View objections

Objection

---

Mrs Christine Lyne

Prebbleton being moved into Wigram. The make up of Wigram is very urban and does not represent the views of a semi rural town.

Objection

---

Mrs Joanne White

I am a resident of Prebbleton & find it hard to believe that being moved into the Wigram electorate will bring any benefit to our community. We are in a completely separate council district so it makes no sense whatsoever.

Objection

---

Ross Langford

I am very happy with my suburb of Templeton , Christchurch to now move away from current Selwyn electorate to become part of Wigram. Makes a lot of sense. Have always thought we need to change to a Christchurch electorate.

Hope this happens.

Objection

---

Mrs Wendy Longhurst

Please don’t take Prebbleton out of the Selwyn electorate we have more. Common with Selwyn than Wigram

Objection

---

Project Esther

Project Esther Trust has been operating as a community outreach for 30 years. Our vision is “to see women valued, respected and reaching their full potential”.

The women we work with are largely from the Spreydon, Hoon Hay and Hillmorton communities. We work with women in these communities who are parenting alone and facing significant hurdles: low incomes; social isolation; inadequate housing conditions; mental health concerns; gender discrimination… to name a few. We now have temporary/emergency accommodation for women who face difficulties and have little support.

We have strong connections to many other organisations working alongside women in our local community. Our work includes (but is not limited to) assisting women reintegrating into the community after prison, refugees and migrants, women with mental health challenges, women dealing with debt issues, women facing family violence, young mothers, and more.

Having a strong and consistent relationship with one local MP has been critical to our work.

The commission’s proposed boundary changes in Spreydon effectively splits our community and a recognisable community of interest in half. The proposed boundary along Barrington/Neville/Lyttelton St is not one that has any meaning or coherence from the community’s perspective. For those of us who work and provide social services in the community Spreydon is a cohesive community which is understood to be south of Brougham St and to run from Selwyn and Strickland St in the east until it meets Hoon Hay west of Lyttelton St. Furthermore, for those of us working in the local area there is a strong connection between Spreydon, Hoon Hay and Hillmorton. The needs and issues of our communities are similar and are best served in the single electorate of Wigram.

Located in Lyttleton St Christchurch, means that many of the women who use our services (from Spreydon, Hoon Hay and Hillmorton) are able to walk to us. This speaks to our organisation being at a centre of a community of interest rather than located on the boundary and separated from parts of our community as the commission’s proposed changes would bring about.

Additionally, many of the women we work with have children attending West Spreydon School and Hillmorton High. The changes would put us in a separate electorate than our local schools.

The Boundary changes would place our organisation in Christchurch Central and many of the women we work with in the Wigram electorate (specifically in the Wigram part of Spreydon along with Hoon Hay and Hillmorton). As a suburban-based community organisation this makes no sense and having a single relationship with a single local MP is critical for the well-being of the women we work with.

• 2025 Objection Formprojectesther (pdf 1.5 MB)
• Objections to proposed chch boundaries (docx 62 KB)

Objection

---

Dr Melanie Coker

As the Christchurch city councillor for Spreydon Ward, I oppose the proposed boundary changes at the eastern edge of the Wigram electorate as the change does not take into consideration:
1. Existing general electorate boundaries
2. Communities of interest

Alignment with Local Boundaries and Institutions
• The proposed new boundary does not align with existing local government boundaries (Spreydon Ward), school zones (West Spreydon School, Hillmorton High), or the area of the community resident’s group the Spreydon Neighbourhood Network. The misalignment would split school communities, disrupt advocacy efforts, and complicate relationships with local representatives. The alternative solution of moving the Wigram–Christchurch Central boundary to Selwyn St proposed below minimises this, while maintaining population quotas.
• Residents and organisations have longstanding, effective relationships with a single local MP in Wigram, which would be undermined by splitting Spreydon across electorates. This is supported by a poll run by the Spreydon Neighbourhood Network, which will be included in their submission.

Community of Interest and Cohesion
• Spreydon, Hoon Hay, and Hillmorton form a tightly connected community with strong social, educational, and service ties. These suburbs as a single, cohesive community of interest, having traditionally been served by one MP across the area and one city councillor.
• Local organisations—including Project Esther, Whareora Community House, South West Baptist Church, Cross Over Trust, and Suburbs Rugby Club—serve people across all three suburbs, reflecting shared needs, relationships, and identities. Dividing Spreydon would split these networks, making it harder for residents to access services and for organisations to advocate effectively.
• The Hoon Hay Community Association and the Spreydon Neighbourhood Network often work together, particularly around issues where MP or city councillor support is needed.

