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

There's been a second major medical platform hack, leaving live patients labelled as dead and people's names changed to Charlie Kirk, the American activist who was shot dead last year – assassinated really. MediMap is widely used across New Zealand. It's often used by the aged care, disability, hospice and community health sectors. It's the second major cyber-attack on medical files and records in recent weeks after Manage My Health was hit at the end of last year, start of this year. Manage My Health's portal systems were compromised over the New Year holiday, putting the data of more than 120,000 users at risk. But it seems the two breaches are vastly different.  

Manage My Health was a ransomware attack conducted by a professional hacker, Kazu, not their real name, said they were motivated by notoriety and by profit. And there are thousands like Kazu. Think Roddy Ho in Slow Horses – annoying little geniuses who are completely removed from the rest of the world, who think along a different code, who live a different life. They do it because they can, because they think they're so clever and they want to prove it to their peers. They love showing off their hacking abilities. In some cases, they demand a ransom, in some cases they're motivated by profit, in other cases not. And generally, when the ransom is paid, they're terribly professional, you never hear another word from them. They take the money, they go and hit somebody else. In the case of MediMap, it seems there was a different motivation as Geoffrey Sayer from MediMap told Mike Hosking this morning. 

“What people would imagine a cyber hack is, is you've come in and brute forced and you've gone through a vulnerability in the software or the platform. This has not been the case. They've used credentials to come in, for all intents and purposes they look like a regular user, but what they started to do was not what a regular user does, which is why we shut the system down and contained it and are now working with forensic experts and government agencies to understand what's happened and then how do we bring this back online for people. We can trace it to a profile, I suppose is the best way to describe it, but we've subsequently become aware that that profile quite possibly had been compromised with their credentials.” 

So it could have been a staff member's kid or partner or just somebody who had access to that code. And we actually were having a discussion before we came on air, I said to the boss because I'd been broadcasting from home for the first two weeks, I said if one of the grandkids was tinkering around on the computer, would they be able to get into the radio station basically and move things around? And he said no, there's about three or four different passwords, but I don't have access to the inner workings. I need to be guided through it anyway and given different passwords at different points. So there could be no accidental hacking of this radio station by anybody at my house.  

These are not the first hacks, and they won't be the last. We have to accept that if we want the convenience of living in an online world, we're vulnerable, especially when we are complete tits when it comes to our security. Guess what the most common password is and has been for years? Yep, ‘123456’. Second most common, this is worldwide, not just New Zealand, second most common is ‘password’, third is ‘admin’, fourth is ‘qwerty’, and the fifth is ‘12345678’ – that'll fool them, adding the seven and the eight at the end, hey? I mean you don't even have to be a particularly good hacker to get into most people's computers.  

But what if you're scrupulous about your privacy? Sure, there should be tougher penalties for the hackers, but what about those who store our information, who demand it? How many places do we go where even the retail assistants, their KPI is to harvest our email addresses, to get them from us and the more they get, the more they're rewarded. Those who store our information should understand that it's a privilege. They use it. They can make money from it, they can profit from it.  

So should companies be held accountable if their security is breached? Should they have to pay some really serious fines so they get really serious about their security? In the case of MediMap, they handled that vastly differently. Different circumstances, but they handled it so much better than Manage My Health. They realised that somebody had access who legitimately got into the computer, to all intents and purposes the computer thought, yep, that's fine, come on in, you're welcome. Then once they started fiddling around, the computer recognised that something was going on that shouldn't be occurring and shut itself down. So different circumstances. But how much onus should be on the companies to protect our data and our information? There are millions of Roddy Hos out there, all wanting to show they're the cleverest thing in the whole wide world. How much should be on us to change our password and put in basic security protocols? And how can we stay or limit our presence online? Is there any way of having our cake and eating it too, to have the convenience of an online world without basically being laid bare and naked before the whole wide world. 

