Skip to main content Skip to navigation within this section

View objections and counter-objections

Objections and counter-objections to the proposed electorates and boundaries are listed below.

Submissions may have been edited to remove contact information or other personal details, or to remove objectionable material. Submissions which only address issues the Representation Commission cannot consider have not been published.

Select filters to view submissions

Displaying 481 - 510 of 717
Number Name Submission Change type View
N42105 Owen Fairless Objection Boundary

Owen Fairless

Objection

Wairarapa
This objection relates to a boundary change
This objection does not relate to a name change

Owen Fairless

Ashhurst to stay in Rangiteiki as I have nothing in common with wairapapa and has on this side of the range all my live
N42106 Erlinde Dijkwel Objection Boundary

Erlinde Dijkwel

Objection

Wairarapa
This objection relates to a boundary change
This objection does not relate to a name change

Erlinde Dijkwel

I object moving ashhurst to the wairarapa electorate. Ashhurst is totally not connected to the wairarapa, not for work, schools, shopping etc. there are the ruahines separating the two completely. Ashhurs should be part of palmy, as it is now

Suggested solution

Ashhurst stay part of palmy electorate. Ashhurst is mainly connected to there. For all social things, work, shopping, schooling, recreational things.
N42107 Shane Field Objection Boundary

Shane Field

Objection

Wairarapa
This objection relates to a boundary change
This objection does not relate to a name change

Shane Field

Objection:
I object to the placement of Ashhurst in the Wairarapa electorate.

Reasons:
Ashhurst has no “community of interest” with any part of the Wairarapa or Tararua regions. Ashhurst is currently within the Palmerston North City Council boundary.
There are substantial geographical features, the Tararua and Ruahine ranges, which separate Ashhurst from the Wairarapa and Tararua regions.
There is only one road link from Ashhurst to the rest of the proposed Wairarapa electorate, that being Saddle Road. Drivers can also drive south of Ashhurst for a few minutes before turning on to Pahiatua-Aokautere Road (locally known as the “Pahiatua Track”. One additional link, the Manawatu-Tararua Highway, or Te Ahu a Turanga, is scheduled for completion in mid-2025.

Suggested solution

Include Ashhurst within the Palmerston North electorate.

To compensate for the overpopulation which would result from this move, move the areas south of the Manawatu River into the Rangitikei electorate (as they have been for several election cycles).
Road users have several options to get from Ashhurst to the rest of Palmerston North and vice versa, whereas there are only two routes getting from Palmerston North to areas south of the Manawatu River (at Ashhurst, and Tennent Drive). The Manawatu River is a natural geographical boundary for the electorate.
Areas to the southwest (Longburn) and northeast (Whakarongo) of the urban part of Palmerston North are two areas marked by the Palmerston North City Council for urban growth in the near future, which would bring Ashhurst even closer to the rest of Palmerston North. Population growth is well catered for.
The Rangitikei electorate would also need some adjustment from this move, which could be accomplished primarily in two ways:
• Moving the boundary of the Whanganui electorate eastward. The proposed Whanganui electorate is not at the maximum population allowed and could take some additional population without requiring any other adjustment. However, the New Plymouth and Taranaki-King Country electorates are also under the maximum allowed population and could take on extra population if required.

• Moving the northern boundary of the Kapiti electorate north. Moving it to the Ohau River is approximately where it could be moved to without any other consequential adjustments.
N43001 Rachael Burke Objection Boundary

Rachael Burke

Objection

Kapiti
This objection relates to a boundary change
This objection does not relate to a name change

Rachael Burke

We are currently in the mana electorate, and live in a rural zone of Porirua city. We have been rezoned to Kapiti, which we have nothing in common with. Our council is Porirua; we are part of Porirua city and want to vote for a MP to help Porirua city grow. Kapiti is a different demographic.

Suggested solution

The Pauatahanui area (Paekākāriki hill road, Judgeford etc) should be part of the Porirua electorate.
N43002 Rachel Frear Objection Boundary

Rachel Frear

Objection

Kapiti
This objection relates to a boundary change
This objection does not relate to a name change

Rachel Frear

I like being in the Porirua electorate as it is typically won by the party I support. If I'm lumped in with the Paraparaumu and above then likely get a candidate who doesn't align with my views.

