View objections and counter-objections

Objection

---

Mr Michael Higham

Newlands is cut off from the suburb it is actually an extension of (Johnsonville). Connecting Newlands to Hutt South is bonkers if you actually live here. There is an obvious overlap in concern with people in Johnsonville, but putting Newlands with the Hutt South electorate will dilute our voice about issues in our actual area.

• Michael Higham snapshot 1744869082 0 (png 526 KB)

Objection

---

Mrs Rachael Skittrup-Ikurere

Newlands and Woodridge are part of the Northern Suburbs. The communities are intertwined with Johnsonville, Paparangi and Churton Park. Drawing a line down the middle and adding them to the Hutt South electorate makes absolutely no sense. The Hutt is a completely separate council and area. You can’t even drive from Newlands and Woodridge into the Hutt without leaving the suburbs to go down the gorge and along the motorway by the harbour to get there. It is almost like the people suggesting this change have not been to the area to see how ridiculous this would be.

• Rachael Skittrup Ikurere snapshot 1744921281 0 (png 386 KB)
• Rachael Skittrup Ikurere snapshot 1744921281 1 (png 560 KB)

Objection

---

Kristin Downey

I object to newlands being split in two, with my part of newlands going to Hutt south. there is no natural or common focus that binds Newlands and the rest of Hutt South. we will be the poor relations of Hutt South as electorate MPs will naturally focus on the goals and aspirations of the majority of the electorate - not the small number of people from the northern suburbs who have been carved off Ohariu and lumped in with Hutt South.

Objection

---

Annette Kirkwood

I have lived in [street name], Newlands and contributed to the community through participation in Kindy, School, Girl Guiding and other community organisations for 50 years. I have no affiliation or reasonable transport access to the Hutt Valley but identify closely to Johnsonville. I believe our area , including Woodridge should remain in the electorate area that represents Johnsonville.

• Annette Kirkwood snapshot 1744960498 0 (png 202 KB)

Objection

---

Mrs Tania Woolf-Ben-Avraham

My objection is to the proposed inclusion of Newlands in the Hutt South electorate.
Including Newlands in the Hutt South electorate makes no sense as Newlands socially, and by roading and public transport, is connected to Johnsonville.
Newlands has no social nor direct roading connection to the Hutt Valley (and Hutt South). Including Newlands in Hutt South would cut Newlands off from its geographical and social community (the rest of the current Ohariu electorate, particularly Johnsonville).
There is no direct road from Newlands to the Hutt South electorate. Travel there requires either going either south most of the way into Wellington, then turning north on the motorway to go to the Hutt, or going north past Porirua an over the Haywards. Both of those involve some considerable travel time in a private vehicle. There is no direct public transport there either, one would have to go into Wellington (by bus, or by train after going to Johnsonville first) then switch to either train or bus to go to the Hutt. It would take much of a whole day to get to the Hutt South area and back on public transport.
Newlands socially connects into the Johnsonville township area for services, shopping, and accessing social services (restaurants, WINZ office etc). There is no natural social connection to the Hutt South area at all.
Putting Newlands in Hutt South is simply bonkers. It is an error that should be corrected. (I assume whoever decided it could go in Hutt South looked at map of the area and neglected to consider roading, or public transport routes, both for their own sake and for the signs they give of social engagement and cohesion.)

Note: I have made a second submission arguing that the Ohariu electorate as is is valuable and objecting to it being broken up. That submission is more general and emotional.
This submission, specifically objecting to Newlands being in Hutt South, is made separately as it is the more important of the two. If Ohariu has to be broken up, Newlands should be in whichever electorate Johnsonville ends up in.

• Tania Woolf Ben Avraham snapshot 1745295418 0 (png 290 KB)

Objection

---

Stephanie Rodgers

A large section of Newlands along with Woodridge are proposed to be included in the Hutt South electorate. The proposed boundary cuts through the centre of Newlands putting those residents into a different electorate from their local shops, community facilities and schools.

These suburbs are geographically distinct from the rest of Hutt South and have no direct link to the Hutt Valley (requiring travel either through Porirua and over the Haywards, or down the Ngauranga Gorge and up SH1; there is no direct public transport link). They share a much stronger community of interest with the rest of Newlands, Paparangi, and Johnsonville.

