proposed Manurewa electorate. These areas share a community of interest with the rest of the Botany area. Suggested solution Include this area in an electorate with the rest of Botany.																Allowed in part
N21			012								b				Objection R L Pease Objects to the inclusion of the rural area around Tiffany Close in the proposed Manurewa electorate. Suggested solution Include this area in the Hunua electorate by running the boundary along Mill Road down to the Redoubt Road extension.															Allowed
N21			013								b, h				Objection Manurewa Community Board Similar to N21/003 Also objects to the inclusion of the Flat Bush community and the area around Jeffs Road in the proposed Manurewa electorate, as they do not share a community of interest with the rest of the electorate. Suggested solution Similar to N21/003 Include these areas in the Papakura electorate.															Allowed
N21			014								b				Objection D Nakhle Similar to N21/013 Suggested solution Similar to N21/013 To compensate, the area south of Weymouth Road could be included in the Manurewa electorate where its community of interest lies.															Allowed
N21			601								b				Counter-objection N Ritchie & 28 others Relates to objection N21/003 Supports the content of N21/003															Noted. See N21 003
N21			602								b, h				Counter-objection R Northey Relates to objection N21/003, 013 & 014 Objects to the suggestion that urban and rural areas in the north and east of the Manurewa electorate should be included in the Papakura electorate to its south. These areas share a stronger community of interest with Manurewa than Papakura. Suggested solution Adopt the proposed south-eastern boundary of the Manurewa electorate at Weymouth and Alfriston Roads. The urban areas around Flat Bush, Chapel Down, Clover Park and Goodwood Heights should remain in the Manurewa electorate. Any rural areas that are removed should be placed in the Hunua electorate.									Disallowed
N22															Hunua
N22			001								b				Objection A Churchill Objects to the inclusion of Beachlands and Maraetai in the proposed Hunua electorate. These areas’ community of interest lies with Howick, Botany and Manukau City, not with Pukekohe. Suggested solution None given									Disallowed
N22			002								b				Objection N J & H A Wagstaff Similar to N22/001 Also notes that the hills south of Beachlands/Maraetai form a natural boundary with the rest of the Hunua electorate, and that these communities have different telephone services to that electorate. Suggested solution Include Beachlands/Maraetai in the Howick electorate.									Disallowed
n22			003								n				Objection P & S Baker Objects to the name ‘Hunua’ for the proposed electorate. The proposed boundaries are very similar to the historic ‘Franklin’ electorate. Suggested solution Name the electorate ‘Franklin’									Disallowed
N22			004								b, h				Objection J S Robertson, Mayor – Papakura District Council Objects to the inclusion of the Hingaia region in the proposed Hunua electorate as its community of interest lies with the Papakura electorate. Suggested solution Include Hingaia in the Papakura electorate.									Allowed
N22			005								b				Objection L & J Kemp Similar to N22/001 Suggested solution Similar to N22/001									Disallowed
n22			006								b, n				Objection D M H Senn Similar to N22/003 and N22/004 Suggested solution Similar to N22/003 and N22/004									Allowed but disallowed as to name
n22			007								b, n				Objection A J A Cooper Similar to N22/001 and N22/003. Also objects to the positioning of the southern boundary of the electorate. Suggested solution Similar to N22/003. Use the Waikato River as a boundary from its mouth to Mercer. Then follow the southern boundary of Franklin District to the eastern coast.									Allowed in part but disallowed as to name
N22				008					n										Objection G R Seymour Objects to the omission of a macron in the name of the proposed Hunua electorate. Suggested solution That the electorate name be spelt ‘Hūnua’.					Disallowed
N22				009					b, h										Objection B Mockridge Objects to the inclusion of the Clevedon Ward of Manukau City in the proposed Hunua electorate. This area’s community of interest lies with Papakura. Also, transport and communication facilities link this area with Papakura rather than Pukekohe. Suggested solution Move the Ward into the Papakura electorate. Rosehill, Opaheke, Papakura South, Red Hill and part of Drury could be moved into the Hunua electorate. Areas south of Weymouth Road could return to the Manurewa electorate.					Disallowed
N22				010					b										Objection D Rose Similar to N22/001 Suggested solution Similar to N22/002					Disallowed
N22				011					b, h										Objection Manukau City Council Similar to N22/001 Suggested solution Similar to N22/002 Set the electoral boundary for the Howick electorate at a point within the Flat Bush area that gives the appropriate population.					Disallowed
N22				012					b, h								Objection I W McDougall Similar to N22/004 Suggested solution Similar to N22/004						Allowed
N22				013					b								Objection G A Leggat Similar to N22/001 Suggested solution Run the northern boundary of the Hunua electorate along Jeffs Road, across to Ormiston Road, then north east to Sandstone Road and Whitford Park Road, south to Ara-Kotinga Road, then east to follow the line of hills to the east of Maraetai.						Disallowed
N22				014					b, h								Objection Pohutukawa Coast Community Association Inc Similar to N22/001 Suggested solution Similar to N22/002 To balance population quotas, East Tamaki Heights could be moved into either the Manukau East or the Manurewa electorate.						Disallowed
