Report of the Representation Commission 2007

SCHEDULE B

Table showing the nature of the objections and Counter-Objections received and the decision of the Commission in each case.

a	b						c									Electoral District and Nature of Objection [b = boundary; n = name; h = hearing]															Decision of Commission
N01																									Northland
N01							001									b									Objection Far North District Council Objects to the boundary of the proposed Northland electorate on the grounds of population growth, geographic size, communication facilities and community of interest. Anticipated growth on the east coast of Northland may vary considerably from the projected population figures given. Also, Northland is a predominantly rural electorate that now includes two urban areas. Given the geographic size and the communication facilities of the electorate, this will make it difficult for any MP to effectively represent the proposed electorate. Suggested solution Retain the existing boundary.						Disallowed
N08																									Te Atatu
N08							001									n									Objection G R Seymour Objects to the omission of a macron in the name of the proposed Te Atatu electorate. Suggested solution That the electorate name be spelt ‘Te Atatū’						Allowed
N09																							Waitakere
N09							001									b							Objection B L Pillay, MP – Waitakere Objects to the inclusion of Muriwai in the proposed Waitakere electorate. Muriwai is isolated by topography and transport facilities from the rest of the electorate and is part of the Rodney District, rather than Waitakere City. Suggested solution Do not include Muriwai in the Waitakere electorate.							Allowed
N09							002									b							Objection Hon Chris Carter, MP – Te Atatu Objects to the inclusion of the northern part of the suburb of Sunnyvale in the proposed Waitakere electorate. This suburb shares a community of interest with Henderson and the Te Atatu electorate. Suggested solution Run the boundary with the Te Atatu electorate along Railside Avenue, View Road, James Laurie Street, and along Great Northern Road to the boundary with Sabulite Road.							Disallowed. Quota tolerance does not permit the proposed change
N10																							New Lynn
N10							001									n							Objection B R Costley Objects to the name ‘New Lynn’ for the proposed electorate as the New Lynn area is no longer central to the electorate. Suggested solution Name the electorate ‘Titirangi’							Disallowed
N12																							Mt Roskill
N12							001									b, h							Objection B P Dove Objects the inclusion of parts of Blockhouse Bay in the proposed Mt Roskill electorate, specifically Donovan Street, Lewis Street, Shipton Place, Francis Curtis Drive, Eleanor Place and Lynbrooke Avenue. These streets share a strong community of interest and their facilities of communication and transport with the rest of Blockhouse Bay. Suggested solution Place these streets in the New Lynn electorate.							Disallowed
N12							601									b							Counter-objection Hon D Cunliffe, MP – New Lynn Relates to objection N12/001 Suggests that the streets named in the objection share a community of interest with Mt Roskill that is the same as neighbouring streets such as Gilletta Road, Lynfield Place and Tropicana Drive. Notes that the boundary along Blockhouse Bay Road splits the Glen Avon community in two and separates the school from its natural catchment area up to Terry Street. Suggested solution Run the boundary of the New Lynn electorate from Wolverton Street, up Tiverton Road to Whitney Street and along to Dundale Avenue.							Allowed. Proposed solution disallowed – outside quota tolerance
N15																							Tamaki
N15							001									n							Objection G R Seymour Objects to the omission of a macron in the name of the proposed Tamaki electorate. Suggested solution That the electorate name be spelt ‘Tāmaki’							Allowed
N15							002									n							Objection G M Papuni Similar to N15/001 Suggested solution Similar to N15/001							Allowed
N15							003									b, h							Objection New Zealand National Party – Northern Region Objects to the inclusion of the area bounded by Michaels Avenue in the west and Jellicoe Road in the east, up to the current Maungakiekie –Tamaki electorate boundary, in the proposed Tamaki electorate. This area includes all of the Stanhope Road School catchment area, and is topographically isolated from the rest of the electorate. It shares a community of interest with the Maungakiekie electorate. Suggested solution Retain the current boundary in this area.							Allowed in part
N15							601									b, h							Counter-objection R Northey Relates to objection N15/003 Notes that the area mentioned in N15/003 shares a community of interest with the suburbs of St Johns and Meadowbank, already in the Tamaki electorate. Suggested solution Use the Ellerslie-Panmure Highway as a boundary, as proposed by the Representation Commission.							Allowed in part
n15							602									b							Counter-objection R Gallagher Relates to objection N15/003 Notes that the boundary suggested in N15/003 divides a proposed new development in the old Winstone’s Quarry area. Suggested solution Similar to N15/601							Allowed in part
N15							603									b, h							Counter-objection L Boyle, Councillor – Auckland City, Tamaki-Maungakiekie Ward Relates to objection N15/003 Similar to N15/601 Suggested solution Similar to N15/601							Allowed in part
N16																							Maungakiekie
N16							001									b, h							Objection New Zealand National Party – Northern Region Objects to the inclusion of the area of eastern Otahuhu bounded by Great South Road, Atkinson Road and Princes Street, in the proposed Maungakiekie electorate. Suggested solution Include this area in the Manukau East electorate.							Allowed
N16							601									b							Counter-objection R Brown Relates to objection N16/001 Objects to the solution suggested in N16/001, as this would divide Otahuhu. Notes the strong community of interest within Otahuhu, including the historic Otahuhu Borough Council, and the long-lived existing boundary of the Maungakiekie electorate. Suggested solution Adopt the boundaries proposed by the Representation Commission.							Disallowed but see N19 boundaries for Manukau East
N16							602									b							Counter-objection L Holt Relates to objection N16/001 Similar to N16/601 Notes that the proposed boundary of Maungakiekie closely follows the boundary between Auckland and Manukau City Councils. Suggested solution Similar to N16/601							Disallowed
N16							603									b, h							Counter-obejction R Northey Relates to objection N16/001 Similar to N16/602 Notes the origin of Otahuhu as a fencible town and its more than 150 years history as a community. Suggested solution Similar to N16/601							Disallowed but see N19 boundaries for Manukau East
N16							604									b, h							Counter-objection L Boyle, Councillor – Auckland City, Tamaki-Maungakiekie Ward Relates to objection N16/001 Similar to N16/602 Suggested solution Similar to N16/601							Disallowed but see N19 boundaries for Manukau East
N17																							Pakuranga
N17							001								b								Objection J S Peters Objects to the inclusion of Panmure and Glen Innes in the proposed Pakuranga electorate. They fall within the established administrative boundaries of Auckland City, whereas other areas in the Pakuranga electorate are part of Manukau City. Suggested solution Consider a new electorate along the Eastern Corridor							Allowed in part. Existing boundaries retained except for Cockle Bay.
N17							002								b								Objection J Victorino Similar to N17/001 Suggested solution None given							Allowed in part. Existing boundaries retained except for Cockle Bay.
N17							003								b								Objection J E Weldon Similar to N17/001 Suggested solution Retain the current boundary							Allowed
N17							004								b								Objection G Webster & H Razak Similar to N17/001 Also objects on the grounds of geographical features as the Tamaki Estuary forms a natural boundary. Suggested solution Similar to N17/003							Allowed
N17							005								b								Objection Pakuranga Community Board Similar to N17/004 The proposed boundary also disrupts a long established distinct community of interest on the Howick edge of the electorate, and does not allow for future population growth around the Pakuranga Town Centre. Suggested solution Similar to N17/003							Allowed in part. Existing boundaries retained except for Cockle Bay.
N17							006								b								Objection M D Palmer Similar to N17/004 Objects to the proposed boundary as it does not comply with the statutory criteria for drawing electorates: Panmure and Glen Innes have little community of interest with Pakuranga The Tamaki Estuary acts as a natural topographical break between Pakuranga and Panmure/Glen Innes The only communication and transport links across the estuary are two bridges. Suggested solution Redraw the boundaries in line with the Electoral Act criteria. Two mapped options provided. This could be done by removing the area to the west of the Panmure Bridge and substituting an area from the west of the proposed Howick electorate. The Howick electorate could then be expanded eastwards to include the Whitford, Maraetai and Beachlands communities, which have a longstanding association with Howick. or Include the areas of St Heliers and St Johns, rather than Panmure and Glen Innes, as they have a stronger shared community of interest with the Pakuranga electorate.							Allowed in part. Existing boundaries retained except for Cockle Bay.
N17							007								b								Objection M Bunge-Krueger Similar to N17/001 Suggested solution None given										Allowed
N17							008								b, h								Objection E Dillimore-Muir Similar to N17/004 Suggested solution Similar to N17/003										Allowed in part. Existing boundaries retained except for Cockle Bay.
N17							009								b								Objection A C Power Similar to N17/004 Suggested solution Similar to N17/003										Allowed
N17							010								b								Objection L D Galpin Similar to N17/004 Suggested solution Similar to N17/003										Allowed in part. Existing boundaries retained except for Cockle Bay.
N17							011								b, h								Objection C O Jordan Similar to N17/004 Suggested solution Similar to N17/003										Allowed in part. Existing boundaries retained except for Cockle Bay.
N17							012								b, h								Objection D E Wilson Similar to N17/004 Suggested solution Similar to N17/003										Allowed in part. Existing boundaries retained except for Cockle Bay.
N17							013								b								Objection R A Smyth Similar to N17/004 Suggested solution Use the Tamaki River as the south-eastern boundary for a new electorate called ‘Maungarei’. This electorate would have boundaries that included the areas of St Heliers, Glendowie, Glen Innes, St Johns, Point England, Lake Park, Tamaki, Mt Wellington, Sylvia Park and Otahuhu.										Allowed in part.
N17							014								b								Objection M Colquhoun Similar to N17/004 Suggested solution Similar to N17/003										Allowed in part. Existing boundaries retained except for Cockle Bay.
N17							015								b, h								Objection S Henry, The Housing Lobby Similar to N17/004 Suggested solution Place Glen Innes, Point England and Panmure in the Tamaki electorate.										Allowed in part. Glenn Innes remains in Tamaki but not Pt England or Panmure.
N17							016								b, h								Objection N J Barclay Similar to N17/005 Suggested solution Similar to N17/003										Allowed in part. Existing boundaries retained except for Cockle Bay.
N17							017								b								Objection P N Martin Similar to N17/004 Suggested solution Similar to N17/003										Allowed in part. Existing boundaries retained except for Cockle Bay.
N17							018								b, h								Objection G J Pellew Similar to N17/005 Suggested solution Similar to N17/005										Allowed in part. Existing boundaries retained except for Cockle Bay.
N17							019								b, h								Objection B R Warren Similar to N17/005 Suggested solution Similar to N17/003										Allowed in part. Existing boundaries retained except for Cockle Bay.
N17							020								b								Objection R A Barfoote Similar to N17/005 Suggested solution Similar to N17/003										Allowed
N17							021								b								Objection G S Gray Similar to N17/004 Suggested solution The Panmure area should be part of an Auckland City based electorate and the Pakuranga area part of a Manukau City based electorate.										Allowed
N17							022								b								Objection G B & K S Moore Similar to N17/004 Notes that the population of the existing electorate does not require a change to boundaries. Suggested solution Similar to N17/003										Allowed in part. Existing boundaries retained except for Cockle Bay.
N17							023								b								Objection T Doherty Similar to N17/005 Suggested solution Similar to N17/003										Allowed in part. Existing boundaries retained except for Cockle Bay.
N17							024								b								Objection J Laing Similar to N17/004 Suggested solution None given										Allowed in part. Existing boundaries retained except for Cockle Bay.
N17							025								b								Objection S McMurray Similar to N17/005 Suggested solution Similar to N17/003										Allowed in part. Existing boundaries retained except for Cockle Bay.
N17							026								b, h								Objection D J Catley Similar to N17/005 Suggested solution Similar to N17/003										Allowed in part. Existing boundaries retained except for Cockle Bay.
N17							027								b, n								Objection D Rose Similar to N17/005 Also objects to the name ‘Pakuranga’ for the proposed electorate as the name does not fully represent the electorate. Suggested solution Similar to N17/003 The Tamaki electorate boundary could be moved south into Maungakiekie and the Howick electorate boundary moved east to include Whitford, Maraetai and Beachlands. The Pakuranga electorate could be renamed ‘Ohuiarangi’ after the volcanic cone at its centre.										Allowed in part. Existing boundaries retained except for Cockle Bay. Disallowed as to name.
N17							028								b, h								Objection Manukau City Council Similar to N17/005 Suggested solution Similar to N17/003										Allowed in part. Existing boundaries retained except for Cockle Bay.
N17							029								b								Objection H L & J M Simkin Similar to N17/004 Suggested solution None given										Allowed in part. Existing boundaries retained except for Cockle Bay.
N17							030								b								Objection A Ho Similar to N17/005 Suggested solution Retain the existing Pakuranga electorate as much as possible. Glen Innes, Panmure and Point England should remain in the Tamaki electorate and Sylvia Park in the Maungakiekie electorate. Include Highland Park, Howick and Mellons Bay in the Pakuranga electorate. Include Cockle Bay, Shelly Park and Burswood in the proposed Howick electorate. Beachlands and Maraetai might also be included. To better reflect the new centre of this electorate, it should be called ‘Botany’ or ‘Botany-Beachlands’. Further adjustments to maintain quotas in neighbouring electorates suggested.										Allowed
N17							031								b								Objection J C Mullane Similar to N17/004 Suggested solution Similar to N17/003										Allowed
n17							032								b								Objection G E Kirk Similar to N17/004 Suggested solution Similar to N17/003										Allowed in part. Existing boundaries retained except for Cockle Bay.
N17							033								b								Objection W Thrupp Similar to N17/004 Suggested solution Similar to N17/003										Allowed in part. Existing boundaries retained except for Cockle Bay.
N17							034								b, h								Objection N Morrison & J Ross, Councillors – Manukau City Similar to N17/005 Suggested solution Similar to N17/003										Allowed
N17							035								b, h								Objection S Warren, Chairman – Bucklands & Eastern Beaches Ratepayers & Residents Association Inc Similar to N17/005 Suggested solution Similar to N17/003										Allowed in part. Existing boundaries retained except for Cockle Bay.
N17							036								b								Objection A Gautier Similar to N17/004 Suggested solution None given										Allowed
N17							037								b								Objection R N Burgham Similar to N17/004 Suggested solution Similar to N17/003										Allowed
N17							038								b								Objection M N Burgham Similar to N17/004 Suggested solution Similar to N17/003										Allowed
N17							039								b								Objection S C Burgham Similar to N17/004 Suggested solution Similar to N17/003										Allowed
N17							040								b								Objection N V & B F Holyoake Similar to N17/004 Suggested solution Similar to N17/003										Allowed in part. Existing boundaries retained except for Cockle Bay.
N17							041								b								Objection I Fox, Principal – Bucklands Beach Intermediate Similar to N17/004 Suggested solution Similar to N17/003											Allowed in part. Existing boundaries retained except for Cockle Bay.
