voice for democracy

The Entrust Election – Climate, Democracy and Better Streets – Greater Auckland

If you live in one of these areas of Auckland, someone in your household can vote in the current Entrust election:
As a climate campaigner, I am hoping the election can lead to some better climate outcomes. But I also think the electricity system isn’t served democratically. I am writing about the election in the hope of encouraging more people to realise the importance of the election, vote, and demand a more democratic voting system.
Giving the vote to one member of the household – the power account holder – is:
In short, society has moved past undemocratic voting systems in which the vote is given to the “head of the household”. It’s possibly one of several systemic problems with how Entrust is run that has contributed to a low voter turnout. Last time, only 12% of eligible voters voted.
At this election, there’s a serious challenge to the encumbent Communities & Residents team on the trust, by a group called More for You, Better for Climate.
Here’s what Entrust say:
Entrust is a private trust established in 1993. It acts in the interests of its beneficiaries, over 346,000 households and businesses in Auckland, Manukau, northern Papakura and eastern Franklin.
Entrust’s key asset is a 75.1% shareholding in Vector. As the major shareholder in Vector and through our two Trustee directors on the Vector board, we make sure we fulfil our responsibilities to beneficiaries by maintaining proper oversight of Vector’s operations.
Our History
Entrust was formed as part of reforms to the electricity industry in 1993.
Entrust was originally called the Auckland Energy Consumer Trust or AECT. In 2016 we changed our name to Entrust, a simple combination of energy and trust.
In case it’s useful, I’ll also add who they are not:
Entrust are not an electricity retailer, of whom we have many in Auckland:
Entrust are not a distributor of electricity. Auckland’s distributor is Vector:
We are New Zealand’s largest distributor of electricity and gas, owning and operating networks which span the Auckland region… We generally own the lines, poles and equipment up to the point of supply
Entrust do not operate the National Grid. That’s Transpower:
Transpower is the State Owned Enterprise that owns and operates the National Grid – or high voltage transmission network – that carries electricity around the country.
The National Grid is made up of over 12,000 km of transmission lines and more than 170 substations. Electricity is transmitted over the grid at high voltages (up to 220,000 volts) from power stations to local lines companies and major industries.
And Entrust do not generate electricity. Electricity generators include the big five: Contact Energy, Genesis Energy, Mercury Energy, Meridian Energy, and Trustpower, and smaller generators, including: WEL Networks, NZ Windfarms, NZ Energy, MainPower, Pioneer and Top Energy.
Entrust are simply a “community trust” with the majority share in Vector, our electricity distribution company.
What’s not so clear is exactly how Entrust then choose the Vector Board members to govern Vector. And this is where it gets interesting. A community trust should be transparent about the governance structures, especially for an asset like Vector which is both major and which can influence our climate outcomes.
Also, Vector is the electricity distribution company for a far wider area:
While the history of how this came to be makes sense from an ownership and financial point of view, it does not make sense from a democratic point of view. Vector should have democratic input to its governance from the people in the whole area in which Vector operates.
Todd Niall discussed some points of difference between the major candidate teams in a Stuff piece a week ago.
Rod Oram covered a number of issues last month, ranging from the shambles of how Entrust operates, to some interesting information about ReCosting Energy – the work by a UK think tanks on energy regulations to drive carbon cuts, to what is holding Vector back:
the old economy model of electricity regulation is severely hampering the ability of Vector and other innovators to invest more, faster and more flexibly in a 21st century electricity sector. Some 55 percent of its capital expenditure is ruled by these old regulations, while Vector is free to deploy the other 45 percent in commercial ways appropriate for fast-forwarding technology change.
Biographies for all 15 candidates are available on the Entrust website.
The More for You, Better for Climate team outline their policies on their website, and were interviewed by Chloe Swarbrick yesterday:
The Communities and Residents team give biographies, a press release, and I’ve managed to find an article about them on Indian Newslink.
One of the issues is that of where powerlines are undergrounded.

More for You, Better for Climate want to see the decision-making on the topic become more transparent and equitable. On their campaign website, they show their analysis of the data that Vector publish about the number of projects completed in each suburb:

Candidate Emma McInnes says,
$10.5 million is spent every year by Entrust doing this. That is not $10.5 million that Vector is choosing to spend, that is $10.5 million that the trustees on Entrust are directly diverting into the suburbs they prefer for political purposes. So much of South and East Auckland is missing out on this powerline undergrounding programme. And arguably, these are the suburbs that need it most, suburbs that are exposed to extreme storms (like tornados in Papatoetoe) and weather events that easily take out power lines and cut off electricity to poorer households.