N22				015					b								Objection B Twigden Objects to the inclusion of Whitford in the proposed Hunua electorate. This area’s community of interest and communication facilities are shared with Howick. Suggested solution Include Whitford in the Howick electorate.						Disallowed
N22				016					n								Objection N Morris Similar to N22/003 Suggested solution Similar to N22/003. Details the historic significance of the name ‘Franklin’ for the area included in the electorate boundaries.						Disallowed
N22				017						b, h						Objection New Zealand Labour Party Objects to the inclusion of the Turanga census area unit, encompassing the Whitford area, in the proposed Hunua electorate. This area’s community of interest lies with the Howick electorate. Suggested solution Include the whole of the Turanga census area unit in the Howick electorate.							Disallowed
N22				601						b, h						Counter-objection B Mockridge Relates to objection N22/013 Objects to the suggested solution which would split the Clevedon Community. Suggested solution Run the northern boundary of the Hunua electorate along a major ridgeline, not a main road, such as the existing boundary between Franklin District and Manukau City.							Allowed
N22				602						b, h						Counter-objection R Northey Relates to objections N22/001, 002, 004, 006, 007, 009, 010, 012 & 013 Objects to the suggestion that Beachlands-Maraetai be included in the Howick electorate. Also objects to the suggestion that Hingaia and Clevedon be included in the Papakura electorate. These are rural areas that do not belong in urban-based electorates. Suggested solution Adopt the boundary for the Hunua electorate proposed by the Representation Commission. If possible, more of the rural fringe of Papakura could be included in the electorate.							Allowed in part
N22				603						n						Counter-objection J A Hull Similar to N22/003 Suggested solution Similar to N22/003.							Noted. see N22 003
N23																Papakura
N23				001						b, h						Objection Manukau City Council Objects to the inclusion of the Wattle Downs/Weymouth area in the proposed Papakura electorate. This area’s community of interest and communication facilities lie with the Manurewa electorate. Also notes that the Pahurehure Inlet and Papakura Stream form a natural boundary between Manurewa and Papakura. Suggested solution Include Wattle Downs, Weymouth and the entirety of Clendon in the Manurewa electorate. The northern boundary of the Papakura electorate should be the Pahurehure Inlet and Papakura Stream. Retain the Gardens area in the Manurewa electorate. If needed for population quota, the Goodwood Heights/Jeffs Road area could be moved from the Manurewa electorate.							Allowed in part
N23				002						n						Objection A Beyer Objects to the name ‘Papakura’ for the proposed electorate. The proposed electorate includes a number of longstanding, distinctive communities, not all of whom have ties to Papakura. Suggested solution Name the electorate ‘Takanini’.							Disallowed
N23				003						n, h						Objection New Zealand Labour Party Similar to N23/002 Suggested solution Similar to N23/002							Disallowed
N23				004						b, h						Objection Manurewa Community Board Similar to N23/001 Suggested solution Move this area into the Manurewa electorate, using the Papakura Stream as a natural boundary. To compensate, the electorate’s northern boundary could be moved to include suburbs to the east of Mill Road, including Flat Bush.							Allowed in part
N23				601						b, h						Counter-objection R Northey Relates to objections N23/001 & 004 Objects to the suggestion that Wattle Downs, Weymouth and Manurewa South be removed from the Papakura electorate. These areas are urban and adjacent to urban Papakura. The suggested alternative of extending the Papakura electorate into the semi-rural north-east or south-west breaches community of interest much more. Suggested solution Adopt the boundaries proposed by the Representation Commission. If possible, shed rural areas to the east to make the electorate more compact and urban in focus. Similar to N23/002.							Allowed in part
N24																Piako
N24				001						n						Objection B R Costley Objects to the name ‘Piako’ for the proposed electorate, as the name does not reflect the communities included in the north of the electorate. Suggested solution Name the electorate ‘Waikato’							Allowed. The name more clearly identifies the boundaries as defined
N24				002						n						Objection S & T Stark Similar to N24/001 Suggested solution Similar to N24/001							Allowed
N24				003						n						Objection M L Gribble Similar to N24/001 Suggested solution Similar to N24/001							Allowed
n24				004						n, h							Objection M Viggers Similar to N24/001 Suggested solution Similar to N24/001						Allowed
n24				005						n							Objection D L Boyde Similar to N24/001 Suggested solution Similar to N24/001						Allowed
N24				006						n							Objection Paul Similar to N24/001 Suggested solution Similar to N24/001						Allowed
N24				007						n							Objection R R Sherlock Similar to N24/001 Suggested solution Similar to N24/001						Allowed
N24				008						n							Objection P A Jupp Similar to N24/001 Suggested solution Similar to N24/001						Allowed
N24				009						n							Objection S D Lalich Similar to N24/001 Suggested solution Similar to N24/001						Allowed