N17							042								b, h								Objection C R Mikkelson Similar to N17/005 Suggested solution Similar to N17/003											Allowed in part. Existing boundaries retained except for Cockle Bay.
N17							043								b								Objection B & J Jones Objects to the western boundary of the proposed Pakuranga electorate as this does not follow natural divisions in the landscape. Suggested solution Use natural boundaries, such as the Tamaki Estuary and Mangemangeroa Creek, for electorate boundaries.											Allowed
N17							044								b								Objection T C & W I Hickmott Similar to N17/004 Suggested solution That the Pakuranga electorate include only the suburbs of Half Moon Bay, Pakuranga, Bucklands Beach and Howick.											Allowed in part. Existing boundaries retained except for Cockle Bay.
N17							045								b								Objection V D Robinson Similar to N17/001 Suggested solution Similar to N17/003											Allowed
N17							046								b								Objection L A Smith Similar to N17/001 Suggested solution Increase the population quota tolerance.											Allowed
N17							047								b								Objection M & B de Valk Objects to the inclusion of the peninsula of Bucklands Beach and Eastern Beach in the proposed Pakuranga electorate. This area’s community of interest lies with Howick. Suggested solution Include this area in the Howick electorate.											Disallowed
N17							048								n								Objection A Beyer Objects to the name ‘Pakuranga’ for the proposed electorate. The name does not reflect the diversity of the electorate. Suggested solution Rename the Pakuranga electorate ‘Tamaki’. The current ‘Tamaki’ electorate could be renamed ‘Kohimarama’ or ‘Eastern Bays’.											Disallowed
N17							049								b, n, h								Objection R Northey, Councillor – Auckland City Council Similar to N17/048 Objects to the inclusion of Eastern Beach and surrounds in the proposed Pakuranga electorate and to the boundary with the Maungakiekie electorate that divides the suburb of Panmure. Suggested solution Similar to N17/048 Move the south-western boundary to Barrack Road, so that all of Panmure is included in the Pakuranga electorate. Move the north-western boundary to exclude Eastern Beach and possibly Bucklands Beach.											Disallowed
N17							050								b								Objection Macleans College – Principal & Board of Trustees Objects to the boundaries of the proposed Pakuranga electorate as these divide the catchment zone for the school across more than one electorate. Suggested solution Similar to N17/003											Allowed in part. Existing boundaries retained except for Cockle Bay.
N17							051								b								Objection R C & I Peters Similar to N17/005 Suggested solution Similar to N17/044											Allowed in part. Existing boundaries retained except for Cockle Bay.
N17							052								b								Objection S M Schollum Objects to the inclusion of the area north of Point England Road in the proposed Pakuranga electorate as this leaves only one narrow road link for the area included in the proposed Tamaki electorate with the southern half of its electorate. Suggested solution Move the proposed boundary of West Tamaki Road south to Point England Road. This would also reunite the suburbs of Glen Innes and St Johns, which share a community of interest. To compensate for the increased population, Ellerslie could be placed in the Maungakiekie electorate.											Allowed
N17							053								n, h								Objection New Zealand Labour Party Similar to N17/048 Suggested solution Similar to N17/048											Disallowed
N17							054								b, h								Objection New Zealand Labour Party Objects to the boundary between the proposed Pakuranga and Howick electorates. Local community of interest is better represented by school enrolment zone boundaries than by the Manukau City Council Ward boundaries. Suggested solution As much as possible, run the boundary along secondary school enrolment zone boundaries, using the Pakuranga College boundary to the intersection of Botany and Cascades Roads.											Disallowed
N17							055								b								Objection Sir B Curtis, Mayor – Manukau City Council Similar to N17/005 Suggested solution Similar to N17/003											Allowed in part. Existing boundaries retained except for Cockle Bay.
N17							056								b, n, h								Objection L J Boyle, Councillor – Auckland City Council Similar to N17/049 Suggested solution Similar to N17/049											Disallowed
N17							057								b, h								Objection New Zealand National Party – Northern Region Similar to N17/052 Suggested solution Similar to N17/052											Allowed
N17							058								b, h								Objection M Williams, Chairman - Botany Community Board Similar to N17/005 Suggested solution Similar to N17/003											Allowed to the extent that the area comprising the Botany Community Board is substantially in the Botany electorate.
N17							601								b								Counter-objection M M Rowe Relates to objection N17/050 Supports the comments on divided school catchment zones, but does not support the suggested solution. Suggested solution Adopt the solution suggested in objection N17/054											Disallowed
N17							602								b								Counter-objection J A Green Relates to objection N17/047 Supports the comments on Bucklands and Eastern Beaches having stronger ties to Howick than Pakuranga, but does not support the suggested solution. Suggested solution Adopt the solution suggested in objection N17/054											Disallowed
N17							603								b, h								Counter-objection P Hine Relates to objection N17/006 and similar objections Objects to the interpretation of statutory criteria in the objection, particularly ‘community of interest’ and ‘topographical features’. Notes that all electorates contain a variety of communities, and that Pakuranga and Panmure/Glen Innes do have shared interests, including the school catchment for Edgewater College. Two busy bridges link the communities. Residents of both areas use the transport corridor which runs through Panmure and Pakuranga, which is scheduled for significant alteration in the near future. Suggested solution Adopt the western boundary proposed by the Representation Commission.											Disallowed
N17							604								b								Counter-objection R A Barfoote Relates to objection N17/049 Objects to the suggestion of excluding Eastern Beach and including Panmure in the Pakuranga electorate. The Tamaki Estuary forms a natural boundary to the electorate. Eastern beach is also a clear natural boundary. Suggested solution If change to the current electorate boundary is necessary, find extra population to the south of the electorate, as this area already has associations with Pakuranga.											Allowed
N17							605								b								Counter-objection S Stewart Relates to objection N17/004 Objects to the reliance on natural boundaries as a primary determinant of electorate boundaries. Notes the strong community of interest within Howick, including the historic Howick Borough Council, and its links with Howick South. Suggested solution Adopt the solution suggested in N17/057.											Disallowed
N17							606								b								Counter-objection D J Stewart Relates to objection N17/044 Notes that the solution suggested in the objection does not adequately address the effect on other electorates. Suggested solution Adopt the solution suggested in N17/052.											Disallowed
N17							607								b								Counter-objection J Worsnop Relates to objection N17/028 Objects to splitting the Howick area to retain the current Pakuranga electorate boundaries. The Howick area is a strong community distinct from Pakuranga. Supports objection N18/001. Suggested solution None given											Disallowed
N17							608								b								Counter-objection L Worsnop Relates to objection N17/003 Objects to the suggested solution to retain the current Pakuranga electorate boundary. Howick deserves its own electorate and MP. Suggested solution Adopt the boundaries proposed by the Representation Commission.											Disallowed
N17							609								b								Counter-objection S M Wheeler Relates to objection N17/003 Notes that the solution suggested in the objection does not address the effect on other electorate boundaries. Suggested solution Similar to N17/608											Disallowed
N17							610								b										Counter-objection C Mikkelson Relates to objection N17/049 The objection does not acknowledge the major geographical boundary made by the Tamaki River. Suggested solution Retain the Tamaki River as the western boundary of the Pakuranga electorate, by retaining the current boundary.										Allowed in part. Existing boundaries retained except for Cockle Bay.
N17							611								b, h										Counter-objection R Northey Relates to objections N17/001, 003-006, 013, 015, 021, 022, 027, 028, 030, 043, 044, 052, 057 & 058 The solutions suggested in these objections have the consequential effect of splitting Otahuhu, which is a strong community. Notes that Panmure and Glen Innes have stronger community and transport links with Pakuranga than St Heliers, Glendowie or St Johns. Also notes that population growth in the Auckland metropolitan area makes it necessary to have an electorate crossing the Auckland-Manukau City boundary. This can be done by linking Panmure and other parts of the Tamaki Community Board area with Pakuranga. Suggested solution Change the proposed boundaries of the Pakuranga electorate to include all of Panmure and to exclude Eastern Beach and other areas that identify more with Howick.										Disallowed
N17							612								b										Counter-objection J Ross, Councillor – Manukau City, Howick Relates to objection N17/049 Supports the suggestion that the Panmure community be kept together, but objects to the suggestion that Panmure be split from Glen Innes or Point England. The Tamaki River is a significant natural boundary for communities of interest and City Councils. Suggested solution Similar to N17/003										Allowed in part. Glen Innes and Pt England are not in the same electorate.
N17							613								b, h									Counter-objection New Zealand National Party Relates to objection N17/006 Objects to the suggestion that St Heliers and St John share a stronger community of interest with Pakuranga than Panmure and Glen Innes. Also objects to the solution suggested by N17/006, as this does not best fulfil the criteria set out in the Electoral Act. While the Tamaki Estuary is a natural boundary between Pakuranga and Panmure/Glen Innes, on population grounds it is necessary for the boundary to cross the estuary. The other alternative is to push the surplus population from Auckland City into South Auckland and the Mangere electorate, which is even more disruptive to existing boundaries and communities of interest. Suggested solution Adopt the amended boundaries proposed in N17/049 and N18/002													Disallowed

N17							614								n, h									Counter-objection New Zealand National Party – Northern Region Relates to objections N17/048 & 053 Objects to the suggestion that the Pakuranga electorate be renamed ‘Tamaki’, as this would create unnecessary confusion. Two-thirds of the electorate identify with the name ‘Pakuranga’. Suggested solution Retain the name ‘Pakuranga’.													Allowed
n17						615								b, n, h						Counter-objection New Zealand National Party – Northern Region Relates to objection N17/049 The boundaries suggested in N17/049 are not consistent with the criteria set out in the Electoral Act. Mt Wellington Highway forms a clearer geographical boundary than Barrack Road. The Panmure community of interest, including most of the school catchment area, are not divided by the Representation Commission’s proposed boundary. The suggested boundaries spilt the community of interest in Bucklands and Eastern Beaches, dividing the MacLeans College catchment area and the waterfront communities of Bucklands Beach and Half Moon Bay. These areas have a long association with the Pakuranga electorate. Also notes that changing the electorate name to ‘Tamaki’ is unnecessary and would cause confusion. Suggested solution Similar to N17/614 Adopt the amended boundaries proposed in N17/057 and N18/002																	Allowed
N17						616								b, h						Counter-objection New Zealand National Party – Northern Region Notes that the numerous objections requesting the retention of the current Pakuranga electorate boundaries are unrealistic. The Electoral Act has strict requirements for population tolerances. The changing demographics in Auckland and South Auckland require changes to the electorate boundaries. Suggested solution Similar to N17/615																	Noted
N17						617								b, n, h						Counter-objection L Boyle, Councillor – Auckland City, Tamaki-Maungakiekie Ward Relates to objections N17/001, 004-006, 013, 021, 030, 043-044 & 047-049 Similar to N17/603, N17/606 and N17/613 Notes that population growth across the Auckland region is likely to mean more changes to electorate boundaries after the 2011 census. In the meantime, growth in the proposed Pakuranga electorate is unlikely to see it go much over the population quota tolerance. Suggested solution Supports the inclusion of Bucklands and Eastern Beaches in the Howick electorate. Supports changing the electorate name to “Tamaki’, and the current Tamaki electorate’s name to ‘Kohimarama’ or ‘Eastern Bays’.																	Disallowed

N18																				Howick
N18						001								b						Objection C & P Smith Supports the boundaries of the proposed Howick electorate, particularly the use of the Mangemangeroa Stream/Estuary as the eastern boundary. Does not support the submission of Manukau City Council (N17/028) that would split the Howick area to retain the current Pakuranga electorate boundaries, as this does not allow for the strong community of interest within Howick.																	Noted
N18						002									b, h					Objection New Zealand National Party – Northern Region Objects to the inclusion of the area to the west of Hutchinsons Road, Bleakhouse Road and Mellons Bay Road in the proposed Howick electorate. Topography and the school catchment boundaries of Pakuranga and Howick link this area to Pakuranga. Suggested solution Include this area in the Pakuranga electorate.																	Allowed
N18						601									b, h					Counter-objection P Hine Relates to objection N18/002 The objection neither provides a logical boundary line between the Pakuranga and Howick school catchment areas nor follows the actual school catchment boundaries. Notes that the streets running off Bleakhouse Road north of its intersection with Hutchinsons Road descend towards the coast. Their topography links them to Howick rather than Pakuranga. This is also true of Bucklands and Eastern Beaches. The area south of Gills Road and south of Bleakhouse Road after its intersection with Hutchinsons Road are topographically linked with Pakuranga. Suggested solution Disallow N18/002.																	Disallowed
N18						602									b, h					Counter-objection L Boyle, Councillor – Auckland City, Tamaki-Maungakiekie Ward Relates to objections N18/001 & 002 Supports the eastern boundary of the proposed Howick electorate, but notes that the communities of Half Moon Bay, Bucklands and Eastern Beaches also share a community of interest with Howick. Objects to the suggestion in N18/002 that the area to the west of Hutchinsons Road, Bleakhouse Road and Mellons Bay Road belongs in the Pakurnaga electorate. Suggested solution Place the communities of Half Moon Bay, Bucklands and Eastern Beaches in the Howick electorate. Otherwise, adopt the boundaries proposed by the Representation Commission.																	Disallowed
N19																					Manukau East
N19			001								n										Objection B R Costley Objects to the name ‘Manukau East’ for the proposed electorate as the electorate is no longer in the east of Manukau City. Suggested solution Name the electorate ‘Manukau’ or ‘Otara’																Disallowed
N19			002								b, h										Objection B Mockridge Objects to the splitting of the Botany Ward of Manukau City Council across four electorates, and particularly to the inclusion of parts of the ward in the proposed Manukau East electorate. Suggested solution The Tamaki River should be used as a boundary. If the Pakuranga electorate retains its existing boundary, then most of the Botany Ward could be included in the Howick electorate. The Manukau East electorate could then include the whole of Otahuhu, and be renamed ‘Otahuhu’.																Allowed
N19			003								b										Objection NZ Labour Party – Botany Downs Branch Supports the boundaries for the proposed Manukau East electorate.																Disallowed
N19			004								b, h										Objection Manukau East Labour Electorate Committee Supports the majority of the boundaries of the proposed Manukau East electorate. However, would prefer the historic community of interest of Papatoetoe to be maintained by extending the boundary along the length of Portage Road.																Disallowed
N19		005							b, h									Objection New Zealand National Party – Northern Region Objects to the inclusion of the area between Te Irirangi Road and Chapel Road in the proposed Manukau East electorate. This area shares a strong community of interest with Howick and the rest of the Botany area. Suggested solution Include this area in the Howick electorate.																			Allowed
N19		006							b, h									Objection M Williams, Chairman - Botany Community Board Similar to N19/002 Suggested solution Proposes a different approach to drafting electoral boundaries based around community of interest and topography. This would allow, for example: a ‘Howick/Botany’ electorate; Glen Innes and Panmure to be in the Maungakiekie electorate; Manurewa to be kept in the Manurewa electorate; Otahuhu to be in the Papatoetoe electorate; and Otara to be in a ‘South Auckland’ electorate.																			Allowed
N19		601							b, n, h									Counter-objection B Mockridge Relates to objection N19/006 Otahuhu and Otara should be included in the same electorate. Otherwise, supports the objection. Suggested solution Retain the Tamaki River as the boundary of the Pakuranga electorate. Include Otahuhu and Otara in one, Otahuhu-based electorate and call that electorate ‘Otahuhu’.																			Allowed. Except as to proposed name.
