View submissions

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.

Objection

---

Mark Sims

Changing Tamaki Panmure region to east manukau does not reflect similar communities or histories, the changing area of Mt Wellington and Panmure, Tamaki is not aligned to manukau

Objection

---

Tonia Still

Mount Wellington next to the Tamaki Estuary has always been part of Auckland City Council and rates reflect that. To change the boundary Negatively impacts on residents who currently benefit from Auckland Hospital care which is superior to that offered by Middlemore let alone being more accessible. The new boundaries do not make sense from any logical point of view

Objection

---

Natasha Macpherson

Panmure has no connection to become part of the Manukau East zone. This is unfair and undemocratic.

Objection

---

Dr Oliver Mudford

Panmure, along with Glen Innes, and Point England are to be removed from Maungakiekie electorate and put into Manukau East. I object.
These three suburbs were always part of Auckland, which Maungakiekie is, but Manukau East was not. We (Panmure) and others are on the eastern boundary of M'kie as it runs through the middle of Tamaki estuary/river. It seems silly to eliminate a natural boundary, like a river. We are not South Auckland.
We have access to Greenlane Clinical Cenre and Auckland City Hospital that those of us who have had to use hospital services will be very sorry to lose. However people less than a kilometre from me and still in Panmure will be able to continue with hospital services that they are familiar with AND access by frequent public transport (buses) running from Panmure to Auckland, but not Middlemore.

Objection

---

Claire Ashley

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.
7. Panmure is Auckland City and not Manukau and should not be in an electorate named Manukau East.
8. I do not want Panmure to ever come under Counties Manukau DHB / Middlemore.
Panmure being Auckland City is Auckland DHB therefore Auckland Hospital and must stay this way.
9. There has been next to zero publicity for this change for the residents of Panmure. Nothing in the local paper. No flyer drop, no addressed mail. The local elected Councillors have remained silent on it and despite being asked to hold a public meeting, failed to do so. A majority of Panmure residents would be unaware of this planned change. It is being done with minimal publicity with a close off right before Christmas to ensure there is limited opposition.

Objection

---

Mrs Alfreda Gibson

I object to the proposal to break the Panmure Community from Mt Wellington. At present both are in Tamaki Maungakiekie.
My reasons are:
1.Panmure has a long history and no connection to the Manukau East electorate.
we will become a forgotten community in the Manukau Electorate.
2.Voters in Panmure and Glen Innes will definitely feel disconnected from the larger Manukau East electoral area and possibly view future election campaigns will be centred on South Auckland issues.
3. The boundary change appears entirely arbitrary and follows no logical administrative pattern.
Panmure now sits within the Central Auckland Council and historically has always sat within that electoral boundary. From 1848, Panmure became central to the political administration of the local area through different highway districts. This proposed change ignores all of this area’s 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. Other surrounding electorates e.g. Tamaki, Epsom, Maungakiekie, Mangere, Manurewa, Botany and Pakuranga,- retain their identity and sense of cohesion under the changes, but Panmure, along with Glen Innes, Point England, parts of Mount Wellington and Otahuhu, will lose theirs.
6. The Tamaki Regeneration process foresees a significant population increase in Panmure, Glen Innes and Point England in coming decades. This is likely to force a reversal of this proposal by the Electoral Commission in years to come, which would then make this an unnecessary change to make at this point of time.
7. Our community has gone through an amazing amount of upheavel/change in the last couple of years and is unfair to disconnect and push us away from our Mountain/River (Maungakiekie/Tamaki).
Most of our Maori familys have moved or been removed out of this area, due to the high prices of the new housing subdivision or not securing social housing, and will eventually fill with other ethnicities that would fall under General Roles?

• Boundary-Change-Panmure-Alfreda-Gibson.pdf (pdf 62 KB)

Objection

---

Roshan Robinson

Panmure has no history or community of interest with the Manukau East electorate. The people of Panmure have a lot more in common and a lot more shared interest in their community with Mt Wellington as opposed to Papatoetoe. Papatoetoe is at best 12 kilometres away from Panmure - Mt Wellington is next door....this makes no logical sense what-so-ever.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.

Objection

---

Mr Robert Ewing

I am opposed to Panmure being removed from the Maungakiekie electorate. It is important to me that Panmure is part of Central Auckland, particularly to ensure that we continue to fall under Auckland City Hospital. I am worried that the boundary change is going to mean a future shift of Panmure into South Auckland and that this will mean we are required to go to Middlemore hospital which is far removed from where we are.
The proposed electorate boundaries are not aligned with our location within Central Auckland and groups Panmure together with a collection of other suburbs that are geographically and socially removed from our area. This will leave Panmure isolated from the area that it has always been a part of.
I also object for the following reasons:
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.

Objection

---

Mrs Barbara Cooper

As a member of a family resident in Panmure for about 80 years I object strongly to the proposal to remove Panmure from the Maungakiekie electorate and to link it to Manukau East.
Panmure and Mt Wellington have been historically linked under various governing local bodies for over 150 years.
The demographics of our communities are quite different to those of Manukau East.
Our maunga, Maungarei/Mt Wellington, would be severed from our community.
Our wonderful new railway station and transport hub would no longer be in our community.
The Tamaki River forms a natural and historic border to our area.
I feel that the Panmure/Mt.Wellington/Glen Innes areas share links and interests that have little to do with Manukau East.

Objection

---

Alysia Sims

1. Waipuna, Panmure has no history or community of interest with the Manukau East electorate.
2. Bad for democracy. Voters in Waipuna, 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.