View submissions

Select filters to view submissions

Displaying 151 - 180 of 438
Number Name Submission Change type View
N20-041 Mrs Alfreda Gibson Objection Boundary

Mrs Alfreda Gibson


Objection

Manukau East
This objection relates to a boundary change
This objection does not relate to a name change

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?

Suggested solution

Suggest/Solution/Alternatives
If there is to be an amalgamation of districts,
Leave the proposed sectioning of Panmure and Glen Innes as it is, under the Central Auckland City Council banner, and/or align it with the Mt Wellington area - which is a closer district - and quite removed from others currently aligned with Manukau,
Mt Roskill is closer to Manukau/Mangere than either Panmure and Glen Innes.
A new electorate encompassing Glen Innes, Panmure, Mount Wellington and Ellerslie as far south as Westfield/Panama Road - with the western boundary at the main trunk line/southern motorway/Great South Road?
It would be roughly equal in size to either Tamaki or Epsom, and would follow entirely natural boundaries.
Or “leave as is” due to the massive development within this area, with housing more people, we can become a new electorate? called “Maungarei”
As mentioned in Reason *6, foresees a significant population increase in Mt Wellington, Panmure, Glen Innes and Point England in coming decades. Increased people numbers as properties are going up, not out.
N20-042 Mary Jacobs Objection Boundary

Mary Jacobs


Objection

Manukau East
This objection relates to a boundary change
This objection does not relate to a name change

Mary Jacobs

The Panmure boundary should remain the same. I see no sense my place a middle line through it.

Suggested solution

Don't do it.
N20-043 Roshan Robinson Objection Boundary

Roshan Robinson


Objection

Manukau East
This objection relates to a boundary change
This objection does not relate to a name change

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.

Suggested solution

Leave Mt Wellington and Panmure together as they are now and as they should be.
N20-044 Mrs Ashton Ewing Objection Boundary

Mrs Ashton Ewing


Objection

Manukau East
This objection relates to a boundary change
This objection does not relate to a name change

Mrs Ashton Ewing

I do not want to go to Middlemore zone and be under the Manukau electric. Auckland Hospital has ALL our information for our family and if we were to change we would have to travel more to get medical care for our children

Suggested solution

Keep the electric as it is DO NOT CHANGE
N20-045 Mr Robert Ewing Objection Boundary

Mr Robert Ewing


Objection

Manukau East
This objection relates to a boundary change
This objection does not relate to a name change

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.

Suggested solution

Keep Panmure in the Maungakiekie electorate.
N20-046 Mr Cameron Sims Objection Boundary

Mr Cameron Sims


Objection

Manukau East
This objection relates to a boundary change
This objection does not relate to a name change

Mr Cameron Sims

1. Waipuna and 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, Waipuna and 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 and Waipuna 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 Waipuna, 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.

Suggested solution

Keep Waipuna, Panmure and surrounding areas in the Maungakiekie electorate.
Use Waipuna road or South Eastern Highway as the boundary line and the natural boundaries to keep Waipuna in Maungakiekie.
N20-047 Mrs Barbara Cooper Objection Boundary

Mrs Barbara Cooper


Objection

Manukau East
This objection relates to a boundary change
This objection does not relate to a name change

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.

Suggested solution

I suggest a shift of the electorate boundary to the west of the Great South Rd/ Southern Motorway and to include southern Onehunga and Mt.Smart area instead.
N20-048 Mr Christian Pulley Objection Boundary

Mr Christian Pulley


Objection

Manukau East
This objection relates to a boundary change
This objection does not relate to a name change