Suggested solution

Have another go but leave south Paraparaumu with Porirua
Good luck
N43003 Emma Va'ai Objection Boundary

Emma Va'ai

Objection

Kapiti
This objection relates to a boundary change
This objection does not relate to a name change

Emma Va'ai

Please do not cut Porirua in half. Whitby Pauatahanui Plimmerton Camborne Pukerua Bay have long been part of Porirua. It artificially separates 2 parts of one city. Getting access to a local MP will be illogical with people having to travel north to do so. The demographic and needs of Paraparaumu and surrounds is significantly different to that of Porirua residents. Local iwi are different.

Suggested solution

If a boundary change is to occur Kapiti should extend only as far south as somewhere between Paekakariki and Pukerua Bay.
N43004 Ms Sarah Brazil Objection Boundary

Ms Sarah Brazil

Objection

Kapiti
This objection relates to a boundary change
This objection does not relate to a name change

Ms Sarah Brazil

Please don’t split Porirua in two. Plimmerton, Pukerua Bay etc should not be split from Porirua central, eastern Porirua and Titahi Bay.

Suggested solution

Please keep the statis quo. If it absolutely must be split at least keep Papakowhai with Plimmerton, Pukerua Bay etcso the local government ward boundaries In Porirua are the same as the central government ones
N43005 Debbie Birch Objection Boundary

Debbie Birch

Objection

Kapiti
This objection relates to a boundary change
This objection does not relate to a name change

Debbie Birch

It doesn’t make any sense to have areas south of Pukerua Bay included as part of the Kāpiti region. They are very distinct geographical locations and I do not believe either is best served by someone on the opposite side of the hill.

Suggested solution

Include locations Pukerua Bay and South as part of Keneperu.
N43006 Mr Donald Wright Objection Boundary

Mr Donald Wright

Objection

Kapiti
This objection relates to a boundary change
This objection does not relate to a name change

Mr Donald Wright

Porirua City has a diverse population and unique character and interests very different than Wellington City, the Kāpiti Coast or the rural areas included in the new electorate. Splitting it in half is going to impact greatly in accurate representing our interests in terms of regional health, local government, and transport.
Also giving a few random streets in Newlands to the Hutt seems a kind of messy and silly way to balance the numbers.
N43007 Jason Reid Objection Boundary

Jason Reid

Objection

Kapiti
This objection relates to a boundary change
This objection does not relate to a name change

Jason Reid

The Otaki electorate merging into Kapiti is ridiculous - we are one of the fastest growing areas in NZ; why on earth are you changing boundaries now. This is a waste of money.

Suggested solution

Leave the boundaries as they are now. Do not progress this proposal.
N43009 Porirua City Council Objection Boundary, name

Porirua City Council

Objection

Kapiti
This objection relates to a boundary change
This objection relates to a name change

Porirua City Council

The current proposed boundary between the Kenepuru and Kapiti Electorates mostly align with the boundaries of the Porirua City Council general wards (Onepoto and Pāuatahanui), however they differ in one area:
The suburb of Papakōwhai is within our Pāuatahanui General Ward, however in the Commission’s proposed boundaries, Papakōwhai is the only suburb from the Pāuatahanui General Ward that is included in the proposed Kapiti Electorate. Please find attached a map of the Porirua City Council general ward boundaries, overlaid with the Commission’s proposed boundaries for the Kenepuru and Kapiti Electorates.
This does not align with the communities of interest that we identified as part of our 2021 representation review, that was subsequently upheld by the Local Government Commission.1
We believe that this difference will create significant electoral confusion for electors in Papakōwhai, as they will be the only residents of Porirua City whose City Council Ward does not align with their Electorate.
We know from experience that voters in North Linden, in the Wellington City Council area, suffer similar confusion at present, as they are the only area of Wellington City included in the current Mana Electorate.
We object to this boundary and ask that the Commission modify its proposal to include Papakōwhai in the Kapiti Electorate. We acknowledge that if moved to the proposed Kapiti Electorate, the population of Papakōwhai (being 2,300 people) will result in the proposed Kapiti Electorate exceeding the North Island quota.2 We therefore recommend that the Commission examine the northern boundary of the proposed Kapiti Electorate.

Suggested solution

We object to the names chosen for the proposed electorates for the following reasons:
Kapiti does not reflect the electorate that is proposed to be made up of half of Porirua City. We suggest the current name of Mana is already well known, and more accurately reflects the area.
The name Kenepuru, being the name of one suburb of the proposed electorate, does not reflect the diverse nature of the proposed electorate’s area.
We suggest the name of Rangituhi. Rangituhi is of significance to Ngāti Toa. It is a central geographic feature that can be seen from most of the proposed electorate.
N43010 Mr Kris Banning Objection Boundary

Mr Kris Banning

Objection

Kapiti
This objection relates to a boundary change
This objection does not relate to a name change

Mr Kris Banning

I want my elected official to be from my area that I pay rates to. I will never support being forced to vote in one zone (Kapiti) and my rates go to a completely separate zone (Porirua). This will mean that the elected official will not support the people who voted them in.

