The Waikato Times reports:

A new Hamilton city zoning plan which steps on the toes of some of the city’s best known companies has been branded as “bonkers” by owner of Gallagher Group, Sir William Gallagher.

Hamilton City Council’s proposed district plan restricts companies’ ability to expand operations on their sites in the city’s industrial zone. The plan came into effect on July 9 this year. There is still an appeal process where some changes can be made.

Businesses are worried that sites such as Gallagher Group’s on Kahikatea Drive don’t fit in with the new plan’s rules.

“I think it’s bonkers, and ridiculous,” Sir William told the Waikato Times.

“You run integrated industries these days and that means we have office, research and manufacture on the same site.”

The plan allows operations in industrial zones to have ancillary offices, but the offices can only be 25 per cent of the floor space, or 250 square metres, whichever is smaller.

Gallagher Group has considerably more office space than this, as do many other companies in industrial zones.

Existing businesses that are operating legally have existing use rights to continue using their sites.

The problem arises if the company wants to do development, which would result in a potentially costly consenting process.

Idiotic rules. Who cares if a site has 50% warehouse and 50% office. They buy the land, let them use it.

Hamilton City Council’s city planning manager Luke O’Dwyer said extensive independent consultation went into developing the district plan.

He said the old district plan was “very permissive”, so a lot of standalone offices had appeared in industrial zones, to the detriment of the central business district.

A permissive plan – how terrible.

Steve Gibson is Labour’s candidate for Rangitata.

He is entitled to call John Key a “nasty little creep, “with a nasty evil vindictive sneer” even though this doesn’t quite fit Labour’s Vote Positive campaign.

But he is not entitled to call John Key “Shylock”. That is racist and anti-Semitic.

I expect Labour will deselect Steve Gibson rather than have a racist candidate. Well I hope they do.

Hat Tip: Whale Oil

Andrea Vance notes:

David Cunliffe’s high point last week was stealing lines from the minor parties. He jumped on the anti-foreign investment band-wagon with NZ First and the Conservatives, promising to block the $70 million sale of Lochinver station to a Chinese firm. On the surface, the move was a headline-grabbing populist stunt but is unlikely to translate into more votes for the Left. It will, however, motivate National’s supporters. As a senior cabinet minister confided, Cunliffe is National’s second-biggest asset. After Kim Dotcom.

They are the gifts that keep on giving.

But talking of Dotcom, another Labour MP has gone against Labour head office instructions to not criticise the Dotcom’s pet parties (as they are progressive!) and 3 News reports:

“Political leaders who incite that, namely Dotcom, and political leaders who condone that, namely Laila Harre, have no place in our politics,” says Labour Party MP Clayton Cosgrove.

Good on Clayton for speaking out.

Meanwhile the hate Key campaign continues, with a video of John Key being burnt in effigy. Again, can you imagine the outcry if there was ever a video of Helen Clark being burnt in effigy? People would have demanded a Police investigation.

The Herald reports:

Staring straight into the camera, lips pulled back into a grin – it could be regarded as a perfect “selfie”.

The series of “self-portraits” of a crested black macaque monkey were shared around the world over the internet and on social media.

But the now famous images are at the centre of a bizarre dispute over who owns the pictures.

David Slater, the British nature photographer whose camera captured the picture, has asked Wikimedia, the organisation behind Wikipedia, to remove the image.

He claims its inclusion in a media library that allows other websites to use it free of charge is harming his ability to make a living.

But Wikimedia has rejected his request, claiming the macaque that pressed the shutter on the camera owns the copyright of the image, not Mr Slater, who now faces a legal bill estimated at 10,000 ($19,900) to take the matter to court.

He said: “If the monkey took it, it owns copyright, not me; that’s their basic argument. What they don’t realise is that it needs a court to decide that.

What a fascinating case. Copyright generally rests with the person who takes the photo, unless they are being paid by someone else to take it. So who owns the copyright when a non human takes the photo?

Does the fact the photo was taken on his camera give him some secondary claim to copyright?