Mr Christian Pulley

New boundary changes proposed by the Electoral Commission could see Panmure, along with parts of Glen Innes, Mount Wellington and Otahuhu, carved off the Maungakiekie Parliamentary electorate and stuck on to the Manukau East electorate with Papatoetoe and Otara in South Auckland.
The new boundary would create a strange, elongated electorate stretching all the way from Maybury Reserve in Glen Innes to Puhinui Road at Clover Park - sticking together neighbourhoods and towns with no clear connections or community of interest.
Some of the more bizarre consequences of the proposed boundary change would be: Panmure Town Centre goes to Manukau East electorate, while Panmure Railway Station and Mountain Road, Forge Way and Mountwell Crescent stay in Maungakiekie.
Everything west of Jellicoe Road and the railway line remains in Maungakiekie, while everything to the west as far as the Tamaki River goes to Manukau East.
Notably, in the overall list of proposals for boundary changes in Auckland, the more favoured electorates of Tamaki, Epsom, Auckland Central, Mt Albert, Pakuranga and Botany remain completely untouched, while Maungakiekie's reward for shedding Panmure, Glen Innes and parts of Mount Wellington and Otahuhu is to gain Royal Oak to the west. Likewise, Mt Roskill electorate gains more territory to its west to replace Royal Oak.
In all of the above cases, the more favoured electorates will enjoy a largely consistent community of interest and territorial integrity. Only Panmure and its northern and southern neighbours are to be carved off and stuck to an entirely separate electorate - in what used to be another city completely - with which it has no history or community of interest.

Suggested solution

Leave Mangakiekie as it is, the tamaki estuary should remain the southern boundary of Mangakiekie as this physically divides the two communities.
N20-049 Alysia Sims Objection Boundary

Alysia Sims


Objection

Manukau East
This objection relates to a boundary change
This objection does not relate to a name change

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.

Suggested solution

Keep Waipuna and Panumre in Manugakiekie electorate.
Use Waipuna road or South Eastern Highway and natural water boundaries.
N20-050 Mr Gary Feran Objection Boundary

Mr Gary Feran


Objection

Manukau East
This objection relates to a boundary change
This objection does not relate to a name change

Mr Gary Feran

I would like to object to the proposed changes to the electoral boundaries to separate the Panmure Township and community from Mount Wellington. Currently both Mount Wellington and Panmure are both in the Tamaki Mangakiekie electorate.
I am a current resident and have been living in Panmure for over 59 years.
My reasons are:
1. Panmure has no community of interest and no history with the Manukau East electorate. Panmure’s community makeup is very different from that of Manuaku East. This is reflected in the demographics of the residents, the nationalities, the ethnicities, and the socio-economic composition.
2. For over 100 years, Panmure and Mount Wellington have been strongly connected. Firstly under the Mount Wellington Borough Council and latterly with Tamaki City. This proposal destroys this connection and it’s community and ignores all of this history.
3. The local government agencies are currently working to preserve the existing community despite the disruption of the rebuild presently taking place in Glenn Innes through to Panmure.
The AMETI transportation initiative currently links Pakuranga with Panmure transport interchange. This proposed infrastructure setup focuses on Panmure/Pakuranga/Mount Wellington/Glenn Innes being intrinsically linked through the buses and the train system.
Both of these initiatives focus and support the existing community structure that is Pakuranga/Panmure/Mount Wellington and Glenn Innes.
The proposal does not recognise this ongoing association and linkage.
4. Panmure businesses will also be detrimentally impacted. A significant part of the business community along the west of the railway line and Jellicoe Road and parts of Mountain road will be separated from central Panmure. This will politically divide Panmure businesses and could hinder economic growth and political symmetry.
5. Due to the Tamaki Regeneration process, there is foreseeable significant increase in Panmure, Glen Innes and Point England populations in the next decade. This is likely to force a reversal of this proposal by the Electoral Commission in the future.

Suggested solution

My alternative to this proposal is to take some of the population from the Southern Onehunga/ Mount Smart area instead. For example, Mount Wellington Highway, Penrose Road, Church Street, Nelson Street, Onehunga. This would a more considered approach that takes into account communities of interest and historical connections.
The proposed boundary change does not consider our historical volcanic cones that are Maungarei, Mutukaroa, and Van Dammes Lagoon Reserve.

