Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) Link to this
It will not surprise members of the Government that there will be a number of amendments. The first of the amendments in my name indicates that the words “Film Production Work” in the title should be omitted and “As Requested by Warner Bros” be substituted. We looked at a number of possible titles, and did so very recently, given the Minister’s adoption of the suggestions of Mr Charles Chauvel. We thought about the title “Employment Relations (Hurriedly and Badly Drafted) Amendment Bill”, but we thought that you, Mr Chairperson, might regard that as something that is facetious.
We are focusing on trying to get an appropriate title for a bill that is inappropriate, and people who look carefully at this bill will not be able to find a title that fits the bill if it is to be considered in a serious manner. The legislation is to be called the Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Act 2010. There is a question there about whether that title is appropriate, whether we want an Act of that sort, and whether this legislation is designed to focus on an employment relationship.
I think if we look carefully at the bill, and at the intentions of the Government in this area, we see that the bill should, in fact, be titled the “Not an Employment Relations Amendment Bill”. To use the vernacular of Tau Henare, it should be the “Employment Relations—Not—Bill”. The Government is saying that this is not an employment relationship, so why is it giving the bill a title that suggests that it is? I am sure we will work our way over the next period of time around a number of alternatives that the bill could be called. It could be the “Employment Relations (John Key Kowtowing) Bill”. Mr Brownlee nods his head. I am pleased to see that he accepts the possibility of it being called the “Employment Relations (John Key Kowtowing) Bill”.
Hon Gerry Brownlee Link to this
The only one who kowtows around here is that member. Bent over for the unions. That’s him.
Hon Tau Henare
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) Link to this
Well, this is a robust debate. I think when the member starts using words like “kowtow”—and I mentioned a bevel in an earlier debate—we start down that process where each response tends to—
Hon Dr Jonathan ColemanThe CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) Link to this
I am on my feet, but thank you. Yes, it escalates. I try to be fair about this. We have suggested that the term “bend over” should not be used in this debate, because of its ambiguity. If we allow it, then things degenerate. In the same way, I could say that the member’s using the term “kowtow” does exactly the same thing. I will try to keep this debate on a level track. I cannot control what members say; I can only at points in the debate say that we have gone too far.
Hon TREVOR MALLARD Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. That was not actually the offensive term. I do not know whether I have to repeat what Mr Henare said, but he used an extremely offensive term. I ask that he be asked to withdraw and apologise for the unparliamentary term he used.
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) Link to this
I did not hear; my focus was on something else. If the member said something unparliamentary, let us just withdraw it now.
Hon TREVOR MALLARD Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I think we now have a question, but we will deal with it through privilege. The member said that I was rogered. I find that exceptionally offensive, and I ask for it to be withdrawn.
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) Link to this
I must be sort of pure, because I really do not understand the significance of that term—and I say that genuinely. But offence has been taken, and I ask the member to withdraw.
I withdraw. I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Last night one of our colleagues took offence at something. She asked you four times for the—
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) Link to this
The member cannot refer to something that is not current. At that time I gave a ruling and I am not going to recanvass that issue. [ Interruption]
Hon TREVOR MALLARD Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I think if most members argued with you from their seat after you ruled and called you contradictory, you would call them to order. That is what the member just did.
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) Link to this
I was listening very carefully. The member said “it contradicts”; he did not personalise it. I am prepared to move on with the debate. I am watching very carefully. If I have to be more vigilant about words that are said, I will be. But I want this debate to actually flow. I think that is what we are here for.
Hon TREVOR MALLARD Link to this
Clause 1 is the title clause. It is where we make a decision as to what is an appropriate title for this bill. The Government has suggested Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Act 2010. The Labour Opposition is indicating that it will not support that title, because it is inappropriate from a number of angles. One is that it indicates that a particular relationship is not an employment relationship. This bill denies an employment relationship or the opportunity for people to develop an employment relationship—something that is quite foreign to the approach in New Zealand. It says “Film Production Work”. Well, if one looks at this bill one sees that it is much broader than film production work. One could start with video games. If Gerry Brownlee and Kate Wilkinson cannot tell the difference between a film and a video game, they are of an even worse generation than I am in these matters. I am pretty Neanderthal as far as these things go, but I know the difference between a video game and a film.
It is a pity that a number of members opposite, like Tau Henare and the Minister in charge of the bill, could not focus on getting a title that more accurately describes the content of the legislation. For example, I think it is arguable that acting is not a core part of film production. A lot of actors do voice-overs, do body doubles—and I think we might have a bit of fun with body doubles as the debate goes on—work as dancers, and work as entertainers. The question is whether all of those people should be covered by this legislation, and in what circumstances it is appropriate to cover them.