Would it matter if he had encouraged the monkey to take the photo? Could he argue he had creative control?

This one is from new Lynn. That is three different anti-semitic vandalism in three different electorates. I can’t imagine this is happening without co-ordination. In 2008 and 2011, I can’t recall any vandalism of this nature.

What is so offensive isn’t that they are targeting the PM, but the message being sent out to the many Jewish New Zealanders, that their race and religion is not acceptable. We’re one of the most tolerant societies on Earth, but there’s a few nasty creatures lurking around. I suspect it is the National Front, or their associates.

Race based hatred is vile.

UPDATE: And this just in from the West Coast:

I’m not sure if this one is anti-Semitic, or just Godwin’s Law. But either way, rather offensive – especially to those who lived through WWII.

Duncan Garner writes at the Dom Post:

So suddenly we’re all against selling off farms to foreigners. Well, it’s not really just foreigners, is it. Let’s be honest – we’re worried about the Chinese buying our farms. They’re not like us. There you go, I said it. Clearly many are thinking it. Cue Opposition politicians lining up to scratch our collective itch. Nationalism? Racism? Xenophobia? All of the above? The reality is we’ve been hocking off our farms to overseas buyers for years and no-one seemed too fussed. Australians, Germans, Russians, the Swiss and the Americans – no worries.

You expect it from NZ First, but not from Labour.

The debate has flared up over Lochinver Station, near Taupo. A reputable Chinese company wants to buy it for $70 million. They bought Crafar Farms and, from all reports, have improved it. They promise to upgrade Lochinver and keep the 20 Kiwi staff on. The sellers, the Stevenson family, want to take the money and reinvest it in their other business interests, such as quarries, and create about 8000 jobs over time. Surely we support that – don’t we? Labour has effectively pledged to stop the sale if it gets into government. Let’s pause and consider the hypocrisy: Labour’s position is a massive change of heart.  And Winston Peters, who was in government too from 2005-2008  must have been asleep at the wheel. Labour allowed Poronui Station to be sold in 2007 – that’s the farm next door to Lochinver Station. Labour Cabinet minister David Parker even asked a question of himself in Parliament about that sale – trumpeting the benefits of foreign investment.

They are such hypocrites.

In the last term of the Labour-NZ First government, an average of 762 square kilometres of land was sold every year. The amount sold in the past five years under National has been about 390sq km a year. The Campaign Against Foreign Control of Aotearoa estimates about 8 per cent of our best farmland is in foreign hands. Should we have banned film director James Cameron from buying his farms in the Wairarapa? He’s about to make Avatar 2, 3 and 4 in New Zealand and that will create hundreds, if not thousands, of jobs. Should he have been told to bugger off? Labour leader David Cunliffe is even suggesting that Australians be banned from owning big farms here too. He’s taking ‘‘advice’’ over it – which is code for he’s making up policy on the hoof.

What’s new. And for outright racism, here’s Winston:

“As they say in Beijing, two Wongs don’t make a right.”

Winston defends the joke on the basis he heard it Beijing. But jokes are all about context. When you make the joke in the context of spreading fear and phobia about Chinese, then it is not funny, but nasty.

Jamie Whyte points out:

David Cunliffe’s suggestion that Australians be banned from owning big farms invites retaliation from Australia. 500,000 Kiwis currently live in Australia and many own land there or would like to.

Last year, Cunliffe told Australian government ministers and business leaders to give Kiwis “a fair go.”

Cunliffe said it is unfair that New Zealanders in Australia are treated differently from Australians in Australia. Yet he seeks to be Prime Minister on a promise to treat Australians differently from New Zealanders.

The inevitable retaliation would have a delicious irony, with Russell Norman’s support for the policy losing him his right to buy land in his home country. But that joy will be far outweighed by the terrible losses to New Zealanders.

The freedom to move back and forth across the Tasman, and to buy and sell property in both countries, is a great advantage to New Zealanders. The government should guard it jealousy. It should not be put at risk for the cheap political purposes of a desperate politician.