Suggested solution

Either leave the boundaries as they are or align the voting area with the council of that area. If im voting for Kapiti officals then my rates should go there also.
N43011 Sebastian Collin-Smyth Objection Boundary

Sebastian Collin-Smyth

Objection

Kapiti
This objection relates to a boundary change
This objection does not relate to a name change

Sebastian Collin-Smyth

I am writing in opposition to the proposed new boundaries if the Kenepuru and Kapiti electorates. I believe General Electorate boundaries should as much as possible align to city and district council boundaries to ensure fair and consistent representation between central and local government. Plimmerton in the proposed boundary for instance is split into the Kapiti electorate when it has more in common population wise with Porirua in terms of its residents and the Porirua city in which it is a part of. While there are some lifestyle blocks and a few farms most residents are not rural and it would be remiss to put Plimmerton in a electorate that is significantly more rural.

Suggested solution

The new electorate boundaries or Kapiti and Kenepuru should reflect city and district council boundaries as much as possible. Plimmerton should be captured within the Kenepuru proposed electorate in line with the city council boundary.
N43601 Mrs Lorraine Pollock Counter-Objection Name

Mrs Lorraine Pollock

Counter-Objection

Kapiti

Relates to objections

N43009
This objection does not relate to a boundary change
This objection relates to a name change

Mrs Lorraine Pollock

Porirua Coucil object to the name Kapiti . This does nor reflect the new electorte as far north as Otaki.

Suggested solution

Leave it as the first suggestion of Kapiti it makes sense.
N43602 Brian Warburton Counter-Objection Boundary, name

Brian Warburton

Counter-Objection

Kapiti

Relates to objections

N43009
This objection relates to a boundary change
This objection relates to a name change

Brian Warburton

The Council has not delegated the authority to make an objection on a proposed representation review.
There has not been a properly convened meeting of the Council that has resolved to make a cross-objection on the a proposed representation review.
The objection is in the name of Anita Baker (mayor) and Wendy Walker (chief executive) but they do have the delegated authority to make an objection.

Suggested solution

Reject the objection
N43603 Mr John Riding Counter-Objection Boundary, name

Mr John Riding

Counter-Objection

Kapiti

Relates to objections

N43009
This objection relates to a boundary change
This objection relates to a name change

Mr John Riding

Objection 1, I read that Porirua District Council with for the new Kapiti Electorate (in which I reside) should have its boundaries moved south. I object to this proposed change as it is illogical because it cuts off the top of the Kapiti District council area. The design at present encompasses the Kapiti District Council jurisdiction in total, meaning that the elected House representative has one council mostly to deal with. Shifting the boundary with Rangitikei in the north only moves a problem, it doesnt solve it and looking up the there, Rangitikei already say that the boundary between Kapiti and Horowhenua is too far north and should be moved south - i.e. the opposite of what Porirua Council say. I think the Electorate Commission has done the best job it could in the circumstances and boundaries should go forward as proposed.

Objection 2 - name. As the new Kapiti Electorate is almost entirely on the Kapiti Coast and in the Kapiti Council area, the objection by Porirua District Council to change the name of Kapiti to Mana should not be allowed. It is only marginally into the Mana District council area anyway and the majority of voters will Kapiti residents. If we are to loose an Electorate, the one being deleted is Mana. The name should be deleted with it. Mana needs to be deleted and Kapiti Electorate created

Suggested solution

The Electorate commission has done a good but difficult job with the new Kapiti Electorate boundaries. They should remain as designed.

If we are to loose an Electorate, the one being deleted is Mana. The name should be deleted with it. Mana needs to be deleted and Kapiti Electorate created
N43604 Mrs Gill Riding Counter-Objection Boundary, name

Mrs Gill Riding

Counter-Objection

Kapiti

Relates to objections

N43009
This objection relates to a boundary change
This objection relates to a name change

Mrs Gill Riding

I object to the proposals made by Porirua Council to further extend the proposed new Kapiti boundary to the south and to then balance things out by taking from the north of the area. This only serves to create the same problem of split electorate/council wards in a different place. I suggest leaving as is.
With regard to Porirua Council suggesting that name of Kapiti does not represent the south of the proposed electorate, I object to their alternatives and would point out that Mana is a suburb and not representative of the electorate as a whole and neither is Rangituhi, which is also stated as Rangituhi / Colonial Knob a large hill or mountain southwest of Porirua city and west of the northern Wellington suburb of Tawa. Kapiti makes more sense as it is visible from all the coast and is of equal value to Ngāti Toa.