I am looking forward to the contribution from the Minister in charge of the bill on this particular clause in respect of the appropriateness of the title. I think there will be considerable debate and a number of alternative titles. I think it is fair to say that some of those titles will be facetious; in the end, Mr Chairperson, you may end up ruling out some of the amendments as they come to the Committee, but that will be a matter of judgment for you. We will try to get them to you at least 30 seconds before they are voted on in order for you to give them the consideration that they deserve. I am aware of the rules; as a whip on the other side of the Chamber I did some work on occasions to try to ensure that amendments to title clauses were serious amendments rather than facetious amendments. If they are facetious amendments, of course, they can be debated but they cannot be voted on. Therefore, we will have quite a lot of debate on facetious amendments, and some on serious amendments as well. The way the rules go is sort of unusual. It is quite lovely at the moment, from our perspective. There is not a limitation on moving the amendments; the limitation is actually on their being put. That is what the Labour Party will do.
There are a lot of views around as to better words to go in here. I would be interested in the contribution of the Māori Party as to whether we could have some translations that would fit better in here. I do not want to refer too directly to Mr Brownlee, or to the description of a relationship that he had at one stage, which suggested that someone was a whale rider. There is a question about whether we could have a translation of that, and whether we could work that into the title. Whale Rider is an iconic New Zealand movie, and one that was made under current legislation. We did not need a bill, we did not need a particular title, and we did not need a new arrangement in order to make it, and maybe that was appropriate.
Maybe for the Māori Party we will go into the more modern era and talk about its subservient approach on this legislation. I congratulate Hone Harawira on withdrawing his vote on this issue, and on not voting with National. Given the approach that National has had to the Māori Party recently, maybe “Boy” is the right word to be included in the title of this legislation. Maybe that is its approach to the Māori Party in this sort of legislation. I just want to say that the attitude of ACT does not surprise me; that party thinks that the bill does not go far enough, and I will be interested in its amendments. It might be the “Employment Relations (ACT Goes Further) Amendment Bill”.
CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) Link to this
This is the first opportunity that I have had to take a call on the Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill; I am sure that it will not be the last. I say, first of all, I am very pleased that The Hobbit is to be filmed here in New Zealand. I am absolutely delighted that it is to be filmed here in New Zealand. I am probably one of the only members in the Chamber who has actually read the book—
Oh, well, there must be others. That is good to hear. I am very concerned about National’s approach to this legislation, which is to take the George W Bush approach: “You are either with us, or with the enemy.” No subtlety is involved in that, but actually it is a load of rubbish—an absolute load of rubbish.
I went to the movies a few weeks ago; I do not do that very often. I went to see the movie called Made in Dagenham, which was about the women at the Ford factory in London who went on strike and campaigned in order to be paid the same as the blokes. The women were not very popular at the time, either—
Paul QuinnI raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I have listened carefully to the speaker. This particular debate is focused on the title clause, and he has not mentioned that clause once so far.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
It is, of course, possible in a debate on a clause to go right through a speech without actually mentioning that clause, and for the speech to still be entirely relevant. I think that when the member opposite gets a bit more experience, he will understand that.
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) Link to this
There are some accepted norms about process. One is that a title debate is a very close and tight debate. There is also another expectation that when a bill has not been to a select committee, there is a slightly wider tolerance than usual. I stress that this is not a general debate. The Chair tends to show a little more tolerance about examples being brought into the process. We are debating clause 1, which is the title clause.
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) Link to this
Then I invite the member to convince me that that is the case.
Thank you very much, Mr Chair. Twenty seconds into my speech, I am getting to the title. I think it is perfectly acceptable to make some preliminary remarks. What I was talking about was—I will come to an alternative title to the bill in a moment—the film Made in Dagenham, and the fact that the women who campaigned for equal pay with the blokes were pretty unpopular at the time. But they kept on going and, ultimately, they got what they wanted. As a result of that, around the world now Governments have adopted equal pay legislation.
With that idea of either being for us or against us, which we have heard about from the National members, they might as well call this bill the “You’re for Us (the Warner Bros - National Party) Or You’re Against Us Bill”. They may as well call the bill that, because effectively that is what they have come into this Chamber and argued. It is absolutely ridiculous. I tell members that the women who went on strike in Dagenham were not anti-car. They were not showing that they were anti-car by going on strike at the Ford factory. The people who are opposed to this legislation are not anti-Hobbit. In fact, I am very keen to see The Hobbit filmed in New Zealand, and I am delighted that that is to happen. I am very pro-Hobbit. We are very pro-Hobbit on this side of the Chamber.