There's been a second major medical platform hack, leaving live patients labelled as dead and people's names changed to Charlie Kirk, the American activist who was shot dead last year – assassinated really. MediMap is widely used across New Zealand. It's often used by the aged care, disability, hospice and community health sectors. It's the second major cyber-attack on medical files and records in recent weeks after Manage My Health was hit at the end of last year, start of this year. Manage My Health's portal systems were compromised over the New Year holiday, putting the data of more than 120,000 users at risk. But it seems the two breaches are vastly different. &nbsp;
Manage My Health was a ransomware attack conducted by a professional hacker, Kazu, not their real name, said they were motivated by notoriety and by profit. And there are thousands like Kazu. Think Roddy Ho in Slow Horses – annoying little geniuses who are completely removed from the rest of the world, who think along a different code, who live a different life. They do it because they can, because they think they're so clever and they want to prove it to their peers. They love showing off their hacking abilities. In some cases, they demand a ransom, in some cases they're motivated by profit, in other cases not. And generally, when the ransom is paid, they're terribly professional, you never hear another word from them. They take the money, they go and hit somebody else. In the case of MediMap, it seems there was a different motivation as Geoffrey Sayer from MediMap told Mike Hosking this morning.&nbsp;
“What people would imagine a cyber hack is, is you've come in and brute forced and you've gone through a vulnerability in the software or the platform. This has not been the case. They've used credentials to come in, for all intents and purposes they look like a regular user, but what they started to do was not what a regular user does, which is why we shut the system down and contained it and are now working with forensic experts and government agencies to understand what's happened and then how do we bring this back online for people. We can trace it to a profile, I suppose is the best way to describe it, but we've subsequently become aware that that profile quite possibly had been compromised with their credentials.”&nbsp;
So it could have been a staff member's kid or partner or just somebody who had access to that code. And we actually were having a discussion before we came on air, I said to the boss because I'd been broadcasting from home for the first two weeks, I said if one of the grandkids was tinkering around on the computer, would they be able to get into the radio station basically and move things around? And he said no, there's about three or four different passwords, but I don't have access to the inner workings. I need to be guided through it anyway and given different passwords at different points. So there could be no accidental hacking of this radio station by anybody at my house. &nbsp;
These are not the first hacks, and they won't be the last. We have to accept that if we want the convenience of living in an online world, we're vulnerable, especially when we are complete tits when it comes to our security. Guess what the most common password is and has been for years? Yep, ‘123456’. Second most common, this is worldwide, not just New Zealand, second most common is ‘password’, third is ‘admin’, fourth is ‘qwerty’, and the fifth is ‘12345678’ – that'll fool them, adding the seven and the eight at the end, hey? I mean you don't even have to be a particularly good hacker to get into most people's computers. &nbsp;
But what if you're scrupulous about your privacy? Sure, there should be tougher penalties for the hackers, but what about those who store our information, who demand it? How many places do we go where even the retail assistants, their KPI is to harvest our email addresses, to get them from us and the more they get, the more they're rewarded. Those who store our information should understand that it's a privilege. They use it. They can make money from it, they can profit from it. &nbsp;
So should companies be held accountable if their security is breached? Should they have to pay some really serious fines so they get really serious about their security? In the case of MediMap, they handled that vastly differently. Different circumstances, but they handled it so much better than Manage My Health. They realised that somebody had access who legitimately got into the computer, to all intents and purposes the computer thought, yep, that's fine, come on in, you're welcome. Then once they started fiddling around, the computer recognised that something was going on that shouldn't be occurring and shut itself down. So different circumstances. But how much onus should be on the companies to protect our data and our information? There are millions of Roddy Hos out there, all wanting to show they're the cleverest thing in the whole wide world. How much should be on us to change our password and put in basic security protocols? And how can we stay or limit our presence online? Is there any way of having our cake and eating it too, to have the convenience of an online world without basically being laid bare and naked before the whole wide world.&nbsp;

Kerre Woodham: Privacy - can we have our cake and eat it too?

Credit to those 120 business people who went along to hear Chris Hipkins' State of the Nation address yesterday, hosted by the Auckland Business Chamber. Credit to those few people who watched it live, like my colleague Mike Hosking. My word, it was dull. And that is not me being a lickspittle mouthpiece for the Tory overlords. Have a listen to this: 

“I know we didn't get everything right when we were in government last time. Many of you have been very clear on what you think we did wrong. But one thing is clear, we were trying to do too much, too fast, and we weren't focused enough. We're going to be making further announcements later in the year as we get closer to the election. But I want to be very, very clear on this. I want to know that I can deliver on any promises that I make. That's the standard that I'll be holding myself to and our next Labour Government to.  

“Because frankly, Kiwis have had enough of promises that aren't kept. And I don't want to repeat that cycle. We won't try and do everything in our first term. We'll be focusing on what matters the most and delivering on those things. I'm not promising perfection. Where we make mistakes, I'll take responsibility for those. But I'm promising this: a government that puts the cost of living first, a government that partners with business to create jobs and raise wages, a government that invests in our people and backs our potential. Not just managing the country, building it.” 