Suggested solution

Leave the boundary as suggested and the name as suggested.
N43605 Edward Guise Counter-Objection Boundary

Edward Guise

Counter-Objection

Kapiti

Relates to objections

N43011
This objection relates to a boundary change
This objection does not relate to a name change

Edward Guise

I am writing to counter an objection to the boundary proposal.
The objector suggested the residents of Plimmerton have more in common with Porirua than with Kapiti. The suggestion made is that there are "some lifestyle blocks and a few farms...".
A significant area of the current Mana electorate included in the proposed change, is Pauatahanui.
As a long-term resident of the Pauatahanui district of Porirua, I can say there is far more than just a few lifestyle blocks and farms in the area. While I do not know the exact figure, I do know there are well over 600 farms and lifestyle blocks in Pauatahanui. There are further lifestyle blocks and farms in Plimmerton and Pukerua Bay districts.
Absolutely the residents of Pauatahanui/Plimmerton/Pukerua Bay have far more in common with the Kapiti region than with the rest of urban Porirua. This is evident in how much Pauatahanui is ignored by current central and local government.
The objector suggested Kapiti is "significantly more rural" so the boundary should not change on that basis. While Kapiti has rural areas like Porirua has Pauatahanui, Kapiti is very much an urban area too with vast suburbs, shopping districts and commercial properties - larger than that seen in Porirua.

Suggested solution

Proceed with the proposed change of boundary.
N43606 Mr Barrington Prince Counter-Objection Name

Mr Barrington Prince

Counter-Objection

Kapiti

Relates to objections

This objection does not relate to a boundary change
This objection relates to a name change

Mr Barrington Prince

[Counter-objection to N43009]

I understand that the reason for making electorate boundary changes is to ensure that around 70,000 people live in each electorate. The number of people living in the location called MANA is relatively small and does not relate to the total area the new boundary encompasses.

Suggested solution

There are around 52,000 people living in the area currently known as KAPITI. Consequently it is proposed that the name for the new electorate be known as KAPITI.
N43607 Mr Barrington Prince Counter-Objection Boundary

Mr Barrington Prince

Counter-Objection

Kapiti

Relates to objections

This objection relates to a boundary change
This objection does not relate to a name change

Mr Barrington Prince

I appreciate that boundary changes are required from time to ensure that the number of people living within electorate boundaries equate to around 70,000 people. Also I appreciate that any changes will affect district boundaries. However where possible changes should not change suburban council boundaries.

Suggested solution

The current proposed boundary cuts off the top of the Kapiti council area. This change would mean time and effort on behalf of the affected councils to make the necessary adjustments and should be avoided if possible. The rate increases are an additional financial burden so additional work imposed on councils should be avoided.
N44001 Rodney Strong Objection Boundary

Rodney Strong

Objection

Kenepuru
This objection relates to a boundary change
This objection does not relate to a name change

Rodney Strong

While I understand the necessity for redrawing boundaries, and do not object to the process, there are some concerns about splitting Porirua into two electorates. By having Whitby, Paremata, and Pukerua Bay part of the Kapiti Electorate you are effectively treating Porirua as being in two different electorates. Which means those Whitby residents, for example, who decide to vote at North City Mall, one of the biggest voting places in the existing Mana electorate, will be treated as out of electorate votes, vastly increasing the amount of paperwork each voting place will need to hold. A more natural boundary would be to put the line at Pukerua Bay, or Paekakariki.
N44002 Kirill Kirichai Objection Boundary

Kirill Kirichai

Objection

Kenepuru
This objection relates to a boundary change
This objection does not relate to a name change

Kirill Kirichai

You're obviously gerrymandering the electorates on behalf of the right wing parties currently in government.

Suggested solution

Keep current Wellington electorates and remove Epson instead.
N44003 Zachary Wichlei Objection Boundary

Zachary Wichlei

Objection

Kenepuru
This objection relates to a boundary change
This objection does not relate to a name change

Zachary Wichlei

I object to the inclusion of Johnsonville in the proposed Kenepuru electorate. While I understand and accept the Representation Commission’s need to dissolve Ōhāriu due to population shifts and the requirements of the Electoral Act, the boundaries for Kenepuru do not reflect the reality of how communities like mine function.

