Andrew Dickens Afternoons

I was intrigued this morning to read an opinion piece on Tomorrow’s Schools written by Bali Haque.
Now Bali Haque is an educational consultant. He has been a principal, deputy principal, head of the department, teacher and deputy chief executive of NZQA. He’s a guy who back in February, said the teachers call for a 14.5 per cent pay rise was not just reasonable but not enough. He wrote in his opinion piece on teachers pay that a teacher is worth as much as a backbencher MP and using that logic a teacher should be paid $164,000 a year.
Now what was so intriguing about Bali Haque’s editorial this morning, was that it said that the Tomorrow’s School model belongs in the past and that’s interesting because Bali Haque is the chairman of the Independent Taskforce charged with reviewing the Tomorrow School’s system but it appears before the end of that review he’s already wanting to take the system apart. Maybe I’m just being naïve but it doesn’t sound like the reviewer of the system is going into the review with an open mind.
I also wondered whether it was appropriate for him to be writing such thoughts while he’s deep in the process.
But the piece was interesting as it went through the history of the model. It sprung out of the Picot report into education by Brian Picot who was a supermarket director and business leader, who believed in market forces and competition and wanted some of those principles introduced into schools
So under David Lange, Tomorrow’s Schools was launched in the 90s and it is the most devolved education system in the world. At its essence, it devolved power away from a centralised bureaucracy to the schools themselves and their independent boards. It was thought that they would know more about the community and its needs than faceless administrators in Wellington. And then the schools could do the best job, become the best they could be and win their community.
It’s that aspect of competition and bulk funding that gave many the jitters. After all, with competition, you have winners, but you also have losers.
Bali Haques' opinion piece focuses on this as the main reason for a new system. As he says “Most of us would expect that our children should have access to quality schooling regardless of where we live, but how can this be achieved when the system is designed to create winner and loser schools?”
But I worry that Bali Haques review is about to throw the baby out with the bathwater. New Zealand schools have never been truly competitive with each other with zoning in place. Loser Schools have been rescued by commissioners and central bureaucracy.
The devolved power base to the schools themselves though does mean greater flexibility and adaptability to a community’s needs.
In this time, when people bemoan the amalgamation of councils and the loss of local representation due to the super cities, why would we want to do the same to our schools?
The question I have with you is whether we really want to go back to the old days where the Ministry of Education building in the centre of Wellington was all powerful over the schools in New Zealand from Bluff to Blenheim, Buckland to Balclutha to Bulls.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

So business confidence continues to fall with the latest result this week from the NZIER the lowest our business confidence has been in five years.
Now I could repeat the editorial I wrote a month ago that said why should businesses feel worried but that was a month ago.
Since then we’ve had survey after survey saying the same thing. It may be criticised as a self-fulfilling prophecy but the problem is it’s actually fulfilling itself. The business community are not sure what will happen and so bit by bit they’re deciding not to take too many risks over the next few years.
The problem is not necessarily the government’s budget or even the Finance Minister who I feel is playing a very straight bat. I trust him to keep a tight rein on the fiscal budget. The problem is those beneath him who’ve been throwing their grand statements around without realising that their words now carry power.
It’s easy to highlight Shane Jones with his attacks on Fonterra and Air New Zealand. If that’s how he feels about those businesses what is he saying about other businesses in the cabinet room.
Then there’s the Employment Minister Ian Lees Galloway, who cuts a dashing figure, but spouts ideology left right and centre. No wonder businesses are worried about what their wage bill might be. With nurses holding out for more and teachers and principals now asking for a 16 per cent wage rise, then of course private employers are worried that a relative wage pressure is about to hit their bottom line.
And then there’s the Prime Minister who it appears unilaterally closed down the oil exploration sector without consultation. Other sectors will also be worrying about what could happen. Will she clamp down on us without asking first?
Of course, these are all ideological stances, and that word ideology is getting a bad rap and spat out as an insult. This is ridiculous because all policies and ideas have an ideology behind them no matter what side of the political fence they come from.
The trick is to line up the ideologies with a logic and practicality so that they become real measures that make sense to the country as a whole. Grant Robertson kind of gets that. He often talks of an evolution not a revolution. Small practical steps towards a big goal. But beneath him are a load of hotheads that shoot their mouth off too often.
It’s important that business stays on side with the government and vice versa. The grown-ups in the government need to get the kids to shut up until they get their grand ideas in sync with the realities of today.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

