The Maori Council is urging a moratorium on unrest between Black Power and the Mongrel Mob.
Gang tensions have been increasing in Hawke's Bay and Gisborne over recent months, including a drive by shooting and mass brawl over the weekend.
Multiple investigations are underway, with drugs, illegal firearms and ammunition being seized.
Executive director Matthew Tukaki told Kate Hawkesby the gangs need to find a resolution because the unrest is pouring into the wider communities.
"If we don't find a new pathway to deal with gang violence, the same things will keep happening."
LISTEN TO THE INTERVIEW ABOVE

The US Senate plunged into President Donald Trump's impeachment trial with Republicans abruptly abandoning plans to cram opening arguments into two days but solidly rejecting Democratic demands for more witnesses to expose Trump's "trifecta" of offenses.
A marathon session of nearly 13 hours started today with a setback for Republican Senate leader Mitch McConnell and the president's legal team, exposing a crack in the GOP ranks and the growing political unease over the historic impeachment proceedings unfolding amid a watchful public in an election year. But it ended near 2am Wednesday local time with Republicans easily approving the new trial rules largely on their terms.
"It's about time we bring this power trip in for a landing," said White House counsel Pat Cipollone, the president's lead lawyer, lashing out at the House Democrats prosecuting the case.
"It's a farce," he said about the impeachment proceeding, "and it should end."
Chief Justice John Roberts gaveled open the session, with House prosecutors on one side, Trump's team on the other, in the well of the Senate, as senators sat silently at their desks, under oath to do "impartial justice." No cellphones or other electronics were allowed.
As the day stretched deep into the night, lawyerly arguments gave way to more pointedly political ones. Tempers flared and senators paced the chamber. Democrats pursued what may be their only chance to force senators to vote on hearing new testimony. After one particularly bitter exchange, Roberts intervened, taking the rare step of admonishing both the Democratic House managers and the White House counsel to "remember where they are".
"I think it is appropriate at this point for me to admonish both the House managers and the president's counsel in equal terms to remember that they are addressing the world's greatest deliberative body," the usually reserved Roberts said. He told them that description of the Senate stemmed from a 1905 trial when a senator objected to the word "pettifogging," because members should "avoid speaking in a manner and using language that is not conducive to civil discourse."
Over and over, Republicans turned back Democratic amendments to subpoena documents from the White House, State Department, Defense Department and budget office. By the same 53-47 party-line, they turned away witnesses with front-row seats to Trump's actions including acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney and John Bolton, the former national security adviser critical of the Ukraine policy. Only on one amendment, to ensure a vote later on additional witnesses, did a single Republican, Senator Susan Collins of Maine, join Democrats. But it, too, was rejected 52-48.
As the hours mounted, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer brushed back an offer from McConnell to more quickly stack the votes.
"It's not our job to make it easy for you," Rep. Adam Schiff, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee leading the prosecution, told the Senate.
"Our job is to make it hard to deprive the American people of a fair trial."
As the visitors' gallery filled with guests, actress-and-activist Alyssa Milano among them, and Trump's most ardent House allies lining the back rows, the day quickly took on the cadence of a trial proceeding over whether the president's actions toward Ukraine warranted removal from office.Earlier, McConnell stunned senators and delayed the start of proceedings with his decision to back off some of his proposed rules. Republicans were said to be concerned over the political optics of "dark of night" sessions.
Instead, 24 hours of opening arguments for each side will be spread over three days, for a moment swelling Democrats' momentum as they push to break the standoff over calling new witnesses.Cipollone led the prosecution, scoffing that the House charges against Trump were "ridiculous," insisting the president "has done absolutely nothing wrong".