• Stephanie Rodgers snapshot 1745443975 0 (png 244 KB)

Objection

---

Ren Jerota

Merging Newlands into Hutt South doesn't make geographical sense, as the divided portion of Newlands to be merged doesn't have access to the Hutt Road or to Wellington Harbour. I as a resident of Hutt South don't share interests with the people in the to be merged part of Newlands, they do not have access to the same amenities (post offices, JPs, medical services, supermarkets) I do, and vice versa.

Objection

---

Mr Justin Chaudhary

I am writing to object to the proposed boundary changes for the 2026 General Election, specifically the proposal to transfer Woodridge into the Hutt South electorate following the disestablishment of the Ōhāriu electorate.

As a resident of Woodridge, I strongly believe that this proposal does not reflect the geographic realities, the community of interest, or the natural boundaries that should guide electorate design. I respectfully submit that Woodridge should remain part of a Wellington-based electorate.

Geographic Separation

Woodridge is part of Wellington City, situated to the north of Newlands and Paparangi, nestled into the hills above the northern suburbs. It is geographically distinct from Lower Hutt. Significant natural barriers — including the Wellington Fault escarpment, Belmont Regional Park, and limited east-west road corridors — separate Woodridge from the Hutt Valley.

Travel between Woodridge and Lower Hutt is not direct or intuitive. Residents must currently either drive south towards Ngauranga and then northeast along State Highway 2, or cross Haywards Hill via State Highway 58 — routes that are neither geographically nor socially natural for daily community life. This clear physical separation demonstrates that Woodridge does not logically belong in a Lower Hutt-based electorate. I would consider the Possibility of being part of Hutt South once the Grenada to Petone Link is completed and operational.

Community of Interest

Woodridge's community of interest lies firmly with Wellington City:

Woodridge is part of the Wellington City Council jurisdiction, not Hutt City Council.

Residents use Wellington City services including the Wellington Central Library, Keith Spry Pool in Johnsonville, and health facilities based in Wellington.

Children from Woodridge attend Wellington City schools such as Newlands School, Newlands Intermediate, and Newlands College.

Our public transport routes are designed to connect Woodridge to Wellington’s city center, not Lower Hutt.

Shopping, cultural, and community activities revolve around Wellington hubs like Johnsonville Mall, Newlands shops, and Wellington CBD, not Lower Hutt.

There are no direct social, cultural, or economic ties between Woodridge and Lower Hutt communities like Petone, Wainuiomata, or Eastbourne.

Electoral Identity and Voter Confusion

Assigning Woodridge to Hutt South would create voter confusion and a sense of disconnection from parliamentary representation.
Woodridge residents identify as Wellingtonians. Grouping us with Lower Hutt communities would undermine local identity and weaken the sense of fair and meaningful representation that electorate boundaries are meant to protect.

Consistency with the Electoral Act

The Electoral Act 1993 requires that electorate boundaries:

-Reflect communities of interest,

-Facilitate effective representation, and

-Maintain geographic coherence.

The proposed transfer of Woodridge into Hutt South conflicts with these principles.
Woodridge shares no community of interest with Hutt South, faces significant geographic separation, and would suffer diminished representation as a result.

Summary

In summary:

Woodridge is part of Wellington City geographically, socially, and politically.

Our community of interest lies firmly with other Wellington northern suburbs, not the Hutt Valley.

Geographic barriers separate us from Lower Hutt.

Assigning Woodridge to Hutt South would cause confusion and diminish effective democratic representation.

What would this mean for Woodridge being part of the Wellington City council boundary? if this change were to proceed would we become rate payers for the Hutt City Council?

I therefore strongly oppose the proposed transfer of Woodridge into the Hutt South electorate and urge the Representation Commission to ensure Woodridge remains part of a Wellington-based electorate.

Thank you for considering my submission.

• Justin Chaudhary snapshot 1745655017 0 (png 169 KB)
• Justin Chaudhary snapshot 1745655017 1 (png 187 KB)

Objection

---

Mr Kevin Ikin

I object to the proposal to scrap the Ohariu electorate and include Newlands in Hutt South electorate. Newlands has no community of interest with Hutt Valley and this move would isolate it in terms of political representation.

Objection

---

Nigel Jemson

I am objecting to the proposal to include my suburb Woodridge and parts of Newlands with the revised Hutt South electorate.

Residents of Newlands and Woodridge have limited interests in common with residents in the Hutt. We do not have a direct roading connection to the Hutt, do not access schooling or healthcare there and we are under different local authorities. I am concerned that if we are lumped in with the Hutt South electorate, our voice will be diluted as we will be a smaller part of a larger electorate which has less common interests and local affiliation with the Newlands and Woodridge areas.