I’d like to make a statement which I’ve never made before in my broadcasting career.
I smoke.
I’ve never said this on the radio as obviously I never wanted to promote smoking in any way shape or form.
But I’ve started quitting.
I’m 55 years these days and through my life I’ve smoked too much.  Even with my light habit of four or five a day it’s been bugging me.
So over my holiday, I decided to quit. And guess what I’ve done? I started vaping. And I just started the Champix this week.
So I’m hoping that this is all going to fix it all up, and I just thought I really should be honest about this. I don’t think I’ve been honest throughout my broadcasting career completely. It hasn’t coloured my opinions at all, as such, but thought I should say it.
You want to know why I never said it? I remember when I was a kid and I was about 14 or 15, and my dad just randomly out of the blue as we were driving along the road, said ‘Son, if I ever catch you smoking, you’re disowned’.
I believed him. So much of my smoking has been secretive.  Hidden from my family.  Hidden from you, the audience.  When I was about 17 or 18 in the last bit of school about to go to university, I had a few and away we went, here and there, on and off, not wildly heavy but enough.
Anyway, I’ve started the vaping. I’m quitting.  Wish me luck.  I just thought I probably ought to make that admission. A full disclosure
 

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

So I’ve been reflecting on the confusing case of the Transmission Gully tolls
I said yesterday I thought that you can’t just slap on a toll unless you’ve signalled it from the start of the project. Which they had the chance to do.
Wellingtonians were surveyed to find out whether they would mind a toll which would have sped the project up and it could have been delivered in 2006. And you know what? Wellingtonians were fine with that but the powers that be ignored that and funded it themselves. ‘
So that’s that surely. A decision was made and now we’re about to get the road, albeit 14 years later.
But now transport authorities and the Minister are considering tolling so that not too many people use it.
Now here’s the thing. Transmission Gully is there to relieve the suburbs of Paremata, Plimmerton, Pukerua Bay and Paekakariki that currently have a two lane State Highway through the middle of them.
It’s also necessary because it provides a third route out of Wellington, which could have easily found itself isolated in the event of a natural disaster. But the existing State highway 1 from the city to Porirua is just fine and will be continued to be used as much as ever.
The only people who will suddenly see the car as a cheaper way of getting to town than public transport will be the people on the Kapiti Coast, and to me that doesn’t seem like enough people to warrant a toll for all. You wonder if anyone in Transit NZ or the government actually drive around the place with their brain engaged.
If you toll Transmission Gully you actually run the risk of no-one using it all and what a wonderful waste of $850 million that would be. If you want a precedent, look at the history of the tolled K road in Tauranga.
Now many have said its part of a plot to get you out of your car. I think you credit them with too much. It was just plain stupidity.
It does highlight how both the regulators and the public somehow comprehend that travelling by car is cheaper than public transport. If you used to train from Paraparaumu to work in town will it become cheaper with Transmission Gully to take a car? I doubt it, once you factor in petrol, running costs, depreciation and the daily need and cost to find a carpark at your destination. And don’t forget your tax dollars and rates to pay for the maintenance of two roads, Transmission Gully and the old State Highway.
Now, all that, said the Transmission Gully project will be a revolution for the Kapiti Coast. Honestly with the greater ease for casual and business trips to the Coast and back who wouldn’t want to live beachside. I can see many head offices making the move. Start building up Kapiti: there’s a boom time coming and your days as sleepy beach towns are coming to an end.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

