Andrew Dickens Afternoons

The Mongrel Mob has been making headlines lately. And some of those headlines have been what I think most would say “strangely out of normal”.
First, they offered to guard mosques after the Christchurch terror attack. It was a strange act of charity in that it was offering a threat of violence to protect vulnerable people. But that said, some people gave them credit for joining the unity movement that New Zealand used to react to the outrage. For an organisation that is usually outside social mores, it was, to some a pleasant surprise.
Then the world's biggest Mongrel Mob organisation, the Mongrel Mob Kingdom, told us that they were doing away with their Seig Heil greeting. A greeting that was sourced from Nazi Germany. A greeting that was always slightly ironic after all it was the ultimate white supremacists who coined it in their pursuit of Aryan purity. The mob started using the greeting 50 years ago not because they shared the Nazi’s goal of racial purification by because it posited them outside society. It was basically a big finger up to the post-war generation of New Zealanders who were shocked at the sound of it.
Then this morning I woke up to an opinion piece by Jarrod Gilbert, the University of Canterbury sociologist who has made a name for himself studying and writing about the gangs.
It’s headlined 'Boss taking Mongrel our od his mob', and it talks about the Mongrel Mob Kingdoms president, Paito Fatu, better known as Sonny.
Sonny’s kingdom is 400 strong and based in the Waikato. Sonny and his sidekicks, Griff and Sarge have started preaching a lot of homely values to their mob. They’ve been throwing around words like compassion and family and the importance of looking after children. Sonny Fatu says the stance is part of a transition to a new cause, away from violent crime, domestic violence and drug abuse, and focusing on empowering whānau, women and children.
Now the thing about Sonny and other leaders of the Mob these days is that they’re old men. Old battle-scarred men who are also very bright. You don’t survive that long or rise to the top without some smarts. So they’ve learnt some harsh lessons and they’re passing the lessons on to the young crowd. A young crowd who have grown up since the day they were born with the gang. But it was one of those young ones who told a reporter that dropping Seig Heil was weird because it was just their version of gidday. He also had no idea about Nazi Germany.
So Jarrod Gilbert’s opinion piece ponders whether we’re seeing a changing point for gangs because of older wiser heads. He says if the gang is still up to their old tricks we can still police them but even in a worst-case scenario and they are dealing drugs there would be a positive if they’re not engaging in violence at home.
He hopes we’re at a crossroad.
I’m not so confident in fact, I’m actually more worried by the gang after this PR blitz. It is the fastest growing chapter in New Zealand, with more than 400 members locally. And it’s going global with 200 members around the world, including Canada, Russia, France and the Solomon Islands.
To me, this seems like the gentrification of a crime organisation. Like the mafioso who start wearing nice suits. At least in the old days, they spent more time beating each other up than ripping society apart. I’m sorry to be negative but leopards never change their spots. Nor do Bulldogs

