Boundary change an ungentle business
Remember the old story of the survey team marking a more precise border between Russia and Poland? Trudging wearily through hip-deep snow they came upon an old man’s cottage right in the middle of the line and in their fatigue made the entirely practical decision to let the occupant choose for himself which country he wanted to be in.
‘‘Poland!’’ he declared, without a moment’s hesitation. ‘‘Can’t stand these Russian winters.’’
Point being, the marking of boundaries is sometimes an awkward conflict of political and natural realities.
Right now the Representation Commission is engaged in a second period of public submissions about proposed electorate boundary changes.
It doesn’t go without saying that the Representation Commission isn’t responsible for local council boundary reviews, which are conducted by the Local Government Commission.
The general election boundaries are, however, deeply significant – much as it’s the party vote that carries the real representational wallop, but the electoral votes to determine the local MPs are important matters.
Invercargill is 6.3 per cent below the required quota and so, the political reality would appear to be, it must gain population. Which can come only from the Clutha–Southland area that surrounds it.
So the proposal, as it stands, is to bring Winton and the southern Catlins into the Invercargill boundary. Naturally this sticks in the craw of more than just a few.
As Winton resident Jim Gray points out, the town has a strong rural identity that doesn’t sit well alongside city people.
There’s some truth to that, although Invercargill the electorate is hardly the same as Invercargill the city as seen from the air. The electorate already entails Bluff and Stewart Island, neither of which could be called especially citified.
Some might say the same for Invercargill itself, which might best be described as a village city.
Of course one big difference is that Clutha–Southland is an electorate with more emphatic National Party heartland credentials than Invercargill.
It is perhaps unsurprising that among the submissions to the commission, Labour voices are being raised in favour of eschewing Winton and looking instead towards Mataura, albeit (they say) on the basis that this
Of course one big difference is that Clutha–Southland is an electorate with more emphatic National Party heartland credentials than Invercargill.
has a stronger community of interest with the city than Winton does.
The commission acknowledges a group of objectors have been calling for the creation of a Central Otago or Southern Lakes electorate with a focus on tourist areas.
As things stand, the number of South Island electorates is fixed, so this may be an idea whose time has not yet come. Maybe. There’s little doubt that there’s a strong gravitational pull being exerted from the tourist area and that this may prove to require the boundary setters to eschew reorganisation in favour of getting – quite literally – creative.
The suspicion regularly arises that boundary changes are conducted with political intent.
Even in supposedly democratic countries, some shocking abuses occur and among the most indefensible are those in the United States, where the Republican Party has benefited extravagantly from boundaries that make no sense other than to benefit the electability of its candidates.
New Zealand’s system has worked better, certainly, but nobody can pretend that this hasn’t, at times, involved shoehorning together communities, large and small, in ways that have people decrying that their community of interest has been disregarded.
Submissions, after a period of extension, close on January 24, after which it’s in the hands of the commission.