So I’m just back from a week’s break where I honestly did nothing but ride a bike, read two books, eat well and sleep. And furthermore, I threw my phone away.
I answered no calls, I searched no news sites, and I did not scan any social media. I was blissfully disconnected.
I met a lovely old couple on the beach and I asked them if anything was happened and all they could say was that the Prime Minister had given her baby an Irish and Maori name but they couldn’t remember what so I knew nothing was really happening.
Occasionally, I was worried that I might have missed something but then decided that I’d decide that when I got back yesterday. So I got back and you know what: I missed nothing.
The government gave beneficiaries more money and the first regional fuel tax started but we all knew that was coming.
America continues to rip itself apart on the issue of illegal migrants, split between the ones who want to come down too hard and the protestors who want to be too soft.
There’s still horror with the body of a two year old abuse victim fished out of a river and Auckland is still gridlocked because one motorcyclist was tragically killed in rush hour, but generally life continues for most in a calm way.
You wonder whether we get a little too hysterical.
I thought about that last night as the news led with Peter Gluckman saying hysteria over genetically modified food is misplaced and we should start reconsidering it. The piece played the protests from last century. The fear over GM’s health effects and the impact on our clean green environment. It looked and sounded dated and silly.
My son, who’s just finished an environmental chemistry degree chuckled. As he says we’ve been genetically modifying since the start of time. Selectively crossing DNA for the best outcomes. Whether it’s grain and corn and potatoes. Whether it’s with cattle or thoroughbred horses. Or roses. Or in dogs I added looking at our fabulous 13 year old labradoodle snoozing in front of the fire.
But what about when we add frog DNA to grain? My 22 year old said it’s all still organic. "DNA is DNA, Dad." It’s life.
The GM hysteria joins all the other hysteria. Gluckman already earned my respect by busting the meth testing hysteria. Hysteria seems to make the world go round, and if not that, it certainly keeps the printing presses rolling.
Hysteria over rising seas. Hysteria over same sex marriage meaning that people will one day marry their pets. Y2K, Trump and Clinton, the world is going to hell in a handcart. Inch by inch, step by step, we’re all going to fall to our most base level and then the council will come round and wrench your car from your clenched fist. Calm the farm!
So, well done Peter Gluckman for a little bit of logic at the end of his tenure. And thank you to my holiday for a respite from the hysteria of a growingly paranoid world.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

I’ve been in two minds as to whether to express an opinion or make comment about the horrendous car crash which resulted in 7 fatalities in South Taranaki yesterday. Clearly I have overcome those reservations because here we are.
There will be some people who will find it hard to continue to engage in this conversation because it is an all too familiar and tragic headline. But it is an ongoing story in the NZ news landscape. It is also worth mentioning that the trend in last three decades has seen a significant decline in the road toll, to a fraction of what it was in the 80s, but lately, things seems to have changed.
The causes of such crashes will be debated, perhaps with a sense of futility. Because no matter what events we witness, or comments made by police, politicians and on talkback, nothing really seems to change.
It would be hasty to leap to any conclusions about this particular incident. But the likelihood is that it will have been, like many accidents, a human error present as either a significant, if not the sole factor in this terrible tragedy.
Road commentators have called for NZ to be almost entirely protected by median barriers. While this might be a possible and costly solution one can’t help but think that this won’t solve the problem of people making bad decisions with fatal consequences.
Then again you might wonder how people would view the cost of a solution if we were to suffer the deaths of 200-300 people a year through the acts of terrorists. How many millions would be spent to keep us safe from events that understandably strike terror into our hearts.
But when it comes to the road toll, perhaps our natural human reaction over time is to have become numb to the pain experienced by those directly affected, including families of the victims, friends, police and emergency personnel, all of whom have to deal with the horrendous aftermath.
On the other hand we have the Associate Transport Minister Julie Anne Genter advocating a target road toll of zero. While one can relate to such an aspirational goal, from a practical point of view it is hardly in the realms of reality. On that basis it is ridiculous because it fails to acknowledge the realities and the nature of NZ geography and the sort of roads we have built to get around.
I understand the Minister's motivation for that zero target because clearly there is no such thing as an acceptable death on the roads. But in reality I’m just not sure it is particularly helpful in coming up with a solution. It also seems to assume that the government, if it just tried hard enough, could solve the problem.
In the end it is us out there on the roads. It is us, the drivers, making the decisions that we do and tragically some of the most innocent mistakes can, in the wrong circumstances, have fatal consequences.
There are obvious, well traversed factors that we will continue to talk about, such as speed, fatigue, alcohol, inattention, impatience, or just plain carelessness. But it would seem that many of these factors fall under the umbrella of the choices we make. We need to take that moment to think twice.
We need continually to ask before a rash decision – do I really need to do this or am I putting myself and others in danger?
Perhaps take a moment before we get into the car to think about our own impulses and the risks we might be tempted to take. Think twice. Because there is no mistake on the roads worth learning the hard way