N19				602								b, h										Counter-objection R Northey Relates to objections N19/002, 005 & 006 Objects to the proposal to include Otahuhu in a Manukau based electorate. Notes that Otahuhu is a part of Auckland City and shares a community of interest with the Maungakiekie electorate. Also notes that the Manukau East electorate’s proposed northern and eastern boundaries strongly reflect local communities of interest. Suggested solution Adopt the boundaries proposed by the Representation Commission.															Disallowed

N20																						Mangere
N20				001								b										Objection B R William Objects to the inclusion of the area on the eastern side of Mangere Road and Buckland Road in the proposed Mangere electorate. This area’s community of interest lies within the Manukau East electorate. Suggested solution Extend the Manukau East electorate boundary along the eastern side of Mangere Road and the northern side of Buckland Road as far as Mangere.															Disallowed. Outside quota tolerance
N20				002								b										Objection I McGechie Objects to the proposed boundary between the Mangere and Manukau East electorates in the area around Kohuora Park. Suggested solution Run the boundary with the Manukau East electorate along Portage Road between State Highway 20 and the North Island Main Trunk Line.															Disallowed. Outside quota tolerance
N20				003								b										Board of Trustees, Kedgley Intermediate School Similar to N20/002 Suggested solution Similar to N20/002															Disallowed. See N20 002
N20				004								n										Objection G R Seymour Objects to the omission of a macron in the name of the proposed Mangere electorate. Suggested solution That the electorate name be spelt ‘Māngere’															Allowed
N20				005								b										Objection Papatoetoe Community Board Similar to N20/002 Suggested solution Similar to N20/002															Disallowed. See N20 002
N20				006								b										Objection M S Mathiasen Similar to N20/002 Objects to the division of Papatoetoe between two electorates. Suggested solution Similar to N20/002.															Disallowed. See N20 002
N21																						Manurewa
N21				001								b										Objection G J Fryer Objects to the inclusion of the Mission Heights subdivision in the proposed Manurewa electorate. Neighbouring areas are included in the Howick electorate, where this subdivision’s community of interest also lies. Suggested solution Include Mission Heights in the Howick electorate.															Allowed
N21			002							b										Objection S T & T-M Woodward Similar to N21/001 Suggested solution Similar to N21/001																	Allowed
N21			003							b										Objection A Carberry & 424 others Objects to the boundaries of the proposed Manurewa electorate as they do not align with the primary community of interest of the Manurewa area, which is based on the suburbs of Manurewa, Clendon, Weymouth, Wattle Downs, Greenmeadows and Randwick Park. Suggested solution Transfer Flat Bush and the rural areas around Murphys Road to the Howick electorate. Transfer Weymouth, Wattle Downs, Greenmeadows, Randwick Park and other residential areas north of the Papakura Creek and south of Weymouth Road from the Papakura electorate to the Manurewa electorate.																	Allowed
N21			004							b										Objection G Cornwell Objects to the inclusion of Manara Place in the proposed Manurewa electorate. Suggested solution Include this street in either the Papakura or the Hunua electorate.																	Allowed
N21			005							b										Objection I Marshall Similar to N21/001 Also objects to the inclusion of Regis Park, Toplands and Norwood in the proposed Manurewa electorate. Suggested solution Include these areas in the Hunua electorate. To compensate, areas around Hingaia and Drury could be moved into the Manurewa electorate.																	Allowed
N21			006										b, h					Objection W J F Marshall Objects to the weight being placed on community of interest by other objectors. Suggested solution Adopt the proposed boundaries.																			Disallowed
N21			007										b					Objection G J & T Ashby Similar to N21/001 Suggested solution Similar to N21/001																			Allowed
N21			008										b, h					Objection D J Forsyth Similar to N21/001 Suggested solution Similar to N21/001																			Allowed
N21			009										b, h					Objection F M Forsyth Similar to N21/001 Suggested solution Similar to N21/001																			Allowed
N21			010										b					Objection R J Bootle, JP Objects to the inclusion of southern Botany in the proposed Manurewa electorate. Suggested solution Include this area in an electorate with the rest of Botany and Howick.																			Allowed
N21			011										b					Objection L Tupu & 129 others Objects to the inclusion of the area bounded by Ormiston Road, Te Irirangi Drive, Hollyford Drive and Redoubt Road in the proposed Manurewa electorate. These areas share a community of interest with the rest of the Botany area. Suggested solution Include this area in an electorate with the rest of Botany.																			Allowed in part
N21			012										b					Objection R L Pease Objects to the inclusion of the rural area around Tiffany Close in the proposed Manurewa electorate. Suggested solution Include this area in the Hunua electorate by running the boundary along Mill Road down to the Redoubt Road extension.																		Allowed
N21			013										b, h					Objection Manurewa Community Board Similar to N21/003 Also objects to the inclusion of the Flat Bush community and the area around Jeffs Road in the proposed Manurewa electorate, as they do not share a community of interest with the rest of the electorate. Suggested solution Similar to N21/003 Include these areas in the Papakura electorate.																		Allowed
N21			014										b					Objection D Nakhle Similar to N21/013 Suggested solution Similar to N21/013 To compensate, the area south of Weymouth Road could be included in the Manurewa electorate where its community of interest lies.																		Allowed
N21			601										b					Counter-objection N Ritchie & 28 others Relates to objection N21/003 Supports the content of N21/003																		Noted. See N21 003
N21			602										b, h					Counter-objection R Northey Relates to objection N21/003, 013 & 014 Objects to the suggestion that urban and rural areas in the north and east of the Manurewa electorate should be included in the Papakura electorate to its south. These areas share a stronger community of interest with Manurewa than Papakura. Suggested solution Adopt the proposed south-eastern boundary of the Manurewa electorate at Weymouth and Alfriston Roads. The urban areas around Flat Bush, Chapel Down, Clover Park and Goodwood Heights should remain in the Manurewa electorate. Any rural areas that are removed should be placed in the Hunua electorate.										Disallowed
N22																		Hunua
N22			001										b					Objection A Churchill Objects to the inclusion of Beachlands and Maraetai in the proposed Hunua electorate. These areas’ community of interest lies with Howick, Botany and Manukau City, not with Pukekohe. Suggested solution None given										Disallowed
N22			002										b					Objection N J & H A Wagstaff Similar to N22/001 Also notes that the hills south of Beachlands/Maraetai form a natural boundary with the rest of the Hunua electorate, and that these communities have different telephone services to that electorate. Suggested solution Include Beachlands/Maraetai in the Howick electorate.										Disallowed
n22			003										n					Objection P & S Baker Objects to the name ‘Hunua’ for the proposed electorate. The proposed boundaries are very similar to the historic ‘Franklin’ electorate. Suggested solution Name the electorate ‘Franklin’										Disallowed
N22			004										b, h					Objection J S Robertson, Mayor – Papakura District Council Objects to the inclusion of the Hingaia region in the proposed Hunua electorate as its community of interest lies with the Papakura electorate. Suggested solution Include Hingaia in the Papakura electorate.										Allowed
N22			005										b					Objection L & J Kemp Similar to N22/001 Suggested solution Similar to N22/001										Disallowed
n22			006										b, n					Objection D M H Senn Similar to N22/003 and N22/004 Suggested solution Similar to N22/003 and N22/004										Allowed but disallowed as to name
n22			007										b, n					Objection A J A Cooper Similar to N22/001 and N22/003. Also objects to the positioning of the southern boundary of the electorate. Suggested solution Similar to N22/003. Use the Waikato River as a boundary from its mouth to Mercer. Then follow the southern boundary of Franklin District to the eastern coast.										Allowed in part but disallowed as to name
N22				008							n											Objection G R Seymour Objects to the omission of a macron in the name of the proposed Hunua electorate. Suggested solution That the electorate name be spelt ‘Hūnua’.						Disallowed
N22				009							b, h											Objection B Mockridge Objects to the inclusion of the Clevedon Ward of Manukau City in the proposed Hunua electorate. This area’s community of interest lies with Papakura. Also, transport and communication facilities link this area with Papakura rather than Pukekohe. Suggested solution Move the Ward into the Papakura electorate. Rosehill, Opaheke, Papakura South, Red Hill and part of Drury could be moved into the Hunua electorate. Areas south of Weymouth Road could return to the Manurewa electorate.						Disallowed
N22				010							b											Objection D Rose Similar to N22/001 Suggested solution Similar to N22/002						Disallowed
N22				011							b, h											Objection Manukau City Council Similar to N22/001 Suggested solution Similar to N22/002 Set the electoral boundary for the Howick electorate at a point within the Flat Bush area that gives the appropriate population.						Disallowed
N22				012							b, h									Objection I W McDougall Similar to N22/004 Suggested solution Similar to N22/004							Allowed
N22				013							b									Objection G A Leggat Similar to N22/001 Suggested solution Run the northern boundary of the Hunua electorate along Jeffs Road, across to Ormiston Road, then north east to Sandstone Road and Whitford Park Road, south to Ara-Kotinga Road, then east to follow the line of hills to the east of Maraetai.							Disallowed
N22				014							b, h									Objection Pohutukawa Coast Community Association Inc Similar to N22/001 Suggested solution Similar to N22/002 To balance population quotas, East Tamaki Heights could be moved into either the Manukau East or the Manurewa electorate.							Disallowed
N22				015							b									Objection B Twigden Objects to the inclusion of Whitford in the proposed Hunua electorate. This area’s community of interest and communication facilities are shared with Howick. Suggested solution Include Whitford in the Howick electorate.							Disallowed
N22				016							n									Objection N Morris Similar to N22/003 Suggested solution Similar to N22/003. Details the historic significance of the name ‘Franklin’ for the area included in the electorate boundaries.							Disallowed
N22				017								b, h							Objection New Zealand Labour Party Objects to the inclusion of the Turanga census area unit, encompassing the Whitford area, in the proposed Hunua electorate. This area’s community of interest lies with the Howick electorate. Suggested solution Include the whole of the Turanga census area unit in the Howick electorate.								Disallowed
N22				601								b, h							Counter-objection B Mockridge Relates to objection N22/013 Objects to the suggested solution which would split the Clevedon Community. Suggested solution Run the northern boundary of the Hunua electorate along a major ridgeline, not a main road, such as the existing boundary between Franklin District and Manukau City.								Allowed
N22				602								b, h							Counter-objection R Northey Relates to objections N22/001, 002, 004, 006, 007, 009, 010, 012 & 013 Objects to the suggestion that Beachlands-Maraetai be included in the Howick electorate. Also objects to the suggestion that Hingaia and Clevedon be included in the Papakura electorate. These are rural areas that do not belong in urban-based electorates. Suggested solution Adopt the boundary for the Hunua electorate proposed by the Representation Commission. If possible, more of the rural fringe of Papakura could be included in the electorate.								Allowed in part
N22				603								n							Counter-objection J A Hull Similar to N22/003 Suggested solution Similar to N22/003.								Noted. see N22 003
N23																			Papakura
N23				001								b, h							Objection Manukau City Council Objects to the inclusion of the Wattle Downs/Weymouth area in the proposed Papakura electorate. This area’s community of interest and communication facilities lie with the Manurewa electorate. Also notes that the Pahurehure Inlet and Papakura Stream form a natural boundary between Manurewa and Papakura. Suggested solution Include Wattle Downs, Weymouth and the entirety of Clendon in the Manurewa electorate. The northern boundary of the Papakura electorate should be the Pahurehure Inlet and Papakura Stream. Retain the Gardens area in the Manurewa electorate. If needed for population quota, the Goodwood Heights/Jeffs Road area could be moved from the Manurewa electorate.								Allowed in part
N23				002								n							Objection A Beyer Objects to the name ‘Papakura’ for the proposed electorate. The proposed electorate includes a number of longstanding, distinctive communities, not all of whom have ties to Papakura. Suggested solution Name the electorate ‘Takanini’.								Disallowed
N23				003								n, h							Objection New Zealand Labour Party Similar to N23/002 Suggested solution Similar to N23/002								Disallowed
N23				004								b, h							Objection Manurewa Community Board Similar to N23/001 Suggested solution Move this area into the Manurewa electorate, using the Papakura Stream as a natural boundary. To compensate, the electorate’s northern boundary could be moved to include suburbs to the east of Mill Road, including Flat Bush.								Allowed in part
N23				601								b, h							Counter-objection R Northey Relates to objections N23/001 & 004 Objects to the suggestion that Wattle Downs, Weymouth and Manurewa South be removed from the Papakura electorate. These areas are urban and adjacent to urban Papakura. The suggested alternative of extending the Papakura electorate into the semi-rural north-east or south-west breaches community of interest much more. Suggested solution Adopt the boundaries proposed by the Representation Commission. If possible, shed rural areas to the east to make the electorate more compact and urban in focus. Similar to N23/002.								Allowed in part
N24																			Piako