Central Facilities and Shared Spaces
• Barrington Mall, Spreydon Library, and Barrington Park are at the heart of Spreydon and serve as central hubs for the wider community, including Hoon Hay and Hillmorton. The proposed boundary would place these facilities on the edge of Christchurch Central, despite their central role for Wigram residents.
• The Lyttelton Street boundary proposed splits Spreydon in multiple ways, and cuts Spreydon Domain from the rest of the suburb. Barrington Street looks more suitable on a map, but is not a natural dividing line as it’s a village centre, with key amenities and transport links used by the whole community. Thus moving the Wigram–Christchurch Central boundary to Selwyn St, makes the most sense.

• Melanie Coker snapshot 1745142656 0 (png 462 KB)
• Melanie Coker snapshot 1745142657 1 (png 377 KB)
• Melanie Coker snapshot 1745142657 2 (png 314 KB)

Objection

---

Mr John Ballingall

We object to Prebbleton being included in the Wigram electorate for the following reasons:
Demographically, Prebbleton and Wigram Electorate are at polar opposites.
Prebbleton has a proud history as one of the original settlements in the Canterbury Plains and Selwyn District and it is important that its mana be retained and it remains in the Selwyn Electorate.
The proposed boundary change would have a marked decreas in Prebbleton property values.
Prebbleton is well served with infrastructure within its local environment bounded by the Southern Motorway, Shands and Ellesmere Roads.

• John Ballingall snapshot 1745472598 0 (png 271 KB)

Objection

---

Ross Unwin

My chief objection to the proposed boundary change is the possible disenfranchising of our elected local representative Megan Woods. Megan has been the member for Wigram since 2011. She has built up a bastion of trust, understanding and support backed up by tangible results over the course of her tenure. To split the electorate and to rob parts of Spreydon of such a member would mean reestablishing that trust and support with an inchoate Spreydon/ignorant member. Megans knowledge-based expertise and communion with the people within the current boundaries would be compromised. Allayed to this the boundary change would fracture the existing school communities, confuse relationships with the local representatives and threaten well-oiled advocacy pathways. For these reasons I ask that you please re-consider any changes to the existing boundaries.

Objection

---

Philip (Phil) Clearwater

Submission on Proposed Boundaries for Wigram Electorate 2025

My Background and Involvement with the Spreydon Community
My name is Philip (Phil) Clearwater and I have been an elected Local Government member representing Spreydon for 27 years. I was first elected to the Spreydon-Heathcote Community Board in 1995. I was later elected as the Christchurch City Councillor for Spreydon Ward from 2013 to 2019. I was then elected to the Canterbury Regional Council representing the Owhanga/Christchurch South Constituency for three years until November 2022.
Over that time, I became closely involved with many local residents’ groups and social services, supporting their advocacy for local concerns and amenities. Accordingly, at a local government level, often working with the Member of Parliament for Wigram, I have been very aware of the make-up and needs of this community and the boundaries for both the Spreydon Ward and the Wigram electorate.
I wish to oppose the proposed boundaries for the Wigram electorate on the grounds that the proposal does not give due regard to Communities of interest and to the existing general electorate boundaries.
Communities of Interest
The proposed boundary changes remove about half of the suburb of Spreydon from the Wigram electorate, transferring these residents to Christchurch Central. The proposed boundary splits the residents on the eastern side of Barrington St off from the Wigram electorate when historically they have been and clearly remain a community of interest.
(I do not oppose the area of Addington being moved to Christchurch Central as there has been a historical connection between Addington and Christchurch Central for many years.)
The Barrington Mall, the Spreydon Library, the Spreydon Tennis and Bowling clubs and Barrington Park besides the specialised children’s playground are central facilities and places for the whole suburb of Spreydon as well as the wider Spreydon Ward, including Hoon Hay and Hillmorton. In effect these facilities on Barrington St form a village centre. These important amenities are a focal point and are used by the wider community. Also the Metro bus layover for public transport on Athelston St / Barrington St is a centre-point of Spreydon. From the community’s perspective Barrington St is central to Spreydon – it is not a boundary.
Local Boundaries and Community Organisations
Over the last half century many local organisations such as Suburbs Rugby club (on Domain Tce) Whareora Community House (Athelston St), Project Esther and the Southwest Baptist Church ( Lyttelton St) have also provided social and sporting services to all the suburbs of the eastern part of the Wigram electorate. The division of Spreydon would impact on these important community networks, removing the opportunity for these organisations to advocate for all local residents besides potentially limiting the provision of sporting opportunities and social services for all Spreydon residents.
Effective Representation at Local and Central Government level
The proposed boundary does not align with the existing local government boundaries of the Spreydon Ward. The proposal would confuse advocacy work and complicate relationships between central and local government.