I currently live in Johnsonville and work in Porirua, and while both are part of my daily life, they feel disjointed. Johnsonville is part of the Wellington City Council, while Porirua falls under the Porirua City Council. These two cities operate under separate local governments, have different policy settings and priorities, and do not form a cohesive urban community.

Public transport links between Johnsonville and Porirua are limited. The Johnsonville Line is a dedicated train line that runs only to Wellington’s city centre, with no rail connection to Porirua. Unlike the Hutt Valley or Kāpiti lines, no shared commuter rail network links these areas. Bus services between Johnsonville and Porirua are infrequent and typically require multi-transfer journeys.

Johnsonville is more closely connected to the inner northern suburbs of Wellington like Khandallah, Ngaio, Newlands, and Crofton Downs. We share schooling zones, community services, libraries, shopping centres, and transport infrastructure. We also participate in the same local events, engage with the same city planning processes, and vote in the same local body elections.

The Kenepuru electorate, as proposed, draws a boundary between Johnsonville and the broader Wellington urban community it naturally belongs to and instead places us into a region with which we share fewer ties.

Suggested solution

I recommend adjusting the boundaries of the proposed Kenepuru electorate to ensure Johnsonville remains grouped with suburbs it is more naturally and functionally aligned with — ideally within an electorate that reflects its deep connection to Wellington City.

This could involve:

Including Johnsonville in a reconfigured electorate with Khandallah, Ngaio, Newlands, Crofton Downs, and other northern Wellington City suburbs.

Aligning Johnsonville with electorates such as Wellington Central, where there is shared transport infrastructure, schooling catchments, city services, and a unified urban character.

Ensuring that the new electorate boundaries do not cross the Wellington–Porirua city boundary in ways that dilute the civic identity of either community.

If the Commission must create a new electorate to accommodate population changes, I believe it would be more appropriate to group Porirua communities together and keep Wellington City suburbs — including Johnsonville — within a Wellington-centric boundary. This approach would reflect local government structures, transport networks, and community identity more accurately.

I also suggest the Commission consider transit-oriented planning principles and functional urban areas as a basis for redrawing boundaries. This would lead to more meaningful representation and reduce the disconnect between electorate boundaries and how people live, travel, and engage civically in the Wellington region.

Thank you for considering my submission.
N44004 Mike Michaels Objection Boundary, name

Mike Michaels

Objection

Kenepuru
This objection relates to a boundary change
This objection relates to a name change

Mike Michaels

Splitting of Newlands dilutes community of interest
Name of seat does not represent the area

Suggested solution

Keep Newlands together in one seat
Leave the Hutt seats in their current form
Move the northern boundary of the seat southwards to compensate for additional territory, and absorb this extra population through minor changes to the proposed boundaries of close and adjacent seats.

Consider naming the seat Porirua-Johnsonville
N44005 [No name provided] Objection Boundary

[No name provided]

Objection

Kenepuru
This objection relates to a boundary change
This objection does not relate to a name change

[No name provided]

I live in the northern suburbs of Wellington, and my electorate was previously Ohariu, but it will be changed to Kenepuru, which will include areas of Porirua. There's concern that we might be sidelined and neglected due to this shift. Why not make the entire northern suburbs part of Wellington Central instead?

Suggested solution

All Wellington northern suburbs should be part of Wellington central electorate.
N44006 Nina Becker Objection Boundary

Nina Becker

Objection

Kenepuru
This objection relates to a boundary change
This objection does not relate to a name change

Nina Becker

I live in the Paparangi area. I object to the removal of the Ohariu elecorate. The Northern Suburbs (including Johnsonville, Paparangi, Newlands, Grenada, Churton park etc.) share significant infrastructure and many of the same interests. This area is more effectively served by one MP representing the entire area, rather than the current electorate being split in two and joined to much larger electorates with which we have little to do with. It is nonsensical to split Newlands in half and to have Woodridge and half of Newlands as part of the Lower Hutt electorate. An MP for Lower Hutt is simply not going to have any involvement in a small part of the Northern Suburbs even if they are purported to represent them - their focus will naturally be on the much larger area in Lower Hutt itself. Similarly, by adding part of Newlands and Paparangi to the much larger Kenepuru catchment area, it is unlikely these suburbs will have much attention in comparison to the much larger area of Porirua. In my opinion this is likely to result in substantially less representation for our suburbs and less effective advocacy by our local MPs. The boundaries in Newlands / Woodridge in particular make no sense. This is reflected in our local government, as all of the Northern Suburbs are under the Wellington City Council catchment area. This should also be reflected in our general electorates.

