View objections and counter-objections

Objection

---

Jason Singh

As a small business owner in the affected area (north of Balmoral Road up to Herbert, Croydon and Fairview Roads), I can confidently say our clientele, collaborations, and support networks are all Epsom-based. A boundary shift would hurt our visibility and weaken community ties that are crucial to local business. Please reconsider.

• Jason Singh snapshot 1745629053 0 (png 188 KB)

Objection

---

Lisa Zhu

I object to the proposed boundary adjustment (removing the area north of Balmoral Road up to Herbert, Croydon and Fairview Roads, from Epsom into the Mount Albert electorate). The Electoral Commission’s goal should be to reflect actual community identities and ties. This proposal does the opposite by disconnecting a neighborhood that clearly integrates with Epsom. Keep our representation aligned with our real-world connections.

• Lisa Zhu snapshot 1745629442 0 (png 354 KB)

Objection

---

Mr Charles Nicholls

I wish to make a representation objecting to the Boundaries Commission proposal to moving a significant part of the Wesley area of the current Mt Roskill electorate into the Mt Albert electorate. I am a longtime resident of Mt Roskill, having lived in the Wesley community for thirty-seven years. I have been a Justice of the Peace for 30 years in this area and many of my clients reside in the Wesley area.
My wife and I made a submission to have Wesley accepted as the name for the area, based on its historical significance. We were delighted when the New Zealand Geographic Board, in deciding that Wesley should be identified officially with this name, recognised this historical and geographical importance of the Wesley area as part of the heartland of Puketapapa/ Mt Roskill. The Wesley Community centre, Wesley Intermediate School , Wesley Primary School and the Wesley Market, along with a range of places of worship, are at the heart of our diverse and vibrant community.
Moreover, the local public transport links connect the residents of Wesley and its surrounds more closely to the Mt Roskill communities and the Stoddard Rd retail areas than to Mt Albert.
The Puketapapa Local Board has always had a strong focus on improving the environment in the Wesley area along the Te Auanga/Okaley Creek boundary, as one of the strategic development goals of its planning. It is widely recognised that during the crises and flooding of the 2023 Cyclone Gabrielle and the previous weekend’s flooding as well, which affected significant numbers of people in the Wesley area, it was to the Mt Roskill Member of Parliament and the local Mt Roskill community organisations that those affected turned, as these were the entities that understood their needs and knew their community members.
A large proportion of the social support services for many of the newer residents of New Zealand, and also for many of those in the lower socioeconomic strata who are disadvantaged and vulnerable are located in the area which is proposed to move into Mt Albert and we think this would be disorienting for many of those who need these services as they would no longer be directly associate with Mt Roskill. Designating the Wesley area as Mt Albert rather than as Mt Roskill would potentially have negative effect on social cohesion in the area.
Therefore, we would strongly suggest that the proposed boundary change is modified to move only a section of Wesley to the south of Oakley Creek/Te Auaunga so that the Mt Roskill boundary would be aligned with the natural feature of the creek and several of the Te Auaunga parks. This would result in this section of Mt Roskill boundary being along O’Donnell, Denny and Coleman Avenues, ensuring that most of the key institutions closely associated with the Wesley community would remain in Mt Roskill. By moving the proposed Mt Albert boundary a little towards the Arch Hill area so it remains in Mt Albert which currently represents this area, the two electorates of Mt Albert and Mt Roskill would both be within the population number tolerance.

Objection

---

Dr Helen Nicholls

would strongly suggest that the proposed boundary change is modified to move only a section of Wesley to the south of Oakley Creek/Te Auaunga so that the Mt Roskill boundary would be aligned with the natural feature of the creek and several of the Te Auaunga parks. This would result in this section of Mt Roskill boundary being along O’Donnell, Denny and Coleman Avenues, ensuring that most of the key institutions closely associated with the Wesley community would remain in Mt Roskill.

Objection

---

Mr Geoff Manks

Nonsensical readjustment of Eden/Epsom boundary.
The carving out of the Epsom electorate from Fairview rd down to Landscape rd, but adding in Newton down to Carlaw park, makes a complete mockery of your electorate MP being representative of your area/community. Common sense would suggest the Newton-Grafton-Carlaw park areas should clearly remain Ak central, with perhaps Parnell also logically falling into the Ak central.
The areas of Mt Eden [Fairview-Landscape] sit immediately adjacent to Epsom, with the properties from Fairview to Balmoral rd unquestionably Mt Eden zoned.