So I support Mr Mallard’s amendment to clause 1, which suggests removing the words “Film Production Work” and inserting the words “As Requested by Warner Bros”, making this bill the “Employment Relations (As Requested by Warner Bros) Amendment Bill”. From the minute that the Warner Bros representatives got off the plane, were met by VIP cars at the airport, and were swept away to Premier House, they would have been rubbing their hands together and thinking: “Gosh, we had better up the stakes a bit here. We were going in a bit low; we will go in a bit higher. We will demand more, because we know that we have the Government over a barrel. It’s sent these VIP cars out to the airport to meet us. Maybe we can demand whatever we like now, because this Government will just give us whatever we like.”
The Government has raised the cost of keeping The Hobbit in New Zealand. The Government’s mishandling of this issue has raised the cost of keeping The Hobbit in New Zealand. That is why the Committee should agree to the amendment put forward by Trevor Mallard that this bill should be called the “Employment Relations (As Requested by Warner Bros) Amendment Bill”, because that is why we are here. We are here because the Government is basically doing whatever is requested of it by a large, multinational company. That company makes millions, if not billions, of dollars a year in profits, and the Government is giving it more in taxpayer subsidies. The Government is giving the company more in taxpayer subsidies because the Government mishandled this issue from the very beginning. It did not have a relationship with Warner Bros at the very beginning. The Government came into this matter only late in the piece, after it looked as though the Warner Bros studios would be pulling out of New Zealand altogether.
The amendment put forward in the name of Trevor Mallard is in fact a perfectly reasonable amendment to the title clause of this bill.
It is to remove the words “Film Production Work” from the title, and replace them with “As Requested by Warner Bros”.
Oh, Tau Henare is to think about it. He is in charge; he is in charge of everything. With all of the bitter, twisted resentment that he has over there on the National backbenches, it is good to know that he has still kept his sense of perspective, and that he will consider the amendment put forward by Trevor Mallard. Mr Henare is in National these days; it is hard to keep track of him.
The critical point here in the debate on the title clause is what the appropriate title for this bill should really be. I am not convinced in any way, shape, or form that in the suggested title, the words “Film Production Work” reflect the true intent behind this bill. John Key is actually—I will give him this—a very, very clever politician. He is a very clever politician, and he wondered how he could do something that he would not normally get away with: how he could turn this situation into something that would allow him to push through legislation that would not normally gain public support. That is why National came up with this amendment bill. I reckon that the Government members went into the negotiations with Warner Bros thinking that they would use this issue as an excuse to push through legislation that they would not normally get away with. What did we hear from Heather Roy before? Heather Roy let slip and revealed the true National Government agenda behind this legislation: those members do not want this legislation to apply only to the film production industry.
That is why the title of this bill is misleading. We will be back here—in a matter of months, I suspect—to debate the extension of this provision to every worker in the country. That is just what the Government did with regard to the 90-day legislation, which started out as a trial period. National said it would affect only a small number of people. But what do we know? Within months, because the ACT Party told National to do this, the National members have come back here and are pushing through further changes to extend the 90-day probationary period to everybody.
So the title of this bill, which is the Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill, is actually misleading. We know what the true agenda is. National should just be honest about it and call the bill the “Employment Relations Amendment Bill”. It should remove the words “Film Production Work” from the title altogether. We know that that is not what National is aiming for here. It wants to set a precedent here, so that it can come back in a few months’ time and say it does not actually think film production workers should be treated any differently from other workers and this measure should apply to the entire workforce. All of a sudden, all those people—and they are quite vulnerable in some cases—will be pushed out into contract work, and they will lose all their rights to bargain collectively. The cleaners and caretakers, those types of people, will suddenly find themselves deemed to be contractors, and they will lose a whole lot of the employment rights that they have fought hard for many, many years to gain. So the title of this bill is misleading. It is unfair, and it does not give New Zealanders a true glimpse of what the National Party’s real agenda here is.
