View objections

Objection

---

William Oosterman

Port Waikato ought not be called Port Waikato.

1. Port Waikato is not a major population centre in the electorate (quite frankly, it's barely a population centre at all -- I took a trip there specifically because it has an electorate named after it and was shocked to discover it's essentially a fishing club, a dairy and some houses)
2. nor is Port Waikato centrally located within the electorate (quite naturally, it's on the coast and therefore represents an extreme edge)
3. the major population centre in the electorate is Pukekohe
4. the next most major population centre in the electorate is Waiuku (unless I have erred terribly)
5. both Pukekohe and Waiuku are in Auckland, but the name Port Waikato suggests the electorate is in the Waikato
6. per Wikipedia (yeah, I know) Pukekohe and Waiuku combine for 37,930 people, which is some 52% of the stated electoral population of Port Waikato (i.e. 72,869)
7. as Waiuku and Pukekohe constitute the majority of the population, the area that Port Waikato can most accurately said to cover is the area that Waiuku and Pukekohe both belong to, i.e. Franklin
8. furthermore, Port Waikato also contains the settlement of Tuakau so therefore 60.5% of the population of Port Waikato live within the core settlements of historic (pre-amalgamation) Franklin
9. it's low key crazy that Clevedon, Maraetai etc are included in the Franklin ward in the first place so it follows naturally that to reject Franklin as a name because places that are only included in the Franklin ward so that Papakura Local Board is an urban local board that can be combined with Manurewa Local Board is also low key crazy

for these 9 reasons I believe

i. Port Waikato is a name that is not representative of the electorate it describes
ii. Port Waikato gives the impression that the electorate is located within the Waikato rather than straddling Auckland and Waikato
iii. Port Waikato gives the impression that the electorate located within the Waikato whereas in reality the larger part of the population is based within Auckland
iv. the area Port Waikato covers is most accurately called Franklin
v. there is no compelling reason why Franklin is not a suitable name for Port Waikato
vi. the name Port Waikato was chosen arbitrarily from non-Franklin alternatives
vii. there is no reasonable basis on which to continue the farce of naming this electorate after Port Waikato

If I seem fixated on the fact Port Waikato seems like it's in the Waikato, this is because I literally live in the neighbouring electorate (Papakura) and was shocked to discover Port Waikato wasn't much further south.

Objection

---

Ms Cheryl Tangiwai

Support vote

Objection

---

Bernadette Limbrick

I live in Te Puna, Western Bay of Plenty. I object to the boundary change that will put me into Tauranga. Our area is rural and has nothing to do with the residential area of Tauranga, so do not move us out of the rest of Western Bay, which we relate to.

Objection

---

Mrs Vanessa Coster

Moving the Lower Kaimai, McLaren Falls, Omanawa, essentially anything Tauranga side of the Kaimai ranges should stay in the Tauranga electorate.
We identify with the Bay of Plenty, Tauranga area. A majority of residence would be working in and around the Tauranga area. We need representation focused on Tauranga.

• Vanessa Coster snapshot 1742959974 0 (png 114 KB)

Objection

---

Sarah Caldwell

I object to the new electoral boundary change which dissects the suburb of Ohauiti. It is very important that communities are represented in full by one single MP. Therefore, the whole of Ohauiti should either be in the Tauranga or the Mount Maunganui electorate. Community cohesion is essential.

• Sarah Caldwell snapshot 1743715940 0 (png 542 KB)

Objection

---

Vincent Murphy

Object to the proposed name of ‘Mt Maunganui’ electorate. The Mount is 1x suburb of Tauranga in this proposed electorate of many - Omanu, Arataki, Bayfair, Matapihi, Papamoa, Papamoa East, Welcome Bay, Maungatapu, Hairini, Ohauiti. Should be Tauranga East, much more genuine of the area as a whole. This reflects it is one city. Similar to Hamilton East and Hamilton West

Objection

---

Samuel Taylor

Mount Maunganui is a reasonably small part of the electorate and that name does not describe it well.

Objection

---

Ms Tracy Hayson

Oppose moving lower Kaimais, Belk road and Omanawa area from Bay of Plenty to Rotorua. These areas are part of the wider Tauranga community and concerned they they will not receive proportionate representation by a Rotorua MP give the disconnect - both geographically and demographically. Rotorua has distinct characteristics and political issues from this area.