Objection

---

Mr John Chong

Newlands is more naturally connected to Johnsonville as a community of interest, not the Hutt. As a retired couple, our medical needs, pharmacy, library, groceries revolve around Johnsonville or Porirua, not Hutt. Will this affect our usage of Johnsonville pool and library? No direct road from Newlands to Hutt.

Counter-Objection

Relates to objections

N46072

---

Mr Grahame Delaney

I object to the changes to Hutt South regarding the Kelson change to the Remutaka electorate and the Newlands addition to Hutt South electorate.

1. Kelson should be left in the Hutt South electorate:
a). Because Kelson is definitely a Hutt South Community chiefly operating within the Hutt City Council District.
b). The business relationships (shopping, Council, work relationships etc) in the Community are basically in the Hutt South area.
c). Kelson does not have a close relationship with the Upper Hutt, Maoribank, Silverstream, Stokes Valley, Pomare, Taita, Avalon or the Naenae area.
d). I believe the boundary's as per the last election 2003 are just about right.
e). I feel that the proposed changes should be considered with logical reasoning and not just a seemingly academic exercise to balance numbers which may be convenient for purpose but may penalise one party or the other.

2. Newlands, is definitely a Wellington Community:
a.) 90% of traffic of main road transport is either North bound (Tawa, Porirua) or South bound (Wellington City).
b)All the main telecommunication links are fed from Wellington Central Exchange via the local Johnsonville Telephone exchange. And of course the Local Community business base is served from the Wellington City Council and the Wellington Porirua area's.
c.) The majority of education and associated sports are Wellington based.
d.) Newlands is very much isolated from the proposed Hutt South electoral area. Much of the community associations are with the Ngaio, Khandallah, Tawa and Porirua suburbs.
e.) As per my comments for Kelson, I feel that the proposed changes should be considered with logical reasoning and not just a seemingly academic exercise to balance numbers which may be convenient for purpose but may penalise one party or the other, or in this case may even penalise Newlands with a cumbersome boundary change.

• Grahame Delaney snapshot 1747471833 0 (png 233 KB)

Objection

---

Mr Morgan Kemp

It's clear that the changes to the Wellington Central electorate boundaries have significantly altered its composition, and that Karori now represents a very large portion of the population within that electorate. Therefore the name change request has merit. Here is a breakdown of the core reasoning:

Shift in Electorate Demographics:
The removal of several suburbs that were traditionally part of Wellington Central has fundamentally changed the electorate's makeup.
Karori's substantial population within the new boundaries creates a significant imbalance in the electorate's representation.
Misrepresentation:
Continuing to use the "Wellington Central" name misrepresents the actual demographics of the electorate.
It fails to acknowledge the significant influence of Karori residents.
Accurate Representation:
Renaming the electorate to "Wellington-Karori" would provide a more accurate reflection of the communities that now comprise the electorate.
This would allow for better representation of the people who live within the electorate.
Historical Precedent:
As noted in the search results, there has been a previous electorate of Wellington-Karori. This precedent helps to reinforce the legitimacy of the request.
In essence, the argument is that the name must reflect the people that live within the electorate, and that the current name does not do that.

Objection

---

Mr Daniel Moss

1. Historical and Cultural Significance:

Ohāriu has been a part of New Zealand's electoral history since the 19th century, with the first elections in the electorate dating back to 1866. It’s an electorate with deep historical ties to the region, and its removal could be seen as a diminishing of local history.

The electorate has traditionally represented key areas, such as parts of Wellington's northern suburbs, and has long been associated with communities that have distinct historical and cultural identities. Removing it may feel like erasing the heritage of communities that have been part of the electoral fabric for over 150 years.

2. Representation of Communities:

Ohāriu includes areas like Johnsonville, Tawa, and Ngaio, which have distinct needs related to urban sprawl, public transport, and local amenities. If merged with a larger electorate, these areas might lose targeted representation for issues like housing affordability in suburban Wellington or transportation improvements between these suburban and urban areas.

For example, residents of Tawa have historically expressed concerns about the Wellington Regional Council’s transport planning. These issues might be lost if the electorate is absorbed into a different region with different local priorities, such as the central city of Wellington, which has vastly different infrastructure concerns.