N20-051 Rawinia Snowden Objection Boundary

Rawinia Snowden


Objection

Manukau East
This objection relates to a boundary change
This objection does not relate to a name change

Rawinia Snowden

1. Decrease the value of the homes I own in Panmure purely because Panmure will be known to be a "South Auckland" suburb, this will impact the values of our home. Home values are more in some suburbs than others, and it's a fact that homes located in the "Auckland Central" region are more expensive than South Auckland region. Therefore I object this reboundary to be done here in Panmure.
2. Panmure has no history or community of interest with the Manukau East electorate.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.

Suggested solution

Don't fix what ain't broken. Leave boundary as it currently stands.
N20-052 Mr Benjamin Hamblin Objection Boundary

Mr Benjamin Hamblin


Objection

Manukau East
This objection relates to a boundary change
This objection does not relate to a name change

Mr Benjamin Hamblin

I object to placing Point England within the Manukau East electorate. This will create an electorate that is too tall (north-south) and too thin (east-west). It will lump together electors who do not live anywhere near one another. Residents from the northern end of the electorate rarely visit the southern end, and residents from the southern end of the electorate rarely visit the northern end. This will undermine communities of interest. Residents from different ends of the new electorate attend completely distant schools and sports clubs. Until recently, the northern and southern ends of the proposed electorate had different local governments. Another challenge to communities of interest is that in different parts of the new electorate there are different public service offices, e.g. the Tamaki Regeneration Company is only in the northern end of the electorate, while other public housing areas are covered by Kainga Ora Homes and Communities. Furthermore, with the new electorate boundaries, Point England will not be in the same electorate as its nearby transport hubs: Glen Innes (which is under Tamaki electorate) and Panmure Station (which is in Maungakiekie, currently the same electorate covering Point England).
N20-053 Mrs Theresa Calman Objection Boundary

Mrs Theresa Calman


Objection

Manukau East
This objection relates to a boundary change
This objection does not relate to a name change

Mrs Theresa Calman

Panmure moving to Manukau East

Suggested solution

Should remain as is. We are closer to the central suburbs than Manukau
N20-054 Mr Grant Ewing Objection Boundary

Mr Grant Ewing


Objection

Manukau East
This objection relates to a boundary change
This objection does not relate to a name change

Mr Grant Ewing

we have moved into this area to keep in auckland hospital zone and feel is not only devaluing our property if we get cut off into manakau it will prompt us to move which is not our plan. I cant really see how this change can go through as my family and many people have stayed on this side of the panmure bridge to make sure we stay away from middlemore

Suggested solution

leave us in the same electorate as we are now
N20-055 Jenni Fernandez Objection Boundary

Jenni Fernandez


Objection

Manukau East
This objection relates to a boundary change
This objection does not relate to a name change

Jenni Fernandez

1. Panmure has no history or community of interest with the Manukau East electorate so cannot fathom why our suburbs or interests would be given any voice under that electorate.
2) My address is in Mt Wellington although proposed change means my address for voting would comesunder Manukau East not Maungakiekie. That change would mean I will be separated from others in my geographic area which does not seem right. Mt Wellington and Panmure have a closely linked relationship sharing a Maunga and Mountain and it does not make sense to have the electoral boundary changed to fit in with an area so far removed from Panmure.
3. Bad democratic move. Voters in Panmure, Glen Innes and Mt Wellington ( addresses) 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 will be hugely disadvantageous to residents in Panmure and some in Mt Wellington addresses. This is likely to undermine and discourage participation in democracy in our areas.
4. 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. It is not right.
5. The change would separate Panmure politically not only from its own railway station and Maunga 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.
6. 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. That is unjust
7. 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.
8)With all the things that have been happening in Panmure with the Ameti project the people of Panmure are becoming more and more discouraged with being pushed around and this seems very unfair and unjust.
9)I object to the fact that there has been no advertising re this even objection process even taking place and submissions being due. It appears we have found out about it by chance and it does not seem just or right that it has been so hidden from the public. I do not feel that general public has been notified in any democratic way that this process is even up for submission. I also object to the fact that this is due 4 days before Christmas when as you will well be aware is the busiest time of the year. It is again unjust and unfair that this date has been determined for submissions to be due in