N24				010						b, h							Objection H Mitchell Objects to the inclusion of parts of Paparimu in the proposed Piako electorate. Paparimu shares a community of interest and communication facilities with Papakura and Pukekohe. Suggested solution Use the Upper Mangatawhiri Reservoir and the Mangatawhiri River as a boundary westward to Medway Road.						Allowed
n24				011						b, h							Objection J Lawson Objects to the inclusion of parts of the Whaingaroa ward in the proposed Piako electorate. The Whaingaroa Harbour area, including Raglan, shares a community of interest and should not be split. Suggested solution Include the entirety of the Whaingaroa ward in the Taranaki-King Country electorate.						Disallowed
N24				012						b, h							Objection I W McDougall Objects to the inclusion of Tuakau and the surrounding area in the proposed Piako electorate. This area’s community of interest and communication facilities lie with Pukekohe in the Hunua electorate. Suggested solution Include this area in the Hunua electorate.						Allowed
N24				013						b, h							Objection T G Follows Objects to the inclusion of the area around Newell Road in the proposed Piako electorate. This area shares its communication facilities, including roads, and community of interest with Hamilton. Suggested solution Include this area in the Hamilton East electorate. The boundary could be run down State Highway 1, along Airport Road and up the Waikato River.						Disallowed. Commission prefers to follow the city boundary
N24				601						n							Counter-objection W Harper Relates to objections N24/001-009 Objects to the suggestion that the electorate name be changed to ‘Waikato’. The name ‘Waikato’ covers a much wider area than just this electorate. To use it for an electorate covering only part of the Waikato region would be confusing. Suggested solution Retain the name ‘Piako’ for the electorate.						Disallowed
N25																	Hamilton West
N25				001						b, h							Objection S W Wood, JP Objects to the inclusion of the rural area to the west of Hamilton City in the proposed Hamilton West electorate. This area shares a community of interest with the rural areas of the Taranaki-King Country electorate, rather than the urban areas of the Hamilton West electorate. Suggested solution Use the Hamilton City Council boundary as the boundary for the electorate. Include Whatawhata, Te Kowhai and surrounds in the Taranaki-King Country electorate.						Allowed in part by returning the boundary at Horotiu to the existing electorate boundary
N25				002						b, h							Objection New Zealand Labour Party Similar to N25/001 Suggested solution Similar to N25/001						Allowed in part
N25				601						b							Counter-objection B T Kibble Relates to objection N25/001 Objects to the suggestion that the rural towns west of Hamilton should be placed in the Taranaki-King Country electorate. Their community of interest links them with Hamilton City, as do their communication and transport facilities. Suggested solution Adopt the boundary proposed by the Representation Commission.						Allowed
N25				602						b							Counter-objection W Clow Relates to objections N25/001 and N25/002 Similar to N25/601 Notes that the rural area around Whatawhata and Te Kowhai is predominantly lifestyle blocks rather than traditional farming, and that residents of this area tend to work in Hamilton, not on the land. Suggested solution Similar to N25/601						Allowed
N25				603						b							Counter-objection I J Bryant Relates to objection N25/001 Similar to N25/601 Notes that this area’s local authorities are Hamilton City Council, Waikato District Council and Waipa District Council. Suggested solution Similar to N25/601						Allowed
N25				604						b							Counter-objection L A & D A T Coombes Relates to objections N25/001 and N25/002 Similar to N25/602 Suggested solution Similar to N25/601						Allowed
N25				605						b, h							Counter-objection M A Apiata-Wade Relates to objection N25/001 The current Hamilton City Council boundary does not include the proposed urban expansion towards Horotiu (HT2), bounded by the Waikato River and the Western Corridor that will link with the Northern Waikato Expressway. Suggested solution Include this area as part of the Hamilton West electorate and adopt the rest of the solution suggested in N25/001.						Disallowed
N27																	Coromandel
n27				001						b, h							Objection T L Turner Supports the boundary for the proposed Coromandel electorate, as it is aligned with the traditional Maori boundary from Te Aroha to Moehau.						Noted – no decision required
N29																	Bay of Plenty
N29				001						b							Objection B R Costley Objects to the proposed Bay of Plenty electorate, as the boundary with Tauranga splits a community of interest. Suggested solution Redraw the Tauranga and Bay of Plenty electorates into an east-west division. One electorate could be based on Tauranga-Otumoetai-Matakana and the other on Mt Maunganui-Welcome Bay-Papamoa. The names ‘Tauranga East’ and ‘Tauranga West’ could be used.						Disallowed. Unnecessarily interferes with existing boundaries
N29				002						b, h							Objection S Russell Objects the name ‘Bay of Plenty’ for the proposed electorate. While the name was appropriate for the electorate when it was first established, its boundaries no longer include the eastern and central parts of the Bay of Plenty and the name is no longer appropriate. Suggested solution Name the electorate ‘Western Bay of Plenty’.						Disallowed
N29				601						n							Counter-objection G Harris Relates to objection N29/002 Objects to the suggestion that the name needs to be changed. Suggested solution Retain the name ‘Bay of Plenty’ as this accurately represents the electorate.						Allowed
N29