Comments on: Auckland Boundaries

By: jarbury

jarbury — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 10:47:30 +0000

The level of over-representation or under-representation in the ward boundaries is interesting:

Rodney: -24.3% (ie. 24% over-represented)
Hibiscus-Albany-East Coast Bays: -15.0%
North Shore: +2.1% (ie. 2.1% under-represented)
Waitakere: +17.3%
Whau (New Lynn- Avondale) +14.3%
Mt Albert-Mt Roskill: +1.7%
Maungawhau-Hauraki Gulf (Auckland Central): +24.3%
Orakei-Maungakiekie: +14.0%
Manukau: +0.6%
Papakura-Manurewa -8.6%
Howick-Pakuranga- Botany: -14.1%
Franklin -10.1%

The local government commission were instructed to keep the level of over or under representation to within 10% where possible, but out of the 12 wards we see 7 are beyond 10%, either over or under.

It’s interesting to look at it from a general “left/right” split too – in that generally in Auckland the south (but not extreme south), west and central areas are more likely to vote ‘left’, and the north, east and rural areas more likely to vote ‘right’.

Let’s look at the significantly (beyond 10%) over-represented areas:
1) Rodney
2) Hibiscus Coast-Albany-East Coast Bays
3) Howick-Pakuranga-Botany
4) Franklin

All are pretty safe National areas.

Now the under-represented areas (beyond 10%):
1) Waitakere
2) Whau
3) Mangawhau-Hauraki Gulf
4) Orakei-Maungakiekie

All these areas are fairly marginal, and in the longer term have definitely generally voted ‘left’ (Orakei-Maungakiekie excluded) more than ‘right’.

Either…. we have a lot of coincidences, or something pretty dodgy is going on here.

By: Countess

Countess — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 06:29:19 +0000

It seems as though it was anathema to have Papakura within Franklin and Orewa within Rodney. Yet these are logical groupings . That would even out the population disparity.
While having a cross boundary ward like Whau ( auckland- waitakere) they havent done he same with Otahuhu and South Auckland. ( there being no connection with Otahuhu and Orakei).
Could have been worse, as some of the US gerrymanders are shockers. A disgrace for a so called democratic country

By: ernesto

ernesto — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 06:01:22 +0000

Orakei-Maungakiekie should have only one councilor while Maungawhau/Hauraki should have two to reflect the diversity of the central ward and the homogeneity of Remmers/Mt Eden.

By: Tom Semmens

Tom Semmens — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 05:36:16 +0000

“…the extremes are Rodney with only 53,590 pop for 1 Cr and Maungawhau-Hauraki Gulf (Auckland Central)…”

A straight ring wing gerrymander then.

By: bchapman

bchapman — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 05:16:46 +0000

Now I’m really confused re:Waitakere. The Royal Commission decided to have 6 local boards corresponding to the existing LGAs. Cabinet decided that this was not an appropriate model as they felt we needed more local representation, now the LGC has decided that we can have a local board corresponding to our existing LGA.
What brief were they given by Cabinet when drawing up the board boundaries? Seems they have re-instated what the Royal commission suggested.

By: Aaron Bhatnagar

Aaron Bhatnagar — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 04:58:47 +0000

Gareth: in the case of Orakei-Maungakiekie Ward, the future Auckland Council ward that I am resident in, there are two local boards, being Maungakiekie-Tamaki, and Orakei.

Orakei Board will have two electoral subdivisions, being Remuera and Kohimarama.

Remuera will be assigned 4 board members, Kohimarama will have 3.

So when my voting paper arrives, I will have the following votes:

1 vote for Mayor
2 votes for Orakei-Maungakiekie councillors
4 votes for the Remuera subdivision of the Orakei local board.

If I were to live in St Heliers instead of Remuera, I would have 3 votes for the Kohimarama subdivision of the Orakei local board instead.

It sounds complicated, but its not actually too different from the 1990s and prior when the ARC elections had wards within each TLA for regional councillors.

By: jabba

jabba — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 04:30:43 +0000

great .. I’m still in Franklin, not Hunua

By: side show bob

side show bob — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 02:35:59 +0000

Can hear the shrill squeals from here, oh no, the trough just got shorter.

By: garethw

garethw — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 02:13:30 +0000

Aaron, could you explain the subdivisions? How will voting work for these?

[DPF: The sub-divisions are like wards for the local board. So one of the boards with nine board members will have three sub-areas that elect three members each]

By: Repton

Repton — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 01:24:08 +0000

What powers will the local boards have?

By: emmess

emmess — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 01:20:54 +0000

Need to sort out the names
A single word each

By: bchapman

bchapman — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 01:12:56 +0000

David, have you done the maths on the local boards. On my reading Waitakere City minus New Lynn and Kelston gets 1 Local Board (thats 150K people). Not really local.

Meanwhile Takapuna-Devonport gets a whole board to themselves.They would be lucky to have 35K residents.

Why does Wellsford or Warkworth not get their own boards? They are at least as isolated as Waiheke time-wise from the centre.

The ward boundaries are fine but I can see lots of changes for the boards.

[DPF: The Commission explains that they thought any division of Waitakere would not be effective, and that in fact local opinion was to keep them together. Boards do not have to be the same size - it is about working out where there is a community of interest]

By: Aaron Bhatnagar

Aaron Bhatnagar — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 01:10:23 +0000

On the whole, I like the Auckland ithsmus wards. They are a real shakeup, and some of those wards will be closely fought, given the likely identities who will stand in them. I haven’t had a chance to consider the North, West and South yet though.

One thing I like about the local boards is that they have electoral subdivisions, which will ensure that geographical communities of interest are guaranteed representation so no one part of a local board can generate all the board members.

http://aucklandblog.blogspot.com/2009/11/boundaries-are-out.html