N24				001								n							Objection B R Costley Objects to the name ‘Piako’ for the proposed electorate, as the name does not reflect the communities included in the north of the electorate. Suggested solution Name the electorate ‘Waikato’								Allowed. The name more clearly identifies the boundaries as defined
N24				002								n							Objection S & T Stark Similar to N24/001 Suggested solution Similar to N24/001								Allowed
N24				003								n							Objection M L Gribble Similar to N24/001 Suggested solution Similar to N24/001								Allowed
n24				004								n, h								Objection M Viggers Similar to N24/001 Suggested solution Similar to N24/001							Allowed
n24				005								n								Objection D L Boyde Similar to N24/001 Suggested solution Similar to N24/001							Allowed
N24				006								n								Objection Paul Similar to N24/001 Suggested solution Similar to N24/001							Allowed
N24				007								n								Objection R R Sherlock Similar to N24/001 Suggested solution Similar to N24/001							Allowed
N24				008								n								Objection P A Jupp Similar to N24/001 Suggested solution Similar to N24/001							Allowed
N24				009								n								Objection S D Lalich Similar to N24/001 Suggested solution Similar to N24/001							Allowed
N24				010								b, h								Objection H Mitchell Objects to the inclusion of parts of Paparimu in the proposed Piako electorate. Paparimu shares a community of interest and communication facilities with Papakura and Pukekohe. Suggested solution Use the Upper Mangatawhiri Reservoir and the Mangatawhiri River as a boundary westward to Medway Road.							Allowed
n24				011								b, h								Objection J Lawson Objects to the inclusion of parts of the Whaingaroa ward in the proposed Piako electorate. The Whaingaroa Harbour area, including Raglan, shares a community of interest and should not be split. Suggested solution Include the entirety of the Whaingaroa ward in the Taranaki-King Country electorate.							Disallowed
N24				012								b, h								Objection I W McDougall Objects to the inclusion of Tuakau and the surrounding area in the proposed Piako electorate. This area’s community of interest and communication facilities lie with Pukekohe in the Hunua electorate. Suggested solution Include this area in the Hunua electorate.							Allowed
N24				013								b, h								Objection T G Follows Objects to the inclusion of the area around Newell Road in the proposed Piako electorate. This area shares its communication facilities, including roads, and community of interest with Hamilton. Suggested solution Include this area in the Hamilton East electorate. The boundary could be run down State Highway 1, along Airport Road and up the Waikato River.							Disallowed. Commission prefers to follow the city boundary
N24				601								n								Counter-objection W Harper Relates to objections N24/001-009 Objects to the suggestion that the electorate name be changed to ‘Waikato’. The name ‘Waikato’ covers a much wider area than just this electorate. To use it for an electorate covering only part of the Waikato region would be confusing. Suggested solution Retain the name ‘Piako’ for the electorate.							Disallowed
N25																				Hamilton West
N25				001								b, h								Objection S W Wood, JP Objects to the inclusion of the rural area to the west of Hamilton City in the proposed Hamilton West electorate. This area shares a community of interest with the rural areas of the Taranaki-King Country electorate, rather than the urban areas of the Hamilton West electorate. Suggested solution Use the Hamilton City Council boundary as the boundary for the electorate. Include Whatawhata, Te Kowhai and surrounds in the Taranaki-King Country electorate.							Allowed in part by returning the boundary at Horotiu to the existing electorate boundary
N25				002								b, h								Objection New Zealand Labour Party Similar to N25/001 Suggested solution Similar to N25/001							Allowed in part
N25				601								b								Counter-objection B T Kibble Relates to objection N25/001 Objects to the suggestion that the rural towns west of Hamilton should be placed in the Taranaki-King Country electorate. Their community of interest links them with Hamilton City, as do their communication and transport facilities. Suggested solution Adopt the boundary proposed by the Representation Commission.							Allowed
N25				602								b								Counter-objection W Clow Relates to objections N25/001 and N25/002 Similar to N25/601 Notes that the rural area around Whatawhata and Te Kowhai is predominantly lifestyle blocks rather than traditional farming, and that residents of this area tend to work in Hamilton, not on the land. Suggested solution Similar to N25/601							Allowed
N25				603								b								Counter-objection I J Bryant Relates to objection N25/001 Similar to N25/601 Notes that this area’s local authorities are Hamilton City Council, Waikato District Council and Waipa District Council. Suggested solution Similar to N25/601							Allowed
N25				604								b								Counter-objection L A & D A T Coombes Relates to objections N25/001 and N25/002 Similar to N25/602 Suggested solution Similar to N25/601							Allowed
N25				605								b, h								Counter-objection M A Apiata-Wade Relates to objection N25/001 The current Hamilton City Council boundary does not include the proposed urban expansion towards Horotiu (HT2), bounded by the Waikato River and the Western Corridor that will link with the Northern Waikato Expressway. Suggested solution Include this area as part of the Hamilton West electorate and adopt the rest of the solution suggested in N25/001.							Disallowed
N27																				Coromandel
n27				001								b, h								Objection T L Turner Supports the boundary for the proposed Coromandel electorate, as it is aligned with the traditional Maori boundary from Te Aroha to Moehau.							Noted – no decision required
N29																				Bay of Plenty
N29				001								b								Objection B R Costley Objects to the proposed Bay of Plenty electorate, as the boundary with Tauranga splits a community of interest. Suggested solution Redraw the Tauranga and Bay of Plenty electorates into an east-west division. One electorate could be based on Tauranga-Otumoetai-Matakana and the other on Mt Maunganui-Welcome Bay-Papamoa. The names ‘Tauranga East’ and ‘Tauranga West’ could be used.							Disallowed. Unnecessarily interferes with existing boundaries
N29				002								b, h								Objection S Russell Objects the name ‘Bay of Plenty’ for the proposed electorate. While the name was appropriate for the electorate when it was first established, its boundaries no longer include the eastern and central parts of the Bay of Plenty and the name is no longer appropriate. Suggested solution Name the electorate ‘Western Bay of Plenty’.							Disallowed
N29				601								n								Counter-objection G Harris Relates to objection N29/002 Objects to the suggestion that the name needs to be changed. Suggested solution Retain the name ‘Bay of Plenty’ as this accurately represents the electorate.							Allowed
N29				602								b								Counter-objection G Harris Relates to objection N29/001 Supports the boundary as it stands for the proposed Bay of Plenty electorate. Objects to the proposal in N29/001 for redrawing the electorate boundaries as it does not consider the city/rural communities of interest. Suggested solution Adopt the proposed boundaries.							Allowed in part as it relates to N29 001
N30																				Rotorua
N30				001							b									Objection L M Scott Objects to the inclusion of the Kaimai district, south of State Highway 29 and including Omanawa and McLaren Falls, in the proposed Rotorua electorate. This area shares a strong community of interest and communication facilities, including roads, with the Western Bay of Plenty. Suggested solution Include the Kaimai district in the Bay of Plenty electorate. If necessary, other areas, such as Maketu, would be more appropriate to move.							Allowed
N30				002							b, h									Objection S Russell Similar to N30/001 Also objects to the inclusion of the Matahina-Minginui and Murupara areas, as these share a community of interest with the rest of the Whakatane District in the East Coast electorate. Suggested solution Run the boundary between the Rotorua and Bay of Plenty electorates along the natural boundary from the Mamaku plateau east to State Highway 36 (Pyes Pa Road), north to Te Rerenga stream and downstream to the Kaituna River. Transfer the Matahina-Minginui and Murupara areas to the East Coast electorate.							Allowed in part as it relates to Omanama, Maketu and McLaren Falls.
N30				003							b								Objection G N & J G Kehely Objects to the inclusion of part of the community of Oropi in the proposed Roturua electorate. Two steep gorges separate this area from the rest of the electorate and there is no shared community of interest. Suggested solution Use the gorge on the Mangorewa River to Maungatoi Road then onto No 3 Road as the boundary.								Allowed
N30				004								b										Objection P G & R Allan Similar to N30/003 Suggested solution Similar to N30/003					Allowed
N30				005								b										Objection F Kehely Similar to N30/003 Suggested solution Similar to N30/003					Allowed
N30				006								b										Objection S R Kehely Similar to N30/003 Suggested solution Similar to N30/003					Allowed
N30				601								b, h										Counter-objection R Northey Relates to objection N30/002 Notes that Matahina-Minginui and Murupara are established parts of the Rotorua electorate. Their most direct communication links are by State Highways 38 and 5 to Rotorua, rather than by secondary roads to the north and east to Whakatane. Suggested solution Adopt the north-eastern, eastern and southern boundaries proposed by the Representation Commission.					Allowed
N31																									Taupo
N31					001								n												Objection S J Hill Objects to the name ‘Taupo’ for the proposed electorate. While Lake Taupo may be the dominant feature of the electorate, the name is not representative of those areas now included in the north of the electorate, such as Cambridge. Suggested solution Use a name such as ‘South Waikato-King Country’ or ‘Waikato-King Country’, or explore options that reflect the Central North Island.				Disallowed
N31					002								b												Objection Major (Rtd) D W M Gay M.C. Objects to the inclusion of Cambridge in the proposed Taupo electorate as the size of the proposed electorate would make it difficult for an MP to represent it effectively. Suggested solution None given				Disallowed
N31					003								n												Objection G R Seymour Objects to the omission of a macron in the name of the proposed Taupo electorate. Suggested solution That the electorate name be spelt ‘Taupō’				Allowed
N31					601								n												Counter-objection G V Robyns Relates to objection N31/001 Objects to the suggestion of using ‘King Country’ as part of the electorate name. King Country is not identified with the area of the proposed Taupo electorate. Lake Taupo is the dominant feature of the electorate, so should be acknowledged in the electorate name. Suggested solution Retain the name ‘Taupo’ or name the electorate ‘Taupo-Waikato’ to acknowledge the inclusion of the Cambridge area.				Allowed
N31					602								b												Counter-objection O R M Robyns Relates to objection N31/002 Objects to the suggestion that the proposed electorate is too large to be serviced effectively. The proposed electorate would be more easily serviced than the current electorate. Cambridge is only two hours drive from Turangi, whereas Tirau to Raetihi (the current boundary) is a journey of two hours and fifty minutes, with less closely placed settlements. Suggested solution Disallow N31/002				Allowed
N32																									Taranaki - King Country
N32					001								b, h												Objection G M Hockly Objects to the inclusion of areas of the Waikato in a Taranaki electorate. Suggested solution Instead of the Taranaki-King Country and Taupo electorates having a north-south shape, re-orient these electorates to have an east-west shape, making a South Waikato electorate and a Taranaki-Taupo electorate.				Disallowed
N32					002								n												Objection B R Costley Objects to the name ‘Taranaki-King Country’ for the proposed electorate, as much of the Taranaki region is no longer included. Suggested solution Change the name to ‘King Country’ or ‘Waitomo’.				Disallowed
N32					003								b												Objection Ruapehu District Council Objects to the inclusion of parts of the Ruapehu District in the proposed Taranaki-King Country electorate. The District has a unique community of interest and should not be divided. Suggested solution Place all of the Ruapehu District in the Rangitikei electorate.				Disallowed
N32					004								b												Objection J Ritchie Objects to the inclusion of Raglan in the proposed Taranaki-King Country electorate, as its community of interest lies with Huntly and Ngaruawahia in the Piako electorate. Suggested solution Retain the existing boundary.				Disallowed
N32					005								b, h												Objection J Lawson Objects to the geographic size of the proposed Taranaki-King Country electorate. Also objects to the splitting off of Raglan from other areas south of Whaingaroa Harbour with which it shares a community of interest. Suggested solution Balance population quotas in the electorates from the Waikato to the Rangitikei by moving part of the Taranaki-King Country electorate into the New Plymouth electorate, southern parts of the Taupo electorate into the Taranaki-King Country and Rangitikei electorates, Matamata into the Taupo electorate and the Raglan and Whaingaroa Wards into the Piako electorate. or Include all of the Whaingaroa Ward in the Taranaki-King Country electorate.				Disallowed
N32				006									b												Objection New Plymouth District Council, Stratford District Council, South Taranaki District Council and Taranaki Regional Council Similar to N32/001 The councils object to the boundaries of the proposed Taranaki-King Country electorate as they do not acknowledge the strong identity and shared community of interest of the Taranaki District. There is no shared community of interest between the areas of Waikato included in the electorate and the Taranaki District. Suggested solution Rather than split the Taranaki District into two electorates, establish a Taranaki electorate with boundaries along the local government boundaries of the South Taranaki, Stratford and New Plymouth districts. The remainder of the proposed electorate could be included in a Taupo-Waitomo electorate.				Disallowed. The proposed boundaries recognise existing boundaries and are altered minimally to achieve the required population. The proposal unites the South Taranaki District into a single electorate. The suggested solution has consequences that are detrimental to surrounding electorates.