Hopefully this issue gets tackled regardless of the outcome of the election; it’s certainly embarrassing for Vector to have it revealed.
So can Entrust influence Vector to be more climate- and equity-focused, improving outcomes for Aucklanders – present and future?
Modernising our energy infrastructure over the next decade for our climate response will impact the industrial, energy and transport sectors in a number of ways. Yet communications usually only mention electrification.
In fact, decarbonisation of industry is about better logistics, greener operating models, a circular economy and redefining success – as much as it is about electrification. And decarbonisation of transport is about modeshift – through safer streets and better public transport, shared rather than private vehicle ownership, smaller vehicles, a regenerated, quality compact city – as well as about electrification of the fleet.
Unfortunately, I don’t think Vector understand their role in this complex transition. I did a word search in their annual report for: pedestrian, cycle, cycling, poles, undergrounding, streets, streetscapes, logistics, freight, and I checked each entry. The annual report entirely ignores Vector’s ability to influence modeshift to active or public modes.
In line with the sector’s focus on decarbonisation being solely about electrification, it does mention the Fuso trial of electric trucks which Vector Ongas was involved with, which could feed some electrification and logistics information back to the parent company, Vector:

This Stuff article mentions the trial received funding from the government’s Low Emission Vehicles Contestable Fund.
But if Vector was to adopt a game-changing responsible corporate position on climate change, in order to set Auckland up for the best possible future, what would that look like?
Here are a few suggestions from my point of view:

Power poles are sometimes right in the middle of the paved part of a footpath, significantly interrupting the ability of people in wheelchairs or with strollers to move, and generally impacting on walking amenity and safety. Vector should have a programme that prioritises streets with such poles for undergrounding, or where that cannot happen, to either move the poles or widen the footpaths beside the poles.
Damage and disruption to the electricity network due to vehicles crashing into power poles affects Vector’s assets, so it shouldn’t be too much of an ask for Vector to step up to responsible corporate messaging about safety. We need a safe transport system, with Vision Zero speed limits, and proper enforcement. Vector should hold a position on this, as it affects the bottom line.
Services are being damaged by vehicles driving and parking on them, eg under the berms, and ratepayers are having to pay for that damage to be fixed. Even when it’s a water or a sewer pipe damaged, the digging to repair it then puts all the services at risk (and in some cases the workers under a public health risk). The situation is a result of lax enforcement.
Responsible corporate utility owners could use their might to force Auckland Transport’s hand, protect their assets and demand proper enforcement against the illegal berm parking. This would save Aucklanders money, reduce risks, potentially save lives, and return the public realm to people, thus helping the climate goals of modeshift and the creation of liveable streets.
During the redesign of streetscapes, Vector could improve its game as a responsible partner for Auckland Transport and Council. Clearly, it would be good if all the work could be coordinated in a “dig once” philosophy. But the situation is even worse than this: when Auckland Transport wants to redesign a streetscape, not only are Vector usually not ready to underground their powerlines there, they will also say the street trees may need to come out when they do.
In reality, if there’s a whisper of any public opposition, Vector rarely actually remove the trees, as they can almost always use directional drilling if necessary.
By refusing to commit to retaining the trees, though, it puts Auckland Transport’s designers into the position of having to assume they might be removed later. And in the balancing act involved in a streetscape design, this makes it harder for the designers to justify keeping the trees. As the public don’t want to lose street trees, this creates an unnecessary battle between cycling and trees.
Vector’s ‘risk averse’ policy therefore is leading to the loss of trees, and reducing support for local implementation of cycling infrastructure and preventing the cycling network from progressing.
This has major climate implications, because cycling is a big part of transport decarbonisation.
To introduce biodiversity and habitat, to improve liveability and reduce the urban heat effect, the number of new street trees that Auckland needs to plant over the next decade is significant: we only have about 150,000, and we need at least 600,000 more.
These new street trees need to be species that can form a full canopy over the streets.
Vector’s go-slow on undergrounding the powerlines has restricted the very tree species we can choose (with size and pruning needs). The sooner the powerlines can be undergrounded, the sooner we will be able to plant trees for a better future.
Entrust has the potential to direct Vector well, if its trust members are chosen wisely. The impacts of this election extend to many other issues I don’t have space to include. Please discuss them in the comments.
If your household has a vote, please remember how lucky you are – plenty of households don’t.