COMMENT
I see whether or not women can breastfeed in public is back in the news again, after an Auckland mum was asked to move into a changing room.. so that she didn't make other people feel 'uncomfortable'.
Seriously? Can we have a show of hands of exactly how many people feel "uncomfortable" these days with a woman doing the most natural thing in the world - feeding her child?
Who in this day and age still finds that uncomfortable? What's uncomfortable about it? It says more about you than it does the new mothers.
What's particularly bad about this situation is the mother was actually inside an environment designed for young children - an indoor playground, with her toddler in tow.
She was trying to watch her toddler play (as any good supervising parent would want to) and feed a hungry baby at the same time.
To expect her to leave an unsupervised toddler playing alone while you vanish to feed a baby is ridiculous.
Any parent who's ever juggled more than one baby knows what a struggle it is to keep everyone happy at once, and what's the alternative? Supervising your toddler but a fractious baby screaming up a storm because it's hungry? Or abandoning your toddler, leaving her unsupervised, so you can go feed the baby?
Would the complainers prefer you try to wrangle the toddler off the playground and into a small changing room with you so she can sit still and quiet while you feed the baby? Anyone who's ever had the baby plus toddler scenario, knows that's nigh on impossible.
But why are we still on our high horses regarding breastfeeding in public anyway? Surely we are over this by now?
And actually, I believe most of the public are over it and are cool with it. It's mainly employers who freak out.
Why do they think their businesses are going to be adversely impacted by mothers being mothers? Why would a café or a mall freak out over a little bit of humanity?
Most disturbingly, why would a children's indoor playground not be cooler about it?
I rang around a few indoor children's playgrounds yesterday and asked if they had a problem with babies being breastfeed in their playground. Not one of them did. One playground manager did say to me it wasn't a problem 'as it was quiet today'. I asked if it would be different it was busy, she paused and then said, 'not really no.'
So I like to think that this particular case reported yesterday was an isolated one, and that most operators do indeed live in the 21st century.
Shunning and shooshing women.. into small rooms to perform natural acts of motherhood is over. It's expired.
This is a modern world we live in, babies need feeding, and mums are not always at home.
My advice to any young mother is feed your baby anytime and anywhere you want.

While the government has passed a new law aimed at curbing the trouble with short-term, high-interest payday lenders, there could be a more simple solution.
Instead of making payday every month, or every fortnight, it has been proposed we use technology to make worker's wages available to them daily.
Auckland University's commercial law expert Alex Sims has been thinking about this, and joined Kate Hawkesby to discuss the issue.
LISTEN TO THE INTERVIEW ABOVE