Land sales are regulated. Anything over a certain size must meet a national interest test. You can debate whether the test should be altered, but those parties advocating an outright ban are trying to reintroduce Fortress New Zealand from the 1970s.

Untitled, Ubud, Bali

I have just stepped off the plane after spending the last couple of weeks in Bali. It was my first time there and I loved it….very friendly people, great food and wonderful photo opportunities all around….what is not to like.

This image of an intricate doorway was taken one morning in a lane-way in Ubud. I haven’t yet given it a title but you may want to suggest one….I will give a poster of your choice away to the best suggestion.

Still uploading to the site so no larger view of it this week.

Cheers

Richard [richardhume.com]

YouTube: Timeless – A Panoramic Journey

Stuff reports:

Motorists are calling for a major rethink of speed limits – including raising the top limit to 110kmh on the safest motorways.

The Automobile Association, which represents 1.3 million drivers, says a move to 110kmh should become a priority after this year’s election.

It also wants limits reduced on highways that are not equipped to handle 100kmh traffic, such as the steep and winding Rimutaka Hill Road.

AA motoring affairs general manager Mike Noon said too many “inconsistencies” had crept into New Zealand’s speed zones, which was confusing well-intentioned drivers and seeing them get caught for speeding.

The association wanted fair, consistent and predictable speed limits across the board.

If some motorways had been designed for 110kmh traffic, then the limit should reflect that, he said.

But it should apply only to flat, straight stretches of motorway with two lanes in each direction, a median barrier and good shoulder space. “It won’t be an enormous amount of roads,” Noon said.

I agree. 110 km/hr is a common speed limit overseas for well designed motorways. The speed limit should reflect the road conditions.

National road policing manager Superintendent Carey Griffiths would not be drawn on whether speed limits should go up or down, but said they needed to reflect the risk and functions of a particular road.

Agreed.

Featherston man Nick Burt, who drives the Rimutaka Hill Road about four times a week, favoured scaling back the speed limit there to 80kmh.

You’re crazy if you drive that road at 100 km/hr. I agree it should be lower, as should the road to Makara.

Stuff reports:

Labour is promising 1.7 million people – 40 per cent of the population – will be eligible for free doctors visits and prescriptions under a Labour-led government.

Leader David Cunlifffe announced the plan today at his campaign launch in Auckland saying the September 20 election was about a choice between prosperity for all or only for a few.

“After another three years heading in the direction we’re heading we just won’t know this country. Our rivers will be dirty. What’s left of our assets will be sold, and so will vast tracts of our land. We will be tenants in our own country,” Cunliffe told the 800 strong audience, in a reference to the recent controversy over farm sales to foreigners.

The major health package includes free doctors visits and prescriptions for almost 700,000 people aged over 65 at a cost of $120m.

This is a massively mis-targeted policy which is entirely about votes, not health.

The Ministry of Health done an annual health survey. One of their questions is whether someone has not gone to see a GP in the last year due to the cost. Here is the breakdown, in order, by age:

• 25 – 34: 22.3%
• 35 – 44: 17.8%
• 15 – 24: 15.8%
• 45 – 54: 13.9%
• 55 – 64: 12.1%
• 65 – 74: 6.3%
• 75+: 4.7%

So Labour’s policy is not just slightly badly targeted – it is as far away from the area of most need as possible. They are saying we must provide free GP visits to the age group that has the least problem paying. It’s is purely about middle class welfare votes, not about health.

What about free presciptions? Here’s the breakdown by age again of those who did not get a prescription filled because of cost:

• 25 – 34: 7.6%
• 45 – 54: 7.5%
• 35 – 44: 7.2%
• 15 – 24: 6.1%
• 55 – 64: 5.6%
• 65 – 74: 3.2%
• 75+: 1.9%

Also the Health Survey shows a positive trend for prescriptions, not a worsening one. The proportion of elderly not being able to afford to get their prescriptions filled dropped by a quarter to a third in the last year.

So again Labour policy is aimed at those with the least problem paying. It is a very cynical costly bribe.

