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 (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.

Objection

---

Pauline Dicker

The removal of the Peninsula area from Dunedin South and transferred to Dunedin North.
The Otago Peninsula area is geographically attached to Dunedin South not Dunedin North.
People from the Peninsula shop and do business in this South Dunedin area.
To move 8000 people may look like an easy solution to increasing populations but does not take into account the established community of interest.
Personally I do not cross town into Dunedin North, whose population includes a transient student population, which has their own specific areas of interest, versus the established communities in the current Dunedin South electorate.
To me it is reminiscent of the proposal of a few years ago to move the Chatham Islands from the Rongotai electorate - it was an exercise in numbers versus the relationships that the community sustains.

Objection

---

Mr and Mrs Paul and Natalie Karaitiana

while we are Te Tai Tonga and understand Dunedin North is below quota we object to Dunedin South including Otago Peninsula being moved into D/Nth electorate.
it is difficult enough receiving budgetary consideration regarding issues that affect Otago Peninsula already without being 'relegated further afield to an electorate with no interest in OP. plus we already put up being served by city people that reply with 'where's that?'

Objection

---

Mr Dominic Tay

I support the realignment of the northern boundary of Dunedin North to the Dunedin City Council area but object to the realignment of the southern boundary as proposed.
I disagree that the Otago Peninsula shares a stronger community of interest with northern Dunedin than with southern Dunedin. Communities particularly at the southern end of the peninsula, such as Waverley and Shiel Hill, are more closely connected with communities such as Andersons Bay, Musselburgh, and Tainui. However, I agree that Dunedin North needs to gain population and that transferring the Otago Peninsula is the easiest way to add to the existing electorate.
While Dunedin North as proposed is slightly above quota, I notice that its population is expected to decline slightly in 2023, which may make further growth to this electorate in 2020 more palatable.
I also believe the name of the electorate is no longer suitable as it takes in more than just the northern area of Dunedin.

• Dominic Tay submission (pdf 790 KB)

Counter-Objection

Relates to objections

S13-001, S13-005

---

Joshua Hardy

I personally support the idea of making the Otago Peninsula apart of the Dunedin North electorate as it supports the shift of the electorate to focusing on the urban/university based communities of interest within the Dunedin Region.
This idea is supported by the proposed boundary change making the more rural areas to the north of Dunedin a part of the more rurally focused Waitaki Electorate. With the Otago peninsula becoming a more urban area with recent development, it would make sense for it to be a part of a Dunedin electorate and have an MP that is focused on the issues that affects the urban population especially one that has a very well established university-based community like that of Dunedin North. The Otago Peninsula population would benefit greatly from an MP that is more focused on the issues that would have an effect on their urban community.
With the proposed Dunedin South boundaries looking to extend further into the rural communities of Milton and Balclutha, Dunedin South looks to become more rurally focused than it already currently is. Therefore it would be best to centralise the interests of urban Dunedin into a single central Dunedin seat which includes that of the Otago Peninsula.

Counter-Objection

Relates to objections

S13-001, S13-002, S13-004, S13-005, S13-006

---

Susan Nash

I support the boundary recommendation for Dunedin North by the Commission. When you look at the number of people in the electorates in the South Island it is clear that growth means change needs to happen. Some people don't like change, and many of the objections were simply this. As population continues to grow it is sensible to make boundary changes that should create room for continued growth.
The Peninsula being in the Dunedin North (Central) electorate is a natural part of change, the communities of interest exist in many areas including tourism and conservation efforts.
Wellington Central, Auckland Central and Christchurch Central all exist. Dunedin should be the same.

Objection

---

Colin Foster

My town (Lawrence) is part of Clutha District, and our current electorate is Clutha-Southland (the clue there is in the name!). It is madness to "move" us into Dunedin South - we have no organisational, territorial or other connection to the city, which is a major urban centre and has nothing in common in terms of priorities and representation with a rural dustrcict such as ours.
Changing our electorate purely so Dunedin South can achieve some nominal quota is ridiculous, and gives no weight to the nature of the area, natural boundaries and exisiting allegiances or the views and wishes of our people. An MP representing a major urban conurbation will naturally prioitise time and policy in directions which are likely to be in conflict with the needs of rural areas.

Objection

---

Mr Nathan Farr

My objection is to the fact that these changes clearly favour one party. The New Zealand National Party. The changes take in a large part of Clutha-Southland. And this said electorate (Clutha-Southland) is a National Safe Seat. And these changes will allow the National voter base in Dunedin South to increase and to change the number of National/Labour Party voter number in Favour of National. The changes are not fair and will favour one party of another.

Objection

---

Mrs Donna Buxton

I would like to see the boundaries of the Clutha District remain in the Clutha-Southland Electorate.
As it is proposed the Clutha District will be represented by three electorates - Southland, Clutha Southland and Dunedin South. I believe in time that this would strengthen any case to amalgamate our district into other councils which will see the dissoltion of our current council and have a significant impact on the area.
Balclutha and surrounding areas are a rural community and face different issues to that of a city.
I also believe that we will not get the same representation in Parliament as we currently have.
Finally, how absurd that a town named BalCLUTHA is not in the CLUTHA-Southland district.

Objection

---

Mr Ian Pentecost

This proposal will radically alter the political makeup of the area.
The Otago Peninsula is next to and has a long association with South Dunedin.
The Otago Peninsula is not close to Dundedin North.
The proposal will make South Dunedin a rural electorate.

Objection

---

Ms Sarah Lyon

I object to the Clutha district being moved out of Otago and into the Southland area. We are part of Otago and this should not be changed. The ‘boundary’ should fall Clutha - Otago. How can you just decide to change an areas ‘region’ we identify as people of Otago and always have.