And if you are the holder of the power account, you’re doubly blessed. Have fun with your democratic discussions and decision-making. Voting closes 29th but remember the post can take a few days.
This is so informative, thanks Heidi, particularly about the street trees. Great to have reassurance that one can have both cycleways and trees!
The whole thing is a rort. Its quite obvious that they only underground the affluent suburbs. And then they seem to hold the council to ransom too, I remember they wouldn’t underground Dominion Road when the council wanted to do a big upgrade pre light rail days, and they don’t seem to be undergrounding as the state housing areas get rebuilt. And because no one with a life can be bothered voting for something so trivial, its just the people that have nothing else to do that vote for the guys who promise to cut costs and increase the dividend.
And then there is the stupid dividend that we effectively pay through our power bill, and I imagine we get taxed on several times over. Why not just decrease prices instead?
Time to abolish the whole thing I reckon. We are basically paying a bunch of people a crazy wage to do nothing but electioneering and stand in the way.
Heidi,
I suggest to give your post more credit, I suggest since you insist people only post facts here, you add a correction comment to the graphics you posted on suburbs with and without undergrounding work done. It would have taken you 5 minutes of research (street view any random street will do) to realise that most of the areas with no work done are already undergrounded.
I wish they would underground the lines in your affluent suburb!
It would have taken you 5 minutes of research (street view any random street will do).
I did the research for Heidi, perhaps I chose the wrong random streets…
https://goo.gl/maps/EajawwZcbVRxczgy5
https://goo.gl/maps/CsDMV8djvtGmK2KN7
I didn’t say all. For example most of Mangere, and the eastern suburbs (half the map!) are undergrounded so the map is intentionally misleading. Yes there are areas, particularly in South Auckland that aren’t.
The point being that this political post is therefore misleading which is not to GA’s (and particularly Heidi’s) own standard.
Agree.
New subdivisions are built with electricity services underground so will score 0% on this chart.
The city centre was mostly undergrounded by AEPB before Entrust (or its predecessor, the AECT) existed. So it scores low as well.
So the suburbs that matter are in between the new exurbs and the city.
The selection criteria for undergrounding for instance no doubt include the age of the assets – underground them at end of life not half way through – quite possibly those assets are older in inner suburbs that were developed first.
Then some areas are far more expensive to underground than others because they’re built on basalt.
As the chart notes, undergrounding is by “Entrust and Vector”, i.e. not only Entrust . Some of the Vector undergrounding will have been customer funded – wealthy residents on Victoria Ave paying to improve their streetscape. Which benefits all of us so fair play to them.
etc
Gosh, I think it might be worth thinking through that last comment about wealthy residents paying for it themselves.
It is regressive to keep rates and taxes low and consequently run a substandard service, and then allow the wealthy to pay themselves out of the situation that leaves them in. This is a problem across all sorts of infrastructure and services. A healthy society provides services for all, and funds them in a progressive, transparent and equitable way.
If this is what’s been going on, I think there needs to be an inquiry. First, the figures for what they paid need to be publicly available for scrutiny. Too often in these situations, the wealthy get to pay a price that equates to a marginal cost rather than an equitable cost that includes their share of administrative, legal, communications and other bureaucratic costs.
Hi Stu, Thanks for the compliment. The research I did involved the following:
First, I used Google to see if Vector has a map that displays this information easily. I couldn’t find one, but never got around to looking in Council’s database. Perhaps there is one there. Does anyone know? It is certainly information we should expect to be able to see.
Next, I lined up a map of Auckland beside the undergrounding map, and went into streetview 10 times randomly in the areas that had received no undergrounding in the last decade. 8 of these were in urban areas; 2 in rural areas. 8 / 10 times turned up above ground powerlines.
Next, I found this article from 2002, which lists the suburbs Vector intended to underground at that time. https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/fourteen-areas-in-running-to-have-powerlines-buried/XUFWNAHIEZD3HPZJE5HZIHP5OY/
My thinking was that since these areas “had been selected using criteria such as the age of the lines, their fault history and concentration of population” that by now they would all have been completed, so I went through each one in turn. My ‘check’ still involved just a random streetview click into each area.
The areas where my first random streetview location was not undergrounded were: Pt England, Mangere Bridge, Papatoetoe, Manurewa, Papakura, Pahurehure.
It’s been 19 years since the article, so I would’ve expected this work to be completed by now. However, I don’t know which part of the suburbs listed in the article were intended to be worked on.