Suggested solution

Leave Panmure and Mt Wellington areas out of Manukau East and Leave as is in Maungakeikei electorate.
Give much more notification and advertisement that a process of this is even being considered.
Do not have submissions due in anywhere within time frame near Christmas that is so unfair.
The snapshot thing on page is ridiculous and hard to do
N20-056 Patrick Downey Objection Boundary

Patrick Downey


Objection

Manukau East
This objection relates to a boundary change
This objection does not relate to a name change

Patrick Downey

As a resident of Panmure I value the association the community has with our Mt Wellington, Glen Innes and Point England neighbours. Forcing a geopolitical integration with the Manukau East electoral boundary where there has been no recent history of common interest could represent a challenge to the democratic process.

Suggested solution

Retain the area from Point England to Waipuna Drive in the Maungakeikei boundary.
N20-057 Mrs Pam Shoebridge Objection Boundary

Mrs Pam Shoebridge


Objection

Manukau East
This objection relates to a boundary change
This objection does not relate to a name change

Mrs Pam Shoebridge

It is really a bad idea to split our electorate (Panmure) into a community that we have nothing in common with. We do not want to be part of Otara and Papatoetoe which is so much more diverse than our current boundaries. IHistorically we have never been part of this south Auckland community.
For some reason everyone seems to want to break up Panmure. Panmure is one of the earliest settlements in Auckland and has a great history and strong community. We are proud of our town and do not wish to broken down yet again to be lost in some big electorate in which we lose out identity.

Suggested solution

I would like to see a new electorate which would encompass Glen Innes, Panmure, Mt Wellington and Ellerslie as far south as Westfield/Panama Rd-with the western boundary at the main trunk line/southern motorway/Great South Rd. This would equate in size to either Tamaki or Epsom and would follow natural boundaries.
N20-058 Mrs Kellie Dawson Objection Boundary

Mrs Kellie Dawson


Objection

Manukau East
This objection relates to a boundary change
This objection does not relate to a name change

Mrs Kellie Dawson

My objection is to the removal of Panmure from the Maungakiekie electorate and moving it into a collection of other suburbs that are further south in Manukau zone. These other suburbs have no connection to Panmure geographically, and will result in the creation of an electorate that is drawn out over a large area with very little in common.
Panmure has a much closer relationship with other suburbs in the Maungakiekie electorate and relies on services that are located within the Maungakiekie electorate. Splitting Panmure off from Maungakiekie will leave our community feeling isolated and removed from the area of which it has always been a part. In an administrative sense this is poor management and will mean that we have less say in what happens in the surrounding suburbs that have a real impact on our way of life. Even when you look at the map of the electorate boundaries (as shown below) it is clear that Panmure sits much more naturally with its northern neighbours than it does with those suburbs to the South of Panmure Basin and Pakuranga Bridge.
Panmure has always been part of Central Auckland, and we wish for this to remain the case. One of the reasons we chose to live in Panmure over suburbs like Pakuranga is that we wanted to remain in Central Auckland, not South Auckland. There is potential for negative impacts on our property values and resale if people feel like we are no longer part of Central Auckland, particularly if this impacts our ability to access essential services (such as Auckland City Hospital) in the future.
I also understand that the new boundary will place our train station in a different electorate to our community. We use the train services regularly, as do many other members of Panmure and it is important that our interests in the train are represented within our local electorate.
We are strongly opposed to Panmure being removed from Central Auckland and grouped in with South Auckland as it is, has always been, and should remain part of Central Auckland and should remain in the Maungakiekie electorate.

