THE ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES.

Gisborne Standard and Cook County Gazette, Volume III, Issue 438, 8 April 1890, Page 2

THE ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES.

The papers at the northern end of the East Coast electorate maintain an almost absolute silence on the question of the new electoral boundaries. The Opotiki Mail gives a short article which is at any rate an indication of the feeling in Opotiki“ A movement is on foot in Tauranga to have a change made by the Boundary Commissioners m the proposed new electorate. Tauranga does not at all

like the idea of being in the same electorate as Gisborne, and certainly she has ground for complaint, as the requirements of the two places are not the same, besides the representative would have such a large district that his local knowledge would be vague. It would be a big undertaking to stump it at election time. Then again it would almost exclude a Bay of Plenty man being elected to the House

if Gisborne is tacked on. As for our own town we do not see that it is of much consequence whether we are on the tail end of the Tauranga electorate or in the centre of the proposed new. one. If anything the balance weighs in favor of the new one, as we would be sure to receive a visit from our representative whenever he was travelling from one place to another. But if the boundaries of the proposed electorate are to be altered we must see that we are not cut off from Tauranga, for if we are we will fare very badly. Although there is a little pardonable jealousy between Opotiki and Tauranga, the interests of all the Bay of Plenty settlements are the same, so it would not do for us to be separated. The question of whether it would be best for Opotiki to back Tauranga up in her objection or not is one that requires a good deal of consideration, and we hope that the right course will be adopted.” The Opotiki Herald has the following : “ It may seem somewhat precipitate to comment on what is likely to be the result of this change, yet it is a matter of surmise whether it will in any way enhance the benefit of the Opotiki settler. Since the previous- change our interests were in unison with Tauranga, and whose interests are now nearly identical with our own, but Poverty Bay, with the 90 miles of bush and almost impassable road intervening, is a different matter altogether. Here we are linked with a large and populous district that can outvote to a great extent all other districts in the electorate, to return a representative who pledges himself that their interests should be primary—a district that is essentially pastoral, the land being mostly cut into large areas, and occupied by wealthy run-holders, whilst our own, being entirely agricultural, shows how incompatible is the blending in one of the two districts. Had, howevef, the Commissioners seen their way to extend our boundary to the Thames or Waikato districts, in our opinion it would be more conducive to our interests and reciprocally, not only because our aims are the same, but communication is easier and has been longer established. We do not, at the same time, think that the reduction of the number of members of the House of representatives should not have.been made; on the contrary, we entirely concur with the Government in this action. From the effects that are likely to transpire, as we have anticipated, prima facie the Commissioners have, by their decision, tended rather to retard than advance the interests of Opotiki, and we now await the time for eating the pudding to prove it. • 'ft The articles quoted appear in the latest papers to hand, but the Tauranga journal makes no mention of the subject, and it is evident that any movement up to the present must be a very lukewarm one.