I also read the website by the More for You, Better for Climate crowd, and was interested with this:
“Now it’s important to acknowledge that this isn’t a perfect data set – it’s just a list of publish projects on Vector’s website, you could of course measure undergrounding impact in lots of different ways like ‘length of undergrounding coverage” or “number of homes that benefit” but in the absence of this data (which we encourage Vector to release) – the published list still tells a pretty clear story…”
and I thought, yeah, there really does need to be some better, more transparent data available.
All that took me much more than 5 minutes. It was not conclusive, but it was enough work to convince me that this issue – which has been on my radar for many years – needs raising in the public eye.
Yes, no acknowledgement that new suburbs (most of East Auckland and a lot of South Auckland) are already underground.
The priority so far as Greater Auckland is concerned should be on underground for safety only ie poles that are on corners, poles that are blocking footpaths. Everything else is just not really important
“Everything else is just not really important”
Does your vision for a greater Auckland not include climate action?
How does a lines company have anything to do with climate action or for that matter some woke thunk about electing the board members?
If anything they are a role model what with their transmitting clean electricity and investments in EV charging etc.
Meanwhile other power/lines companies in NZ were sold off and just chase the $$$
Great article Heidi – It sounds like there is a whole lot more this bunch of trustees could be doing other than just collecting a fee for being on the Trust.
But I couldn’t help but smile that Vector felt the need to do a classic before and after trick to try to make people feel good about undergrounding of the power lines. I think everyone was going to think it looked better without the wires. So they didn’t really need to do the “before” photo on a cloudy day and the “after” photo on a blue sky day. Classic.
This is fascinating and informative, thank you Heidi.
So when do the Vector Board appointments end? If Entrust contributes two board members, and has opaque influence over the remaining four, when would a new Entrust Board first have an opportunity to appoint new board members?
I’ve found the following information:
“In practice, the Trustees… Propose and with other shareholders, appoint Vector’s board of directors. There are currently seven members on the board, with an option to increase that number to nine.”
https://www.entrustnz.co.nz/about-us/role-of-the-trustees/
If other people can find more information than this, I’d love to see it.
Excellent and informative.
The Rod Oram link was also really good.
Thankyou.
Yet another way the super city has ripped off North Shore, Waitakere and Rodney residents. When the Waitemata Electric Power Board was privatised the undergrounding function was passed on to the local councils. They all did some. Then when they were amalgamated that all stopped. Now the majority of Councillors live in the Entrust area and get their streets undergrounded that way so that means nothing at all for the rest of us.
I think your anger is misplaced here. Why should councils pay to do this undergrounding work. Especially when it’s obvious the lines companies are charging way above their costs, and its their infrastructure thats externalising costs onto the public. While vector’s profits are easy for everyone to see, there most be a couple dozen other companies around the country making bank of local monopolies that isn’t so publicised.
Too late now, but really, why was this power board infra privatised in the first place. I buy the argument when the market is big enough / lends itself to multiple competitors, but the electricity distribution market is not one of those places.
It was privatised because of Max Bradford. He is the reason we pay through the nose for power. But that isn’t the point here. The point is we had two different systems in the Auckland Region. One where we sold off the asset and the Councils took the role of improving streetscapes and footpaths, and another system where a bunch of buffoons get themselves elected to a trust where they can ride the gravy train.
Amalgamation meant those of us under the first regime got to pay far more in rates and see far fewer services with no undergrounding whatsoever. And no chance of it until 2083.
You could blame any link in the chain of events that led to the current situation. You blame the amalgamation link, but my point was that privatization (and subsequent government inaction), was a more important link, I think you should blame that.
Except nothing is guaranteed for long. Any newly elected council could decide to scrap various services. Why would the council continue to spend rates money on someone else’s assets? They do enough of that already, providing free parking all over the place. The super-city screwed over everyone in different ways.
The rich can pay to underground it and the poor just put up with it like they always do.
Overhead lines are simpler. If I recall correctly the big failure in the CDB was caused by underground lines. Was that really 20 years ago. For some people getting the dividend is the highlight of the year. However seeing as we need Road space for walking and cycling I suppose less power poles would be better. However more digging up the footpaths every time a new connection is made or an existing connection is modified. Hard to know whether all the effort is worthwhile except for new sub divisions. At least we don’t have to worry about earthquakes. Apparently underground cables made power restoration a harder job after the Christchurch earthquake.
