View submissions

Objection

---

Panmure Business Association

See attached document

• Submission-to-the-proposed-Electoral-Boundaries-for-2020.pdf (pdf 35 KB)

Objection

---

New Zealand Labour Party

The knock-on effects of electoral population shifts caused by the introduction of new electorates are always a difficulty for Auckland. The geographical constraints are significant, especially in this Otahuhu/Mount Wellington area.
Manukau East must grow towards the north, however we are concerned with the proposal to make it such a long, narrow electorate with such a significant topographic barrier as the Panmure Basin. The proposed electorate is over 14 kilometres long and barely 220 metres wide at its narrowest point. We consider that abetter solution is not to split Mount Wellington and extend Manukau East in that direction instead.

• Labour-Party-Submission-to-Representation-Commission-Dec-2019-N20-003.pdf (pdf 613 KB)

Objection

---

Afoa Tevita Malolo

My objection is to Maungakiekie being part of a Manukau East proposed boundary. There is no community of interest in the communities of Panmure and Glen Innes being part of a predominantly South Auckland boundary. The regeneration project in Tamaki does not benefit from this proposed boundary and the risk is that Panmure is further left behind its more favoured neighbouring suburbs. The history of Panmure suggests otherwise as well as do the unique communities of interest such as the growing Asian population as well as the new communities of Panmure who will form part of the regeneration of the area.

Objection

---

Ms Jennifer Andrew

Objection & reasons
1. I prefer to remain in the Maungakiekie electorate. I reside in Point England, also known as Glen Innes. That suburb is closer to Auckland Central than Manukau.
2.This electorate has served me well in Point England.
3. A change to my electorate would precipitate a change to my zoning for health care. I am currently zoned for health care under Auckland District Health Board and have received and expect to receive treatment at Green Lane Clinical Centre and Auckland City Hospital.
4. There is a natural boundary between Maungakie and Manukau. The natural boundary is the Tamaki River. I am on the northern side of the Tamaki River with a community of interest with suburbs in the present Maungakiekie electorate.
5. I do not have community of interest with residents of Manukau East electoral area. This is an area I am disconnected from. South Auckland issues debated by South Auckland politicians are not pertinent to my current electorate. Issues affecting Glen Innes, Panmure and Point England will not gain traction or even be understood by entrenched South Auckland voters and politicians. We are not South Aucklanders. We have not been included in East Auckland for some years. We have been included in Central Auckland in recent years because of our physical proximity to Central Auckland.
6. The proposed boundary change will alienate us from our historical and administrative connections with Auckland Council and its predecessors, including the former Auckland City Council. Such alienation will have financial consequences when dealing with Council.
7. The proposed boundary change will alienate us from our own infrastructure and businesses throughout the Maungakiekie electorate.
8. The proposed boundary change will cause social confusion and lack of community cohesion.
9. Population is expected to increase in Panmure, Glen Innes and Point England due to building of homes by Tamaki Regeneration Company. We should not be used to prop up other electorates when our true connections are with the current Maungakiekie electorate suburbs.

