New Zealand Gazette – 2002 – No. 2

Page 111

✨ Electoral District Objections



10 JANUARY NEW ZEALAND GAZETTE 111

Electoral District and Nature of Objection

GGG 001 b, h Objection H R Hoskin
Objects to the limit of variance in the population quota being +/-5% as this causes frequent changes and disruption to communities.
Suggested solution Change the variance limit to +/-20%.

GGG 002 b Objection J van Noorde
Objects to the boundary change process because of the huge costs incurred and the lack of understanding amongst the populace of the implications involved.
Suggested solution Develop a far more simple process.

GGG 003 b Objection B P Mockridge
Notes that all South Auckland and Waikato electorates are near the upper limit of their quota variance (Pakuranga, Manukau East, Mangere, Manurewa, Clevedon, Port Waikato, Piako, Hamilton West and Hamilton East).
Based on the Representation Commission’s projections, the electoral population of these nine electorates will exceed that of the ten electorates covering Auckland and North Auckland (Helensville, Waitakere, Te Atatu, New Lynn, Mt Albert, Mt Roskill, Auckland Central, Epsom, Tamaki, Maungakiekie).
Also, because the electoral population of South Auckland and Waikato is close to the upper limit, awkward and unnatural boundaries are required to keep the electorates within their quota tolerance: e.g. Howick split between Pakuranga, Clevedon and Manukau East; the Manurewa-Clevedon boundary differing from the Maori electorate boundary.
Suggested solution Transfer about 12,000 population from Pakuranga to Maungakiekie.
Distribute diminishing portions of this extra population westward, across Mt Roskill, New Lynn, Waitakere and Helensville so that each is closer to the quota.
Compensate Pakuranga from Clevedon, and Clevedon from Port Waikato and Piako so that each is closer to the quota.

GGG 004 b, h Objection S Russell
Objects to the general pattern of boundaries proposed as the Commission appears to have placed more emphasis on existing boundaries than on population criteria. Little consideration appears to have been given to projected variance in population.
Suggested solution That the Commission should take steps to amend the process by which proposed boundaries are devised in the future, to achieve a better balance between criteria.

PUBLISHED BY THE
DEPARTMENT OF INTERNAL AFFAIRS
PRINTED BY WICKLIFFE LIMITED

ISSN 0111-5650

Price $5.00 (inc. G.S.T.)




Online Sources for this page:

VUW Te Waharoa — PDF NZ Gazette 2002, No 2


Gazette.govt.nz — PDF NZ Gazette 2002, No 2




✨ LLM interpretation of page content

🏛️ Objections to Proposed Boundaries and Classification of Electoral Districts (continued from previous page)

🏛️ Governance & Central Administration
Electoral districts, boundaries, objections, population quota, boundary changes, South Auckland, Waikato
  • H. R. Hoskin, Objects to population quota variance
  • J. van Noorde, Objects to boundary change process
  • B. P. Mockridge, Objects to boundary changes affecting South Auckland and Waikato
  • S. Russell, Objects to emphasis on existing boundaries over population criteria