I’ve been in two minds as to whether to express an opinion or make comment about the horrendous car crash which resulted in 7 fatalities in South Taranaki yesterday. Clearly I have overcome those reservations because here we are.
There will be some people who will find it hard to continue to engage in this conversation because it is an all too familiar and tragic headline. But it is an ongoing story in the NZ news landscape. It is also worth mentioning that the trend in last three decades has seen a significant decline in the road toll, to a fraction of what it was in the 80s, but lately, things seems to have changed.
The causes of such crashes will be debated, perhaps with a sense of futility. Because no matter what events we witness, or comments made by police, politicians and on talkback, nothing really seems to change.
It would be hasty to leap to any conclusions about this particular incident. But the likelihood is that it will have been, like many accidents, a human error present as either a significant, if not the sole factor in this terrible tragedy.
Road commentators have called for NZ to be almost entirely protected by median barriers. While this might be a possible and costly solution one can’t help but think that this won’t solve the problem of people making bad decisions with fatal consequences.
Then again you might wonder how people would view the cost of a solution if we were to suffer the deaths of 200-300 people a year through the acts of terrorists. How many millions would be spent to keep us safe from events that understandably strike terror into our hearts.
But when it comes to the road toll, perhaps our natural human reaction over time is to have become numb to the pain experienced by those directly affected, including families of the victims, friends, police and emergency personnel, all of whom have to deal with the horrendous aftermath.
On the other hand we have the Associate Transport Minister Julie Anne Genter advocating a target road toll of zero. While one can relate to such an aspirational goal, from a practical point of view it is hardly in the realms of reality. On that basis it is ridiculous because it fails to acknowledge the realities and the nature of NZ geography and the sort of roads we have built to get around.
I understand the Minister's motivation for that zero target because clearly there is no such thing as an acceptable death on the roads. But in reality I’m just not sure it is particularly helpful in coming up with a solution. It also seems to assume that the government, if it just tried hard enough, could solve the problem.
In the end it is us out there on the roads. It is us, the drivers, making the decisions that we do and tragically some of the most innocent mistakes can, in the wrong circumstances, have fatal consequences.
There are obvious, well traversed factors that we will continue to talk about, such as speed, fatigue, alcohol, inattention, impatience, or just plain carelessness. But it would seem that many of these factors fall under the umbrella of the choices we make. We need to take that moment to think twice.
We need continually to ask before a rash decision – do I really need to do this or am I putting myself and others in danger?
Perhaps take a moment before we get into the car to think about our own impulses and the risks we might be tempted to take. Think twice. Because there is no mistake on the roads worth learning the hard way