Phil Kitchin at the Dom Post reports:

Forty years after he was acquitted of spying, electrifying new evidence has emerged showing that top government official Bill Sutch was a KGB recruit working under the codename “Maori”.

The Dominion Post has obtained copies of official KGB records that show Sutch was a 24-year veteran recruit of the feared Soviet spy agency when he was arrested while meeting a KGB agent at an Aro Valley park, in Wellington, in 1974.

I’m not surprised, but nice to finally have it proven.

But his daughter says the evidence does not match her father and maintains he was not involved with the Soviets.

Really?

The file with New Zealand material in it says the KGB recruited an “ex-high ranking official in state machinery” who was born in 1907, obtained a PhD and retired in 1965.

That profile is a perfect match to Sutch who was born in June 1907, held a PhD and retired as the head of the Department of Industries and Commerce in 1965.

The KGB thumbnail sketch says the agent was “recruited in 1950,” given the codename Maori and was “in contact with Drozhzhin”.

Sutch therefore appears to have been recruited in New York as he was secretary-general of New Zealand’s United Nations delegation there from 1947 to 1951.

At the time Sutch was working for  the Soviet Union, they were a totalitarian murdering regime that jailed and killed political dissidents. He was a horrible traitor.

I previously blogged:

However he was an apologist and supporter of a murdering Stalinist regime. That makes him a man of incredible flawed and warped judgement regardless of whether or not he was a spy.

The SIS files on him are worth a read. He once described himself as a “Stalinist” and opposed NZ entry into WWII (the speculation being because of the German-USSR peace treaty) until the USSR became an ally.

Even after Stalin was denounced by Krushchev, Sutch defended Stalin’s actions on the grounds of economic necessity. He also disregarded instructions from the NZ Govt and voted in UN bodies with eastern bloc countries against his own Government’s wishes. He also thought the USSR invasion of Hungary was justified. …

So as I said, he may or may not have spied for the USSR. But he was a dedicated supporter of it and apologist for it. In my eyes that is like the difference between having worked for the Nazis, or defending what the Nazis did – neither are testaments of good character.

A very flawed man.

One News reports:

Six weeks out from the election and the National Party is leading the way in the Epsom electorate, a poll has revealed today.

A Colmar Brunton poll carried out by TVNZ’s Q + A programme sees National sitting with a comfortable lead in the Epsom electorate, with 60% of those polled in the electorate saying they would vote for National in the election.

The Green Party, in second place, trailed far behind with only 16% of Epsom voters saying they would give their party vote to the Greens.

Labour were 3rd on 14%.

This makes you wonder how many other seats or areas now have Labour in 3rd place for the party vote? The Greens will be very happy, and Labour should be quite worried.

When polled on who they would vote for with their electorate vote, 44% of Epsom voters said they would vote for National MP Paul Goldsmith while 32% said they would vote for Act Party candidate David Seymour.

When asked if they were aware that Prime Minister John Key is encouraging National Party supporters to give their electorate vote to the Act Party candidate, 70% said they were.

When asked if this would change who they would give their electorate vote to, 45% said they would vote for Act’s David Seymour, while 31% said they would still vote for National’s Paul Goldsmith.

That looks pretty comfortable for David Seymour. ACT have never actually led in a public pre-election poll in Epsom despite winning in 2005, 2008 and 2011.  So for them to be ahead six weeks out is a pretty strong signal that they will win the seat.

This means that a vote for ACT will not be a wasted vote. Last time they got 1.1%. If they get 0.1% more and get 1.2% then they get a second MP.

I find this very disturbing. Now that people deface John Key’s billboards. But this is the second one that has painted anti Jewish signs on one of his billboards, and in this case a swastika.

Hatred based on someone’s race is very very ugly.

Key is not Jewish, in the religious sense. Yes he has Jewish bloodline through his mother, but he is not religious.

It is disturbing that we have people in our community who hate Jews so much, they feel the need to do vandalism like this.

I hope those responsible get caught the next time they do.

A reader sent the above in. The National Front could well be behind the other graffiti. I can’t imagine too many people think swastikas are cool.