I have attached a screenshot of a google search of Mt Eden Epsom electorate. This is what the electorate is know as, infact I have never heard it referred to as anything else i.e. Epsom Remuera? Epsom Parnell? To remove part of Mt Eden, but include Grafton-Newton and Carlaw park, is nonsensical in its purest definition. My 105yr old grandmother would easily identify these as outside the Eden Epsom Electorate and would be Ak central all day long.

Change always creates conjecture and unease. This can largely be alleviated where changes are grounded in logic and common sense. The proposed movement of boundaries to the Epsom [Eden] electorate defy both these standards and will incur the ire of this strong community. The beneficiaries of the changes are unknown and the changes made without a true understanding of the community and where people live their lives.

The justification for adjusting boundaries is stated on the Govt website site as.
'Regularly adjusting the electorate boundaries makes sure each electorate has about the same number of people. This gives all New Zealanders equal representation in Parliament'.
- why is this even relevant under our voting system? The number of people in each electorate may have a slight bearing on the outcome of the election of the MP, but not the party vote - this being completely unattached to the electorate anyone sits in. If the election of MP's is meant to reflect the area and community they represent, then this must take precedent to the drawing of boundaries simply to save/add 500 people into/out of an electorate. We would be far better served to have some electorates twice the size of others if this enabled the MP's to achieve local representation ahead of number counting!

• Geoff Manks snapshot 1745635953 0 (png 831 KB)
• Geoff Manks snapshot 1745635953 1 (png 769 KB)
• Screenshot 2025 04 26 at 14.36.17 (png 129 KB)

Objection

---

Mrs Bronwyn Ward

I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed changes to the electoral boundaries of the Epsom Electorate that are currently being considered. As a resident and concerned member of the community, I believe these changes will have significant negative consequences, not only for local representation but also for the stability and cohesion of our neighbourhoods and school systems.
First and foremost, one of my key concerns is the potential disruption to community identity. Electoral boundaries are more than just lines on a map; they represent the connections and shared experiences that bind people together.
Having lived in Mt Eden for the last 38 years I have made long-established relationships with the Mt Eden and Epsom businesses, services and community on a day-to-day basis.
These relationships have not been made in Mt Albert as the business and service area is too far away and inconvenient to get to.
Local initiatives, community events, and the collective spirit of the area will undoubtedly be harmed by splitting our community into a different electorate.
I cannot understand if the Epsom Electorate is to expand to include more residents why take out the area north of Balmoral Road up to and including Herbert, Croydon and Fairview Roads and place it into the Mt Albert Electorate?
I urge you to reconsider these proposed changes, taking into account the deeply rooted concerns of myself, local families, educators, and residents who will be most affected by the proposed changes.

Objection

---

Mr Yang Zhang

We live on [street name], mt eden. I’d like to object to the proposal that to change our electorate from Epsom to Mt Albert.
1. Our day to day life happen in mt Eden, our shopping, restaurant and cafes are our locals in mt Eden, not mt Albert. Last time we visited mt Albert was months ago.
2. We are actively involved in the local mt Eden community, my son goes to mt Eden primary, daughter goes to school in epsom. Their sport clubs, after school cares and other extra curricula activities are all local to mt eden. majority of their friends and our friends reside locally in epsom and mt Eden area.
3. By and large our value aligns with our mt Eden community.
4. I am confused by the proposal to include areas around ellerslie race course in the Epsom electorate. It does not make sense that to include a more geographical distant area in the electorate at the same time remove our area which is geographically close to the centre of Epsom electorate.

Objection

---

Mrs Miriam Hartmann

I would like to submit to the Boundaries Commission in regards to the moving of part of the Wesley area currently in Mt Roskill into the Mt Albert electorate. I am not in favour of this move. I have resided in Mt Roskill for 24 years, and the Wesley area has always been a stronghold of Mt Roskill. In fact, many children from
Wesley have attended the schools my children attended, which are Mt Roskill Intermediate and Mt Roskill Grammar. Therefore, the ties between the two areas are very strong. In addition, Oakley Creek runs right through Mt Roskill and continues through Wesley. With the awesome naturalisation which has occurred along part of its banks, I find that as a cyclist I use these riverside pathways regularly. Having an off road cycle path has enabled me to more safely get to places north of where I live in Three Kings (Mt Roskill). This cycle path is a great way to get to the Wesley Community centre, where I have attended many community meetings. The Fickling Centre in Three Kings is closer to me. However, it is not a drop-in community centre as such, but is a Council for-hire facility. That is not the case at Wesley, where community members can enter and meet. Therefore, to have the linkages between ammenities in both Wesley and Three Kings is important to me. Flooding issues over the last couple of years have often centred around Oakley Creek. These are being addressed through environmental restoration, spearheaded by local leaders and community members. When flooding does happen, a cohesive approach to the river and its immediate neighbours is helpful to those affected. For example, a community-led group called The Wesley and Roskill Recovery Leadership Rōpū is ensuring communities lead their own recovery. The fact that Oakley Creek flows through the Mt Roskill and Wesley areas is an indication to me that the Mt Roskill electorate should continue to encompass Oakley Creek at Wesley, because people in those areas are connected to each other and the creek through historical precedent.

