View submissions

Objection

---

Miss Sarah Boulton (and Mr Chris Lowe)

I do not want to change from Nelson to Tasman-Westcoast, I do not live on the coast.

Objection

---

Elizabeth Kitson

Tasman and the westcoast have far differing requirements from government. It is difficult to ascertain the needs of such a broad area based solely on population. I understand this is a difficult area to split but it is very very diverse and the current MPs are unable to service the whole area. The demands from the public vary and being sparsely populated it means no one gets the time, effort and funding they require.

Objection

---

Neil Read

getting sick of the Tasman part of the electorate dictating the welfare of the west coast when they have no involvement in the unique life style businesses and employment here but due to there overwhelming ratio Tasman to West-coaster think they can bulldoze there choice on us.

Objection

---

Ms Karen Murray

My objection is to the actual boundary- we live 5 minutes from Rangiora - have absolutely nothing to do with Kaikoura yet our representation is from there - we need to be with Rangiora

Objection

---

New Zealand Labour Party

We oppose any change to the southern boundary of Christchurch East. There appears to be no nessesity to make any changes to the Christchurch East electorate. The electorate is projected to grow by several thousand people, and fall only 692 people shy of remaining within the 5% quota by 2023.
The Commission’s reasoning for this change, that it will put the electorate more ‘comfortably’ within quota,we do not find to be compelling enough to disrupt the representation of these people and strike a line down the middle of this community. The proposal is at odds with the Commission’s stated desire to seek minimal change –at most the Commission should be seeking simply to achieve the 5% quota by 2023. We note that the Commission has chosen not to pursue the same approach for other electorates close to the 5% quota limit (e.g. Rongotai, which is projected to be further under it’s quota by 2023). Accordingly, we encourage the Commission to take a consistent approach.
If the Commission prefers to ensure that the projected population for Christchurch East remains within the 5% quota in 2023, we suggest instead that a much smaller and less disruptive change could be made. The small area around Mairehau School on the boundary of Christchurch Central could be moved into Christchurch East. The new boundary between the electorates would run along Dudley creek as it passes through Walter Park – a much more natural boundary than the existing one.
This would be significantly less disruptive than the proposed division of Bromley, as it does not sever a cohesive community in two. It also relocates less people, just enough to bring Christchurch East within quota on 2023 projections, and much more in line with the aim to create minimal changes.

• Labour-Party-Submission-to-Representation-Commission-Dec-2019-S05-001.pdf (pdf 613 KB)

Counter-Objection

Relates to objections

S05-001, S05-002

---

Hon Nicky Wagner

I oppose the division of Mairehau as proposed in objection S05-001. Cutting Mairehau High School and the surrounding streets off from the rest of Mairehau would only divide up another community of interest and not solve the issue of Bromley's current division. The proposed boundaries would actually put all of Bromley into one electorate, whereas objection S05-001 seeks to keep Bromley divided and create a new division in Mairehau.
The upper end of Hills Road (between Innes and QEII Drive) and the attached cul-de-sacs, can only be entered from the Hills/Innes Road intersection. It is also unclear whether Lady Isaac Retirement Village would go into Christchurch East in this objection given the main entrance is from east of Dudley Creek. The area is wholly linked to Mairehau, including the location of shops, schools, sports clubs, churches and other community services that service these streets. The current boundaries for Christchurch Central should be maintained.
Appendix A - NZ Post Definition of Mairehau Suburb (Google Maps)
Appendix B - Area understood to be proposed in S05-001, highlighting only entry from Hills Road and separation of schools around Mairehau. Dudley Creek highlighted by the blue line.

• 2020-Boundary-Review-Counter-Objection-Appendices.pdf (pdf 1 MB)

Objection

---

Mrs Jan Walker

I don't want large areas of rural Selwyn electorate to go back to Banks Peninsula. Selwyn electorate is mainly rural with isolated urban/suburban centres like Lincoln, Prebbleton, Leeston and Rolleston. It would be a shame if Akaroa were joined up again with all the suburban areas of Christchurch City.

Objection

---

David Hyndman

Horomaka. This is the original name of our region, also known as Banks Peninsula.

