A former Speaker of the House is reiterating the importance of the rules of Parliament after a haka disrupted proceedings. 

The House was suspended last night, after a haka broke out in the public gallery, following Te Pati Māori MP Oriini Kaipara's maiden speech. 

Speaker Gerry Brownlee said the agreement was that a haka was not to take place. 

Former speaker Sir Lockwood Smith told Kerre Woodham rules are there for good reason. 

He says there are plenty of opportunities for culture to be expressed, but it has to be done in accordance with the rules and agreements with the Speaker. 

LISTEN ABOVE 

A former Speaker of the House is reiterating the importance of the rules of Parliament after a haka disrupted proceedings.&nbsp;
The House was suspended last night, after a haka broke out in the public gallery, following Te Pati Māori MP Oriini Kaipara's maiden speech.&nbsp;
Speaker Gerry Brownlee said the agreement was that a haka was not to take place.&nbsp;
Former speaker Sir Lockwood Smith told Kerre Woodham rules are there for good reason.&nbsp;
He says there are plenty of opportunities for culture to be expressed, but it has to be done in accordance with the rules and agreements with the Speaker.&nbsp;
LISTEN ABOVE&nbsp;

Join Kerre Woodham one of New Zealand’s best loved personalities as she dishes up a bold, sharp and energetic show Monday to Friday 9am-12md on Newstalk ZB. News, opinion, analysis, lifestyle and entertainment – we’ve got your morning listening covered.

Kerre Woodham Mornings Podcast

Sir Lockwood Smith: Former Speaker of the House on the haka disrupting House proceedings

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/4475ad66-9798-4866-9a9b-b37101786f37/transcript

The story that has made the front page of the Herald this morning and dominated the conversation was the leadership of Prime Minister Christopher Luxon. He is facing what party insiders describe as “the most difficult fortnight of his leadership”, with growing speculation about his support within National's caucus as Parliament returns next week. Sources say that the whip, Stuart Smith, tried to present Christopher Luxon with evidence that caucus backing for his leadership had weakened. He tried to do that before Easter, but Christopher Luxon did not want to hear this. They did not have the meeting. It's understood those who believe Luxon should step aside might act in the next two weeks, although a formal leadership challenge or confidence vote is still seen as unlikely. Instead, the preferred option amongst critics appears to be having a good old chat with Christopher Luxon with evidence of his diminished support within his caucus, and that might prompt him to resign or step aside and bring about a change of leader. Now, if that doesn't happen, a challenge could follow, but there's no declared challenger at this stage.  

All of this is at a critical time. Parliament's back for a short sitting block before recessing again ahead of the Budget. Here comes the Budget. Political analysts say removing a Prime Minister during the Budget period risks destabilising the Government. So it's this next fortnight or not, because after that we're into Budget time and that would be even worse for National. 

National Minister Chris Bishop, who has been widely rumoured as a potential contender, was on the radio with Mike Hosking this morning. He came on to talk about the changes to the Warrants of Fitness, but instead he got a little surprise of talk of a coup. Chris Bishop described the situation as “untidy and unhelpful”. He said there's no leadership challenge underway, and he said he will not be the National leader before the election. But the general consensus to that interview was that he was being a little shifty, and he knows a lot more than he was letting on. How could he not know the feeling in the caucus? He's around there the whole time. How could he not know that three guys had actually come to Thomas Coughlan? But he claimed he didn't. 

Furthermore, can I just remind you that Chris Bishop is scheduled for an interview with Jack Tame on Q&A on Sunday, so you know this issue is going to continue bubbling away. Behind the scenes, tensions were already evident before Parliament recessed. We reported, everybody reported, that Christopher Luxon faced pressure from within caucus during the final sitting week and he ended up reshuffling the party, hopefully to stabilise it, but look at this, it's still rumbling on. When party whip Stuart Smith got ghosted by Christopher Luxon, he ended up raising all his concerns with deputy leader Nicola Willis instead. We've got a poll out right now and those numbers are adding to the pressure. National is currently sitting well below Labour and another major poll is due next week. So, all eyes are now on the coming days and how Christopher Luxon and his senior colleagues respond. 