As a former Community Board, City and Regional Council representative, in my experience it is essential for the wellbeing of communities to have effective representation at both local and central government levels. Spreydon remaining in the Wigram electorate allows residents and local organisations to work with one Member of Parliament; in this case the whole of Spreydon being supported by one MP who can advocate for both Spreydon as a whole and the wider electorate. In effect, with large numbers of constituents within each electorate, the proposed boundary change would weaken representation at not only central government level but also at local government level, by making it more difficult to address community issues that affect Spreydon as a whole, including the provision of social services, education, housing and transport infrastructure for Spreydon.

• Philip Phil Clearwater snapshot 1745713598 0 (png 564 KB)
• Submission on Wigram Boundaries 2025 (docx 20 KB)

Objection

---

Kaitlyn White

I am writing to oppose Hoon Hay, Hillmorton and Spreydon being split under the new proposed boundaries. Currently, all three suburbs are in Wigram, but the proposal will see Spreydon in particular taken away from the others.

These areas are communities of interest that link up and support each other. I am currently a committee member of the Hoon Hay Community Association and we consistently cooperate with our Spreydon counterparts on a range of initiatives, including around elections and promoting counterparts. Many of our facilities are shared, schools, services and more. The line between our suburbs is blurred and we largely share the same identity. For example - Spreydon School is on Mathers Rd which would Hoon Hay suburb wise, but isn't part of the Spreydon that is separated into Wigram. This shows how interconnected the areas are.

Core hubs of our wider area (ie Barrington Park, Barrington Library) are in Spreydon and would be split from Hoon Hay. Many local organisations such as churches, the sports club, and more operate across the proposed boundary as they see it as one cohesive community. For us as Hoon Hay Community Association, we expand our reach further into Spreydon and beyond the proposed boundary where needed as we see it as one big area. A local fruit shop on the other side of the proposed boundary donates fruit to our events, because they see us as all part of one community.

• Kaitlyn White snapshot 1745744129 0 (png 788 KB)

Objection

---

Jane Elms

I am writing this as an individual member of the community impacted by the proposed change to the Wigram electorate boundaries with the experience as the Wigram Electorate Manager in the 2023 election.

While I appreciate that it is a challenging balancing act to ensure electorates are even, this provides an opportunity to realign communities, some of which are high deprivation, and rectify the unusual boundary changes from the past.

I object to some of the proposed changes as follows:

1. The current boundaries of Wigram Electorate divide some high deprivation areas that I believe should be in the same electorate eg Hoon Hay. I am aware from working with these communities that they have been challenged by having to deal with two MP's and if there is a logical fix, I believe we owe it to these communities (see solutions below).
NB moving the rest of Addington into Christchurch Central overcomes this issue for that community.

2. I do not believe that shifting Prebbleton into Wigram electorate is the best fit at this point in time, even if it is an 'easy' solution to balance the numbers. Prebbleton faces a number of challenges as a growing rural town and needs alignment between its local body and parliamentary representation while it establishes its fit within is geopolitical landscape. This move could be an option in the future.
I do agree with moving Templeton into the Wigram electorate and would like to see the boundary change to the Christchurch Southern Motorway.

3. Wigram is already known as a complex electorate with a large cross section of ethnic groups, diverse communities and the extremes of deprivation levels. It has large commercial and retail areas as well as densely populated areas. I appreciate the current legislation requires the number of voters per electorate to be similar but representing an electorate such as Wigram with its extreme diversity verses an electorate such as Selwyn with less diversity, and a series of rural townships (across a greater geographic area) with many common issues (I know this as a resident and as a member of a local residents association) it seems like 'we' are focused on equality rather than equity.

4. I don't believe this is a future focused solution given the projections that Selwyn will continue to grow. In an ideal world I think a review across the whole of the South Island would enable some more logistical and common-sense boundaries, however for the purpose of this review I will offer some pragmatic alternatives in the solutions below that better fit with the communities impacted.