I am very supportive of having The Hobbit made in New Zealand, and I absolutely reject the notion that by being opposed to a change to the employment relations legislation, we are somehow anti-film or anti - The Hobbit. That is absolutely ridiculous. It is like saying the women at the Ford factory who campaigned for equal rights were anti-car. It is like saying the Labour Party, by arguing against giving Murray McCully sweeping veto powers over the Rugby World Cup, is anti - Rugby World Cup or anti - New Zealand, which the National members claimed yesterday. That is absolutely ridiculous. The public of New Zealand deserve to have more than those types of sweeping generalisations from the Government. We have not heard from those members any detailed arguments about why this legislation is necessary. They have given us a lot of platitudes about wanting to support having The Hobbit made in New Zealand. I support having The Hobbit made in New Zealand, but they have not given us any detailed reasons as to why this legislation needs to go through. Why is it imperative that a person who cleans the offices at a film production studio should be treated as a contractor and not as an employee, which is what this bill does?
That is one of the reasons—and I come back to the fact that we are debating the title clause—why the words “Film Production Work” in the title clause are misleading. They are misleading because this legislation applies not just to actors, the extras, the technicians, and so on but also to anybody employed in any way in the film production industry. It includes the people who clean the studios or answer the telephones at a film production studio. It extends far wider than the title would suggest.
KEITH LOCKE (Green) Link to this
I am sure my Labour colleagues will get a chance later on to speak on the Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill. A lot of good suggestions have come out for a title. One of the problems with them, though, is that they are a little bit long. I am working on shortening the title. For example, just using the term “Warners” rather than “as requested by Warner Bros”, such as in the “Warners Employment Relations Amendment Bill”, would shorten it a bit. Even the “Warners Bill” could be used to abbreviate it. Warner Bros is responsible for this bill, but we have to give it respect. I do not know whether it is within the Standing Orders—and possibly the Chair or the Minister in the chair, Kate Wilkinson, could inform us on this—to use the official Warner Bros logo. Is that possible within the Standing Orders? The Minister could tell me a bit later on. Certainly, we want to give Warner Bros recognition because it is the force behind this bill. I also think that it will have to cop all the flak for it, and that is fair enough. When opprobrium is heaped on this bill, as it causes all the legal tangles that I referred to in my second reading speech, and that Charles Chauvel went into some detail about, and as it collapses in confusion in the District Court, High Court, Court of Appeal, and Supreme Court, if it is called the “Warners Bill” we will know who is really responsible. We do not want Warner Bros to get off the hook in any way.
Another very short term for the bill would be the “No Strike Bill”. It is very simple, because that is what it is about. It denies workers who are in the film industry the right to any collective industrial action at any stage in the production of film. Basically, it is because an employer, when signing up actors or film workers for a period, can say that they have to sign up as independent contractors with no rights or they will not get the job. There is nothing in the bill to stop employers acting in that way. I think we could have a simple title like the “Warners Bill”, the “No Strike Bill”, or perhaps we could join up those two concepts and have the “Warners No Strike Bill”. I think in some ways Warner Bros is lucky here because normally when we give naming rights and put logos on things, we charge the company concerned. Again, it might be against the Standing Orders to charge Warner Bros for having its logo on this bill. Even so, we are giving it a freebie. That is in the spirit of the bill and in the spirit of what the Government has done. Is it $100 million? I have lost track of the millions that the Government has just handed over to Warner Bros, but it would be in the spirit of that to give Warner Bros this freebie of naming rights to the bill and its logo on the bill, full stop. Thank you.
PHIL TWYFORD (Labour) Link to this
I also have a suggestion for the title of the Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill. I think this bill should be called the “National Party’s Craven, Cynical Attempt to Claim Credit for Inventing the New Zealand Film Industry Bill”. Is that too long? I do not know. It does not have the virtue of brevity, but it certainly is more accurate than the name that the Government gave this bill.
We would think from listening to the debate in the Chamber from the Government benches this afternoon that this movie The Hobbit was the first blockbuster movie ever made in New Zealand, and that the National-ACT Government was the first Government in New Zealand’s history to ever do anything constructive for the New Zealand film industry. We would think that the Prime Minister had saved the day and single-handedly rescued The Hobbit,and that healone is responsible for saving the New Zealand film industry.
I want to table a document during this call that lists the feature films that have been made in New Zealand. It starts off in 1939 with Rewi’s Last Stand, and the director was Rudall Hayward. Over the years there have been hundreds and hundreds of great New Zealand movies produced in New Zealand, many of them with the support of the Government. In 1999 the fifth Labour Government launched a whole suite of policies to encourage the development of the New Zealand film industry. I will read to the Committee some of the names of the films that were produced with the support of the fifth Labour Government. It started with The Lord of the Rings I, II, and III. In 2002 we had Whale Rider, which was directed by Niki Caro. It is a film that many of us are familiar with. In 2003 we had The Last Samurai, which I believe was filmed in Taranaki.