What’s in a name? “That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet”.
Shakespeare certainly knew what he was talking about. Yet again it seems that he was ahead of his time, providing us with a quote, not just for the ages, but right now.
A recent study has found that many immigrants are changing their names to something a little more kiwi to enhance their prospects of success, or indeed, acceptance. A recent story in the New Zealand Herald revealed how Indian migrant, Faiaaz Contractor discovered his career prospects improved greatly by simply changing his first name to Frank.
This highlights an issue which we have, as a nation struggled with for quite some time. But it’s one that is often ignored when we limit our discussion to a bicultural one of Maori/Pakeha. While there might be work to do on that side of things, I would argue that on that score, we are progressing pretty well.
The real issue with racism in NZ is revealed when we spread the net a little wider to examine our attitudes to other cultures and races. In this respect, we are failing dismally.
You don’t have to look too far back to the ill-conceived and poorly disguised race-baiting campaign run by the Labour party around Chinese sounding names and the property market, where judgments were made about who was buying our property simply based on a name. It also conveniently tapped into the kind of racism that still seems to be quietly accepted, or at least pretty close to the surface.
I’m not sure that we actually needed a study to tell us that immigrants were “kiwi-ising” their names as I viewed it as a commonly known fact. But it is good to have what might have been an urban myth confirmed.
Of course, it may be that one aim of the name-changing practice might be to avoid imposing tricky pronunciation on dim-witted or lazy kiwis. OK, that might be a little harsh but I would suggest that the real reason is that migrants know all too well that Shakespeare was right when he posed the question about the rose. In fact, he too was pondering the effect of a particular surname and the passions or hatred it aroused.
In any event, the issue of Chinese and other immigrants changing their names reveals we still have a long way to go when it comes to dealing with questions of race.
As the song from the Broadway musical Avenue Q goes – “Everyone’s a little bit racist”
Perhaps humans have evolved to be a little xenophobic by instinct in addition to negative experiences and ignorance. And I’m not sure it’s realistic to expect that we are all going to be able to stop our own initial reactions or subconscious thoughts.
But in the conversation around the relationship between Māori and Pakeha, we seem to have tacitly accepted that other forms of racism are not so bad. I don’t really want to call it a national disgrace but it would only take a few conversations with Chinese kiwis to agree that perhaps it is. A friend of mine has recounted horrendous stories of comments hurled across the street simply for being in the same place as someone with a bigoted attitude.
But the challenge lies in the way we respond to our own thoughts or prejudices before we open our mouths or decide how we engage with people. And it shouldn’t be that hard.
There is a quote from Pride and Prejudice which relates to the effort we undertake to be pleasant to strangers.  In reference to Mr Darcy’s rudeness, Elizabeth Bennett refers to her own inability to play the piano well “I have always supposed it to be my own fault—because I will not take the trouble of practising.
Surely this is the case with our attitudes on race as well. We need more practice.
Yes, maybe we all have our stereotypes and reactions in judging people by what they wear, how they speak and how they look. But isn’t it time we took the time to practice and consider whether we need to take a good look at how we are treating each other.
On a...

What’s in a name? “That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet”.
Shakespeare certainly knew what he was talking about. Yet again it seems that he was ahead of his time, providing us with a quote, not just for the ages, but right now.
A recent study has found that many immigrants are changing their names to something a little more kiwi to enhance their prospects of success, or indeed, acceptance. A recent story in the New Zealand Herald revealed how Indian migrant, Faiaaz Contractor discovered his career prospects improved greatly by simply changing his first name to Frank.
This highlights an issue which we have, as a nation struggled with for quite some time. But it’s one that is often ignored when we limit our discussion to a bicultural one of Maori/Pakeha. While there might be work to do on that side of things, I would argue that on that score, we are progressing pretty well.
The real issue with racism in NZ is revealed when we spread the net a little wider to examine our attitudes to other cultures and races. In this respect, we are failing dismally.
You don’t have to look too far back to the ill-conceived and poorly disguised race-baiting campaign run by the Labour party around Chinese sounding names and the property market, where judgments were made about who was buying our property simply based on a name. It also conveniently tapped into the kind of racism that still seems to be quietly accepted, or at least pretty close to the surface.
I’m not sure that we actually needed a study to tell us that immigrants were “kiwi-ising” their names as I viewed it as a commonly known fact. But it is good to have what might have been an urban myth confirmed.
Of course, it may be that one aim of the name-changing practice might be to avoid imposing tricky pronunciation on dim-witted or lazy kiwis. OK, that might be a little harsh but I would suggest that the real reason is that migrants know all too well that Shakespeare was right when he posed the question about the rose. In fact, he too was pondering the effect of a particular surname and the passions or hatred it aroused.
In any event, the issue of Chinese and other immigrants changing their names reveals we still have a long way to go when it comes to dealing with questions of race.
As the song from the Broadway musical Avenue Q goes – “Everyone’s a little bit racist”
Perhaps humans have evolved to be a little xenophobic by instinct in addition to negative experiences and ignorance. And I’m not sure it’s realistic to expect that we are all going to be able to stop our own initial reactions or subconscious thoughts.
But in the conversation around the relationship between Māori and Pakeha, we seem to have tacitly accepted that other forms of racism are not so bad. I don’t really want to call it a national disgrace but it would only take a few conversations with Chinese kiwis to agree that perhaps it is. A friend of mine has recounted horrendous stories of comments hurled across the street simply for being in the same place as someone with a bigoted attitude.
But the challenge lies in the way we respond to our own thoughts or prejudices before we open our mouths or decide how we engage with people. And it shouldn’t be that hard.
There is a quote from Pride and Prejudice which relates to the effort we undertake to be pleasant to strangers.  In reference to Mr Darcy’s rudeness, Elizabeth Bennett refers to her own inability to play the piano well “I have always supposed it to be my own fault—because I will not take the trouble of practising.
Surely this is the case with our attitudes on race as well. We need more practice.
Yes, maybe we all have our stereotypes and reactions in judging people by what they wear, how they speak and how they look. But isn’t it time we took the time to practice and consider whether we need to take a good look at how we are treating each other.
On a...