Stuff reports:

Support for Scottish independence has fallen following a TV debate this week and the campaign to split the United Kingdom will need a dramatic turnaround if it is to win a forthcoming referendum, the latest poll shows. 

The Survation poll for the Scottish Daily Mail newspaper said 50 per cent of respondents planned to vote against independence in a ballot due on September 18 that will decide whether Scotland breaks its 307-year union with England.

It was the highest level of support for remaining part of the United Kingdom in all Survation polls since February.

By contrast, just 37 percent said they planned to vote for a split while 13 per cent said they were undecided. Excluding undecided voters, support for independence stood at 43 per cent against 57 per cent in favour of the union.

It’s a pity in a way. I think England might do better without Scotland dragging it down. Don’t get me wrong – Scotland is a great country, but they chew up more than their share of UK expenditure.

Stuff reports:

Business New Zealand’s push for an extension to the 90-day hiring trial lacks support from either National or Labour.

Business NZ chief executive Phil O’Reilly said he had spoken to both parties about extending the trial period from 90 days to six months or a year, which is in line with many other OECD countries (see graphic). But he said neither party had shown an appetite for introducing such a move prior to the election, if at all, and it would be something the business lobby group would raise again post-election, along with other issues outlined in its policy manifesto released last week.

I don’t see a need to extend it. I think a crap employee is fairly easy to detect in the first 90 days. You can’t always work out if they are incompetent just on the basis of an interview or CV, but a few weeks into an actual job normally exposes if they are not up to it. Trial periods are a balance between an employee needing job security and an employer needing to see if someone is actually up to the job. I think 90 days is a right balance.

Rodney Hide writes in the HoS:

Politicians seldom get to anoint a successor. That was especially so for me. Readers may recall I left with a bit of a hiss and a roar at a time I least expected it.

But if I were to appoint a successor it would be David Seymour. As it happens, the Act Party has chosen Seymour as their candidate for Epsom. I met Seymour more than 10 years ago. He impressed me by having built his own car as a high school student. He built a Lotus 7 replica, beginning with a piece of steel and a book. It still runs and is registered. It’s fast.

Now that’s cool.

We often say young people have no discipline or dedication. But how many of us have built a car from scratch? We say, too, that young people only look out for themselves. But Seymour was also a Lifeline volunteer and coached rugby. He seemed a little too good to be true.

And in a way he was. He was a nuisance. He was always pestering me with questions about economics, political theory and philosophy. I wanted him delivering pamphlets but had to humour him by answering him as best I could.

I gave him a reading list. He read the lot then pestered me with questions about them.

Seymour has an engineering degree, has worked as a policy wonk in North America, and has returned to New Zealand to rescue Act and ensure John Key gets a third term.

He has a lot on his shoulders. Act has had to win Epsom these past two elections to ensure Key is prime minister. That’s the nature of MMP. Epsom matters to our future.

Seymour is 31. That’s a plus. We need young people in Parliament. They have an immediate contribution to make and we need them to learn the ropes to become tomorrow’s leaders. His job is to convince Epsom voters to vote for him to be their MP. It’s a tough job. I know. I also know the toughness of earning that vote makes for a good MP. The tremendous effort required makes you appreciate the privilege. And you know you must work hard to keep it. Every constituent counts.

And Seymour has been doing it the old fashioned way – trying to knock on every door in the electorate.

Stuff reports:

Colin Craig has successfully muscled his way into TV3’s minor parties leaders’ debate tomorrow morning after taking his case to the High Court.

TV3 executives decided outside the High Court to include the Conservative party leader after he successfully applied for an injunction preventing the debate from airing without him.

TV3 Director of News Mark Jennings said it was either include Craig or cancel the debate and it was not fair to prevent the other parties from being heard. 

Lawyers for Craig applied for an injunction in the High Court at Auckland this afternoon to prevent TV3 owners MediaWorks from airing a debate on its programme The Nation without the Conservative Party leader.

Party leaders from United Future, ACT, the Greens, the Maori Party, New Zealand First and Mana, were due to face off in the debate at 9.30am tomorrow morning.