N32				007									b, h												Objection New Zealand Labour Party Similar to N32/004 Suggested solution Place Raglan in the Piako electorate. To compensate, move Mangakino into the Taranaki - King Country electorate from the Taupo electorate.				Disallowed
N32					601								b												Counter-objection R F Sommerville Relates to objection N32/001 Objects to the solution suggested in N32/001. The solution cuts across four of the statutory criteria: facilities of communication, particularly roads such as State Highway 1, run north-south, topographical features such as Lake Taupo would interfere with an east-west alignment, the South Waikato and Taupo District Council areas form a distinct community of interest at the core of the Taupo electorate existing boundaries would have to be dramatically redrafted, with the effect of removing the Taupo electorate. Notes that the inclusion of Cambridge in the proposed Taupo electorate already fits the solution suggested in N32/001 and allows for necessary population adjustments without major adjustment to existing boundaries. Suggested solution Disallow N32/001				Allowed
n32					602								b												Counter-objection R F Sommerville Relates to objection N32/005 Objects to the solution suggested in N32/005 as it would require major adjustments to existing and proposed boundaries from Rangitikei to the Waikato. It would also effectively remove the Taupo electorate. Notes the shared community of interest between Taupo and South Waikato. Notes that the inclusion of Cambridge in the proposed Taupo electorate allows for necessary population adjustments without major adjustment to existing boundaries. Suggested solution Adopt the boundary proposed by the Representation Commission.				Allowed
N32					603								b												Counter-objection O R M Robyns Relates to objection N32/007 Objects to the suggestion that Mangakino should be included in the Taranaki-King Country electorate. Its community of interest lies with the Taupo electorate. Suggested solution Leave Mangakino in the Taupo electorate.				Allowed
N32					604								b												Counter-objection N D Walker Relates to objection N32/006 The establishment of a Taranaki electorate suggested in N32/006 would split the South Taranaki District and delay the inevitable boundary changes that will result from future population decline. Suggested solution Similar to N32/602				Allowed
N32					605								b												Counter-objection P W Mitchell, QSM, JP, Chairman – Whanganui Electorate National Party Relates to objection N32/006 Similar to N32/604 Notes that North Taranaki and the King Country share a community of interest, unlike Whanganui and the King Country. Suggested solution Similar to N32/602				Allowed
N32					606								b, h												Counter-objection NZ National Party – Central North Island Region Relates to objection N32/001 Notes that many electorates include more than one district, and that anything else is impossible given the population quota. Also notes that an east-west split for central North Island electorates as suggested in N32/001 is impractical, given the low population of the South Waikato District and the north-south flow of transport routes. Suggested solution Similar to N32/602				Allowed
N32					607								b, h												Counter-objection NZ National Party – Central North Island Region Relates to objection N32/006 Objects to the suggestion that the proposed boundaries do not recognise the communities of interest between Waikato and Taranaki. Notes that the area of Taranaki represented by the four councils does not have the population to make an electorate separate to the New Plymouth electorate. Also notes that an east-west split is not consistent with the transport and roading networks that run north-south and link communities of interest. Suggested solution Similar to N32/602				Allowed
N32					608								b, h												Counter-objection M Viggers Relates to objection N32/005 Notes that the size of the proposed electorate does not differ from that of other large electorates throughout New Zealand. The electorate has better access by road to all its part than other electorates. Also, the transfer of the south-west coastal region to Whanganui reduces its size. Also notes that Whaingaroa Harbour is a natural boundary. As there is no bridge or ferry access across it, community links are not possible. Objects to the solution suggested by N32/005, as it requires changes to six electorates affecting thousands of people and splitting several communities of interest, whereas the proposed boundary affects only a few hundred people. Suggested solution Similar to N32/602				Allowed
N32					609								b, h												Counter-objection J Lawson Relates to objection N32/006 Suggested solution Include the Raglan and Whaingaroa wards of the Waikato District in the Piako electorate, rather than in a Taupo-Waitomo electorate. This would allow for an electorate based around the shared community of interest of Matamata, Cambridge, Taupo and the King Country.				Allowed but the suggested solution is disallowed
N32					610								b, h												Counter-objection R Northey Relates to objections N32/001, 005 & 006 Similar to N32/605 and N32/606 Suggested solution Retain the proposed eastern boundary of the Taranaki-King Country electorate with the Taupo and Rangitikei electorates.				Allowed
N34																									Whanganui
N34					001								n												Objection B R Costley Objects to the name ‘Whanganui’ for the proposed electorate, as it now includes the entire South Taranaki district. Suggested solution Name the electorate ‘Waitotara’.				Disallowed
N34					002								b												Objection New Plymouth District Council, Stratford District Council, South Taranaki District Council and Taranaki Regional Council Objects to the inclusion of parts of the Taranaki District in the proposed Whanganui electorate. The Taranaki District has a strong identity and shared community of interest which it does not share with the Whanganui electorate. Suggested solution Rather than split the Taranaki District into two electorates, establish a Taranaki electorate with boundaries along the local government boundaries of the South Taranaki, Stratford and New Plymouth districts. To compensate, a new Whanganui-King Country electorate could be established and the remainder of the current Taranaki King-Country electorate included in a Taupo-Waitomo electorate.				Disallowed. See N32 006
N34					601								b												Counter-objection P W Mitchell, QSM, JP, Chairman – Whanganui Electorate National Party Relates to objection N34/002 Supports the inclusion of the entire South Taranaki District in the proposed Whanganui electorate. Notes the strong links between this area and the rest of the Whanganui electorate. Suggested solution Adopt the boundary proposed by the Representation Commission.				Allowed
N34					602									b											Counter-objection G C Turner Relates to objection N34/002 Similar to N34/601 Notes the commercial links between South Taranaki farmers and the Wanganui area. Also notes that Taranaki does not have the population to form an electorate on its own. If a Taranaki electorate were to be established, South Taranaki would most likely be split from it in future boundary adjustments. Suggested solution Similar to N34/601				Allowed
N34					603									b											Counter-objection N Symes Relates to objection N34/002 Similar to N34/602 Suggested solution Similar to N34/601				Allowed
N35																									East Coast
N35					001									n											Objection B R Costley Objects to the name ‘East Coast’ for the proposed electorate, as the electorate contains much more than just the eastern coast of the North Island. Suggested solution Name the electorate ‘ Eastland’ or ‘Waiapu’.				Disallowed
N35					002									b, h											Objection P Hickson Objects to the inclusion of parts of the western Bay of Plenty in the proposed East Coast electorate. Their community of interest lies with the rest of the Bay of Plenty. Suggested solution Redraw adjacent boundaries to keep the Bay of Plenty together.				Allowed in part. See N29 002
N35					003									b											Objection S A Moscrip Similar to N35/002 Suggested solution Include Whakatane and Maketu in the Bay of Plenty electorate. If the East Coast electorate requires more population, this could come from the south.				Allowed in part. See N29 002
N35					004									b, h											Objection S Russell Similar to N35/002 Suggested solution That areas within the Western Bay of Plenty District that are proposed to be included in the East Coast electorate instead be included in the Rotorua electorate.				Allowed as it relates to Maketu
N35					005									b											Objection J P Hindmarsh Objects to the boundaries of the proposed East Coast electorate. Communication facilities, community of interest and topography are all disrupted by the proposed boundaries. Suggested solution Review the boundaries along the East Coast of the North Island. The boundary between Wairarapa and Hawke’s Bay should follow the Akitio River. Wairoa should be included in the East Coast electorate.				Disallowed
N35					006									b, h										Objection E H White Similar to N35/005 Suggested solution Similar to N35/005					Disallowed
N35					007									b										Objection A A Ross Objects to the inclusion of the area west of Opotiki in the proposed East Coast electorate. The proposed boundary shifts the centre of the electorate away from its focal point of Gisborne. Communication facilities and topography will make the electorate difficult for an MP to effectively represent. Suggested solution Amend the boundaries to include Wairoa and exclude the area west of Opotiki.					Disallowed
N35					601									n										Counter-objection C A Spanhake Relates to objection N35/001 The names suggested in N35/001 have little or no relevance to the electorate. Notes that a name change is not necessary, given the minimal change to the electorate’s boundaries. Suggested solution Retain the current name.					Allowed
N35					602									b, h										Counter-objection R Northey Relates to objections N35/002 & 004 Objects to the suggestion that the parts of the Bay of Plenty proposed to be in the East Coast electorate, instead be placed in the Rotorua electorate. These are coastal areas and the Rotorua electorate is an inland electorate which does not include any other coastal areas. The East Coast electorate is primarily coastal. Suggested solution Adopt the boundaries proposed by the Representation Commission.					Disallowed
N36																								Napier
N36					001									n										Objection B R Costley Objects to the name ‘Napier’ for the proposed electorate, as the electorate is more than the city area. Suggested solution Name the electorate ‘Hawke’s Bay’.					Disallowed
N36					002									b										Objection A Stevens Objects to areas north of the Wharerata Ranges being included in the proposed Napier electorate as their community of interest lies with Gisborne and the East Coast. Suggested solution The Wharerata Ranges form a natural boundary.					Allowed
N36					003									b										Objection Gisborne Chamber of Commerce Objects to the inclusion of the southern Gisborne District (the Cook Ward) in the proposed Napier electorate. This area shares a strong community of interest with the East Coast electorate. Suggested solution Include this area in the East Coast electorate.					Allowed
N36					004									b, h										Objection L F Hall Similar to N36/003 Suggested solution Similar to N36/003					Allowed
N36					005									b										Objection S B Wallis Objects to the inclusion of part of the Poverty Bay Flats region in the proposed Napier electorate. This region forms the heart of the East Coast and should be included in its entirety in the East Coast electorate. Suggested solution Similar to N36/003					Allowed
n36					006									b, h										Objection R J Prebble Similar to N36/005 Suggested solution Similar to N36/003					Allowed
n36					007									b										Objection N R Shanks Objects to the use of the Waipaoa River as the northern boundary of the proposed Napier electorate. Suggested solution Use the Mohaka River instead.					Allowed
n36					008									b										Objection D P Playle Objects to the inclusion of the Tiniroto District in the proposed Napier electorate. This area’s community of interest lies with Gisborne, not Napier. Suggested solution Include the Tiniroto District in the East Coast electorate.					Allowed
n36					009									b										Objection A M Cave Objects to the inclusion of Ngatapa in the proposed Napier electorate. Suggested solution Similar to N36/003					Allowed
N36					010									b, h										Objection D Kirkpatrick Similar to N36/005 Suggested solution Similar to N36/003					Allowed
n36					011									b										Objection E F Hall Similar to N36/008 Suggested solution Similar to N36/003					Allowed
n36					012									b										Objection D S McDiarmid Similar to N36/008 Suggested solution Similar to N36/003					Allowed
n36					013									b										Objection G H McDiarmid Similar to N36/008 Suggested solution Similar to N36/002					Allowed
n36					014									b										Objection D M Newman Similar to N36/003 Suggested solution Similar to N36/003					Allowed
n36					015									b										Objection A Bethell Similar to N36/003 Suggested solution None given					Allowed
N36					016									b										Objection B Law Similar to N36/005 Suggested solution Similar to N36/003					Allowed
N36					017									b										Objection W Stevens Objects to the inclusion of Patutahi in the proposed Napier electorate when its community of interest lies with Gisborne. Suggested solution Similar to N36/003					Allowed
N36					018									b										Objection J A Roberts Similar to N36/017 Suggested solution Similar to N36/003					Allowed
N36					019									b										Objection A C Williams Similar to N36/005 Suggested solution Similar to N36/003					Allowed
N36					020									b										Objection A Newman Similar to N36/003 Suggested solution Similar to N36/003					Allowed
N36					021									b										Objection T W Newman Similar to N36/003 Suggested solution Similar to N36/003					Allowed
n36					022									b										Objection L Newman Similar to N36/003 Suggested solution Similar to N36/003 Wairoa could be included in the Napier electorate. This electorate could also include Waipukurau, as its community of interest lies with the Hawke’s Bay not Wairarapa.					Allowed in relation to Wairoa and Disallowed in relation to Waipukurau
N36					023									b										Objection W Newman Similar to N36/003 Suggested solution Similar to N36/003					Allowed
N36					024									b										Objection B Kirkpatrick Similar to N36/017 Suggested solution Similar to N36/003					Allowed
N36					025									b, h										Objection J A Kirkpatrick Similar to N36/017 Suggested solution Similar to N36/003					Allowed
N36					026									b, h										Objection S Russell Similar to N36/003 Suggested solution Similar to N36/003. Notes that the boundary between the Gisborne and Wairoa Districts is also the boundary between the Hawke’s Bay and Gisborne regions.					Allowed
N36					027									b, h										Objection H Kirkpatrick Similar to N36/003 Suggested solution Similar to N36/003					Allowed
N36					028									b, h										Objection D Kirkpatrick Similar to N36/003 Suggested solution Similar to N36/003					Allowed
N36					029									b										Objection A Milton-Tee Similar to N36/005 Suggested solution None given					Allowed
N36					030									b										Objection S M A McDowell Similar to N36/003 Suggested solution Similar to N36/003					Allowed
N36					031									b										Objection A McDowell Similar to N36/003 Suggested solution Similar to N36/003					Allowed
N36					032									b										Objection W Barclay Similar to N36/003 Suggested solution Similar to N36/003					Allowed
N36					033									b										Objection N R Barclay Similar to N36/003 Suggested solution Similar to N36/003					Allowed
N36					034									b, h										Objection J T Williams Similar to N36/002 Suggested solution Similar to N36/002					Allowed
N36					035									b										Objection H F Williams Similar to N36/002 Suggested solution Similar to N36/002					Allowed
N36					036									b, h										Objection C Bauld, Councillor – Gisborne District Council, elected member – Tairawhiti District Health Board Similar to N36/003 Suggested solution Similar to N36/003 Increase the population quota tolerance.					Allowed
N36					037									b										Objection J E Sewell Similar to N36/003 Suggested solution Similar to N36/003					Allowed
N36					038									b										Objection M Mackey, MP Objects to the inclusion of Wairoa and surrounds in the proposed Napier electorate. This area shares a community of interest and transport links with the East Coast. Suggested solution Ideally, include Wairoa and all the Gisborne District in the East Coast electorate. At the least, align the electorate boundary with the Gisborne District Council Boundary.					Allowed in part. See N36 003
N36					039									b, h										Objection Gisborne District Council Similar to N36/003 Suggested solution Similar to N36/003					Allowed
N37																								Tukituki
n37					001									b, n										Objection J Haydon-Carr, Central Region Representative – Young Labour Executive Supports the proposed boundary for the Tukituki electorate. While sympathetic to the concerns of areas such as Waipukurau, believes that the Wairarapa electorate will effectively represent their interests. Also supports the name “Tukituki’ for the proposed electorate as it reflects the shared identity of communities within the electorate.					Noted but see N38 004
N37					002									b, n										Objection Hon Rick Barker, MP Supports the proposed boundary for the Tukituki electorate. Regrets the division of the Central Hawke’s Bay District across two electorates, but notes that this area and Wairarapa have shared an electorate previously. Objects to the name ‘Tukituki’ for the proposed electorate. The Tukituki River is not recognised as part of the regional identity. Suggested solution Name the electorate “Hastings’, as it was previously.					Disallowed as to the boundary and name
N38																								Wairarapa
N38					001									b										Objection N T Ashby Objects to the inclusion of Waipukurau in the proposed Wairarapa electorate. This separates Waipukurau from Waipawa with which it shares a community of interest. Suggested solution Waipukurau and Waipawa are both placed in the same electorate. While ideally Waipukurau would return to the Tukituki electorate, population quotas may require Waipawa to move to the Wairarapa electorate.					Allowed as to the placing of Waipukurau and Waipawa into the same electorate, which will be Wairarapa
N38					002									n										Objection J M Harris Objects to the name ‘Wairarapa’ for the proposed electorate as it is not representative of those areas now included in the north of the electorate. Suggested solution Name the electorate ‘Wairarapa-Bush’ after the Seventy-Mile Bush that ran from Takapau to Kopuaranga.					Disallowed
N38					003									b										Objection J D Sanderson Objects to the inclusion of parts of the Central Hawke’s Bay in the proposed Wairarapa electorate. This region shares a strong community of interest and should not be split across two electorates. Suggested solution Move the boundary of the Tukituki electorate down to south of Takapau.					Disallowed
N38					004									b, h										Objection Central Hawke’s Bay District Council Similar to N38/001 and N38/003 Suggested solution Include all of the Central Hawke’s Bay in one electorate.					Allowed to the extent that Waipukurau and Waipawa are placed in the same electorate, which will be Wairarapa.
N38					005									b										Objection A J McMillan Similar to N38/001 Suggested solution Place Waipawa and Waipukurau townships in the same electorate.					Allowed
N38					006									b										Objection H C Wright Similar to N38/001 Suggested solution None given					Disallowed
N38					007									b										Objection P M Hudson Similar to N38/001 Suggested solution Return the Waipukurau area to the Tukituki electorate.					Disallowed
N38					008									b										Objection J B Wright Similar to N38/001 Suggested solution None given					Disallowed
N38					009									b										Objection C & G Thompson Similar to N38/001 Notes that the geographic size of the proposed electorate will make it difficult for an MP to represent it effectively. Suggested solution Place all of Central Hawke’s Bay District in the Tukituki electorate and all of the Tararua District in the Wairarapa electorate. or Retain the current boundary.					Disallowed
N38					010									b										Objection G Burnside Similar to N38/009 Suggested solution Retain the current boundary.					Disallowed
N38					011									n										Objection Eketahuna Community Board Similar to N38/002. Suggested solution Name the electorate ‘Tararua Ruahine East’ or ‘Tararua Ruahine Eastern Range District’.					Disallowed
N38					601									n										Counter-objection G Groombridge Objects to the name “Wairarapa’ for the proposed electorate, given the inclusion of parts of the southern Hawke’s bay region. Suggested solution Name the electorate ‘Waikoura’					Disallowed
N39																								Rangitikei
N39					001									n										Objection Ruapehu District Council Objects to the name Rangitikei for the proposed electorate, as it does not reflect the inclusion of the Ruapehu District in the proposed electorate. Suggested solution Name the electorate ‘Ruapehu-Rangitikei’.					Disallowed. In terms of the first part as the proposal would create an imbalance for the Taranaki-King Country electorate. The proposal to change the name is disallowed. The Commission prefers to continue with the existing name.