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

A campaign's been launched against changing the school system. 
The Government last year launched a discussion around their Tomorrow's Schools plan, which proposes replacing community leadership such as school boards with regional 'hubs'. 
Today, 43 of the country's nearly 2500 schools announced that they have formed the Community Schools Alliance. 
Auckland Grammar Principal Tim O'Connor, who is one member of the Alliance, told Mike Hosking a new model won't work for every school.
Andrew Dickens agrees. He thinks that the schools that are in trouble could go for this collective model, but 95% of the schools seem to be doing fine. 
"The schools that are not should not be forced into this system of one size fits all." 
Talkback callers were in agreement about the flaws in the system.
One of the proposals would see principals hired on five year terms. Richard, who sits on a Catholic school board in Wellington, says that it's already difficult enough trying to find a Catholic principal at the moment as it is. 
"I'm not sure how hard it's going to be, if this does come to fruition, without talking to the Archdiocese." 
He says that there can be high, professional expectations placed on boards despite it being a volunteer position. Richard feels that they are already getting a collective level of knowledge. 
Another proposal would see teachers moved around between schools to spread their skills around. Another caller, Daryl, says that doesn't make any sense under current teaching standards, which views all teachers as equal.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Isn’t it great when you hear grown-ups talking about the issues of the day and making sense? It’s something you don’t hear too often in our media, which is full of simplified slogan shouting in 10-second soundbites.
So this is what I was thinking about listening to the Auckland Grammar school headmaster, Tim O’Connor, talking on Newstalk ZB this morning. He is part of a group called the Community Schools Alliance made up of principals from 42 schools around the country.
The group is opposing proposals made by the Tomorrow's Schools Review taskforce, which has recommended a system of hubs to oversee groups of schools and take over many of the responsibilities of school trustees.
This centralisation of school management has been described as ideologically driven by the current government and therefore a bad idea.
What I liked about Tim O’Connor is that he didn’t get into Government or Working Group bashing at all, despite being pushed to do so. While he admitted the hub plan was ideologically driven, he didn’t dismiss it completely saying all he wanted was flexibility and choice.
As Tim points out, there are 2500 schools in our country. Most are very well run by their community and they want to stay that way. A lot of our schools these days are very big operations indeed, with student numbers in some cases exceeding 3000. Add all the grounds, the staff and the contingencies and they’re complex beasts that are best run with the eyes close to the game and not some distant bureaucracy with multiple other operations in play.
But particularly in the primary sector, there are many schools with rolls as low as 100. With a limited community pool of governance skills and funds, a lot of them are crying out for a bit of help. And there’s also a number of schools that for one reason or another have lost the plot. These are schools that would benefit from the centralising hub model.
He wants schools to have the choice and I agree with him. The schools that are experiencing governance trouble are the minority in this country, so why change what ain’t broke for the majority. As Tim points out one size fits all is the wrong model.
So well done Tim O’Connor for looking at the idea on its merits and advocating flexibility. Maybe flexibility is his New Years resolution because nearly two weeks ago Grammar quietly abandoned its long-standing ban on afros after a criticism that it was institutional racism. Which it was, a kid can’t help his hair.
But Bali Haque, the architect of the centralised hub model, seems the inflexible one. He’s travelling the country consulting with schools on the proposed changes but according to the Community Schools Alliance, when confronted by people who think the idea isn’t that great he becomes quite defensive and confrontational himself.
I would have thought the Working Group’s brief is to consult not to confront and to give principals what they need rather than what his political masters want.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

New data showing that more than 43,000 Aucklanders are directly threatened by rising seas has prompted warnings that home insurers may be forced in future to hike prices - or withdraw coverage altogether.
An Auckland Council report gauged the region's exposure to varying scenarios of climate change-driven sea level rise – notably the 25cm projected for 2045, 50cm by 2060, 1m by 2100, 2m by 2160 and up to 3m beyond next century.
Already, between 1.5 per cent and 4.5 per cent of the city's land area now sat in low-lying coastal areas that could be vulnerable.
And the report found how, over the past decade, the population boomed in those areas vulnerable to sea level rise more than in the region overall, now leaving about three per cent of Aucklanders exposed.
That equated to about 43,000 people - up from 34,700 people in 2001.
By the end of the century, the report warned, up to 2.5 per cent of the Auckland region might be affected, with a further 3.7 per cent at risk being swamped by inundation from storm surge, high tides and large waves.
It wasn't just peoples' homes in the firing line: up to six per cent of council-owned greenspaces were threatened - including 55 cemeteries – as were three per cent of buildings and dozens of public facilities.
One Civil Defence building was exposed to two metres of sea level rise, while another building at Middlemore Hospital sat within the three-metre band.
While less than two per cent of Auckland's CBD was at risk of what is projected for this century, the affected area jumped to 30 per cent with the 2m predicted for next century.
On top of that, about one per cent of roads in the region were threatened by a sea level one metre higher – and some areas of Auckland International Airport were affected under every scenario, as was one wastewater treatment plant and pipes and manholes across the city.