Prince Harry's plans for a "more peaceful life" away from the royal spotlight have already been cast into doubt as he joined his wife, Meghan, and son, Archie, in Canada on Tuesday amid a fresh paparazzi feud.
The publication of photographs showing the Duchess of Sussex hiking with baby Archie and their dogs in Canadian woodland prompted a warning to the media from the couple's lawyers against running images without consent, a royal source has confirmed.
The images were used in a number of media outlets, including on the front page of British tabloid newspaper the Sun.
Harry has had an uneasy relationship with the press since his childhood; brought up under the glare of publicity, the young prince saw his mother, Princess Diana, struggle with the paparazzi. Diana died after a high speed chase of her car through Paris by photographers.
Last year, Harry accepted "substantial damages" and an apology from a picture agency that used a helicopter to take photos of the home he shared with Meghan, forcing the couple to move out.
The latest scuffle comes just days after the couple finalized the terms of their split from official British royal family duties, a move intended to allow them a life further from the public eye.
A royal spokesperson told CNN they would not comment on the family's private schedule.
Strong Canada connection
Photos in UK media showed Harry walking off a plane early Tuesday on Vancouver Island, where the family spent time over Christmas holidays with the Duchess' mother, Doria Ragland.
Meghan lived in the country for seven years and the couple say they have a "strong connection to Canada."
The Sussexes are set to embark on a proposed new life in the country, and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said last week that discussions are ongoing in over who will pay the costs of their security detail.
The prince's departure from the UK follows a turbulent period in which Harry and Meghan agreed to give up their royal titles and end their official duties.
The couple made the shock announcement that they were stepping back from senior royal duties on Instagram on January 8, and the Queen announced a transition period had been agreed Saturday.
Conversations with the pair had been going on for months, said the monarch in a statement.
"I am pleased that together we have found a constructive and supportive way forward for my grandson and his family," read the statement.
Under the terms of the deal, Harry and Meghan will no longer represent the Queen as working royals, splitting their time between the UK and North America as they work toward becoming financially independent.
Wrangling over titles
The pair will no longer use their royal titles -- His and Her Royal Highness -- beginning this spring, and Buckingham Palace announced Saturday they would instead be addressed as "Harry, Duke of Sussex" and "Meghan, Duchess of Sussex."
It's a move the Queen hadn't been expected to make and it's entirely unprecedented for a monarch to ask her own grandchild to drop their title, but given the prospect of the Sussexes signing commercial deals in the future, the need to separate their ventures from the royal household was pressing.
However, in one of the first hiccups in the process of decoupling Harry and Meghan from the royal family, the palace later said it would revise its guidance after reports Meghan's new title made it sound as though she were divorced.
The problem is that the same formatting was adopted by Sarah Ferguson -- now addressed as "Sarah, Duchess of York" -- after she divorced Prince Andrew in 1996. And Harry's mother was known as Diana, Princess of Wales after her divorce from Prince Charles.
One of the ways the couple hope to generate income is through their brand "Sussex Royal."
However an aide to the Queen warned the Duke and Duchess of Sussex against using that title, reported British newspaper The Times.

An expert says it's too soon to be screening passengers to New Zealand for the coronavirus.
Nearly 300 cases have been confirmed in China and Australia is now screening passengers at the border.
A Brisbane man is in isolation with symptoms of the virus which has killed six people.
Auckland University's microbiologist Siouxsie Wiles told Kate Hawkesby the threat is still low for New Zealand.
"Some cases are now being detected in Shanghai and Beijing, but these are all for people who have travelled from Wuhan. The countries which are doing screening are those with a direct flight from there."
LISTEN TO THE INTERVIEW ABOVE

COMMENT
Gangs have always been a political football but I'm wondering whether the old live and let live approach, exhibited by so many these days, is actually working when it comes to gangs.
You can't argue with the numbers, and the numbers say they're on the rise.
New figures In October last year, showed the total number of patched gang members had increased by 26 per cent over two years. That's almost 1400 new gang members.
And what've we seen this week?
Well, we've got two incidents within two days involving guns.
A shotgun pellet fired by a gang member, almost struck a child in a carseat in Taradale. That was during a brawl of about 30 to 40 gang members in a downtown street.
The other incident was a drive-by shooting in Ruatoria.
What's concerning about this - and I don't mean a child almost getting shot, and innocent people in danger - I mean what's irritating about gangs brawling, is that they seem to be doing it more frequently these days. And in public places.
Police have a couple of theories: One, that there're an increasing number of younger members in gangs who perhaps don't have the same level of respect for the elder members; or two, with the increased numbers, the gang leaders don't have as much control as they used to.
Gang tensions have continued to escalate in recent months. Police say they're "investigating a number of serious incidents and outbreaks of violence in public places".
Why though? Why are members of the public having to bear witness to this kind of madness?
Why are children sitting car seats in the main street of a town all of a sudden in danger?
Why are gangs being allowed to run rogue around town, without anyone closing them down before it gets to the guns and bullets? How do they even still have shotguns?
So why isn't more being done about it?
Police Minister Stuart Nash was quick to point out the Government is increasing police numbers, and they've seized 1500 illegal firearms already. But the problem with the approach to gangs is an attitude I reckon.
You have to want to fix it, or want to eradicate them.
And when we have community groups who say, "oh, gangs are no problem, there's actually some good people in gangs" then we are diluting their danger.
Opposition leader Simon Bridges and his strike force raptors idea was mocked, and maybe that is too far in the other direction, but to give gangs the impression they can have free reign over public spaces in townships around New Zealand is setting yourself up for tragedy.
There needs to be a stronger deterrent, a stronger disincentive.
Because, until we take the dangers of gangs seriously, we can't expect public brawls to abate any time soon.