The story that has made the front page of the Herald this morning and dominated the conversation was the leadership of Prime Minister Christopher Luxon. He is facing what party insiders describe as “the most difficult fortnight of his leadership”, with growing speculation about his support within National's caucus as Parliament returns next week. Sources say that the whip, Stuart Smith, tried to present Christopher Luxon with evidence that caucus backing for his leadership had weakened. He tried to do that before Easter, but Christopher Luxon did not want to hear this. They did not have the meeting. It's understood those who believe Luxon should step aside might act in the next two weeks, although a formal leadership challenge or confidence vote is still seen as unlikely. Instead, the preferred option amongst critics appears to be having a good old chat with Christopher Luxon with evidence of his diminished support within his caucus, and that might prompt him to resign or step aside and bring about a change of leader. Now, if that doesn't happen, a challenge could follow, but there's no declared challenger at this stage. &nbsp;
All of this is at a critical time. Parliament's back for a short sitting block before recessing again ahead of the Budget. Here comes the Budget. Political analysts say removing a Prime Minister during the Budget period risks destabilising the Government. So it's this next fortnight or not, because after that we're into Budget time and that would be even worse for National.&nbsp;
National Minister Chris Bishop, who has been widely rumoured as a potential contender, was on the radio with Mike Hosking this morning. He came on to talk about the changes to the Warrants of Fitness, but instead he got a little surprise of talk of a coup. Chris Bishop described the situation as “untidy and unhelpful”. He said there's no leadership challenge underway, and he said he will not be the National leader before the election. But the general consensus to that interview was that he was being a little shifty, and he knows a lot more than he was letting on. How could he not know the feeling in the caucus? He's around there the whole time. How could he not know that three guys had actually come to Thomas Coughlan? But he claimed he didn't.&nbsp;
Furthermore, can I just remind you that Chris Bishop is scheduled for an interview with Jack Tame on Q&amp;A on Sunday, so you know this issue is going to continue bubbling away. Behind the scenes, tensions were already evident before Parliament recessed. We reported, everybody reported, that Christopher Luxon faced pressure from within caucus during the final sitting week and he ended up reshuffling the party, hopefully to stabilise it, but look at this, it's still rumbling on. When party whip Stuart Smith got ghosted by Christopher Luxon, he ended up raising all his concerns with deputy leader Nicola Willis instead. We've got a poll out right now and those numbers are adding to the pressure. National is currently sitting well below Labour and another major poll is due next week. So, all eyes are now on the coming days and how Christopher Luxon and his senior colleagues respond.&nbsp;

Andrew Dickens: All eyes are on Christopher Luxon

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/6d239e20-aeca-4a1c-90be-b42f0007bb84/transcript

Bunnings have begun rolling out facial recognition technology in its New Zealand stores, saying it's needed to protect staff and customers because violent incidents continue to rise, despite the fact we've got tough on crime, and we've had a bit of a crackdown. The first two stores to switch on the facial recognition technology are in Te Rapa and Hamilton South, both in the Waikato, but a nationwide rollout is planned. The company says the technology will help identify serious repeat offenders, it will reduce theft, and they do this after what they say is a sharp increase in threatening behaviour.  

Now this whole thing has taken forever for Bunnings. In Australia, Bunnings fought for four years to get permission to do this. There were courts involved, there were tribunals involved, there was a lot of controversy, and a four-year battle. Here, for Bunnings, it's only taken six months because Foodstuffs had already got approval from the Privacy Commissioner, so the hard work was done. But even so, six months for Bunnings to finally roll out a little bit of facial recognition in their stores. They worked hard at it, they've been taking privacy guidance. The Foodstuffs trial last year scanned 225 million faces and they deleted all the images within a minute, but there were concerns at the time about misidentification and bias and the need for strong safeguards, so Bunnings worked away at all of this. They hired a Māori digital sovereignty expert —who knew such a thing existed or was even needed— to make sure cultural considerations are built in. There is bilingual signage for the facial recognition, and if you think you've been wrongly identified as a bad guy, there are clear pathways for you to object to all of this.  

But you know, all this kafuffle about getting the permission shows all of us that there are still a load of people in this world who do not like the idea. There's more issues to come, but are you worried about the rise and rise and rise of facial recognition technology? Or do you have no problem with it because it's a tool to fight crime?  

Now all of this reminds me of debates I used to listen to on when Leighton Smith used to do this show. And he would do a show and it's all about freedom and liberty, and people would come on and say, “Oh, there's no problem, no problem at all, mate. If you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear." And Leighton would say, “Yes, but bit by bit, little by little, our personal freedom and liberty is being stripped and replaced by an all-powerful state monitoring our every step and then controlling the way we behave. It's the threat of Big Brother." But the difference now that time has passed, it's not actually the state that's doing all the facial recognition, it's the corporate world.  

