View submissions

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.