N39					601									n										Counter-objection Manawatu District Council Relates to objection N39/001 Objects to the suggestion that the inclusion of the Ruapehu District requires a change to the name of the electorate. The Rangitikei region and river form the core of the electorate. While the Manawatu District forms the major population base of the Rangitikei electorate, it is not, and does not seek to be, included in the electorate name. Suggested solution Retain the current name.					Allowed
N40																								Palmerston North
N40					001									b										Objection M G Natoli Objects to Terrace End and Roslyn being placed in the same electorate. Suggested solution Retain current boundary.					Disallowed. The objection would split Roslyn from its existing electorate
N41																										Otaki
N41								001									n									Objection G R Seymour Objects to the omission of a macron in the name of the proposed Otaki electorate. Suggested solution That the electorate name be spelt ‘Ōtaki’.						Allowed
N42																										Mana
N42							001									b										Objection M R Henderson & 2 others Objects to the boundary between the proposed electorates of Mana and Ohariu running down the centreline of residential suburban streets. This divides people who share a community of interest. Suggested solution Redraw the boundary to pass through neighbouring areas of low or no residential population density. Two mapped options provided.						Disallowed. The objection would disturb an existing boundary
N42							002									b, h										Objection E M Henderson Similar to N42/001 Suggested solution Similar to N42/001						Disallowed. The objection would disturb an existing boundary
N42							003									b										Objection D J M Perry Objects to the inclusion of parts of Tawa in the proposed Mana electorate, as this splits the community of interest of the suburb. Suggested solution Use the boundary between Porirua and Wellington cities as the electorate boundary.						Disallowed. The objection would disturb an existing boundary
N43																										Rimutaka
N43								001									n, h									Objection New Zealand Labour Party Objects to the name ‘Rimutaka’ for the proposed electorate as the name is only relevant for the northern part of the electorate and has negative associations with the name of Rimutaka Prison. Suggested solution Name the electorate ‘Hutt North’						Disallowed
N43							002									b, h										Objection New Zealand Labour Party Objects to the inclusion of Belmont in the proposed Rimutaka electorate. This area shares a community of interest and transport links with the Hutt South electorate. Also objects to the shift of the southern boundary at Naenae to Wingate. Suggested solution Include Belmont in the Hutt South electorate. Shift the current Rimutaka southern boundary to include only that part of Naenae north of Rata Street.						Disallowed. See N43 004
N43							003									b										Objection B C Paterson Similar to N43/002 Belmont shares a community of interest, as well as geographic and transport links, with the rest of the Western Hill suburbs in the Ohariu electorate Suggested solution Include Belmont in the Ohariu electorate. or Place all of the Western Hill suburbs in one Hutt-based electorate.						Disallowed. See N43 004
N43							004									b										Objection Hutt City Council Similar to N43/002 Suggested solution Similar to N43/002 Ideally, include all of the Western Hills in the Hutt South electorate and all of Naenae in the Rimutaka electorate.						Disallowed. The proposed boundaries reunite Naenae within one electorate and thus meet the quota requirement.
N45																										Ohariu
N45							001									n										Objection B R Costley Objects to the name ‘Ohariu’ for the proposed electorate. Suggested solution Name the electorate ‘Onslow’.						Disallowed
N45							002									b										Objection K McGavin Objects to the inclusion of the Western Hutt hills in the proposed Ohariu electorate. This area’s community of interest lies with the rest of the Hutt. Suggested solution Include the area in the Hutt South electorate.						Disallowed. See N43 004
N45							003									b										Objection S Fitzjohn Similar to N45/002 Suggested solution Similar to N45/002						Disallowed. See N43 004
N45							004									b										Objection P A Stratton Similar to N45/002 Suggested solution Similar to N45/002						Disallowed. See N43 004
S01																										Nelson
S01							001									b										Objection R A Merrilees Objects to the southern boundary of the proposed Nelson electorate. It does not future-proof this electorate or the proposed West-Coast Tasman electorate for projected population changes in the region. Suggested solution Run the boundary along the Waimea, Wairoa and Roding rivers or along the urban expansion limit of Richmond.						Disallowed
S02																										West Coast - Tasman
S02							001									b										Objection M Eames Objects to the inclusion of Wakefield in the proposed West Coast-Tasman electorate. Wakefield’s community of interest and geography both align it with Nelson. Suggested solution Include Wakefield in the Nelson electorate. Amend the Electoral Act to place more weight on geographic area.						Disallowed
S02							002									b										Objection G U France Similar to S02/001 Suggested solution Include Wakefield in the Nelson electorate. If the West Coast-Tasman electorate requires more population this could be taken from its southern boundary around Wanaka.						Disallowed
S02							003									b, h										Objection T E France Similar to S02/001 Notes that the inclusion of Wakefield in the proposed West Coast-Tasman electorate will make it even more difficult for an MP to represent it effectively. Suggested solution Include Wakefield in the Nelson electorate.						Disallowed
S02							004									b										Objection S A Dearing Similar to S02/003 Notes that the population growth of the West Coast-Tasman electorate may be higher than projected as major subdivisions are planned for the Motueka and Mapua areas, whereas the Nelson electorate has little room left for major development and its projected population growth is minimal. Suggested solution Similar to S02/003						Disallowed
S02							005									b										Objection J L Dearing, JP Similar to S02/003 Suggested solution Similar to S02/003						Disallowed
S02							006									b										Objection M L Griffin Similar to S02/001 Suggested solution Retain the current boundary.						Disallowed
S02							007									b, h										Objection G M Hope Similar to S02/001 Also objects on the grounds of communication facilities, which are all Nelson-focused, and topographical features, as the Spooner Range forms a natural boundary. Suggested solution The West Coast-Tasman electorate should include Karamea, Murchison to Hanmer Springs, Springfield and south to Haast, with neighbouring boundaries adjusted as necessary.						Disallowed
S02							008									b										Objection M Stokes Similar to S02/003 Suggested solution Use the Spooner Range as the northern boundary of the electorate. Include Wanaka if needed for population quotas.						Disallowed
S02							009									b, h										Objection Wakefield Community Council Similar to S02/007 Suggested solution Use the Spooner Range as the northern boundary of the electorate.						Disallowed
S02							010									b, h										Objection J C Ironside Similar to S02/001 Suggested solution Similar to S02/003						Disallowed
S02							011									b, h										Objection M Higgins Similar to S02/001 Suggested solution Similar to S02/003 Review the population quota tolerances to allow more flexibility.						Disallowed
S02							012									b										Objection A Talbot-Price & 537 others Similar to S02/001 Suggested solution Similar to S02/003						Disallowed
S02							013									b										Objection A J Eames Similar to S02/001 Suggested solution Similar to S02/003 and S02/009						Disallowed
S02							014									b, h										Objection Wakefield Public Meeting Action Committee Similar to S02/001 Suggested solution Similar to S02/008						Disallowed. The proposed electorate keeps surrounding communities together. The proposed electorate recognises an inevitable northward trend of the West-Coast Tasman electorate. The suggested solution around Wanaka would make a very long electorate even longer and more difficult to service.
S02							601									b, h										Counter-objection New Zealand Labour Party Relates to objections S02/002, 007 & 009 Objects to the proposal to use population from the Wanaka area to meet population quotas. This would require the West Coast-Tasman electorate to extend across topographic boundaries and divide communities in the area. Suggested solution Adopt the boundary proposed by the Representation Commission.						Allowed
S03																										Kaikoura
S03							001									b										Objection W Stafford Notes the increase of population in the Marlborough region.						The objection is noted. No change is required.
S03							002									n										Objection G R Seymour Objects to the omission of a macron in the name of the proposed Kaikoura electorate. Suggested solution That the electorate name be spelt ‘Kaikōura’						Allowed
S03							601									n										Counter-objection New Zealand National Party – Kaikoura Electorate Relates to objection S03/002 Objects to the suggestion that the electorate name be changed to include a macron. This would be unnecessarily confusing, and quite probably overlooked by many. There is already enough confusion within the electorate over the name ‘Kaikoura’ being used for an electorate focused on Blenheim. Suggested solution Retain the current spelling of the name ‘Kaikoura’						Disallowed
S04																										Waimakariri
S04							001									b, h										Objection A McRobie Objects to the inclusion of the area on the north side of Winters Road in the proposed Waimakariri electorate. This area relies on Queen Elizabeth II Drive and Frasers Street for transport access and has a community of interest with the area to the south of Winters Road. Suggested solution Include this area in the Christchurch Central electorate.						Disallowed. The Commission adopts the existing boundary on QEII Drive.
S04							002									b, n, h										Objection S Russell Objects to the inclusion of Rangiora and the rural area to the west of the town in the proposed Waimakariri electorate. These rural areas do not share a community of interest with the rest of the urban Waimakariri electorate. Also objects to the name ‘Waimakariri’ for the proposed electorate. Suggested solution Include this area in the Selwyn electorate. The whole of the Papanui area could then be included in this electorate along with the Styx and that part of the Travis Wetland Area unit that is north of Mairehau Road. Name the electorate ‘Christchurch North’.						Disallowed. Both to name and boundary
S04							601									b, h										Counter-objection C M & G S Usher Relates to objection S04/002 The proposed changes would change the nature of the electorate from its current status as a rural-residential electorate to a predominantly urban electorate. The current and proposed boundaries cover most of the Waimakariri District. The Waimakariri River is a natural boundary between the Selwyn and Waimakariri Districts and also between North and Mid Canterbury. Suggested solution Adopt the boundaries proposed by the Representation Commission.						Allowed
S04							602									b, n										Counter-objection J A Parrott Relates to objection S04/002 Similar to S04/601 Objects to the proposal to shift Rangiora and Oxford into the Selwyn electorate. Notes that Rangiora is the seat of the Waimakariri District Council and the administration for much of the current Waimakariri electorate. While Rangiora is a rural town, many of its residents are urban in focus. Rangiora’s community of interest lies with Waikuku, Woodend, Eyre and Kaiapoi, not with Darfield and Leeston. Also objects to the suggestion that the electorate’s name should be changed. Suggested solution Retain the name ‘Waimakariri’ for the electorate.						Allowed
S04							603									b, n, h										Counter-objection E R Johnston Relates to objection S04/002 Similar to S04/602 Suggested solution Similar to S04/601						Allowed
S04							604									b										Counter-objection K Wilkinson, MP & 559 others Relates to objection S04/002 Suggested solution Oxford and Rangiora and surrounds remain in the Waimakariri electorate.						Allowed
S04							605									b										Counter-objection R J Grimsey Relates to objection S04/002 Similar to S04/602 Suggested solution Keep the Waimakariri District together.						Allowed
S04							606									b, n, h										Counter-objection M K Quinn Relates to objection S04/002 Similar to S04/602 Also notes that Telecom’s free calling area for Rangiora covers most of the Waimakariri area, whereas Darfield, Sheffield and Springfield are in the Darfield free calling area. Suggested solution Similar to S04/601 & 602						Allowed
S04							607									b										Counter-objection J Gerard, Mayor – Waimakariri District Council Relates to objection S04/002 Similar to S04/602 Notes that the Waimakariri area is the second-fastest growing district in New Zealand. Anticipated growth is largely in the north of the electorate and it is logical that the boundaries of the electorate follow this northwards trend. Also notes that the solution suggested in S04/002 would spread the Waimakariri District over three very different electorates. Also notes that the Ashley River is a natural northern boundary to the electorate. Suggested solution Similar to S04/601						Allowed
s04							608									b, h										Counter-objection New Zealand National Party - Canterbury Westland Relates to objection S04/002 Similar to S04/607 Suggested solution Similar to S04/601						Allowed
S04							609									b										Counter-objection B J & S M Butters Relates to objection S04/002 Similar to S04/607 Suggested solution Similar to S04/601						Allowed
S04							610									b, h										Counter-objection J C B Moody Relates to objection S04/002 Similar to S04/602 Suggested solution Similar to S04/601						Allowed
S04							611									b										Counter-objection C A Hills Relates to objection S04/002 Similar to S04/607 Suggested solution Similar to S04/601						Allowed
S04							612									b, h										Counter-objection D N & R A Steans Relates to objection S04/002 Similar to S04/602 Suggested solution Similar to S04/601						Allowed
S04							613									b, h										Counter-objection A J Pollard Relates to objection S04/002 Similar to S04/607 Notes that the Papanui/Casebrook/Bishopdale area shares a community of interest with Christchurch, rather than Kaiapoi or Rangiora. Suggested solution Similar to S04/601						Allowed
S04							614									b										Counter-objection E O Barnett Relates to objection S04/002 Similar to S04/607 Suggested solution Similar to S04/601						Allowed
S04							615									b, h										Counter-objection M Baker Relates to objection S04/002 Similar to S04/602 Suggested solution Similar to S04/601						Allowed
S04							616									b, h										Counter-objection S Russell Relates to objections S04/001 & 002 Notes that objection S04/002 effectively addresses the issues raised in objection S04/001 Suggested solution Adopt the solution suggested in S04/002.						Disallowed
S04							617									b, n, h										Counter-objection T M Heffernan Relates to objection S04/002 Similar to S04/607 and S04/613 Notes that the boundaries proposed by the Representation Commission meet all the statutory criteria, while those suggested in S04/002 do not meet the criteria. Also notes that if the Commission’s proposed boundary is adopted, there would be no need to change the electorate name. Suggested solution Disregard S04/002						Allowed
S07																										Christchurch Central
S07							001									b										Objection J Thornton, Registrar of Electors – Waimakariri Objects to the proposed boundary with Waimakariri electorate along Main North Road and Winters Road, as it is confusing and unclear. Suggested solution That the boundary between Main North Road and Queen Elizabeth II Drive goes straight along Winters Road.						Allowed
S07							002									b, h										Objection D Pyatt, Principal – Papanui High School Objects to the inclusion of Papanui High School and the surrounding area in the proposed Christchurch Central electorate. This area shares a strong community of interest with the proposed Waimakariri electorate. Suggested solution Retain the existing boundary along Main North Road and Harewood Road.						Disallowed
S07							003									b										Objection C & J Payne Objects to the area around Hoani Street, Papanui being included in the proposed Christchurch Central electorate. Suggested solution Similar to S07/002						Disallowed
S07							004									b, h										Objection P C Berry – Papanui Beautifying Association Similar to S07/002 Suggested solution Similar to S07/002						Disallowed
s07							005									b, h										Objection S Russell Similar to S07/002 The whole Papanui area should be included in one electorate. Suggested solution Run the boundary along Papanui Road, Innes Road, Cranford Street and Philpotts Road.						Disallowed
S07							006									b										Objection H Burrows Similar to S07/002 Suggested solution None given						Disallowed
S07							007									b, h										Objection R A & M M Mannall Similar to S07/002 Suggested solution Keep all of Papanui in the Waimakariri electorate.						Disallowed
S07							008									b										Objection T Davie Objects to the boundary between the proposed Christchurch Central and Selwyn electorates running down the centre of Greers Road. This is a suburban street whose residents share a community of interest with the rest of Papanui in the Waimakariri electorate. Suggested solution Do not use Greers Road as a boundary.						Disallowed
S07							009									b, h										Objection M Barry & 190 others Similar to S07/005 Papanui has a longstanding community of interest and should not be split across several electorates. Suggested solution Similar to S07/007						Disallowed
S07							010									b, h										Objection G Condon, Councillor – Shirley-Papanui Ward Similar to S07/009 Suggested solution Similar to S07/007						Disallowed
S07							011									b, h										Objection New Zealand Labour Party Objects to the boundary of the proposed Christchurch Central electorate in the area of Brougham Street and Ensors Road, as the boundary follows no consistent path. Suggested solution Run the boundary along the railway line or Brougham street or align it with the former Christchurch City Council Ward boundary.						Allowed