3. Geographic Integrity:

The geographic boundaries of Ohāriu include both rural and urban elements, such as suburban areas like Johnsonville and the rural communities on the outskirts. The electorate represents a unique balance of urban needs and rural issues, which may not align well with larger urban districts, such as Wellington Central or a newly combined electorate.

Ohāriu has established boundaries that follow natural features such as the Western Hills and the suburban fringes. Removing this specific electorate could lead to residents being split into districts that don't respect local geographic features or make sense for community cohesion.

4. Voter Accessibility and Engagement:

In the 2020 election, Ohāriu had a high voter turnout of 77.9%, reflecting strong engagement within the electorate. This is partly due to the clear geographic boundaries and a strong local identity. With its removal, voters may feel less connected to their representative if they are placed into a much larger or more urbanized electorate.

People in Ohāriu are used to seeing local candidates who are familiar with the nuances of suburban and rural life. If Ohāriu is removed, residents may feel that the new representative is less connected to local issues and that the "local" factor is lost in the wider district.



5. Effect on Local Infrastructure and Services:

The electorate of Ohāriu has advocated for better public transport options, especially for suburban residents commuting into central Wellington. For instance, Johnsonville has seen significant growth, and local advocates have lobbied for improved train services. A local representative who understands the issues specific to Johnsonville and Tawa ensures that the community gets its fair share of attention from policymakers.

With Ohāriu’s removal, suburban areas like Tawa might no longer have dedicated political representation for specific concerns like the need for more affordable housing and community facilities, which could be overshadowed by larger urban-focused discussions.



6. Risk of Disenfranchisement:

The residents of Ohāriu, particularly those in more rural areas, could feel politically alienated if their voices are merged into a larger, urban electorate. For example, concerns about local farming issues, rural road maintenance, or land use may be overlooked in a new, larger electorate focused on urban development, reducing the influence these communities have on national politics.

An example of this was seen in the 2014 elections, where rural voices within urban electorates were sometimes drowned out due to the larger metropolitan issues taking precedence. For Ohāriu, issues such as the preservation of green spaces or regional environmental concerns could be sidelined in a broader, more urban-focused electorate.



7. Political Stability and Consistency:

Ohāriu has consistently been a swing seat, with significant representation from both National and Labour over the years, including notable figures like Peter Dunne. This historical political balance provides stability and encourages diverse perspectives. Removing the electorate could create instability for voters who may lose their sense of political continuity.

For instance, Peter Dunne's leadership of Ohāriu, which spanned over 30 years, allowed the electorate to retain significant influence over time, advocating for policies that reflect the unique needs of its communities. Its removal risks reducing the political influence of smaller or marginal parties who have traditionally been able to represent Ohāriu’s distinct interests.

8. Impact on Local Identity:

Many residents of Ohāriu identify strongly with the local electorate. For example, Ohāriu is home to the suburb of Johnsonville, a rapidly growing area that prides itself on its strong sense of community and local involvement. People who live in Johnsonville have traditionally felt well-represented by their local MP, which contributes to a sense of local identity and pride.

Losing Ohāriu could create a sense of detachment for long-time residents. People may feel that their interests are no longer fully understood or prioritized, especially if merged with a different electorate that lacks the same local ties or focus on suburban issues.

• Daniel Moss snapshot 1742896374 0 (png 461 KB)

Objection

---

Parth Sheth

I object to the changes to the Wellington-area electorates.

Overall, the decision to eliminate a Wellington-area electorate rather than an Auckland-area electorate overweights projected population growth. The proposed changes will leave each Wellington-area electorate with several thousand more voters than each Auckland-area electorate for the 2026 election, effectively reducing the voting power of every Wellingtonian; for example the population difference for 2026 in Epsom and Rongotai is nearly 6000, effectively giving those in the Epsom electorate 8.5% greater representation. While the Electoral Act does instruct the Commission to consider future changes in population, these are necessarily speculative and should not be weighted more than current population numbers.

Furthermore, the specific proposed changes to the Wellington-area electorates do not respect natural topographic boundaries and communities of interest. Moving Khandallah and the other northern Wellington suburbs into Wellington Central combines two very different community blocs (see, for example, the differences in Northern and Lambton Ward voting patterns in local elections). Similarly, moving Brooklyn and Mount Cook into Rongotai is not consistent with any other local or council-level grouping pattern.

• Parth Sheth snapshot 1742934420 0 (png 371 KB)