This graphic shows localised sea level rise projections over different time scales. Source / Auckland Council
The picture was also dire for rural coastal areas – and there was a risk that five per cent of the region's most fertile land could be at risk as early as the middle of the century.
There were further obvious threats to many coastal ecosystems, and mangroves, which have ironically long offered protection against the sea, were singled out as the worst affected.
It was a taste of what faced the rest of New Zealand, and which the insurance industry was acutely aware of.
As house insurance was typically offered out 12 months ahead, the effects of climate change, 20 years down the track, weren't being signalled today, Insurance Council chief executive Tim Grafton said.
"What we can say is that if we ignore sea-level rise and permit more and more property to be at risk from climate change, then there will inevitably be a day when losses due to sea-level rise, storm surges and flooding become more and more frequent," he said.
"If we continue to do nothing, then insurers will respond by deciding whether they want to accept those risks and if they do, they will price to reflect the higher risk or increase the levels of excess or the initial amount an insured will have to pay when losses occur."
Grafton said the sector was a strong advocate for society taking a long view of climate change risks and applying a risk framework, much like insurers long had.
"That means we need to assess the risk to people and their property, calculate the probable losses, make decisions about what level of risk we are prepared to tolerate," he said.
"We then need to assess what risks we will retain, what risks we can viably reduce and what risks we want to transfer to others, like insurers. By doing this, we can assess the full impact of climate change."
Auckland Council's chief sustainability officer, John Mauro, said planning and consideration of sea level rise in Auckland had been happening for some time, from...

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

So here we are, seven days down and just minutes away from a nationwide moment of remembrance.
As I reflect on the week that has been, I’m not going to dwell on the pain and the sorrow and the shock that this could happen here. I am going to congratulate the nation on the love, solidarity and tolerance that has been shown.
I got an interesting text about tolerance the other day. The writer said that tolerance can drive you mad. Tolerance can’t continue forever. Eventually, you have to come to a point where you either accept or reject whatever you’ve been tolerating.
We’ve shown tolerance this week and I think it will result in more people coming to acceptance of the victims' way of life than before. But let’s not kid ourselves that there won’t continue to be people who reject.
Shortly you will hear a Muslim call to prayer on this radio station and around the country. I had a number of emails this morning urging me not to play the call. Brian Tamaki was prepared to stick his head up and urge the call to prayer not to be heard because he says the prayer contains the concept that Allah is the one God and he obviously doesn’t believe that.
I understand his concern but then again the Muslim community are tolerating the slaying of 50 of their people, I’m sure you can handle one prayer. One prayer, that has never happened before and all our gods willing will never happen again.
I think some people might want to walk a mile in a Kiwi Muslim’s sandals. For instance, there’s some new research on how we portray Islam in our media. In 2017, 14,349 stories involving Islam were run across NZ. Almost 13,000 of them included references to terrorism or Islamic jihad.
Imagine that. If you’re a Kiwi Muslim 92 per cent of the time when you see your culture reflected in the country you live in it’s as a bunch of bad buggers. Which they palpably aren’t. Really such tolerance.
Today many women are wearing headscarves as a show of solidarity as well. I had a lot of correspondence over the week from people who were perturbed at the Prime Minister donning a headscarf. I’ve already told you about the one woman I know who wears a hijab. She scoffs at women who say she’s only wearing it because she’s repressed. She calls that attitude womansplaining. She says it’s part of her culture and it’s just practical. By the way, she lives in Wellington and she never has a windy Wellington bad hair day. She also says that in case you haven’t noticed our men cover their head most of the time too.
I reminded of how head covering is in our culture. Schools with hats as uniform. Ironically Diocesan School for Girls in Auckland has a straw hat and navy cap as part of their uniform yet you can’t wear a hijab. But then again, let's remember that the school is part of the Anglican Diocese of Auckland so why would a hijab wearer want to attend that school anyway.
I was reminded by our News Director today that it was not so long ago that any woman who wanted to enter a New Zealand Court could only do so wearing a hat and, of course, any Catholic woman meeting the pope has to cover the hair.
Yet ask any Muslim and they’ll tell you that non-Muslims stare at their headdress as though there’s a spitting snake on their head. Maybe after today’s solidarity, some will become more accepting
Because that’s the thing. At the end of this week. This moving, heartbreaking week. There is no doubt that in ways big and small we have changed.