Justice Murray Gilbert ruled that Craig had an arguable case that TV3’s selection criteria – gaining a seat at the previous election – was insufficient.

I agree that a backwards criteria is insufficient. it locks out parties that have done well since the last election. I’m not saying that means the Conservatives should have been included – just that TV3’s criteria was lacking.

I didn’t watch the debate. What did people make of it? Who was best and worst?

An unidentified columnist at Stuff writes:

Has Labour miscalculated?

Its campaign launch tomorrow will have all the glamour of any event held at Auckland’s waterfront on the viaduct. That decision was no doubt deliberate.

If ever there was an occasion when Labour needed to put on its game face it’s the campaign launch, when it needs to convince the punters it is still in the game.

A party atmosphere can hardly hurt.

But National has stolen a march on Labour by launching its own campaign in two weeks from Manukau in the heart of South Auckland, traditional Labour territory.

Given that this is where Labour has placed much of its focus on turning out several hundred thousand voters who went awol in 2011, the challenge thrown down by National is clear.

Don’t just assume those voters will all go your way, is the inference that can be drawn from National’s deliberate march into Labour’s heartland.

It is a very ballsy move by National.

Since his earliest days as prime minister, Key has harboured a dream of extending National’s support into heartland Labour areas like South Auckland, particularly among the more conservative Pacific Island communities turned off Helen Clark’s government by its anti-smacking stance.

That is part of National’s wider strategy of being a party with appeal to a broad spectrum of voters by reaching out to non-traditional constituencies.

The May budget, with its extension to paid parental leave and free doctors’ visits showed National is not squeamish about cribbing policy from opponents to further this goal.

Labour has been slow to wake up to National’s game plan.

Even Key’s comments about targeting future tax cuts at low to middle income earners show the extent to which National remains focused on the strategy.

I want tax cuts, and I am very happy if they are targeted at low to middle income earners. a reduction in the bottom tax rate means all taxpayers get a tax cut.

For years, Labour successfully papered over the divisions between its left and right factions, thanks largely to the iron-clad control of Helen Clark.

But the last few years have seen it re-erupt to the extent that both sides seem hell-bent on giving the impression they might even relish the prospect of a loss on September 20 so they can blame the other for engineering it.

The party’s left faction are already talking up a caucus purge and de-selection after the election.

Excellent. Purges are always a great idea.

This is also a fight over whether David Cunliffe should stay on and lead the party in the event of defeat.

Those who believe he must stay are ranged against those in the caucus who they see as wanting to use defeat as an opportunity to roll Cunliffe.

Cunliffe’s office doesn’t even bother to hide the divisions between the caucus and the wider grassroots. One senior adviser called recently to take issue with a statement that the grassroots had grown increasingly distant from the party. Their complaint was not that it was untrue, but that it was the other way round – the caucus had grown distant from the grassroots.

Think about that statement. A senior staff member in the Labour Leader’s office called a journalist, to slag off the caucus. And if they win, these guys will be running the country.

Stuff reports:

US warplanes have bombed Islamist fighters marching on Iraq’s Kurdish capital after President Barack Obama said Washington must act to prevent ”genocide”.

Islamic State fighters, who have beheaded and crucified captives in their drive to eradicate unbelievers, have advanced to within a half hour’s drive of Arbil, capital of Iraq’s Kurdish region and a hub for US oil companies.

They have also seized control of Iraq’s biggest dam, Kurdish authorities confirmed on Friday, which could allow them to flood cities and cut off vital water and electricity supplies.

A Pentagon spokesman said two F/A-18 aircraft from an aircraft carrier in the Gulf had dropped laser-guided 500-pound bombs on a mobile artillery piece used by the fighters to shell Kurdish forces defending Arbil.

Obama authorised the first US air strikes on Iraq since he pulled all troops out in 2011, arguing action was needed to halt the Islamist advance, protect Americans and safeguard hundreds of thousands of Christians and members of other religious minorities who have fled for their lives.

The lesson here is that it is easier to invade a country, than leave it. The US action in this regard is necessary to stop the slaughter.