Yes. So there was another 20 odd minutes of the same, 20 odd minutes. He banged on about affordability, that word was used a lot. Repeated the mantra I first heard when he came in for the quarterly catch up, and which we will no doubt hear throughout the campaign: jobs, health, homes. He went big on renewable energy, promised Labour would scrap the Government's proposed gas import terminal. Also went big on his future fund.  

As speeches go, he was no JFK. It is not one for the history books. But commentators say that was by design, like Tim Murphy from Newsroom. Tim says this was Labour trying to convey maturity, a little contrition, humility, and to claim it could be the adult in the room now and after the November 7 election. Luke Malpass from The Press says the speech was to present as a calm port in a cost of living storm, to be dependable, reliable, and boring even. That was the aim. Well, that's something Labour's achieved.  

Above all else, says Luke, at this stage of the game, to not change the strategy that has served Labour well so far, which is not say much, not do much, not announce much. And it has worked for them. When there is nothing that you can argue against, it's steady as she goes. They're just letting the Coalition Government make mistakes, or not work fast enough, or not be snazzy enough for the electorate, and they're just sitting there and collecting the votes of the centre, who are underwhelmed by the Coalition Government. Basically, they're saying vote for this Chris because he's not Christopher Luxon and we're not National.  

But that works both ways. You might not be wowed by the Coalition Government and the Prime Minister, but the message could be at least they're not Labour, Greens, and Te Pāti Māori, and at least Christopher Luxon isn't the Chris that was in charge last time. 

Credit to those 120 business people who went along to hear Chris Hipkins' State of the Nation address yesterday, hosted by the Auckland Business Chamber. Credit to those few people who watched it live, like my colleague Mike Hosking. My word, it was dull. And that is not me being a lickspittle mouthpiece for the Tory overlords. Have a listen to this:&nbsp;
“I know we didn't get everything right when we were in government last time. Many of you have been very clear on what you think we did wrong. But one thing is clear, we were trying to do too much, too fast, and we weren't focused enough. We're going to be making further announcements later in the year as we get closer to the election. But I want to be very, very clear on this. I want to know that I can deliver on any promises that I make. That's the standard that I'll be holding myself to and our next Labour Government to. &nbsp;
“Because frankly, Kiwis have had enough of promises that aren't kept. And I don't want to repeat that cycle. We won't try and do everything in our first term. We'll be focusing on what matters the most and delivering on those things. I'm not promising perfection. Where we make mistakes, I'll take responsibility for those. But I'm promising this: a government that puts the cost of living first, a government that partners with business to create jobs and raise wages, a government that invests in our people and backs our potential. Not just managing the country, building it.”&nbsp;
Yes. So there was another 20 odd minutes of the same, 20 odd minutes. He banged on about affordability, that word was used a lot. Repeated the mantra I first heard when he came in for the quarterly catch up, and which we will no doubt hear throughout the campaign: jobs, health, homes. He went big on renewable energy, promised Labour would scrap the Government's proposed gas import terminal. Also went big on his future fund. &nbsp;
As speeches go, he was no JFK. It is not one for the history books. But commentators say that was by design, like Tim Murphy from Newsroom. Tim says this was Labour trying to convey maturity, a little contrition, humility, and to claim it could be the adult in the room now and after the November 7 election. Luke Malpass from The Press says the speech was to present as a calm port in a cost of living storm, to be dependable, reliable, and boring even. That was the aim. Well, that's something Labour's achieved. &nbsp;
Above all else, says Luke, at this stage of the game, to not change the strategy that has served Labour well so far, which is not say much, not do much, not announce much. And it has worked for them. When there is nothing that you can argue against, it's steady as she goes. They're just letting the Coalition Government make mistakes, or not work fast enough, or not be snazzy enough for the electorate, and they're just sitting there and collecting the votes of the centre, who are underwhelmed by the Coalition Government. Basically, they're saying vote for this Chris because he's not Christopher Luxon and we're not National. &nbsp;
But that works both ways. You might not be wowed by the Coalition Government and the Prime Minister, but the message could be at least they're not Labour, Greens, and Te Pāti Māori, and at least Christopher Luxon isn't the Chris that was in charge last time.&nbsp;

Kerre Woodham: Chris Hipkins' underwhelming State of the Nation speech

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/38044cfe-5d42-4658-9c38-b3fa016fbcb6/transcript

I am torn on this one because I know somebody needs to do something. That classic old talkback quote, Somebody needs to do something." Well, somebody has. The government is giving police new powers to crack down on beggars, rough sleepers, and basically nasty oiks.