So here we are, seven days down and just minutes away from a nationwide moment of remembrance.
As I reflect on the week that has been, I’m not going to dwell on the pain and the sorrow and the shock that this could happen here. I am going to congratulate the nation on the love, solidarity and tolerance that has been shown.
I got an interesting text about tolerance the other day. The writer said that tolerance can drive you mad. Tolerance can’t continue forever. Eventually, you have to come to a point where you either accept or reject whatever you’ve been tolerating.
We’ve shown tolerance this week and I think it will result in more people coming to acceptance of the victims' way of life than before. But let’s not kid ourselves that there won’t continue to be people who reject.
Shortly you will hear a Muslim call to prayer on this radio station and around the country. I had a number of emails this morning urging me not to play the call. Brian Tamaki was prepared to stick his head up and urge the call to prayer not to be heard because he says the prayer contains the concept that Allah is the one God and he obviously doesn’t believe that.
I understand his concern but then again the Muslim community are tolerating the slaying of 50 of their people, I’m sure you can handle one prayer. One prayer, that has never happened before and all our gods willing will never happen again.
I think some people might want to walk a mile in a Kiwi Muslim’s sandals. For instance, there’s some new research on how we portray Islam in our media. In 2017, 14,349 stories involving Islam were run across NZ. Almost 13,000 of them included references to terrorism or Islamic jihad.
Imagine that. If you’re a Kiwi Muslim 92 per cent of the time when you see your culture reflected in the country you live in it’s as a bunch of bad buggers. Which they palpably aren’t. Really such tolerance.
Today many women are wearing headscarves as a show of solidarity as well. I had a lot of correspondence over the week from people who were perturbed at the Prime Minister donning a headscarf. I’ve already told you about the one woman I know who wears a hijab. She scoffs at women who say she’s only wearing it because she’s repressed. She calls that attitude womansplaining. She says it’s part of her culture and it’s just practical. By the way, she lives in Wellington and she never has a windy Wellington bad hair day. She also says that in case you haven’t noticed our men cover their head most of the time too.
I reminded of how head covering is in our culture. Schools with hats as uniform. Ironically Diocesan School for Girls in Auckland has a straw hat and navy cap as part of their uniform yet you can’t wear a hijab. But then again, let's remember that the school is part of the Anglican Diocese of Auckland so why would a hijab wearer want to attend that school anyway.
I was reminded by our News Director today that it was not so long ago that any woman who wanted to enter a New Zealand Court could only do so wearing a hat and, of course, any Catholic woman meeting the pope has to cover the hair.
Yet ask any Muslim and they’ll tell you that non-Muslims stare at their headdress as though there’s a spitting snake on their head. Maybe after today’s solidarity, some will become more accepting
Because that’s the thing. At the end of this week. This moving, heartbreaking week. There is no doubt that in ways big and small we have changed.

A Whangārei man says Air New Zealand is being hypocritical after turning him down for a role because of his tā moko while covering their uniforms and planes with koru designs.
Sydney Heremaia, 36, had applied for a customer service agent role last month with the national carrier at Whangārei Airport.
While applying online he disclosed that he had a tā moko on his left shoulder, and tatau, a Samoan form of skin art, on his right forearm. Both were not visible while wearing a corporate shirt.
Heremaia said he was then asked to provide photos and to explain the cultural significance of them, which he did.
An Air New Zealand representative then sent him an email, viewed by the Herald, that said he was being turned down for the job because "the body art you have declared does not comply with our Uniform Standards for roles wearing the Koru Uniform".
It was suggested he could apply for other roles that did not require the Koru uniform, but did not say if the tā moko and tatau would be an issue.
Heremaia told the Herald they were not "body art" and reflected his culture and heritage.
"I have had the tā moko for 15 years, since my papa died. It reflects my iwi Ngāti Whātua, and my whānau. My tatau reflects my Pacific heritage."
Heremaia said the whole process had made him feel "s*** for being Māori".