Kogan Mobile - a relative newcomer to NZ - is offering $1 million if you can correctly pick the result of every game in the first six rounds of the new Super Rugby seasons.
That's 40 games.
And you don't have to guess the score, just tick the team you think will win each match, or if you think it will be a draw.
To a layperson, it sounds do-able, at a stretch.
After all, unlike Lotto, there's an element of skill involved.
But Professor Thomas Lumley from Auckland University Department of Statistics, the odds are longer than you might think.
He gives the example of a colleague, who proved a very capable Super Rugby soothsayer last year.
"David Scott's statistical prediction model gets about two-thirds of results correct. With 40 games that would come to about one chance in 10 million of getting them all," Lumley says.

Founder Ruslan Kogan at Kogan Mobile's NZ launch last September. Photo / Michael Craig
"If you typically average 80 per cent accuracy you'd have 1 chance in 10,000 of getting them all right," he adds.
"But if you're routinely that accurate you could probably be making serious money from betting."
Lastly - not that there seems much danger of a payout, as per Kogan's previous tipping competitions - but Professor Lumley points out the final point in Kogan's fine print. That is: "In the event that there are multiple winners of the Primary prize, the winner who submitted their entry first will be awarded the Primary prize."
And if no one gets all 40 games right, there's no splitting the cash all prize for the best effort. Kogan pays out zero (Kogan does offer every one who enters a pre-pay voucher worth $33.90, and ten entrants selected at random will get a year's pre-pay mobile service).
There is one 100 per cent probably: you'll get special marketing messages. By entering the $1m tipping competition, you agree to get spammed.
Your correspondent digested all of Prof Lumley's advice, then entered anyway.

The head of the World Economic Forum says it's “reassuring" that U.S. President Donald Trump and climate activist Greta Thunberg will both return to its annual meeting in Davos this year, noting that concerns about the environment will be a key topic.
WEF founder Klaus Schwab sees vast changes in business, society and culture over the 50 years since he created the yearly gathering in the Swiss Alps, which initially was a forum for business leaders but now is a key stop for policymakers and activists as well.
Following another year of extreme heat, out-of-control wildfires and melting ice sheets, environmental issues are considered to be the top five long-term risks confronting the global economy, WEF said last week, citing a survey of more than 750 decision-makers.
It said catastrophic trends like global warming, climate change and the extinction of animal species would top the agenda at the meeting that begins Tuesday.
The forum is shifting its focus of recent years from how technology is transforming lives to the environment and responsible business practices that promote jobs, fight climate change and work for social good along with profit-making.
The focus on environment could make for an uncomfortable subject for Trump, whose administration has called for expanded use of carbon-spewing coal, stripped away environmental protections and played down concerns among scientists about man-made climate change. Trump has also moved to take the U.S. out of the landmark 2015 Paris accord to fight climate change.
Schwab says Trump is welcome because of his role on the world stage while Thunberg will keep the focus on the environment. Both will speak Tuesday on the opening day.
“I think both voices are necessary," Schwab said Sunday in an interview with The Associated Press. “The environment will play a particularly important role during this meeting.”
Schwab pointed to the forum's 160 “lighthouse” projects on inclusion and equality; economic development; technology governance; regional development; corporate leadership and ecology, including a project to plant a trillion trees.
“So if Greta comes this year, she will see that we have made substantial progress,” he said, alluding to her debut at the forum last year.
Time magazine chose Thunberg as its “Person of the Year” for 2019.
Schwab claimed the forum has helped air concerns about the environment since the 1970s, but said public awareness about climate issues has now exploded.
“Now we have recognized the urgency, because we know the window to act (on climate change) is closing,” he said, adding he hoped to inject "this sense of urgency into the meeting.”
He said many companies are increasingly seeing the benefits of “ESG” — environmental, social and governance — concerns in their business models.
"Companies recognize ... doing good ... it's a precondition for some long-term survival," Schwab said.
On Friday, Schwab and the chairmen of Bank of America and Dutch nutrition company Royal DSM sent a joint open letter to corporate leaders on hand this year to set “a target to achieve net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 or sooner” if their companies haven't done so already.
The forum chief said nearly all European Union leaders will be on hand this year, including German Chancellor Angela Merkel. He said the EU has a chance to lay out its vision for the future and turn the corner after three years of haggling over Britain's departure from the bloc, which comes at the end of this month.
He also brushed aside critics who have faulted the forum as an overly exclusive vacation for the world's out-of-touch elites.
“If I am particularly proud of something during the last 50 years, it is of having created many years ago the community of young leaders," Schwab said, citing 10,000 young “Global Shapers” in over 400 cities who he said are engaged in issues on the ground. “We try — and I think quite...