Yesterday, Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith, Police Minister Mark Mitchell announced the new move on orders and details around when they'll be issued and who they will target. Goldsmith said we should not accept our city centres becoming places of intimidation and dysfunction. He said our main streets and town centres have been blighted by disruption and disturbance, and inner city businesses are suffering as a result. And he's right.

We've had many Auckland central city business people ringing in at their wits' end about what to do with people who've been sleeping and soiling in their shop doorways and who threaten and intimidate their customers. But the police are right, yet again, they're being told to do the dirty work, the mopping up when other agencies fail, just as they had to do when mental health services were failing the mentally ill.

President of the Police Association Steve Watt told the Mike Hosking Breakfast this morning, it's not the police's job to move on the homeless.

It's about getting the right resource to tackle the problem. And I appreciate police are that 24 7 agency that always respond, that get things done. But the reality is, is we can't be the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff every time. What we have to do is look at the problem

That's what the police are, Steve.

What we have to do is look at the problem and determine what's the best resource to deal with it. And I'd suggest in this case, it's not police.

You sound like a social worker. If somebody's lying across the footpath and abusing me because they're high on drugs and they're causing a disturbance to the peace and I can't open my business or I can't go into a shop, that's your job, isn't it?

And when you talk about the Summary Offences Act, there's offences in there that we can deal with disorderly behaviour. We can arrest people for disorderly behaviour. We can arrest people for threatening behaviour, offensive behaviour. That's not an issue, and we do that on a daily basis. That's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about move on orders from someone who hasn't committed an offence.

And that's the thing, isn't it? That was Steve Watt, and to be fair, there was a fairly negative reaction to his comments. Oh, get tough, get hard." But if you've met one homeless person, you've met one homeless person. They can't all be lumped together as one hopeless, God forsaken bunch.

Some of them are gentle, kind, broken souls, and I say that because I've met them and I've talked to them. And I think the police have too. So the police know there's a huge number of reasons as to why people are on the street. So some of them are just broken. They're gentle, they're kind, they're good, they're doing their best in a hopeless situation.

Others are crazy, angry, broken souls, like the completely methed out old crone that takes her clothes off, climbs a tree God, the poor tree, you know, nature doesn't judge and that's a beautiful thing, but passers by can and do and shrieks at people from the top of the tree. You know, like, no, not good. Some have been on the street since they were kids because no matter how bad the streets are, it's better than the place they call home.

 Others are victims of circumstance. Remember the man who rang us? He was living in his car despite being a homeowner and formerly having a six figure salary. The drink had got to him. So in a moment of absolute clarity, he'd put tenants in the house so he didn't lose it and couch surfed till all his friends gave up on him they'd had a gutsful and he was living in his car waiting to get into a treatment centre. And I hope he's there now. I think he should be, shouldn't he, Helen? He said he was I think due to go in. And I hope he's doing well. And I have met some really lovely, lovely humans who happen to be homeless, some by choice, some by circumstance.

I've also endured foul mouthed, foul smelling, aggressive humans who I've had to cross the road to get away from. So you can't just lump the homeless into one lot. There's a thousand different reasons why they're there, and the police are quite right. The agencies, the social agencies are the ones who should be trying to help them.

Some of them won't be helped. And if, you know, if they're committing crimes, move them on. None of us should have to put up with abuse and intimidation, nor deal with the filth created by other people, no matter how damaged they are. So I'm really torn. You know, as the police say, if we're moving on the rough sleepers, who's responding to your burglary? Well, Steve, actually at the moment nobody is.

You know, very few, you don't get an instant police response at the moment anyway, so it's not like you're going to be suddenly dragged away from my burglary to move a rough sleeper on. Something had to be done. I quite agree. You just can't have the kind of fighting, nakedness, foulness anywhere. Nobody should have to put up with that, least of all people who are getting up early and trying to make a living, and the customers who are trying to support them shouldn't have to deal with that sort of nonsense either.

But at the same time, we need agencies to help those who want help, who would like to be helped, who would like to live in a home. And if that's the agencies not doing their job, then get onto them rather than leave it to the police to do the mopping up yet again.