Sydney (Hirini) Heremaia says he has been turned down for a job with Air NZ because of his Ta Moko. Photo / Michael Cunningham

"I don't know if they have made a mistake, but I felt like s*** when they called it body art. I have had it since my papa died 15 years ago, he handed it to me. Whenever someone says, 'Cool tattoo bro', I explain it is tā moko. So to have Air New Zealand call it body art made me feel s*** for being Māori."
Heremaia said the difference between tā moko and a tattoo was like comparing a hijab and a head scarf. One was integral to his culture and his identity, while the other was more of an accessory.
"It is not like a rose or a skull head."
He had worked the past five years with the Ministry of Social Development.
He left that job to start a bachelor's degree in social work at NorthTec, and was applying for the Air New Zealand role for some part-time work.
"I have never been asked about my tā moko before, it has never been an issue."
Heremaia said it was hypocritical for Air New Zealand to not allow tā moko on staff when they used koru designs on their uniforms and planes.
"If they can put it on those things why can't we have it on our skin? It is almost like they are saying we embrace and celebrate te ao Māori, but only when it suits us.
"But for me te ao Māori is everywhere, I can't choose when and where I practise it."
An Air NZ spokeswoman said the airline's uniform standard was well known. Uniformed customer facing staff are not permitted to have tattoos visible when wearing the uniform. The policy was clearly stated on the company's careers website, which advised applicants to declare their tattoos and the matter would be discussed.
The spokeswoman also said privacy requirements meant the company could not comment specifically on an individual's employment application.
A Human Rights Commission spokeswoman said a person of Māori descent could not be denied employment, entry to premises, or declined service because they wore moko visibly.
"Traditional Māori moko is an expression and celebration of Māori culture and identity.
"The Human Rights Act makes it unlawful to discriminate based on race or ethnicity.
"Some forms of tattoo are so closely associated with a particular ethnic or racial group that the marking is enough to identify a person as belonging to that group.
"Where there is a close or recognised link, like a facial moko, tā moko or tatau, then it can be discriminatory to deny the wearer the opportunity for employment.
The commission's advice to...

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

All military-style semi-automatic rifles are being banned.
The ban will also cover all assault rifles, high capacity magazine and parts that can convert a semi-automatic weapon to a military-style semi-automatic firearm.
The Prime Minister says, in short, every semi-automatic weapon used in the terrorist attack on Friday will be banned in this country.
And Jacinda Ardern says it will happen immediately, with her Government implementing a measure to stop the weapons being sold until the new laws can be implemented.
Newstalk ZB political editor Barry Soper told Andrew Dickens he thought the decision from the government was the right one and will have strong public support.
"This is a tougher stance than many people expected but I totally agree they should be outlawed. It's not just because of the horrible events last Friday. For the last 25 years, they have grappled about doing something with these weapons."
National says it will support the changes announced by the Prime Minister.
Leader Simon Bridges says the public doesn’t need access to military-style semi-automatic weapons.
He says National supports them being banned along with assault rifles - and says his party will work constructively with the government to get the changes through.
The law to be in place within three weeks.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