So it's not the state, it's the corporates, and the corporates seem to want to know every little thing about us. Your phone is monitoring where you are, what you do, what you look at, it's telling you what to think. And I get tired of being told what I should be listening to next by Spotify because they've looked at what I've listened to before and said, “well, this is you," and I go, “well, actually, I'm a broader, wider person than that, and stop bothering me." I'm tired of my car telling me how to drive, “your tyres are a little flat, would you like to check into the service centre?" No, I would not. I don't have the time right now. Would you shut up, car? I'm trying to drive.  

Facial recognition technology, do you have any problem with it? And I know you do because look how long it's taken to get approval and how many people have had conniptions about it and had worries about it, and the Privacy Commissioner has spent millions on it just investigating this sort of thing. Is this the rise and rise of Big Brother, or is this necessary as we fight crime? 

Bunnings have begun rolling out facial recognition technology in its New Zealand stores, saying it's needed to protect staff and customers because violent incidents continue to rise, despite the fact we've got tough on crime, and we've had a bit of a crackdown. The first two stores to switch on the facial recognition technology are in Te Rapa and Hamilton South, both in the Waikato, but a nationwide rollout is planned. The company says the technology will help identify serious repeat offenders, it will reduce theft, and they do this after what they say is a sharp increase in threatening behaviour. &nbsp;
Now this whole thing has taken forever for Bunnings. In Australia, Bunnings fought for four years to get permission to do this. There were courts involved, there were tribunals involved, there was a lot of controversy, and a four-year battle. Here, for Bunnings, it's only taken six months because Foodstuffs had already got approval from the Privacy Commissioner, so the hard work was done. But even so, six months for Bunnings to finally roll out a little bit of facial recognition in their stores. They worked hard at it, they've been taking privacy guidance. The Foodstuffs trial last year scanned 225 million faces and they deleted all the images within a minute, but there were concerns at the time about misidentification and bias and the need for strong safeguards, so Bunnings worked away at all of this. They hired a Māori digital sovereignty expert —who knew such a thing existed or was even needed— to make sure cultural considerations are built in. There is bilingual signage for the facial recognition, and if you think you've been wrongly identified as a bad guy, there are clear pathways for you to object to all of this. &nbsp;
But you know, all this kafuffle about getting the permission shows all of us that there are still a load of people in this world who do not like the idea. There's more issues to come, but are you worried about the rise and rise and rise of facial recognition technology? Or do you have no problem with it because it's a tool to fight crime? &nbsp;
Now all of this reminds me of debates I used to listen to on when Leighton Smith used to do this show. And he would do a show and it's all about freedom and liberty, and people would come on and say, “Oh, there's no problem, no problem at all, mate. If you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear." And Leighton would say, “Yes, but bit by bit, little by little, our personal freedom and liberty is being stripped and replaced by an all-powerful state monitoring our every step and then controlling the way we behave. It's the threat of Big Brother." But the difference now that time has passed, it's not actually the state that's doing all the facial recognition, it's the corporate world. &nbsp;
So it's not the state, it's the corporates, and the corporates seem to want to know every little thing about us. Your phone is monitoring where you are, what you do, what you look at, it's telling you what to think. And I get tired of being told what I should be listening to next by Spotify because they've looked at what I've listened to before and said, “well, this is you," and I go, “well, actually, I'm a broader, wider person than that, and stop bothering me." I'm tired of my car telling me how to drive, “your tyres are a little flat, would you like to check into the service centre?" No, I would not. I don't have the time right now. Would you shut up, car? I'm trying to drive. &nbsp;
Facial recognition technology, do you have any problem with it? And I know you do because look how long it's taken to get approval and how many people have had conniptions about it and had worries about it, and the Privacy Commissioner has spent millions on it just investigating this sort of thing. Is this the rise and rise of Big Brother, or is this necessary as we fight crime?&nbsp;

Andrew Dickens: Facial recognition – the rise of Big Brother or a necessary tool?