• Jane Elms snapshot 1745754894 0 (png 313 KB)
• Jane Elms snapshot 1745754894 1 (png 376 KB)
• Jane Elms snapshot 1745754894 2 (png 569 KB)
• Jane Elms snapshot 1745754895 3 (png 283 KB)
• Wigram Boundary Map Changes Jane Elms (pdf 5.1 MB)

Objection

---

Jess Parker

I object to the proposal that Prebbleton be the only Selwyn district township to be excluded from the electorate, and be included in a roll alongside Hornby & Wigram.
Whilst Prebbleton is a rapidly growing township, it still yields a large portfolio of farms and lifestyle blocks which align with the Selwyn profile. Combining Prebbleton into an electoral zone where the surrounding suburbs have multiple primary schools (Prebbleton only have 1), more higher density housing & in general are “established” creates a divide in attention and priority for the MP.
Prebbleton need to keep their goals aligned with Selwyn - Growth, supportive infrastructure, and respecting the “semi rural” profile.

• Jess Parker snapshot 1742872743 0 (png 568 KB)

Objection

---

Stephanie Hutchinson

I pay my rates to Timaru District Council and yet I am represented by the Waitaki electorate.

• Stephanie Hutchinson snapshot 1744059775 0 (png 81 KB)

Objection

---

Alex Rodgers

This proposal calls for Geraldine to be added to the Rangitata electorate.

Geraldine is a small town in Timaru district. It sits near the larger towns of Timaru and Ashburton, and has its closest relationships with those urban areas, particularly Timaru to which its residents often go to for schooling, healthcare, and shopping. Both Timaru and Ashburton are in the Rangitata electorate, but currently Geraldine is not; it sits in Waitaki. Geraldine is isolated by great distance from any notable urban areas in Waitaki.

The previous Representation Commission received many submissions calling for Geraldine to be moved into Rangitata to be connected with the larger urban areas it is associated with. I repeat those calls, and note that the situation is even better suited now for the move.

Rangitata is underpopulation, and forecast to go even further under (0.2% under at the 2023 census; forecast to be -2.6% by 2029). Waitaki is overpopulation, and forecast to go even further over (3.5% over at the 2023 census; forecast to be 4.6% by 2029). This situation is ideal for transfer of a small population from Waitaki to Rangitata. I estimate that all of Geraldine (plus a small rural area allowing a connection) could be moved without any need for adjustments in other places.

I would also like to pre-empt a criticism the Commission may have of this proposal. From reviewing past boundary changes, and those proposed here, it appears it is the philosophy of the Commission that if a boundary is not required to change to handle an electorate being outside the 5% quota limit, then no change can be made to that boundary regardless of any other circumstances. This approach would not appear to match the stated criteria for determining boundaries, under which the Commission is required to give due to consideration to multiple factors, of which "existing electoral boundaries" is only one.

I hold that in this case, the value of better connecting communities of interest is greater than the value of maintaining the existing electorate boundaries. I trust that you will give due consideration to these two values and not simply state that one value overrules all others.

• Alex Rodgers snapshot 1744251977 0 (png 111 KB)
• Alex Rodgers snapshot 1744251977 1 (png 133 KB)

Objection

---

Mrs Jan Oliver

My objection is to Geraldine being in the Waitaki electorate. Geraldine has languished in this electorate for too long.
Geraldine is a rural town, 3 residential care facilities with 1 hospital status, end of life care, secure dementia unit and a lifestyle village containing over 100 homes.
We have two primary schools and a 1 - 7 high school, 14 buses transport children children too and fro to school twice daily to a Verry wide rural area from Hinds to Skipton bridge and down to the coast. Timaru District Council is our local body and the Timaru Hospital if our local hospital where we arrive b y ambulance, get specialist care and if we require further treatment we go to Christchurch not Dunedin.
Have you heard of gerrymandering because this is what it sounds like, these two electorates are strong national strongholds but it hasn't always been that way. Geraldine was in the old electorate of Aoraki before the boundary change, between the rivers of Rangitata and Waitaki, ocean to the alps. These two electorates take up a fare chunk of the South Island and with our ever growing population it is only going to get more of problem and our aging population is going to get and ever growing problem and I'm in that age group.
The representation in all ages group between Rangitata and Waitaki if 2-1, thats not proportional representation. Not plus or minus 5%.