It’s been a long week. One of the longest I’ve ever experienced in talkback because of the roller coaster ride of our feelings that have triggered by the events of less than a week ago.
In each three hour session, the basic topic has been the same, the Christchurch Mosque Massacre. But under that broad headline has been a myriad of big topics. It’s been rugged.
The last half hour of yesterday’s show is a case in point.
Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern had given her daily press conference announcing two minutes of silence to be held on Friday, and then took questions from the media which has now be swollen by foreign correspondents. A British voice asked her to criticise Donald Trump. She refused, saying it was about New Zealand and the victims and Christchurch.
Then she was asked to answer back to the words of President Erdoğan of Turkey. Again she demurred, saying her focus was Christchurch. It was a moment when a wee bit of the shine went off our glittering PM. All of a sudden the talkback turned and we had calls calling her weak. Which I totally understood.
What President Erdoğan said about New Zealanders and Australians was beyond the pale. To show the killer's video at an election campaign meeting is disgusting. To tell his people that Anzacs were coming and if they wanted to do what a lone nutter did in Christchurch, then they will be sent home in caskets just like their grandfathers is unbelievably provocative. To do this a month before Anzac Day was worse than foolhardy. It was reckless, dangerous and frankly unhinged.
What upsets me most is that what President Erdoğan said can’t be unsaid. There are 80 million people in Turkey, 98 per cent of them are Muslim. Let's just say one per cent of them are crazy and deranged then that’s 800,000 people who have just been given an idea for revenge.
Erdoğan’s reply has been an opinion piece published in The Washington Post saying nice things about us. That’s not good enough. I bet he didn’t even write it. Winston Peters reply was that it wasn’t a New Zealander that committed the atrocity but an Australian. Scott Morrison must have been thinking, "gee thanks, mate". Winston is visiting Turkey and is going to give someone a stern talking to. I doubt he’ll get anywhere near Erdoğan
I would have liked Jacinda Ardern to have said to President Erdoğan that he needs to apologise out of his own mouth, and talk to his people and ensure that they are calm because if anything happens next month then it will be all his responsibility.
I would have liked her to say what a Turk said on twitter, that The President of the Republic of Turkey, by replying to the deranged words of a racist murderer, actually enhanced his so-called manifesto and elevated him. But she didn’t.
Then the talkback turned again and our final caller of the day wanted to get stuck into all Islam. So I hung up. It was the wrong time. And this is why this week is so exhausting
Because at that very moment, a person was being buried at the Memorial Cemetery. The third of 50. The scenes I’ve seen of yesterday were extraordinary. Crowds of Muslims, swirling dust, bodies swaddled in cloth, carried on shoulders. Survivors in wheelchairs.
Shame on Erdoğan. Shame on that last caller. The Prime Minister may have been weak but she was also right. It’s not even a week. They’re not even buried. It’s still about Christchurch. It's still about the survivors. It's still about the 50 and their families.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

So yesterday the Prime Minister stole my line. But she said it better.
"He sought many things from his act of terror, but one was notoriety. And that is why you will never hear me mention his name.
He is a terrorist. He is a criminal. He is an extremist. But he will, when I speak, be nameless.
And to others, I implore you. Speak the names of those who were lost, rather than the name of the man who took them."
I’ve been saying that sort of thing since Friday when we learnt he planned to plead not guilty and I just knew he was going to take the chance to preach from the witness box to inspire others and to build a cult of personality around his name. 
But since then a number of people have been criticising the stance the Prime Minister and I have taken. As they say, justice needs to be seen to be done not just done, even though it will be brutal for the victims and carry its risks of perpetuating the violence. He needs to be named and he needs to present his defence and it has to be in public. Therefore in the media.
Now I’d like to thank the people who have messaged and emailed me this argument. The PM obviously didn’t know that concept. And I obviously didn’t know that either, 32 years after I went to journalism school and 32 years since I was first a court reporter at the Auckland District Court. In the old building. Which is now a hotel. Which smelt of the worst bodily secretions.
The PM and I just must be stupid.
Well, of course, we’re not but we do understand the importance of words and names. On a journalist chat group, I’m a part of the same arguments have bounced back and forth until finally, I saw a great post. An old friend of mine who edits in television media in South East Asia has been using his name in every story because after he was named in open court the media had a duty to report it.
But on reflection, she’s realised it’s not at all necessary and she avoids the name on every occasion. I take this as a little victory. It’s not hard. Everyone should try it.  
This is all presaging the trial of the perpetrator himself when the media will be agonising as to whether we should bring the horror back to the nation every day and straight into their living room. It’s going to be an interesting debate because as much as all of us will say this is horrific and we don't need to see it or him on the telly, there’s more than enough evidence it would rate it’s socks off. And that's catnip to media who are just trying to give people what they want.
And here’s a peculiar irony. Will Facebook want to live-stream it? Imagine that.
It will be a test to see whether we actually mean what we say.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.