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/dea6bd8a-27fa-4162-8b46-b42e0011f1e0/transcript

I want to start off with the Bendigo-Ophir mine near Cromwell, and the question is should it get fast track approval? The Australian company Santana Minerals has applied to build four open pits in the Dunstan Range near Cromwell, the largest of which would be one kilometre long and 300 metres deep, and it's alongside a two kilometre long tailings storage dam which would stay there forever.  

The company says the project follows the most significant gold discovery in New Zealand for 40 years. There's always been gold there in the Bendigo around Welshtown, but they've found more. The company says it will generate $6 billion in revenue and more than $1 billion in taxes and some royalties, and 357 direct jobs in the Cromwell region. It's up for fast track and the fast-track panel has until October the 29th to make its decision. 

Yesterday, it was reported that the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, Mr Simon Upton, has come up with a report to the panel and it's issued a stark warning about the mine. He reckons that if the fast-track panel can't receive independent assurance that the project's environmental risks can be mitigated, he says the application should be declined. Simon's submission to the panel, which was reported by Mike White in The Post yesterday, arrives as the debate intensifies. And we've all heard about Sam Neill, the actor. He gave an interview to the Guardian over the weekend and that's given the whole thing a whole international profile. So it's all on.  

So what is Simon really worried about? Simon's primary concerns are water and earthquakes. This proposed tailings storage facility, which I told you is two kilometres long, would hold what he describes as large quantities of potentially hazardous mining residues in the headwaters of one of New Zealand's largest river systems and in an area which is very susceptible to very large earthquakes. He's worried about the seepage into the groundwater, and he noted that Santana Minerals' own experts could not give certain assurances that any leakage could be entirely prevented. And he says the leachate coming out of the tailings facility could continue for decades and even centuries after the mine closes.  

Simon was also troubled by all the imprecise language in Santana's application, citing the objective that contamination caused by the operation is appropriately remediated or managed, and he says well that's a bit airy-fairy isn't it? What does appropriately mean in this context? He said that's anyone's guess. He says the risks of acid mine drainage and tailings failures are arguably greater in New Zealand than elsewhere else, given the country's seismic exposure. And he's not wrong, there was a map actually published the other day of all the seismic events around the world and the two most seismically active places in the entire globe is New Zealand and Japan. Little red dots everywhere. We shake an awful lot. And Simon says if what happens if things do not go to plan, that is my concern. And he says we have only one opportunity to get it right and in his opinion, we shouldn't give the Bendigo Ophir mine near Cromwell fast-track approval. 

And then of course there's Sam Neill, Sir Sam, we know he doesn't want it. So he gave an interview to the Guardian over the weekend, and he was very careful to come across not as an anti-mining zealot. His quote was “I'm not against mining, I'm just against this mine." Of course he's a winemaker, he's grown Pinot in his two paddocks label in the region for 30 years. His family has been in Central Otago for 150 years. He has global influence because he's a global actor. He's his concern also extends beyond just this mine because he says Santana hold permits over a vast surrounding area and this could set off a chain reaction. He says there'll be mining all around us. He's even made a little documentary on the issue, it's called Into the Dunstan Mountains and you can find that on YouTube if you want to watch it.  

This Santana project has created deep divisions in the community, however, there's a lot of support. Supporters are represented by a Facebook group. That Facebook group has 8,500 members and they say look at the economic relief, look at those jobs, all 357 direct ones and all the subsequent jobs from money that flows through the region. And they say our region is under financial pressure, we need the jobs and we need a little bit of dink coming through the economy. But opponents like Sam and former Prime Minister Helen Clark warn that the fast-track law has little regard for the environment, and they're concerned this mine will destroy threatened plants, scar a unique landscape and pollute the land and water. And they say New Zealand will not get all the economic benefits because Santana is an Australian company, so the profits go there. The royalties are low but yes there will be jobs, and we'll get the GST and the tax from that.  

But is it enough to stick in four big four big mines, a couple of big dams, including a tailings dam that's a kilometre long and full of all sorts of poisonous minerals, in a seismic area where if there was a big quake and the dam burst the water would flow straight down into Lake Dunstan and then of course into the Clutha and then all over Otago Southland. Wow, there's good arguments on both sides don't you think? Which side do you stand on? 