The spotlight has been tightening lately around the issue of government reform of bail laws.
This always going to be a tricky maneuver and I can’t help but get the feeling that there will be some change if for no other reason than a newly elected government and Justice Minister wants to demonstrate how they are doing something about a system which, they argue, is broken.
I know this is pretty cynical take to put on it but let's face it, in this respect, as a policeman might say – “they’ve got form”
The problem with reforming bail laws and being too prescriptive is that judges are the ones who are dealing with the people in front of them.
Now, it has been a while since I practised law but I remember there being many factors in deciding whether or not an individual was granted bail.
This included the questions of whether the crime they have been charged with was likely to result in what is euphemistically referred to as a “custodial sentence” in which case time spent on remand was usually deducted from the sentence. Other reasons were: the likelihood of them absconding; previous failures to turn up to a court appearance; the seriousness of the offence; whether violence was a factor, the protection of witnesses; the criminal record of the accused. In the end, the decision, and the jurisdiction rests with the judge.
As soon as politicians start meddling with this process one gets the feeling that they are looking at tying hands and forcing judges to grant bail to offenders against their better judgment.
Let’s not forget, the judge has each individual accused, and all available and relevant information about that person, often including the basis of the prosecution case against them.
I’m not sure that we should really be taking too many steps to tie the hands of the judiciary, with the result being they can’t deal with the offender in front of them.
Often we hear talk about the system. The system, the system, the system. But as we know criminal justice deals with individuals and their particular circumstances. So I just worry that some recommendation, no matter how mild, may be seized upon by politicians to make some sort of grand statement to show how serious they are about reforming the bail laws.
In the end, the public cares mainly about needing to be kept safe.
Acting Prime Minister, Winston Peters, has made reference to saving money. If that is the sole factor, I am not sure the public is going to be on board. Similarly, if it just a gesture or a case of virtue signalling “look we are doing something, we are reformers”, then I don’t really think it will impress if it results in more victims.
Having said all this, the question is - who do you trust to be making the decisions about who should or should not be granted bail?
Do you trust the judges or do you trust the politicians?
Because as much as a part of me hates to acknowledge it, judges are the ones who are at the coalface every day. Sure, they make mistakes, sometimes with serious consequences. But let’s not make the mistake of tying their hands too much. Especially when it results in forcing them to be more lenient than society may require.
I’m aware that my comments on this may be slightly at odds with my support of the three strikes legislation, but at least they did put a manifestly unjust exception in there to maintain wriggle room.
All said and done, I am not arguing against any sort of reform, but perhaps the focus needs to be on pouring more resources into the remand side of things, including mental health, and drug rehabilitation and other productive aspects of being in remand.
Because as many suggest, it is the worst place to be in the justice system. And make no mistake, it that will require a significant investment of taxpayer money. But for this taxpayer, I’m ok with that.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.