Suggested solution

That Panmure remains as part of the Maungakiekie electorate, and remains part of central Auckland.
N20-059 Mr Ryan Dawson Objection Boundary

Mr Ryan Dawson


Objection

Manukau East
This objection relates to a boundary change
This objection does not relate to a name change

Mr Ryan Dawson

I am opposed to the removal of Panmure from the Maungakiekie electorate and grouping it together with a collection of suburbs further South which have little to no connection geographically or socially.
Further:
1. Panmure has no history or community of interest with the Manukau East electorate.
2. 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 administrative 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.

Suggested solution

Panmure should remain part of the Maungakiekie electorate.
N20-060 Te Pou Whakawhirinaki o o'Tara - Citizens Advice Bureau Otara Objection Boundary, name

Te Pou Whakawhirinaki o o'Tara - Citizens Advice Bureau Otara


Objection

Manukau East
This objection relates to a boundary change
This objection relates to a name change

Te Pou Whakawhirinaki o o'Tara - Citizens Advice Bureau Otara

When our organisation was first established in March 1971, Otara was a much broader community with a much wider population and we met the needs of the people who require our help, both in our immediate community and outside of the area if they were referred to us for a specific service or additional support. If you view the maps of Otara from when we were first established in 1971, compare them to the current boundary maps and take into consideration, additional proposed changes (such as Flatbush), it is clear that the area once named "Otara" is constantly shrinking. Although we, Otara, have experienced changes in boundaries (geographical & other), population and the resulting changes, the community we serve remains constant, irrespective of what the specific area is now named.
The clients and community we have served since we first opened to the public has not changed, they remain constant and are still domiciled in the areas they were when we first opened to the public. Clients that come to share their issues with you, irrespective of what those issues may be, develop a trust and confidence in the service that has helped them and continues to do so. This is not to take away from other organisations that provide assistance to the community, but when it comes to an established relationship of trust, clients will go where they feel comfortable and confident.
The clients and community that come to us for our help, both with core services and specialist advocacy, reman the same as 1971 - with a much broader ethnic base and in greater numbers. Unfortunately for our people, the major proportion of our clients and community are of high deprivation and need a much greater level of support and sustained assistance.
We are very concerned, about the constant changes to our very proud community; how they impact on Otara collectively in respect of a variety of issues, some of which are
- voting power & influence
- funding consideration for the services we provide

Suggested solution

- Voting power and influence
When matters of importance to local communities such as Otara are raised, the people must be supported and enabled to have influence and impact via the democratic process of voting.
When communities are continously split, the people feel less valued and the confidence in them being able to have a say on what happens around them, is lowered.
Our people and the community needs to feel constantly empowered so that they can confident that their input is considered when decisions are made about the area they consider their home.
- Currently organisations such as Citizens Advice Bureaux are funded we understand, based on population, with a small consideration for deprivation. How that basis of funding is arrived at is still unclear as we have received assurances of full explanation but have not to date, received same.
The population basis changes when boundaries shift and new areas are created. This again, changes the basis for funding. In this past round of funding we have been left feeling undervalued as our level of funding was allocated as required or expected and was quite a shock to see what we were allocated in comparison to other areas - all apparently based on "population" in a constantly changing environment.
The area we continue to serve has increased in population, not decreased.
N20-061 Island Child Charitable Trust Objection Boundary, name

Island Child Charitable Trust


Objection

Manukau East
This objection relates to a boundary change
This objection relates to a name change

Island Child Charitable Trust

Maungakiekie electorate is named after our Maunga. We feel we have no affiliation to Manukau East. We are based in Glen Innes and we feel it will cause trauma amongst our community to be so different to local board boundaries.

Suggested solution

Maintain Maungakiekie from Maybury Street to the Panmure Bridge. Do not rename the area Manukau East.
N20-062 Andrew McVey Objection Name

Andrew McVey


Objection

Manukau East
This objection does not relate to a boundary change
This objection relates to a name change

Andrew McVey

I live in Point England. Along with Panmure and Glen Innes, Point England is now in Manukau East. The name is very confusing. These suburbs are north of Manukau. Also, these suburbs have never historically been part of Manukau. It appears that Manukau centre is also not part of the electorate.
Please consider renaming this electorate in an inclusive way. Voter participation depends on people understanding what electorate they are in. This name will not help.