I want to start off with the Bendigo-Ophir mine near Cromwell, and the question is should it get fast track approval? The Australian company Santana Minerals has applied to build four open pits in the Dunstan Range near Cromwell, the largest of which would be one kilometre long and 300 metres deep, and it's alongside a two kilometre long tailings storage dam which would stay there forever. &nbsp;
The company says the project follows the most significant gold discovery in New Zealand for 40 years. There's always been gold there in the Bendigo around Welshtown, but they've found more. The company says it will generate $6 billion in revenue and more than $1 billion in taxes and some royalties, and 357 direct jobs in the Cromwell region. It's up for fast track and the fast-track panel has until October the 29th to make its decision.&nbsp;
Yesterday, it was reported that the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, Mr Simon Upton, has come up with a report to the panel and it's issued a stark warning about the mine. He reckons that if the fast-track panel can't receive independent assurance that the project's environmental risks can be mitigated, he says the application should be declined. Simon's submission to the panel, which was reported by Mike White in The Post yesterday, arrives as the debate intensifies. And we've all heard about Sam Neill, the actor. He gave an interview to the Guardian over the weekend and that's given the whole thing a whole international profile. So it's all on. &nbsp;
So what is Simon really worried about? Simon's primary concerns are water and earthquakes. This proposed tailings storage facility, which I told you is two kilometres long, would hold what he describes as large quantities of potentially hazardous mining residues in the headwaters of one of New Zealand's largest river systems and in an area which is very susceptible to very large earthquakes. He's worried about the seepage into the groundwater, and he noted that Santana Minerals' own experts could not give certain assurances that any leakage could be entirely prevented. And he says the leachate coming out of the tailings facility could continue for decades and even centuries after the mine closes. &nbsp;
Simon was also troubled by all the imprecise language in Santana's application, citing the objective that contamination caused by the operation is appropriately remediated or managed, and he says well that's a bit airy-fairy isn't it? What does appropriately mean in this context? He said that's anyone's guess. He says the risks of acid mine drainage and tailings failures are arguably greater in New Zealand than elsewhere else, given the country's seismic exposure. And he's not wrong, there was a map actually published the other day of all the seismic events around the world and the two most seismically active places in the entire globe is New Zealand and Japan. Little red dots everywhere. We shake an awful lot. And Simon says if what happens if things do not go to plan, that is my concern. And he says we have only one opportunity to get it right and in his opinion, we shouldn't give the Bendigo Ophir mine near Cromwell fast-track approval.&nbsp;
And then of course there's Sam Neill, Sir Sam, we know he doesn't want it. So he gave an interview to the Guardian over the weekend, and he was very careful to come across not as an anti-mining zealot. His quote was “I'm not against mining, I'm just against this mine." Of course he's a winemaker, he's grown Pinot in his two paddocks label in the region for 30 years. His family has been in Central Otago for 150 years. He has global influence because he's a global actor. He's his concern also extends beyond just this mine because he says Santana hold permits over a vast surrounding area and this could set off a chain reaction. He says there'll be mining all around us. He's even made a little documentary on the issue, it's called Into the Dunstan Mountains and you can find that on YouTube if you want to watch it. &nbsp;
This Santana project has created deep divisions in the community, however, there's a lot of support. Supporters are represented by a Facebook group. That Facebook group has 8,500 members and they say look at the economic relief, look at those jobs, all 357 direct ones and all the subsequent jobs from money that flows through the region. And they say our region is under financial pressure, we need the jobs and we need a little bit of dink coming through the economy. But opponents like Sam and former Prime Minister Helen Clark warn that the fast-track law has little regard for the environment, and they're concerned this mine will destroy threatened plants, scar a unique landscape and pollute the land and water. And they say New Zealand will not get all the economic benefits because Santana is an Australian company, so the profits go there. The royalties are low but yes there will be jobs, and we'll get the GST and the tax from that. &nbsp;
But is it enough to stick in four big four big mines, a couple of big dams, including a tailings dam that's a kilometre long and full of all sorts of poisonous minerals, in a seismic area where if there was a big quake and the dam burst the water would flow straight down into Lake Dunstan and then of course into the Clutha and then all over Otago Southland. Wow, there's good arguments on both sides don't you think? Which side do you stand on?&nbsp;

Andrew Dickens: The debate over the Bendigo-Ophir mine

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/a96cdafc-731f-401e-87f2-b42d00122572/transcript

Sir Lockwood Smith: Former Speaker of the House on the haka disrupting House proceedings

In 1 playlist(s)

Kerre Woodham Mornings Podcast

Social links

Follow podcast

Recent clips