Objection

---

Alister France

The village of Geraldine in Canterbury has now been an orphan to its area of interest for many years now and I ask that the commission consider placing Geraldine into the Ashburton / Timaru electorate. It very easy for the commission to allocate electorates based on numbers without considering the social impacts of people's representation. Geraldine has no interest in Waitaki but it does have a close connection with Timaru and Ashburton. Because Geraldine has been an electorate 'orphan' for several elections now doesn't mean the voters should continue to suffer abysmal representation for a further election.

Objection

---

Mike Clare

To whom it may concern: I live just out of Geraldine. All our dealings are with either Timaru or Ashburton. While I accept the rationale for population.. determining boundaries. Including this area in with the greater Waitaki is bizarre! Its obvious whoever did this has no concept of the topography/roading etc. Please show some common sense

Objection

---

Lesley Fallon

I am resident at [redacted] Cox St Geraldine which currently is considered part of the Waitaki Electorate. As far as Im concerned it is completely ridiculous having an MP who lives hundred of kilometres from Geraldine when there is an MP in Timaru (37kms from Geraldine) and another one in Ashburton (60kms from Geraldine). Surely it can be managed so that the electorates are divided equitably taking into consideration the proximity of people to towns. Perhaps a woman is needed to sort this out.

Objection

---

Greg Wilkinson

I object to splitting the Central Otago region between the Waitaki and Clutha Southland electorates. Cromwell, Alexandra and Roxburgh are ‘communities of interest’ and should remain in the same electorate as they are currently. Alexandra and Roxburgh have more in common with Cromwell, not Queenstown and it makes no sense to have the MP for Clutha Southland to drive through the Waitaki electorate (Cromwell) to attend to duties in Queenstown or Alexandra.

Counter-Objection

Relates to objections

S12-001, S12-002, S12-003, S12-004, S12-005, S12-006, S12-007

---

Mrs Lucy Simpson

The current boundary works well. The Waitaki Electorate encompasses much of South Canterbury and North Otago, and the two regions share common concerns, which an MP can become familiar with in time. The Rangitata River is a prominent boundary that works quite well for the division of the electorates to the north. Oamaru is also a logical central location for an MP to travel from to make their way around a large land area with a low population density.

Objection

---

New Zealand Labour Party

The current urban boundary between the electorates of Dunedin North and Dunedin South is clear and logical, dividing the largely residential area of Dunedin South from the town centre of Dunedin, including the university, industrial zone and hill suburbs.
The Commission’s proposed new boundary creates a ribbon along the edge of the harbour containing no residential properties as a way of connecting the residents of the Otago Peninsula into the proposal for the newly configured Dunedin North.
While the two arms of the Otago Harbour may look close on a map, the only way to travel between them is by road, right around the perimeter of the harbour. These two communities are not neighbours. They attend different schools, shop in different areas, use different community facilities, and access different beaches and parks.
The last time the residents of any part of the Otago Peninsula were drawn into one electorate with the Northern harbour was between 1928 and 1938. It should be noted that at that time Dunedin was served by 5 electorates and the two arms of the harbour were connected by a passenger ferry service which was discontinued in the 1950s. The ferry was supported by a connecting train service. Since 1938 the entire Peninsula has been included in the same electorate as the southern suburbs of Dunedin.
A more logical and much less disruptive redistribution within the City boundary is to continue the line marked by SH 1 southwards to the hill crest between Saddle Hill Rd and Chain Hills Rd so that the suburbs of Abbotsford and Fairfield are moved from Dunedin South to Dunedin North. These suburbs are contiguous to the suburbs of Kaikorai Valley and have schooling and roading connections. We note that as recently as 1993 the suburbs of Abbotsford and Fairfield were part of the Dunedin West seat so do not have the same historical relationship with the Dunedin South electorate as suburbs such as Waverley and Ocean Grove.

• Labour-Party-Submission-to-Representation-Commission-Dec-2019-S13-001.pdf (pdf 613 KB)

Objection

---

Mr Peter Wallis

The Otago peninsula is clearly tied both geographically and culturally with Dunedin South. Most kids attend schools in Dunedin South and attend sport and other cultural events in Dunedin South. This is not a good idea.