View submissions

Objection

---

Lindsay Hull

I object to moving the communities of Panmure, Point England and parts of Glen Innes into the Manukau East electorate, because these communities have nothing in common with Manukau East.

Objection

---

Miss Jennifer Copeland

I object to moving Panmure, Pt England and parts of Glen Innes into the Manukau East electorate, because:
- Panmure, Pt England, Glen Innes and Wai O Taiki are communities longstanding strong links - and this boundary change proposal smashes the community apart. This contradicts the statement made on page 3 of you 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, Pt England Glen Innes and Wai o Taiki are communities with common interests, common social structure, common issues.
- Panmure and Pt England are water-based suburbs with nothing in common with the more land-locked suburbs or Otahuhu, Otara and Papatoetoe.
- Panmure and Pt England have a strong multi-cultural community, but there is far less diversity in the South Auckland suburbs 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, as is required by the Commission.
In the 14 years I have lived in Panmure we have already been moved from Tamaki to Maungakiekie and now you are looking at yet another change.

Objection

---

Mr Peter Kelly (and Mrs Margaret Kelly)

See attached paper

• Electorate-Objection-PJ-ME-Kelly.pdf (pdf 42 KB)

Objection

---

Laura Chirnside

I object to Point England and Panmure being included in the Manukau East area.
This area is currently part of the Tamaki redevelopment area along with Glen Innes. The community and organisation is working hard to rebuild and develop a sense of community and cohesion. The proposed boundaries splits the area in half into two very different socio- economic boundaries. I worry that the needs of the new community will fall between the cracks of two voting areas.

• Map Snapshot 1

Objection

---

Mrs Susan Sims

1. Panmure has no history or community of interest with the Manukau East electorate.
2. Bad for democracy. Voters in Panmure and Glen Innes will feel disconnected and alienated from the larger Manukau East electoral area and will probably see all future election campaigns centred on South Auckland issues debated by South Auckland-based politicians. This is likely to undermine and discourage participation in democracy in our areas.
3. 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.
4. The change would separate Panmure politically not only from its own railway station but also a significant part of its community in the Mountain Road area, along with businesses to the west of the railway line and Jellicoe Road.
5. 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.
6. 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.