The CBD failure was underground transmission lines which carry many orders of magnitude more energy than distribution lines. I’m certainly no power systems engineer, but I suspect that heating in the underground distribution network wouldn’t be so much of a problem. Especially because its relatively easy to add new capacity in the underground ducts / pipes they install. Whereas the CBD failure was in part because they have to do massive amounts of work to dig up the streets every time they want to add or replace a high voltage cable.
I will note that they replaced the CBD HV lines with more underground lines, just this time in a tunnel which they force cooling air through, rather than in the dirt under the streets. You could argue that this is very similar to the ducts for distribution model.
The majority of power outages are caused by falling trees, under-grounding gives a much more secure power supply.
Minor minor correction the DC line from Benmore to Hayward including the Cook straight cable is 500,000 volts. So the highest voltage on Transpowers line is not 220, 000 volts. And its DC while the rest of the network is various AC voltages. One peculiarity of some rural connections is 22,000 volt single line earth return. You really didn’t need to know that it has no relevance to Auckland but I believe it was pioneered in New Zealand back in the days when when no 8 wire innovation was a thing. In fact some systems were constructed with no 8 wire and were errected by the local fencer.
Good points well made but the key thing is for those with this knowledge engage the rest of their household (whether nuclear families of fatties) in discussion on the matter – and to reach out to friends an neighbours to do the same. It is unduly pessimistic (or even fatalistic) to assume that the C&R team have the election all wrapped up. We do not need to persuade 50% of electors to vote the right way – 15% might do it as the voter turnout has historically been very low with C&R able to win with less than 10% support because 85% or so do not take part. So I encourage people to do more than just “observe” the campaign – do your bit by persuading a few others to vote for the “More for You, Better for Climate.” team.
The trees are a really big impact in my mind. The risk aversion from vector is having a pretty big negative impact on the city.
I think street trees should be considered essential transport infrastructure.
They lower perceived travel times for walking.
They reduce peak air temperatures, and in NZ especially get rid of that radiative energy, from the sun and from the hot black asphalt.
They also vehicle traffic in the street.
“They also vehicle traffic in the street.”
slow?
Yes, my mistake.
Absolutely agree Jack. Either trees, or more trees, for all the reasons that you have identified.
Jack. You realise that vector own 50% of Treescape yes? This is part of the rort of our power supply.
Just as the region’s network is controlled by a small group of men (assumption) elected by a small subgroup of the region.
That undergrounding map is incorrect. My mother lives on Gt Sth Rd Papakura and her lines were put underground about 18 months ago. That map also doesn’t show where suburbs already had lines underground before 2010.
The power into my house and neighbors was put underground ~20 years ago in preparation for the lines in the street to go underground. This still hasn’t happened.
While tree covered streets look nice in summer, in winter they become cold and slippery. Deciduous trees drop leaves that are hazardous in autumn.
The trusts beneficiaries are those who have power contracts, and trustees are appointed by beneficiaries.
Deciduous trees drop leaves that are hazardous in autumn. And non-existent trees don’t filter the sun, which is a hazard all year.
The slippery leaves are mitigatable too with some basic maintenance. And the benefits of having trees would far outweigh the costs of doing this. Just that we don’t.
Its really lucky that Auckland isn’t a cold snowy area. Can you imagine how poor the sidewalk and bike lane snow removal would be.
Thanks, Anthony. That’s interesting that your mother’s address isn’t included. Going back to the source data – Vector’s information about where they have done undergrounding work, they do not list Great South Rd.
https://www.vector.co.nz/personal/electricity/undergrounding-other-projects
I wonder why the information is not complete. Here are the streets they list:
2020/21 Mt Albert
Powell Street, Avondale
Laings Road, Bucklands Beach
Bucklands Beach Road, Bucklands Beach (part of the street)
2019/20 Mt Albert
Powell Street, Avondale
Ngahue Drive, Stonefields
Norwich Street, Eden Terrace
Bella Vista Road, Herne Bay
Ruskin Street, Parnell
Selwyn Street, Onehunga (part of street)
2018/19 Franklin Road, Freemans Bay
Station Road, Otahuhu
Alba Road, Greenlane
Sarsfield Street, Herne Bay
Taurarua Street, Parnell
Rahiri Road, Mt Eden
Coronation Road, Mangere Bridge
I’d love my road undergrounded. That way I wouldn’t lose power in every small bit of wind we get. But then we live out west so no one cares.
“better climate outcomes”
Slightly off topic, and maybe I need to write this up more fully, but I am triggered to write about recent experience with power vs town gas.