LISTEN ABOVE

I am torn on this one because I know somebody needs to do something. That classic old talkback quote, Somebody needs to do something." Well, somebody has. The government is giving police new powers to crack down on beggars, rough sleepers, and basically nasty oiks.
Yesterday, Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith, Police Minister Mark Mitchell announced the new move on orders and details around when they'll be issued and who they will target. Goldsmith said we should not accept our city centres becoming places of intimidation and dysfunction. He said our main streets and town centres have been blighted by disruption and disturbance, and inner city businesses are suffering as a result. And he's right.
We've had many Auckland central city business people ringing in at their wits' end about what to do with people who've been sleeping and soiling in their shop doorways and who threaten and intimidate their customers. But the police are right, yet again, they're being told to do the dirty work, the mopping up when other agencies fail, just as they had to do when mental health services were failing the mentally ill.
President of the Police Association Steve Watt told the Mike Hosking Breakfast this morning, it's not the police's job to move on the homeless.
It's about getting the right resource to tackle the problem. And I appreciate police are that 24 7 agency that always respond, that get things done. But the reality is, is we can't be the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff every time. What we have to do is look at the problem
That's what the police are, Steve.
What we have to do is look at the problem and determine what's the best resource to deal with it. And I'd suggest in this case, it's not police.
You sound like a social worker. If somebody's lying across the footpath and abusing me because they're high on drugs and they're causing a disturbance to the peace and I can't open my business or I can't go into a shop, that's your job, isn't it?
And when you talk about the Summary Offences Act, there's offences in there that we can deal with disorderly behaviour. We can arrest people for disorderly behaviour. We can arrest people for threatening behaviour, offensive behaviour. That's not an issue, and we do that on a daily basis. That's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about move on orders from someone who hasn't committed an offence.
And that's the thing, isn't it? That was Steve Watt, and to be fair, there was a fairly negative reaction to his comments. Oh, get tough, get hard." But if you've met one homeless person, you've met one homeless person. They can't all be lumped together as one hopeless, God forsaken bunch.
Some of them are gentle, kind, broken souls, and I say that because I've met them and I've talked to them. And I think the police have too. So the police know there's a huge number of reasons as to why people are on the street. So some of them are just broken. They're gentle, they're kind, they're good, they're doing their best in a hopeless situation.
Others are crazy, angry, broken souls, like the completely methed out old crone that takes her clothes off, climbs a tree God, the poor tree, you know, nature doesn't judge and that's a beautiful thing, but passers by can and do and shrieks at people from the top of the tree. You know, like, no, not good. Some have been on the street since they were kids because no matter how bad the streets are, it's better than the place they call home.
&nbsp;Others are victims of circumstance. Remember the man who rang us? He was living in his car despite being a homeowner and formerly having a six figure salary. The drink had got to him. So in a moment of absolute clarity, he'd put tenants in the house so he didn't lose it and couch surfed till all his friends gave up on him they'd had a gutsful and he was living in his car waiting to get into a treatment centre. And I hope he's there now. I think he should be, shouldn't he, Helen? He said he was I think due to go in. And I hope he's doing well. And I have met some really lovely, lovely humans who happen to be homeless, some by choice, some by circumstance.
I've also endured foul mouthed, foul smelling, aggressive humans who I've had to cross the road to get away from. So you can't just lump the homeless into one lot. There's a thousand different reasons why they're there, and the police are quite right. The agencies, the social agencies are the ones who should be trying to help them.
Some of them won't be helped. And if, you know, if they're committing crimes, move them on. None of us should have to put up with abuse and intimidation, nor deal with the filth created by other people, no matter how damaged they are. So I'm really torn. You know, as the police say, if we're moving on the rough sleepers, who's responding to your burglary? Well, Steve, actually at the moment nobody is.
You know, very few, you don't get an instant police response at the moment anyway, so it's not like you're going to be suddenly dragged away from my burglary to move a rough sleeper on. Something had to be done. I quite agree. You just can't have the kind of fighting, nakedness, foulness anywhere. Nobody should have to put up with that, least of all people who are getting up early and trying to make a living, and the customers who are trying to support them shouldn't have to deal with that sort of nonsense either.
But at the same time, we need agencies to help those who want help, who would like to be helped, who would like to live in a home. And if that's the agencies not doing their job, then get onto them rather than leave it to the police to do the mopping up yet again.
LISTEN ABOVE

Kerre Woodham: You can't lump the homeless into one group

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/b446755c-a678-492c-a84d-b3f9016d9ac5/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