S07							012									b, h										Objection New Zealand Labour Party Objects to the inclusion of Fraser and Wiremu Streets in the proposed Christchurch Central electorate, as they are separated from their community of interest. Suggested solution Run the boundary along the centre of Cranford Street southeast from the intersection with Main North Road for 0.7km and then diagonally north east to Winters Road.						Disallowed
S07							013									b, h										Objection Shirley Papanui Community Board Similar to S07/005 Suggested solution Retain the current Waimakariri boundary.						Disallowed
s07							601									b, h										Counter-objection New Zealand National Party – Canterbury Westland Relates to objections S07/002, 005 & 007 Objects to the suggestion that Papanui in its entirety be included in the Waimakariri electorate. The Waimakariri electorate is fast-growing, particularly in the north of the electorate. It is logical for its southern boundary to move northwards. Notes that Papanui is currently split between three electorates, with the largest proportion being in the Christchurch Central electorate. Given Papanui’s links with Christchurch City, it is logical to include as much of the area as possible in the Christchurch Central electorate. Suggested solution Adopt the boundaries proposed by the Representation Commission.						Allowed
s07							602									b, h										Counter-objection New Zealand Labour Party Relates to objections S07/002-007 Notes that the Ring Road (bypass)-Greers Road-Northcote Road boundary more accurately defines the boundary between Papanui and the suburbs of Northcote, Bishopdale and Casebrook than the Main North Road. Suggested solution Similar to S07/601						Allowed
s07							603									b, h										Counter-objection A J Pollard Relates to objections S07/007 & 009 Similar to S07/601 Suggested solution Similar to S07/601						Allowed
S07							604									b, h										Counter-objection A J Pollard Relates to objection S07/002 Similar to S07/601 Objects to the suggestion that Papanui High School and surrounding area share a community of interest with Waimakariri. Notes that the Papanui/Casebrook/Bishopdale area has a community of interest with Christchurch, rather than Kaiapoi or Rangiora which are at the heart of the Waimakariri electorate. Suggested solution Similar to S07/601						Allowed
S07							605									b, h										Counter-objection A J Pollard Relates to objection S07/005 Similar to S07/601 Suggested solution Similar to S07/601						Allowed
S07							606									b, h										Counter-objection S Wright Objects to the splitting of the community of interest of Papanui, Bishopdale, Casebrook and Northcote. This area, while technically different suburbs, has a strong united identity and community of interest. Suggested solution Run the boundaries around, rather than through, this area.						Disallowed
S07							607									b, h										Counter-objection R D Maskill Similar to S07/606 Suggested solution Leave Bishopdale, Casebrook and part of Papanui in the Waimakariri electorate.						Disallowed
S07							608									b, h										Counter-objection S Russell Relates to objections S07/001-013 Notes that objection S07/005 effectively addresses the issues raised in these objections. Suggested solution Adopt the solution suggested in S07/005.						Disallowed
S07							609									b, h										Counter-objection T M Heffernan Relates to objections S07/002-004, 006 & 013 Similar to S07/601 Objects to the suggestion that parts of Papanui should remain in the Waimakariri electorate, rather than be consolidated with the other northern suburbs of Christchurch in the Christchurch Central electorate. Suggested solution Disregard S07/002-004, 006 & 013.						Allowed
S07							610									b, h										Counter-objection T M Heffernan Relates to objections S07/005 & 007-010 Similar to S07/609 Objects to the continued fragmentation of Papanui and surrounds that would result form allowing these objections. Suggested solution Disregard S07/005 & 007-010						Allowed
S08																										Christchurch East
S08							001									n										Objection B R Costley Objects to the name ‘Christchurch East’ for the proposed electorate, as the area covered is predominantly northeast Christchurch. Suggested solution Name the electorate ‘Pegasus’, as the proposed electorate is a coastal area facing Pegasus Bay.						Disallowed. The existing name is well established and continues to be relevant
S08							002									n, h										Objection A W Gilmore Similar to S08/001 Suggested solution Name the electorate ‘Burwood-Pegasus’, ‘Burwood’ or ‘Parklands’.						Disallowed
S08							601									n										Counter-objection New Zealand National Party – Canterbury Westland Relates to objection S08/001 Supports a name change to ‘Pegasus’						Disallowed
S09																										Banks Peninsula
s09							001									b, n, h										Objection S Russell Objects to the inclusion of the suburbs of Sydenham, Bromley, Beckenham and Woolston in the proposed Banks Peninsula electorate, as these suburbs have a different community of interest to the electorate’s core of Cashmere and Opawa. Also objects to the inclusion of rural parts of Banks Peninsula, including Akaroa and Okains Bay, in this otherwise urban electorate. Objects to the name ‘Banks Peninsula’ for the proposed electorate. Suggested solution Retain the existing southern boundaries of the Christchurch Central and Christchurch East electorates. Transfer the rural areas, such as Akaroa, to the rural Selwyn electorate. Name the electorate ‘Port Hills’.						Allowed in part as it relates to rural Banks Peninsula and as to the name the Commission renames the electorate Port Hills
S09							601									b, h										Counter-objection New Zealand National Party – Canterbury Westland Relates to objection S09/001 Objects to the boundaries suggested in S09/001 as they do not meet the criteria set out in the Electoral Act. The boundaries proposed by the Representation Commission link communities of interest within local body boundaries. Banks Peninsula voted to be included as part of the Christchurch City Council and it is appropriate to link it with other suburbs of Christchurch City. Suggested solution Adopt the boundaries proposed by the Representation Commission.						Disallowed
S09							602									n										Counter-objection C A Spanhake Relates to objection S09/001 Objects to the suggestion of naming the electorate ‘Port Hills’. Banks Peninsula is a significant topographical feature of the electorate. Suggested solution Retain the name ‘Banks Peninsula’						Disallowed
S09							603									b, h										Counter-objection New Zealand Labour Party Relates to objection S09/001 Objects to the solution suggested in S09/001 to retain the existing southern boundaries of the Christchurch Central and Christchurch East electorates. The communities of interest within the boundaries proposed by the Representation Commission are strong and well-established. Suggested solution Similar to S09/601						Disallowed
S10																										Selwyn
S10							001									b										Objection R E Fuller Objects to the inclusion of the suburb of Westmorland in the proposed Selwyn electorate. The majority of the electorate is rural in nature and does not share a community of interest with this urban area, which aligns itself with Christchurch City. Suggested solution Include the Westmorland area within one of the Christchurch City electorates.						Disallowed
S10							002									b, h										Objection A McRobie Objects to the splitting of the suburbs of Bishopdale, Casebrook, Papanui, Northcote and Redwood across the proposed Selwyn and Waimakariri electorates. These areas have a distinct, coherent community of interest and should be placed in an electorate together. Suggested solution Include these suburbs in the Waimakariri electorate. This would also help Selwyn stay within quota, given its projected population growth.						Allowed in part
S10							003									b, h										Objection G D Barber Similar to S10/002 Suggested solution Similar to S10/002						Allowed in part
S10							004									b										Objection Casebrook Intermediate School Similar to S10/002 Suggested solution Similar to S10/002						Allowed in part
S10							005									b, h										Objection M M Barry, Member – Shirley-Papanui Community Board Similar to S10/002 Suggested solution Use population from the rural, northern part of the Waimakariri electorate to increase the population of the Selwyn electorate.						Allowed in part
S10							006									b, h										Objection P G McMahon Similar to S10/002 Suggested solution Similar to S10/002						Allowed in part
S10							007									b,h										Objection C M Holmes QSM, JP Similar to S10/002 Suggested solution Similar to S10/002						Allowed in part
S10							008									b, h										Objection P C Berry – Papanui Beautifying Association Similar to S10/002 Suggested solution Similar to S10/002						Allowed in part
S10							009									b, h										Objection S Russell Similar to S10/001 and S10/002 Suggested solution Similar to S10/001, S10/002 and S10/005						Allowed in part
S10							010									b										Objection S & E Evans Similar to S10/002 Suggested solution Similar to S10/002						Allowed in part
S10							011									b, h										Objection J C Mildenhall QSM Similar to S10/002 Suggested solution Similar to S10/002						Allowed in part
S10							012									b, h										Objection L J Harris Similar to S10/002 Suggested solution Similar to S10/002						Allowed in part
S10							013									b, h										Objection C R Stewart Similar to S10/002 Suggested solution Similar to S10/002						Allowed in part
S10							014									b, h										Objection G Condon, Councillor – Shirley-Papanui Ward Similar to S10/002 Suggested solution Similar to S10/002						Allowed in part
S10							015									b, h										Objection New Zealand Labour Party Similar to S10/002 Suggested solution Use the current Rakaia-Waimakariri boundary from Russley and Harewood Roads north east along Waimakariri Road and then north along Sayers Arms Road.						Allowed in part
S10							016									b, h										Objection Shirley Papanui Community Board Similar to S10/002 Suggested solution Retain the current Waimakariri boundary.						Allowed in part
S10							601									b										Counter-objection J Thornton Relates to objection S10/015 Objects to the use of Waimakariri Road as a boundary. It is a narrow country road where residents would share a community of interest. Suggested solution Use Johns Road (State Highway 1) as the boundary. This runs parallel to Waimakariri Road but 300 metres to the north.						Allowed. But proposed solution not adopted
S10							602									b										Counter-objection J Thornton Relates to objection S10/016 Similar to S10/601 Suggested solution Similar to S10/601						Allowed. But proposed solution not adopted
S10							603									b, h										Counter-objection D Carter, MP Relates to objections S10/001 & 009 Requests that Westmorland remains in the Selwyn electorate. Its community of interest lies with Halswell, and it was part of the historic Selwyn electorate. Suggested solution If Westmorland is moved from Selwyn, then the population should be replaced by the area of Banks Peninsula from Motukarara, Kaituna, Little River, Eastern Bays, Akaroa Harbour Basin and the Southern Bays that were part of the historic Selwyn electorate.						Allowed
S10							604									b, h										Counter-objection New Zealand National Party – Canterbury Westland Relates to objection S10/002 Objects to the suggestion that Bishopdale, Casebrook, Papanui, Northcote and Redwood all be included in the Waimakariri electorate. The suggestion is unworkable. These areas share a community of interest with Christchurch City. The population quota means they cannot be included in the Waimakariri electorate without splitting the strong community of interest which Rangiora and Oxford share with that electorate. Suggested solution Adopt the boundaries proposed by the Representation Commission						Allowed in part
S10							605									b, h										Counter-objection R K Taylor Similar to S10/002 Suggested solution Similar to S10/002						Noted
S10							606									b, h										Counter-objection J N O’Callaghan & the Papanui Club Inc Similar to S10/001 &and S10/002 Suggested solution Leave the northern suburbs in a city electorate and keep Selwyn as a rural electorate.						Allowed
S10							607									b, h										Counter-objection R Maskill Similar to S10/002 Suggested solution Similar to S10/002						Noted
S10							608									b, h										Counter-objection S Russell Relates to objections S10/001-016 Notes that objection S10/009 effectively addresses the issues raised in these objections. Suggested solution Adopt the solution suggested in S10/009.						Allowed in part
S10							609									b, h										Counter-objection T M Heffernan Relates to objections S10/002-016 Similar to S10/604 Suggested solution Disregard S10/002-016						Allowed in part
S12																										Waitaki
S12							001									b,h										Objection J N Jolly Objects to the inclusion of Geraldine in the proposed Waitaki electorate as its community of interest lies with Temuka, Winchester, Orari, Rangitata, Arundel and Peel Forest, all of which are included in the proposed Rangitata electorate. Also objects to Central Otago and South Canterbury being placed in the same electorate, as they share no community of interest or geographical similarity. Suggested solution Electorates should be based around major population centres such as Christchurch, Dunedin and Invercargill. The proposed Dunedin North and Dunedin South electorates could be combined into one Dunedin electorate, with surplus population used to complete a northern Southland/South Otago electorate and a Central/North Otago electorate. The existing Aoraki electorate boundaries could then be adjusted to retain Timaru as its population centre and focus.						Disallowed
S12							002									b										Objection R Aukens Objects to being included in an electorate that covers more than one province on the grounds of community of interest. Suggested solution Retain the current Aoraki electorate						Disallowed
S12							003									b										Objection S G Walker Objects to the division of the Rosewill Rural District between the proposed Waitaki and Rangitata electorates. The district has a strong community of interest that lies with both Timaru and Pleasant Point. Suggested solution Use the Pareroa River as a topographical boundary. Queenstown could be moved into the proposed Waitaki electorate and boundaries around Dunedin and Christchurch adjusted to compensate. or Move Downlands and Pleasant Point into the proposed Rangitata electorate, which already includes Timaru.						Allowed in part as it relates to Pleasant Point
S12							004									b										Objection D P Bell Objects to the boundary of the proposed Waitaki electorate running so close to Timaru. The existing boundary runs along the Waitaki River, which is a more notable topographical feature than the proposed boundary along Salt Water Creek. This area has a strong community of interest with Timaru, being the nearest major population centre, and none with areas further south. Suggested solution Ideally, use the Hunter Hills as the boundary, but at the least use the Pareroa River.						Disallowed
S12							005									b										Objection G F & E J Gee Similar to S12/001 Suggested solution None given						Disallowed
S12							006									b										Objection K A Bell Similar to S12/004 Suggested solution Similar to S12/004						Disallowed
S12							007									b										Objection D Diamond Objects to the alterations to the existing Aoraki electorate boundary as these ignore natural boundaries and local communities of interest. Suggested solution None given.						Disallowed
S12							008									b, h										Objection G T Callanan Requests that the proposed Waitaki electorate boundaries be adopted as local government boundaries.						Disallowed. Outside Commissions jurisdiction
S12							009									b										Objection J D Malt Similar to S12/001 Suggested solution Keep all areas administered by the Timaru District Council within one electorate.						Allowed in part. Including Pleasant Point
S12							010									b										Objection P A & W A Cody Objects to the boundaries of the proposed Waitaki electorate. Suggested solution Similar to S12/002						Disallowed
S12							011									b										Objection F E Hocken Objects to the inclusion of Twizel in the proposed Waitaki electorate, as this area’s community of interest lies with Timaru. Suggested solution Similar to S12/009						Disallowed
S12							012									b, h										Objection J Annear, Mayor – Timaru District Council Similar to S12/007 Suggested solution Similar to S12/002						Allowed in part as it relates to Pleasant Point
S12							013									b										Objection J L & R P Tennent Similar to S12/007 Suggested solution Similar to S12/002						Disallowed
S12							014									b, h										Objection M Tarrant Objects to the division of the existing Aoraki electorate and the subsequent inclusion of the towns of Geraldine, Pleasant Point, Fairlie, Tekapo, Twizel, Pareora and Waimate in the proposed Waitaki electorate. Both topography and community of interest link these areas with the rest of the existing Aoraki electorate. Suggested solution Emphasise topography and community of interest ahead of population numbers when determining boundaries, particularly for geographically large electorates.						Allowed in part as it relates to Pleasant Point
S12							015									b, h										Objection South Canterbury Federated Farmers Objects to the inclusion of parts of the Timaru District in the Waitaki electorate on the grounds of community of interest. The South Canterbury region has a distinct identity and should not be split. Suggested solution Run the electorate boundary along the southern boundary of the Timaru District. Adjustments to other boundaries suggested to accommodate this.						Allowed in part as it relates to Pleasant Point
S12							016									b, h										Objection C R Vincent Similar to S12/007 Suggested solution Similar to S12/002						Disallowed
S12							017									b										Objection National Council of New Zealand Women - South Canterbury Branch Similar to S12/007 Suggested solution Similar to S12/002						Disallowed
S12							018									b										Objection J G Campbell Objects to the boundaries of the proposed Waitaki electorate being drawn along roads. This divides valleys, neighbours and rural communities. Suggested solution Use natural physical boundaries, such as rivers and hill ridges, as electorate boundaries in rural areas.						Disallowed
S12							019									n, h										Objection G M Kircher Objects to the name ‘Waitaki’ for the proposed electorate, as the name is not inclusive of the whole electorate. Suggested solution Name the electorate ‘South Canterbury-Otago’.						Allowed. Except as to proposed name.