• Tracy Hayson snapshot 1742889175 0 (png 349 KB)

Objection

---

Mr Kyle Denize

"Rotorua is 7.6% under quota and must gain population. Population of 4,400 (6% of quota) moves from Bay of Plenty into Rotorua including the communities of Omanawa, McLaren Falls and Lower Kaimai. The boundaries of Rotorua authority boundaries"

I have been a resident of Omanawa (Omanawa Road) for 30 years. I have always associated myself with the Bay of Plenty and Tauranga, never Rotorua. We never travel there; we never shop there. Most properties in the Omanawa and McLaren Falls area are lifestyle properties, with a strong connection to the Bay of Plenty and Tauranga City. Many residents work in Tauranga. Children/School zoning/bus routes are linked to Tauranga and Lower Kamai. McLaren Falls Park is owned and managed by Tauranga City Council. Omanawa Falls is managed by Tauranga City Council. These assets and the people clearly associate itself with the Western Bay of Plenty and Tauranga City. It is incredulous to think that you would consider re-zoning residents from one electorate to another that has absolutely no connection, who’s elected MP would not have no understanding, and no ability to address our needs, or concerns which at a local level would always be in relation to Tauranga and Bay of Plenty. The elected MP is there to represent the people your area. Rotorua is NOT our area, and as such the people of Omanawa and McLaren Falls will effectively be left with no representation, disassociating them from the electoral system, and taking away a meaningful reason to vote.

• Kyle Denize snapshot 1742962470 0 (png 188 KB)

Objection

---

Mr Reuben Hayward

I object to the Lower Kaimai, McLaren Falls and Omanawa communities being included in the Rotorua electorate.
The proposed boundaries remove the aforementioned communities from the Bay of Plenty electorate where these communities have both a social and physical connection. The proposed boundaries include these communities in an electorate that has no physical connection to these communities (one would have to drive through other electorates to get to Rotorua).
Including a small community that is physically and socially isolated from the rest of the electorate increases the likelihood of inadequate representation of these communities' interests, and likely favors candidates that have no connection to or interest in these communities.

• Reuben Hayward snapshot 1743108114 0 (png 151 KB)
• Reuben Hayward snapshot 1743108115 1 (png 166 KB)
• Reuben Hayward snapshot 1743108115 2 (png 120 KB)

Objection

---

Miss Adonia Jack

Don’t want to be part of Rotorua electorate would rather stick as Tauranga or wherever it currently is, I’m a member of the lower kaimai community

• Adonia Jack snapshot 1743157582 0 (png 443 KB)

Objection

---

Owen Bennett

People living on the roads off SH29 dont consider ourselves "Rotorua", we would have to drive through Yairanga to get to Rotorua...

• Owen Bennett snapshot 1743194511 0 (png 209 KB)

Objection

---

Alec Whatmough

There is no logical relationship between Rotorua and the Lower Kaimai, Oropi areas. Rotorua has significant and unique issues which should not be lumped in with current Western BOP. This change will effectively leave either Rotorua or the WBOP areas without parliamentary representation. Where the MP is domiciled will probably determine which way the split will occur.
The proposal is a very, very bad idea.

Objection

---

Mr Grant Jeffcote

My submission is to vehemently object to the new southern boundary classification for the Tauranga area, in particular to include the area I live (Oropi), geographically we are much closer to Tauranga. When we chose to live in Oropi it was because it was a part of the Tauranga district, I work in Tauranga & Papamoa and we are geographically much closer to Tauranga, I am part of this community and wish it to remain that way, I pay my rates for the benefit of the Tauranga area and see no need for that to change! I grew up in Rotorua and moved out of it for a reason, to become part of it again is not what I want!
Your proposed boundary changes to be included in the Rotorua catchment area are as close to Tauranga City as you can get, an unnecessary update. I feel this is change for changes sake and another waste of we the taxpayers money.

• Grant Jeffcote snapshot 1743734736 0 (png 203 KB)

Objection

---

Greg Hulbert

The Lower Kaimai's and Papamoa/Te Puke have NO Community attachment to Rotorua. Changing these boundaries will break the existing communities into isolated pockets of residents. Any proposed boundary changes should strengthen community, whereas these change of boundary proposals shatter the sense of community.

• Greg Hulbert snapshot 1743748772 0 (png 126 KB)