Suggested solution

Isthmus East, or Eastern Isthmus. This is geographically correct as most of the new electorate forms the eastern part of the Auckland isthmus, down to the portage of the Tamaki Strait and the Manukau Harbour.
N20-063 David Hoggard Objection Name

David Hoggard


Objection

Manukau East
This objection does not relate to a boundary change
This objection relates to a name change

David Hoggard

The Manukau East name is inappropriate as a large part of the electorate is not in Manukau. The boundary changes are substantial enough to justify changing the name.

Suggested solution

Rename the seat as Ōtāhuhu. Not only will this make the name fully Te Reo Māori as opposed to only partly, it also reflects the fact that Ōtāhuhu is now the central focal point of the electorate. Additionally, the name has been used historically for an electorate covering a similar area, most recently in the 1970s and 80s.
N20-064 Patrick Downey Objection Name

Patrick Downey


Objection

Manukau East
This objection does not relate to a boundary change
This objection relates to a name change

Patrick Downey

Manukau East does not accurately define the significant area of East Auckland to be added to the proposed boundary. Also, geographically the proposed elongated boundary from Point England to Papatoetoe is separated by the Waipuna Basin and this creates a natural physical and possibly psychological divide.

Suggested solution

If this area is to be merged, a common landmark such as the Tamaki Estuary, should be considered as a uniting name. Therefore, I propose Ngutuawa/Estuary as a more suitable name rather than the misleading and provocative Manukau East.
N20-601 Mrs Tania Batucan Counter-Objection Name

Mrs Tania Batucan


Counter-Objection

Manukau East

Relates to objections

N20-001, N20-002, N20-005, N20-006, N20-007, N20-009, N20-010, N20-013, N20-014, N20-016, N20-018, N20-019, N20-020, N20-021, N20-022, N20-023, N20-024, N20-029, N20-030, N20-037, N20-038, N20-039, N20-040, N20-041, N20-043, N20-045, N20-046, N20-047, N20-048, N20-049, N20-050, N20-051, N20-052, N20-053 , N20-055, N20-057, N20-058, N20-059, N20-061
This objection does not relate to a boundary change
This objection relates to a name change

Mrs Tania Batucan

The argument that Panmure doesn't identify with South Auckland suburbs is resolved by changing the proposed Manukau East electorate name to a name that reflects the communities in the new boundary. Mt Wellington Railway Line also forms a natural boundary.

Suggested solution

rename the new Manukau East electorate
N20-602 Mrs Tania Batucan Counter-Objection Name

Mrs Tania Batucan


Counter-Objection

Manukau East

Relates to objections

N20-032 , N20-061, N20-029, N20-062, N20-013, N20-051, N20-043, N20-048, N20-005, N20-014, N20-015, N20-016, N20-018, N20-020, N20-021, N20-022, N20-023, N20-026, N20-024, N20-063, N20-030, N20-031, N20-001, N20-056, N20-002, N20-035, N20-038, N20-039, N20-040, N20-041, N20-004, N20-058, N20-059, N20-045, N20-046, N20-049, N20-047, N20-050, N20-052, N20-007, N20-008, N20-055, N20-057, N20-027, N20-010
This objection does not relate to a boundary change
This objection relates to a name change

Mrs Tania Batucan

The argument that Panmure has no history or common interest with Manukau East is resolved changing the proposed Manukau East electorate name to a name that reflects the communities in the new boundary. These could be: "Otahuhu" which is the middle joining suburb between the original Manukau East communities and the proposed new ones; "Portage" which represents the famous Portage Crossing that is in the proposed Manukau East electorate and was historically used by Maori between the two harbours; or "Tauoma" which is the name of the particular Portage Crossing as previously mentioned. Mt Wellington Railway Line also forms a natural boundary.