• Miriam Hartmann snapshot 1745662527 0 (png 806 KB)

Objection

---

Mr Peter Carlson

We have a long term rental we are renting in Mt Eden [street name]
This house we have made our home
By moving the Boundaries we would the.n be outside the school zones of what is called the Grammar zone and Epson Girls ,this will effect my Children’s education which is not on .. this part of Mt Eden is far closer to Epson that other Areas that are so called Epson Zoning

Objection

---

Kristina Cooper

I object to the area of woodside road/mont le grand, kings view road and henley road down to Balmoral Road being removed from the Epsom electorate and instead being placed into the Mt Albert electorate. our family has no association with or link to Mt Albert. our shopping, leisure, exercise and schooling is all within the Mt Eden / Epsom area. We identify with Mt Eden / Epsom and have no identify with Mt Albert. The carve out of this rectangle of streets to be moved out of the Epsom electorate to the Mt Albert electorate makes no sence.

• Kristina Cooper snapshot 1745699723 0 (png 651 KB)

Objection

---

Mr Kevin Adair

My family have lived in [street name] for 20 years, This area is pretty Eden-Epsom. We probably shop at the Dominion rd Woolworths, walk up Mt Eden on a Saturday (not Mt Albert), go to Mt Eden De Post for a drink (not Albert's Post), play in Potter's Park (not Rocket Park), etc. I feel like our voting interests would pertain to facilities in Eden-Epsom rather than Mt Albert.

• kevin adair snapshot 1745707885 0 (png 677 KB)

Objection

---

Miss Emma Lum

I have lived in the same place, epsom my whole life and I attended school in this area all the way from primary to end of high school. All of my community and connections are within the Epsom area and I have zero affiliations with the Mt Albert electorate. I am objecting to this area becoming a part of the Mt Albert electorate as it would uproot the connections I have in the Epsom electorate and community.

Objection

---

Mr Martyn Watts

Whilst we appreciate the difficult job the Electoral Commission has in balancing out the various electorates into reasonably equal populations, we were shocked at the current proposal to move [street name] (and other neighbouring streets north of Balmoral) into the Mount Albert electorate. [street name] is at the very heart of Mount Eden village, which is a centre for amenity for the Epsom area. Our community, schooling (Mt Eden Primary, Auckland Grammar, Epsom Girls), health service access and infrastructure is all centred on the Mount Eden and Epsom area. We have absolutely no association with the Mount Albert community, or its resources, and would have no confidence that any of our Eden/Epsom specfic concerns would be adequately represented. We would only feel fairly served by an MP elected to represent the Eden/Epsom area.

• Martyn Watts snapshot 1745723708 0 (png 543 KB)

Objection

---

John, Anne, & Chris Khouri

We live within 100 metres of Mt Eden Rd & consider that we are part of the Mt Eden community. The Mt Albert suburb is many kilometres away from us and we think that that the Member of Parliament for that area could not meaningfully relate to the needs of our neighbourhood and local community.

• John Anne Chris Khouri snapshot 1745724316 0 (png 647 KB)
• John Anne Chris Khouri snapshot 1745724316 1 (png 677 KB)

Objection

---

John Hill

I and my household have been resident for many years in the area bounded by Mt Eden, Balmoral, Dominion, Herbert, Croydon and Fairview roads, an area currently in the Epsom electorate but which is proposed to move to the Mt Albert electorate. I strongly oppose this change.

I've never before felt so disenfranchised from local electoral representation.

Mt Eden/Epsom is our home. Mt Eden village is our local shops. Our children were educated in Epsom. Maungawhau is our local mountain. We walk and undertake leisure activities in Mt Eden and Epsom. We feel connected to Mt Eden and Epsom. Even the rock under our yard is from eruptions of Maungawhau/Mt Eden. The main thoroughfares of Dominion Road and Balmoral Road frame our area, tying it to Mt Eden/Epsom, not to Mt Albert.

Our household has no association or identification with Mt Albert. We do not shop, undertake leisure activities, go to school, walk, or drive through Mt Albert. We feel completely dissociated from Mt Albert.

If the proposed electoral boundary change takes place, we may as well be electorally represented in another city.

• John Hill snapshot 1745729949 0 (png 491 KB)