Look, I don’t want to keep banging on about them and I had no intention of raising it again this morning. But then Prince, or should I say – just Harry now, came out and did that speech yesterday.
What surprised me is not the content of it, but how quickly he came out of the blocks to say it.
We should expect a lot more of this of course. This is partly I think why they left, to try to rewrite or control the narrative a bit more, to speak out more freely and without the restrictive oversight of palace aides and royal rules.
I’m sure he was delighted he could stand in front of an adoring crowd and give his side of the story.
I think that’s what we’ll see from both of them now for the coming months. And therein lies the issue.
I don’t know that it’s that beneficial to keep banging on about how much you hate the press, to keep trying to fly your own flag and put your own story across. I’m not sure it’s a fruitful and solid long term approach.
There is a lot to be said for quiet distinction and aloofness.
There is something to be said for rising above the fray.
Just look at what we’ve seen from Kate and Wills these past few weeks. Nothing.
And that’s the point. They get it. They’re a class act – a united front, a union of equals who know the strength of each other and who don’t seek to court personal or private attention that may attempt to sway people.
Because at the end of the day, who are you swaying? And for how long?
If you’ve made up your mind that you dislike Meghan or Harry or their actions, you’re unlikely to change it.
Likewise if you support them, you’re unlikely to stop supporting them.
Many a celebrity whose gone before them could tell them the merits of saying nothing.
Of letting gutter tabloid press swirl round and round until it eats itself. I mean just look at The Sun and all the interviews with Thomas Markle, any right minded person can see that for what it is. Look at the step sister and her rants, no one is taking that stuff seriously.
Two things I thought were interesting out of Harry’s speech were (1) the fact he did it so quickly and (2) how obviously it had been written by the Team Meghan musketeers. The architects of this new Harry and Meghan branding were all over that speech.
The way he referred to himself in the third person as, “Diana’s second son..“ No mention of being Prince Charles’ son, did you notice that? His constant referral to Diana, distancing themselves from Charles, and constantly tapping into Diana’s legacy, is part of their new calling card. Why? Because it’s popular.
It’s part of the new branding, watch how that unfolds.
But also I saw a deep sadness – he didn’t want it to end the way it has obviously, they wanted two bob each way and the Queen to her credit, clearly said no thanks.
And so I just wonder when all the adrenaline and hype dies down and the reality of living in Canada and leaving all you’ve ever known behind, despite what he says abut not turning his back. I wonder how he'll feel when the rubber actually hits the road.
Because the other thing he said was he was looking for a more peaceful life, and if he thinks this is a way of getting it, he’s dreaming. He may find peace away from the palace yes, but they've just opened the floodgates for more media scrutiny than ever before.
Watch this space.