Suggested solution

rename the new Manukau East electorate
N20-603 Mrs Tania Batucan Counter-Objection Boundary

Mrs Tania Batucan


Counter-Objection

Manukau East

Relates to objections

N20-003
This objection relates to a boundary change
This objection does not relate to a name change

Mrs Tania Batucan

Labour's map separates Mt Wellington and worse, it's according to random mesh-blocks rather than communities of interest. Their map cuts along Penrose Road and creates an awkward boundary in and out of side streets off Penrose Road. Several streets, including Penrose Road, Panorama, Mt Wellington Highway and Barrack Road are split and will be in two different electorates. That will include myself and my family. At the top of my street I will be in Manukau East (we have absolutely no connection with Manukau East) and the bottom of my street will be in Maungakiekie. The better solution is separating the proposed Maungakiekie and Manukau East electorates along the Mt Wellington rail line as originally proposed. Labour's proposal also splits Mt Wellington from its maunga. As a longtime Mt Wellington resident, I know our community has not historically been separated from our maunga, unlike Panmure and Point England.

Suggested solution

Keep the boundary line as the Mt Wellington Railway line, which acts as a natural boundary.
N20-604 Ms Bevan Chuang Counter-Objection Boundary

Ms Bevan Chuang


Counter-Objection

Manukau East

Relates to objections

N20-003
This objection relates to a boundary change
This objection does not relate to a name change

Ms Bevan Chuang

Labour's suggested boundary splits Mt Wellington. Their map cuts along Penrose Road and moves in and out of side streets, cutting multiple streets in half according to random mesh-blocks, it is confusing for residents. The more straight-forward solution is separating the proposed Maungakiekie and Manukau East electorates along the rail line as per the Commission’s draft. This line acts as a natural boundary.

Suggested solution

Keep the boundary line as the Mt Wellington Railway line, which acts as a natural boundary.
N20-605 Ms Bevan Chuang Counter-Objection Name

Ms Bevan Chuang


Counter-Objection

Manukau East

Relates to objections

N20-032 , N20-061, N20-029, N20-062, N20-013, N20-051, N20-043, N20-048, N20-005, N20-014, N20-015, N20-016, N20-019, N20-018, N20-020, N20-021, N20-022, N20-023, N20-026, N20-024, N20-063, N20-030, N20-031, N20-001, N20-056, N20-002, N20-035, N20-038, N20-039, N20-040, N20-041, N20-058, N20-059, N20-045, N20-046, N20-049, N20-047, N20-050, N20-052, N20-007, N20-008, N20-055, N20-057, N20-027, N20-010, N20-009
This objection does not relate to a boundary change
This objection relates to a name change

Ms Bevan Chuang

The argument that Panmure has no history or common interest with Manukau East is resolved changing the proposed Manukau East electorate name to a name that reflects the communities in the new boundary. These could be: "Portage" which represents the famous Portage Crossing that is in the proposed Manukau East electorate and was historically used by Maori between the two harbours; "Otahuhu" which is the middle joining suburb between the original Manukau East communities and the proposed new ones; or Panmure-Otara. Mt Wellington Railway Line also forms a natural boundary.

Suggested solution

rename the new Manukau East electorate
N20-606 Ms Bevan Chuang Counter-Objection Boundary

Ms Bevan Chuang


Counter-Objection

Manukau East

Relates to objections

N20-001, N20-002, N20-009, N20-010, N20-011, N20-016, N20-020, N20-023, N20-026, N20-029, N20-030, N20-034, N20-036, N20-039, N20-040, N20-041, N20-043, N20-045, N20-046, N20-047, N20-048, N20-049, N20-051, N20-055
This objection relates to a boundary change
This objection does not relate to a name change

Ms Bevan Chuang

There are several examples where a community’s main train station is in a different electorate to the one they reside in. One example is the Otahuhu Train Station, which is in the current Mangere electorate (Otahuhu is currently split between Maungakiekie and Manukau East). Mt Wellington Railway line also forms a natural boundary between the proposed Manukau East and Maungakiekie electorates.
Back to top