Objection

---

Mr Keith Sharp

The proposal to carve off large portions of Panmure, Glen Innes, Point England and Mount Wellington from the Maungakiekie electorate and add these communities to the Manukau East electorate is completely illogical and should never have been contemplated by the Electoral Commission.
Among my reasons for this objection are:
Despite the Commission's list of "considerations" in the Overview section of the Boundary Review document, Panmure has no history or community of interest with the Manukau East electorate. The Fencible township of Panmure has a history going back to 1848 and has never been politically or socially linked to the towns or communities of Papatoetoe or Otara in any way. Indeed, Panmure's political administrative history is dominated by links with its neighbouring towns and communities on the Auckland isthmus - not South Auckland/Manukau.
The boundary change appears entirely arbitrary and follows no logical historic or administrative pattern. Historically, Panmure has always sat within the former Auckland City Council and Mount Wellington Borough Council adminstrative areas. From 1848, Panmure became central to the political administration of this area through such bodies as the Panmure/Mount Wellington Highway Districts, the Borough of Mount Wellington and even the short-lived Tamaki City Council. This proposed change ignores all of that history.
This proposed change will also be bad for democratic participation in our areas - which is already at a low ebb. Voters in Panmure, Point England and Glen Innes will feel completely disconnected and alienated from the larger Manukau East electoral area to the South and will probably see all future election campaigns centred entirely on South Auckland issues debated and dominated by South Auckland-based politicians. This is likely to further undermine and discourage participation in democracy in our areas. As it is surely a function of the Electoral Commission to work to increase participation in the democratic process, this proposal will in fact do exactly the opposite, and seriously undermine the Commission's credibility in this regard.
The list of considerations in the Overview document also states that the Electoral Commission has taken into account "topographical features" in the making of its decisions. This is clearly not the case, as the proposed boundary change would actually separate Panmure not only from its own railway station but also a significant part of its community in the Mountain Road area, and even the most obvious geographical feature of Maungarei/Mount Wellington itself, along with Panmure businesses to the west of the railway line and Jellicoe Road. Anyone who knows anything about Panmure and Mount Wellington would know that Maungarei/Mount Wellington is inextricably tied to not only the existing town of Panmure but also the extensive early Maori history of the Mokoia Pa area that includes the Panmure Lagoon and the Tamaki River.
All surrounding electorates - Tamaki, Epsom, Maungakiekie, Mangere, Manurewa, Botany and Pakuranga - are allowed to maintain their identity and sense of cohesion under the changes, but Panmure, along with Glen Innes, Point England, and parts of Mount Wellington and Otahuhu, will be forced to lose theirs to an electorate and electorate name that bears absolutely no relation to them or their history.
The Tamaki Regeneration process foresees a significant population increase in Panmure, Glen Innes and Point England coming decades. This is likely to force a reversal of this proposal by the Electoral Commission in years to come.
Importantly, this proposed electoral boundary change is so unexpected and illogical in its creation that it will raise very strong suspicions in the communities it affects that it is nothing more than a cynical gerrymandering of boundaries to suit the political purposes of the two main political parties, National and Labour - both of which will clearly gain greater security of tenure in the new Parliamentary seat boundaries that it creates. It could not be more obvious that both parties stand to benefit greatly from this change at the expense of non-politically-aligned voters.
In conclusion, this whole proposed change to the Maungakiekie electorate appears to be nothing more than an ill-considered statistical convenience in which population numbers in electorates to the west of Auckland are being resolved by shifting the more apparently more politically-favoured electorates of Mount Roskill and Maungakiekie to the west slightly, leaving an inconvenient nuisance of the population over in the east - and then just thoughtlessly sticking that on to the nearest available electorate - Manukau East.

Objection

---

Daniel Mantell

The change would separate Panmure politically not only from its own railway station but also a significant part of its community. The Tamaki Regeneration process foresees a significant population increase in Panmure, Glen Innes and Point England coming decades. This is likely to force a reversal of this proposal by the Electoral Commission in years to come.ity in the Mountain Road area, along with businesses to the west of the railway line and Jellicoe Road.

Objection

---

Amy Carls

Removal from remainder of panmure to instead be put in new boundary that has no relation to my community/ location
Impact of dividing my town (panmure) in half

Objection

---

Mrs Gaynor Salie

My objection is that I can see no reason why our section of Auckland should be placed with south Auckland. There is no explanation as to how these proposals will benefit the people of Tamaki. It takes a diverse neighborhood and places it into a very homogeneous population. It doesn't explain how it impacts local council. It appears to place a large number of low economic areas into 1 area. There is also no proposal for what will happen when all the new homes get built.