We am currently (urgently) looking for a new build house on the North Shore, so despite level 3 restrictions are digging through plans and specs of a few houses in our budget and suburbs of choice. We know that lots of consents have been issued over the last year or two and despite labour and materials shortages, a lot of building is going on.
What is hugely frustrating is that in every new house we have looked at, there seems to have been no acknowledgment of the need to reduce emissions. Part of wanting a new build is more efficient house than our uninsulated early 1970s era house. And no doubt forced by regulation, the new builds are all doubled glazed with better insulation than older houses.
But every one we have looked at, had gas installed by default and none had solar. We asked for solar and electric (with induction cooktop) to be added to the spec (at our cost) for one house, and the builder was really puzzled, but reluctantly agreed. I know part of the reason is they want to get every sq metre of space out of tiny sites (which I am OK with) so build 200sqm+ houses but don’t want to waste a sqm on a hot water cylinder
Even stormwater seem badly managed with quite a few of the places having too little permeable surface, so using (electrically pumped) buried tanks to manage stormwater, which I suspect could go wrong in the next 20 years.
If the council won’t encourage low emission housing, surely this would something that Vector or Entrust, should be encouraging with incentives for EV chargers and electric heating and cooking?.
Thanks Grant. Yes, quite right. I had started a section on how Vector could help advocate for the right regulations around encouraging solar uptake, including fair rates, but the post was getting too long for me to bother finishing it.
If you’d be interested in writing a post about your experience, we would certainly consider it. Also, you might be interested in reading the Recosting Energy report I linked. I’ve only skimmed it but I think there are useful points in it.
https://blob-static.vector.co.nz/blob/vector/media/vector-regulatory-disclosures/annex-1-recosting-energy.pdf
If you spend your life driving around in a 4WD Diesel Ute I doubt mitigating climate through not burning stuff is front of mind.
Have you considered a heat pump hot water cylinder? Very cool application for the tech imo. Especially considering that hot water is such a large part of power use.
Awesome Heidi – I hope that change occurs. And great to see a post on Greater Auckland recognising the value and importance of participatory systems that capture a broad range of voices.
Thanks Roland. It’s an important subject. In case you missed them, here are some other posts that you might find interesting:
https://www.greaterauckland.org.nz/2021/10/06/using-deliberative-democracy-to-explore-the-future-of-aucklands-water-supply/
https://www.greaterauckland.org.nz/2021/06/03/learning-from-europes-new-urban-politics/
https://www.greaterauckland.org.nz/2020/07/01/the-power-of-disruption-2/
https://www.greaterauckland.org.nz/2019/10/14/ready-made-council-plans-at-your-service/
Roll on 2025 and (hopefully) no new gas connections.
If you haven’t submitted on this subject previously email Minister Woods. It’s a government that seems to make its decisions based on public opinion.
Or maybe call talkback and discuss it there?
The anti- democratic nature of the voting list can be changed by act of parliament, probably by a member’s bill.
The list of voters would come from the electoral roll- so every registered voter at an address. The vote for trustees would be at the same time as the local elections.
In cases where electorates go beyond more than one Lines company’s area e.g. Franklin/ north waikato the organisation operating the trustee vote would liaise with the company to check their customer area.
Something like this already happens with some Health boards (Mid-central is one) whose district boundaries are not the same as council boundaries.
Good post. Thanks Heidi.
Bunch of useless trustees collecting paychecks for doing nothing.
I haven’t received any voting papers yet – should I have? TIA.
you should have, if you are in the entrust area.
Thanks Jack. Yes I’m in the area – usually have the papers by now – maybe NZ Post has too much work right now.
Hi Roz, I’d suggest you look into it if you don’t get them tomorrow.
https://www.electionz.com/entrust/
The company managing the election has these contact details:
FREEPHONE 0800 EZ VOTE (0800 398 683)
[email protected]
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *





document.getElementById( “ak_js” ).setAttribute( “value”, ( new Date() ).getTime() );
Greater Auckland is an independent volunteer-run analysis and advocacy platform for improving the quality of our cities.
Formerly transportblog, we provide evidence based debate on urban form, transport, housing, design, and public space.
Our aim is to foster a greater Auckland for all.
Thank you for subscribing
Thanks for signing up for news from Bike Auckland! You’re now part of a community of Aucklanders helping to create a more bikeable city. Keep an eye on your inbox for regular updates.
We love being able to keep you in the loop – it means we know theres a community of like-minded people who are keen on making Auckland better on bikes. Sign up for updates about what’s happening, and how you can be part of it.
Want to receive updates?

source