S12							020									b, h										Objection Aoraki National Party Objects to the inclusion of Pleasant Point in the proposed Waitaki electorate as its community of interest lies with Timaru and the Rangitata electorate. Suggested solution Ideally, the whole of the Timaru District should be in one electorate. As this is likely to happen in future boundary adjustments, in the meantime place Pleasant Point in the Rangitata electorate.						Allowed
S12							021									b										Objection M M Vincent Similar to S12/007 Supports the submission by the Timaru District Council (S12/012) Suggested solution Similar to S12/002						Allowed in part as it relates to Pleasant Point
S12							022									b										Objection South Canterbury Chamber of Commerce Similar to S12/007 Suggested solution Similar to S12/002						Disallowed
S12							601									b										Counter-objection H Tane Supports the proposed boundary for the Waitaki electorate.						Allowed
s12							602									n										Counter-objection C A Spanhake Relates to objection S12/019 Objects to the suggestion that the electorate be named ‘South Canterbury-Otago’, as this is unnecessarily wordy. Suggested solution Adopt the name proposed by the Representation Commission.						Allowed
S12							603									n										Counter-objection E J Ludemann Relates to objection S12/019 Similar to S12/602 Suggested solution Either retain the proposed name ‘Waitaki’ or if a name capturing the whole of the electorate is desirable, call it ‘Aoraki-Otago’.						Allowed
S13																										Dunedin North
S13							001									b										Objection A Robins, Dunedin North Labour Party Supports the minor changes proposed for the Dunedin North electorate.						Disallowed. see S13 002
S13							002									b, h										Objection A McRobie Objects to the boundary between the proposed Dunedin North and Waitaki electorates on the grounds of maintaining a defined community of interest. Suggested solution Use the Dunedin City territorial boundary to determine the electorate boundary. Include the area around Palmerston in the Waitaki electorate.						Allowed
S15																										Clutha - Southland
S15							001									n										Objection B R Costley Objects to the name ‘Clutha-Southland’ for the proposed electorate, as the geographic area covered incorporates South Otago, West Otago, Fiordland and Southland. Suggested solution Name the electorate ‘Southland’, as this is the largest and most central of the regions included in the electorate.						Disallowed. The existing name continues to represent the electorate appropriately
S15							002									b										Objection G Bradshaw Supports the boundary for the proposed Clutha-Southland electorate, particularly the inclusion of Queenstown within the proposed electorate. Would like to see the boundary used by local government.						Allowed
S15							003									b										Objection L D Turnbull – Mataura Ward Councillor Objects to the inclusion of Mataura in the proposed Clutha-Southland electorate. Mataura’s community of interest lies with Invercargill. Suggested solution Run the boundary of the Invercargill electorate north of Mataura.						Disallowed
S15							004									b, h										Objection S K Simpson Objects to the inclusion of Roxburgh and surrounds in the proposed Clutha-Southland electorate. This area’s community of interest lies with Alexandra and the rest of Otago in the Waitaki electorate. Hills separate it from the rest of the Clutha-Southland electorate. Suggested solution Move Roxburgh into the Waitaki electorate. To compensate, the Dunedin South boundary could be extended out to the Dunedin City Council boundary to include Middlemarch. Change the Electoral Act so that the geographic size of electorates is considered as well as population figures.						Allowed in part. As it relates to Roxburgh
S15							005									b, h										Objection Invercargill Labour Electorate Committee Similar to S15/003 Suggested solution Similar to S15/003						Allowed in part. As it relates to Riverton.
S15							006									b										Objection Southland District Council Similar to S15/004 Queenstown, Arrowtown and Roxburgh share a community of interest with Otago, not Southland. Suggested solution Retain the current boundary. Review the criteria for determining boundaries so that community of interest rather than population is the main consideration.						Allowed in part. As it relates to Roxburgh
S15							007									b, h										Objection G M Kircher Objects the inclusion of Roxburgh, Millers Flat, Ettrick and Teviot in the proposed Clutha-Southland. These areas’ community of interest lies with Alexandra. Suggested solution Include these areas in the Waitaki electorate.						Allowed. Similar to S15 004
S15							008									n										Objection A Venables Objects to the name ‘Clutha-Southland’ for the proposed electorate. The name no longer represents the geographic area covered by the electorate. Suggested solution Name the electorate ‘Otago-Southland’.						Disallowed
S15							009									b, h										Objection Eric Roy, MP – Invercargill Objects to the inclusion of parts of the Fairfax area in the proposed Clutha-Southland electorate. Suggested solution Shift the boundary with the Invercargill electorate north to include all of Fairfax-Isla Bank Road and the Fairfax township.						Disallowed
S15							010									b										Objection P Wilson Similar to S15/003 Suggested solution Include Mataura and surrounds in the Invercargill electorate. This would also help Invercargill maintain its population quota against projected growth figures.						Disallowed
S15							011									b										Objection Queenstown Lakes District Council Supports the boundaries of the proposed Clutha-Southland electorate. Has concerns about the splitting of the Wakatipu area and the Wanaka Ward across two electorates, but considers this unavoidable in the short term, given the projected growth in the district. Suggested solution That the Wakatipu and Wanaka areas be reunited into one electorate at the next boundary review.						Disallowed. See S15 004
S15							601									b										Counter-objection D J C McKenzie Relates to objections S15/003 & 005 Objects to the suggestion that Mataura has a community of interest with Invercargill and should be included in the Invercargill electorate. Notes that Mataura is part of the Gore District and its community of interest lies with Gore and Eastern Southland. Suggested solution Leave Mataura in the Clutha-Southland electorate.						Allowed
S15							602									b, h										Counter-objection New Zealand Labour Party Relates to objections S15/004 & 006-007 Notes that adopting an alternative to the Representation Commission’s proposed boundary would result in major challenges to the Electoral Act. Suggested solution Adopt the boundaries proposed by the Representation Commission.						Allowed in part
S15							603									b, h										Counter-objection E Roy, MP – Invercargill Relates to objections S15/003, 005 & 010 Similar to S15/601 Notes that communication links for Mataura, including telephone lines and postal services, centre on Gore. Suggested solution Similar to S15/601.						Allowed
S15							604									b										Counter-objection J Jack Relates to objection S15/003 Similar to S15/603 Suggested solution Similar to S15/601.						Allowed
S16																										Invercargill
S16							001									n										Objection A Reid Objects to the name ‘Invercargill’ for the proposed electorate. This name focuses on the city to the exclusion of rural areas of the electorate. Suggested solution Name the electorate ‘Foveaux’						Disallowed
S16							002									b										Objection M C Dodge Objects to the inclusion of parts of the Catlins community in the proposed Invercargill electorate. The Catlins area shares a distinct rural community of interest and should not be split. Suggested solution Develop the Invercargill electorate as an urban electorate. Keep the Catlins area together in a rural focused electorate.						Disallowed. Represents territorial authority boundary
S16							003									n										Objection P Lewis Similar to S16/001 Notes that the name ‘Invercargill’ does not encompass the diversity of communities included in the proposed electorate. Suggested solution Similar to S16/001						Disallowed. Similar to S16 001
S16							004									b										Objection Southland District Council Objects to the inclusion of Orepuki, Colac Bay, Riverton and Thornbury in the proposed Invercargill electorate. These areas’ community of interest lies with Southland. Suggested solution Retain the current boundary. Review the criteria for determining boundaries so that community of interest rather than population is the main consideration.						Disallowed. Areas included are necessary to meet the population quota
S16							005									b										Objection M & F Sutherland Similar to S16/002 Suggested solution Retain the current boundary along the Mataura River.						Disallowed. Similar to S16 002
S16							006									b										Objection Tourism Catlins Similar to S16/002 Suggested solution Similar to S16/005						Disallowed. S16 002
S16							007									b										Objection P Wilson Objects to the inclusion of Riverton in the proposed Invercargill electorate. Suggested solution None given.						Disallowed. Similar to S16 004
S16							008									b, h										Objection New Zealand Labour Party Similar to S16/002 and S16/007 Suggested solution Redraw the boundary to include areas with stronger community of interest with Invercargill.						Disallowed. Areas included are necessary to meet the population quota
S16							601									b, h										Counter-objection E Roy, MP – Invercargill Relates to objections S16/002, 004-006 & 008 Notes that any redrawing of electorate boundaries may cause a sense of disruption and loss of identity. Also notes however that the area of the Catlins west of Orepuki does have easily definable boundaries and a connection to the Invercargill electorate. Suggested solution Adopt the boundaries proposed by the Representation Commission. If further change is required, the boundary should not be extended to include Mataura.						Upheld to the extent that objections are disallowed
S16							602									b, h										Counter-objection E Roy, MP – Invercargill Relates to objection S16/004 Notes that the area around Riverton has largely easily definable boundaries and a connection with the Invercargill electorate. Suggested solution Similar to S16/601						Allowed as above but disallowed in respect of the change proposed
M02																										Tamaki Makaurau
M02							001									n										Objection G R Seymour Objects to the spelling of the name of the proposed Tamaki Makaurau electorate. The name should follow Maori orthographic convention. Suggested solution Spell the name ‘Tāmaki-makau-rau’						Allowed
M03																										Pare Hauraki–Pare Waikato
M03							001									b, n, h										Objection Ngāti Maru Rūnanga Supports the boundary and name for the proposed Pare Hauraki– Pare Waikato electorate.						Allowed as to the boundary and partially allowed as to name which will be Hauraki-Waikato
M03							002									b, n										Objection Hako Hauraki Aotearoa Objects to the boundary and name for the proposed Pare Hauraki–Pare Waikato electorate. Suggested solution Restore the historic Hauraki electorate and boundaries.						Disallowed
M03							003									n, h										Objection Te Kupenga o Ngati Hako Inc Supports the name ‘Pare Hauraki–Pare Waikato’ for the proposed electorate. This name is more inclusive of the iwi included in the electorate than the previous name ‘Tainui’.						Allowed in part. See M03 001
M03							004									b, n, h										Objection Nanaia Mahuta, MP – Tainui Objects to the inclusion of Manurewa, Papakura and Waiheke Island in the proposed Pare Hauraki - Pare Waikato electorate. These areas share a community of interest with the Tamaki Makaurau electorate. The boundaries of the electorate should remain as close as possible to the existing Tainui electorate boundaries. Also objects to the name ‘Pare Hauraki – Pare Waikato’ for the proposed electorate. Suggested solution Use the natural boundaries of the Bombay Hills, Hunua Ranges and the Hingaia Peninsula to set the boundary of the Tamaki Makaurau electorate. The Pare Hauraki - Pare Waikato electorate should then be extended to include Tokoroa and Maniapoto, who share strong links with the electorate. Retain the name ‘Tainui’ for the electorate.						Disallowed
M03							005									b, h										Objection T L Turner Supports the boundary of the proposed Pare Hauraki - Pare Waikato electorate.						Allowed
M03							006									n, h										Objection D T Te Kanawa Objects to the name ‘Pare Hauraki – Pare Waikato’ for the proposed electorate. Suggested solution Retain the name ‘Tainui’ for the electorate.						Disallowed. See M03 001
M05																										Te Tai Hauauru
M05							001									n										Objection G R Seymour Objects to the omission of a macron in the name of the proposed Te Tai Hauauru electorate. Suggested solution That the electorate name be spelt ‘Te Tai Hauāuru’						Allowed
M05							002									b, h										Objection D T Te Kanawa Objects to the northern boundary of the proposed Te Tai Hauauru electorate. The proposed boundary places Ngati Maniapoto in a separate electorate from the rest of the traditional Tainui confederation of tribes. Population quota tolerances allow for the current boundary to be retained. Suggested solution Retain the current boundary near the Ngati Maniapoto southern boundary. Move the boundary near Putaruru south. This would reunite part of the Raukawa (Tainui) tribal area with the rest of Tainui.						Disallowed
M06																										Ikaroa-Rawhiti
m06							001									n										Objection G R Seymour Objects to the omission of a macron in the name of the proposed Ikaroa-Rawhiti electorate. Suggested solution That the electorate name be spelt ‘Ikaroa-Rāwhiti’						Allowed
M07																										Te Tai Tonga
M07							001									b, h										Objection H Collins, Secretary – The Maori Party, Te Upoko o te Ika branch Objects to the inclusion of parts of the North Island in the proposed Te Tai Tonga electorate. The size of the electorate makes it difficult for an MP to represent it effectively. Suggested solution Use Raukawa Moana/ Cook Strait as the northern boundary.						Disallowed

Commission's Full Report | Interactive Maps