Objection

---

Alicia Gimelfarb

The Manukau East proposed boundary catchment is based on socioeconomic commonalities rather than actual physical location. The eastern suburbs are far from Manukau and ought to be grouped into Maungakiekie or Eastern suburbs. The merging of the Eastern poor suburbs of Panmure into the Labour stronghold of Manukau and the proposal of Flat Bush creates a new National party stronghold. The boundaries really need to be grouped around physical location not what party the households are likely to vote for.

Objection

---

Mrs Tracy Bilger

I would like Point England to remain in Maungakiekie as we have no shared community of interest with Manukau whatsoever. We have no shared history or geographical connection.
This whole exercise seems like a complete waste of time and money and I cannot see any advantages at all. We will be so disjointed from Manuakau. Leave things as they are.

Objection

---

Raelene Farrell (and S Swasbrook, G Ogilvie and N Calladine)

I object to moving Panmure, Point England and parts of Glen Innes into the Manukau East electorate, because:
- Panmure, Point England, Glen Innes and Wai o Taiki are communities with longstanding strong links - and this boundary change proposal smashes the community apart. This contradicts the statement made on page 3 of your Boundary Review document, which states: The splitting of small communities has been avoided where possible and the Commission has endeavoured to place communities in the same electorate as the adjoining area with which they have the most interaction.
- Panmure, Point England, Glen Innes and Wai o Taiki are communities with common interests, common social structure, common issues.
- Panmure and Point England are Auckland Central suburbs, not South Auckland suburbs.
- Panmure and Point England are water-based suburbs with nothing in common with the more land-locked suburbs of Otahuhu, Otara and Papatoetoe.
- Panmure and Point England have a strong multi-cultural community, but there is far less diversity in the South Auckland surburbs of Otara and Papatoetoe.
In summary, you are proposing to split suburbs of commonalities, to align them with suburbs with which they have no connection. As per page 2 of your Boundary Review, this is not giving due consideration to communities of interest, as is required by the Commission.

Objection

---

J Harvey

I write as a long time resident of Panmure in EAST Auckland.
At no time has been associated with Manukau until it was recognised that due to the inept Manukau city council under the previous mayors {Brown included] the unrestrained developments of the area had caused the problem of trapping their residents in Howick & Pakuranga.Since that time Panmure has been used as an escape route causing all sorts of problems.
As one of the original settlements of Auckland Panmure has a wealth of history behind it & it beggars belief that we should have anything in common with Otara etc.
Panmure will be split in two with no access to the station & with a significant part of the community.
Has no one recognised that ther is to be a considerable increas in the population in this area so it must be expected another change very soon.
How is it that all the surrounding ares have no changes? Suspicious is it not?
We also know of the numerous problems at Middlemore hospital & the difficulties in the transport to same.
This whole idea of abandoning Panmure to benefitting others is not acceptable.

Objection

---

Mrs Sandra Gordon

The change will mean a change to an already overloaded Middlemore Hospital. Why change at all.

Objection

---

Panmure Historical Society

If the Boundary Change that has been outlined happens it will rip Panmure apart. As Panmure is just celebrated its 170 years and is a Heritage Precinct, these boundary changes will upset the balance of Panmure.
Historically we have held these boundaries for 170 years, and feel that Panmure will lose it's historical background .
The changes would see much of Panmure, Glen Inness and Point England as well as Mount Wellington carved of the Maungakiekie electorate and being added to Manukau East with Papatoetoe and Otara. We are opposed to these changes.

Objection

---

Gemma Gasson

My address where I have chosen to invest in Auckland with my husband and young family was selected due to its proximity and connection to Mt Wellington and surrounds where we work, live and spend money. We have absolutely no connection to the proposed boundary connections to Glen Innes and Otara and this causes me significant distress and concern to be re classified in this electorate. We worked extremely hard to buy in this suburb with its current alignment and it is disturbing to think we have invested as a young family in a proposed complete different area with different needs. Why on earth would you cut off an electorate currently connected within the AMETI project to Panmure train station. How can the needs of Panmure including this new transport hub be split in half.