In Baghdad, where politicians have been paralysed by infighting while the state falls apart, the top Shi’ite cleric all but demanded Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki quit, a bold intervention that could bring the veteran ruler down.

Which is necessary. Maliki is primary responsible for the rise of ISIS.

Hamish Walker, door knocking in Dunedin South. That’s dedication!

Dr Gilbert originally blogged:

The Minister says there are 4,000 known gang members in New Zealand. She says that so far this year they are responsible* for 34 percent of class A & B drug offences; 36 percent of kidnapping and adduction offences; 25 percent of aggravated robbery/robbery offences; 26 percent of grievous assault offences; and consequently 28 percent of the prison population is gang members. Sounds bad, right? If we believe what we are told, gang members make up just 0.1 percent of the population yet they are responsible for between a quarter and more than a third of these serious crimes. Bloody hell.

Unfortunately, I suspect it’s bollocks. More than that I’ll bet on it.

I had a look at the crime stats and said that the figures seem very credible:

Aggravated Robberies and Robberies

There were 2,032 robberies (both types) last year. 25% would be 508. That seems a credible number for 1,620 to 4,000 gang members to do.

Kidnappings and Abductions

There were 198 kidnappings and abductions last year. 36% would be 71. That seems a credible number for 1,620 to 4,000 gang members to do.

Grievous Assaults

If you add up the 17 assault categories that mention GBH, there were 500 offences last year.  26% would be 130. That seems a credible number for 1,620 to 4,000 gang members to do.

Class A and B drug offences

There were 16,070 illicit drug offences in 2013. They are broken up into specific drugs and it would take a long time to do an exact count. But a previous Stats report is that less than 10% are Class A and B. So a fair assumption is 1,607 Class A and B drug offences last year. 34% would be 546. That seems a credible number for 1,620 to 4,000 gang members to do.

I also got sent the data provided by the Police, which was for Q1 2014:

• Class A/B drug offences total 218 out of 649
• Kidnapping and abduction 16 out of 44
• Aggravated robbery/robbery 72 out of 284
• Grievous assault 130 out of 506

Now sadly Dr Gilbert won’t accept he was wrong, but is now trying to argue that there is a difference between gang associates and gang members. So he is not at all disputing that gangs are responsible for 25% to 36% of kidnappings, robberies, grievous assaults and serious drug offences. He is now just saying that the crime figures may include associates, not just gang menbers:

I spend a lot of time working in prisons and I spend a lot of time with gangs. The prisons are not so full of gang members and not a single gang I know has anywhere remotely close to half of its members inside. 

Is Dr Gilbert Saying the Corrections Department is lying when it says 28% of the prison population are gang members? They supplied the data, and I see no reason why they would make it up.

What the 28 percent prison number represents is gang members as well as gang associates in prison.

So it is a technical argument over definitions. I don’t care what you call them.

A few years back The Police Association said gangs and associates numbered 60,000. 

The Police Association are not an official source. The Police are. They say there are 4,000 gang members. I don’t know if they includes associates in that. I presume Police and Corrections are using the same definition.

So I’m glad Dr Gilbert is not disputing that gangs are responsible for 25% to 36% of those four serious crime categories. He is disputing whether they are all done by members, or associates. I doubt that matters to the victims of the grievous assaults, robberies and kidnappings.

The Herald reports:

Simon Moutter today hoists a new flag up Telecom’s mast, marking its tack away from two decades as New Zealand’s safe and stodgy telecommunications provider.

For the managing director, it’s a signal of the company’s new direction, towards a bright digital horizon of revenue growth and new services such as internet television.

Moutter’s flag, bearing the new company name Spark, aims to jettison Telecom’s past persona and chart a course to it becoming a competitive provider of communications, entertainment, and cloud computing services.

I”m loving the new Telecom. They have become a competitive retailer, instead of a regulatory gamer.

Spark were the first company to bring in flat rate data roaming, and also the first big player to bring in uncapped fibre plans. They now try to be a market leader, rather than stop the market evolving.