Suggested solution

The Northern Suburbs - Newlands / Woodridge / Johnsonville / Paparangi / Grenada/ Tawa/Churton Park should be retained as part of the same catchment area.
N44008 Kathleen Francis Objection Boundary

Kathleen Francis

Objection

Kenepuru
This objection relates to a boundary change
This objection does not relate to a name change

Kathleen Francis

I don’t understand why half of what is considered Porirua City Council area would be split between 2 different electorates. How does that work once voting happens and the council area potentially has 2 differing, even opposing leaders. Plimmerton and Whitby are as much a part of Porirua as Aotea.
N44009 Porirua City Council Objection Boundary, name

Porirua City Council

Objection

Kenepuru
This objection relates to a boundary change
This objection relates to a name change

Porirua City Council

The current proposed boundary between the Kenepuru and Kapiti Electorates mostly align with the boundaries of the Porirua City Council general wards (Onepoto and Pāuatahanui), however they differ in one area:
The suburb of Papakōwhai is within our Pāuatahanui General Ward, however in the Commission’s proposed boundaries, Papakōwhai is the only suburb from the Pāuatahanui General Ward that is included in the proposed Kapiti Electorate. Please find attached a map of the Porirua City Council general ward boundaries, overlaid with the Commission’s proposed boundaries for the Kenepuru and Kapiti Electorates.
This does not align with the communities of interest that we identified as part of our 2021 representation review, that was subsequently upheld by the Local Government Commission.1
We believe that this difference will create significant electoral confusion for electors in Papakōwhai, as they will be the only residents of Porirua City whose City Council Ward does not align with their Electorate.
We know from experience that voters in North Linden, in the Wellington City Council area, suffer similar confusion at present, as they are the only area of Wellington City included in the current Mana Electorate.
We object to this boundary and ask that the Commission modify its proposal to include Papakōwhai in the Kapiti Electorate. We acknowledge that if moved to the proposed Kapiti Electorate, the population of Papakōwhai (being 2,300 people) will result in the proposed Kapiti Electorate exceeding the North Island quota.2 We therefore recommend that the Commission examine the northern boundary of the proposed Kapiti Electorate.

Suggested solution

We object to the names chosen for the proposed electorates for the following reasons:
Kapiti does not reflect the electorate that is proposed to be made up of half of Porirua City. We suggest the current name of Mana is already well known, and more accurately reflects the area.
The name Kenepuru, being the name of one suburb of the proposed electorate, does not reflect the diverse nature of the proposed electorate’s area.
We suggest the name of Rangituhi. Rangituhi is of significance to Ngāti Toa. It is a central geographic feature that can be seen from most of the proposed electorate.
N44010 Mrs Rachel Barnett Objection Boundary

Mrs Rachel Barnett

Objection

Kenepuru
This objection relates to a boundary change
This objection does not relate to a name change

Mrs Rachel Barnett

I object to merging Ōhāriu and Otaki with Mana to create the proposed Kenepuru electorate. The voter base in Mana is growing with extensive new residential developments, while surrounding cities are built out, so Mana will exceed ratios as building is completed.
Additionally, this change, combined with a changing demographic moving into the area, alters the socioeconomic demographic of the Mana electorate such that the Porirua and surrounding area community voice is unacceptably diluted.
The inclusion of Ōhāriu, in particular, exacerbates this dilution.
Changing boundaries isn't just about the numbers, it's also about the representation of the people behind the numbers. Communities are based within electorates. To pretend 'tweaking the numbers' does not affect the the representational needs of the people within redrawn boundaries is gerrymandering by stealth.

Suggested solution

Ōhāriu people are Wellingtonians, and ought to be merged with Wellington.
N44011 Mrs J Gibbs Objection Boundary

Mrs J Gibbs

Objection

Kenepuru
This objection relates to a boundary change
This objection does not relate to a name change

Mrs J Gibbs

So strange that the kenepuru electric would divide the suburb of Paremata. (south of the bridge vs north of the bridge) I understand it is based on the number of people in a zone.

Suggested solution

surely the kenepuru should include all of paremata, mana, camborne and plimmerton. Taking the natural line of Pukerua Bay north to be Kapiti.
Back to top