I think it might have been Warner Bros—oh my goodness! In 2004 there was a very good film based on the Maurice Gee novel called In My Father’s Den, which was directed by Brad McGann. Roger Donaldson made The World’s Fastest Indian in 2005. Also in 2005, during the term of the fifth Labour Government, Andrew Adamson directed The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe. It was a vintage year. That year Toa Fraser directed No. 2, Peter Jackson—that is familiar—directed King Kong, and also in 2005 Sione’s Wedding was directed by Chris Graham. In 2006, Robert Sarkies made Out of the Blue—a great New Zealand movie. Taika Waititi made Eagle vs Shark, a modern classic of New Zealand film making. In 2007, The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian was made. In 2008, Second-Hand Wedding was made, and Toa Fraser made Dean Spanley, which was a co-production with the UK—another great New Zealand movie.
I think it is becoming pretty clear even to the members sitting on the backbench, even to Tau Henare, that the previous Labour Government gave fantastic support to the New Zealand film industry. In fact, 119 New Zealand movies were made during the fifth Labour Government.
We do not. What I object to is this Government cynically manipulating the circumstances of the production of The Hobbit to try to claim credit not only for saving the movie but for saving the New Zealand film industry. The name of this bill should be the “Employment Relations (Legal Fiction) Amendment Bill”. My colleague David Parker made the argument before that this bill formalises a lie—it formalises a lie. It changes the law so that someone who is patently an employee can be a declared a contractor.
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti) Link to this
Kia ora, Mr Chair. There are some great movies, like Rob Roy, and they have great titles. They make great statements about the wind blowing west and the darkened days arising. For example, The Grapes of Wrath is like what has happened here with the Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill. We are seeing the drifting and the undoing of working classes’ rights in this country; Mr Brownlee knows that. The member from Wairarapa just signalled that the key issue is that the work is either short-term or long-term. That is the moot point—in this bill it is neither. It is about putting peoples’ security at risk.
It is great that The Hobbit will be filmed here. It is great that the film has remained in this country. When the Prime Minister was on TV and was asked how the deal was going, he said that it was really touch and go. He is a great man; he is a great actor. He put the signal out, but people knew right then that he had the deal sewn up 3 days before it was announced—yes, he had. Mr Brownlee knows that. A lot of us watch movies, so we know who the good actors are and who the slow actors are.
Taika Waititi made a great movie in this country, Boy, and I want to talk about Māori participation, as in TheWhale Rider, because I have heard a whole lot of huffing and puffing and rubbish from the Māori Party member about how the movies will help Māori people. But this is a disgrace, in the sense that we are helping major corporates when movies like Boy had no support. Is that not amazing? But the Minister sits there and is supposed to be the architect of modern rules and legislation—
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA Link to this
—in the sense of what should create a good title for this bill. It could be renamed and restated as a whole lot of things. It could be the “Pork Pie, Looney Tunes, and All Those Great Titles Bill”. It could be the “Whale Rider Bill”, because it is about riding the workers and trying to use leverage to do what you have sneakily been doing—
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA Link to this
—what some of those members over there have been trying to do.
I reiterate what my learned colleague said here earlier on. Those members opposite said that the 90-day bill was for a trial period, but that is what this is: a trial period. All of a sudden—oops, splish-splash, like Mickey Mouse—this bill will prevail over all businesses. So we try to get around that by playing the favourite trick of the corporates and the people who want to control the working class: we move people from full rights within the framework of employment rights to being contractors—as in Telecom and other companies. What is the main nub of a movement like that? It is quite simply that costs and pressures are moved on to individuals. That is real cost saving!
I heard Te Ururoa Flavell, for whom I have a lot of respect, mutter and stutter and go on about Māori workers being behind by 25 percent. He talked about the pay imbalance in relation to pay parity with nurses, Pākehā and Māori. Well, some members might think that that is great—and one member over there—that joker at the back there, the party jumper Tau Henare—said that this would give 400 Māori a job. But I ask what about the other 169,000 who are losing—
Chris TremainI raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I bring your attention to Standing Order 107 on relevancy. This clause is about the title of the bill. I have not heard one mention, at all, about the title of the bill in 2 or 3 minutes. I would like you to bring the member to order, please.
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) Link to this
I want to keep re-emphasising two points. Although this bill has not gone to a select committee, and although there is more tolerance of a slightly wider flavour, that does not open up the debate to a general debate style. The member should make references to the statements he is making and the analogies he is using with pertinence to the title. This debate is on clause 1, the title clause.
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA Link to this
I misunderstood the speaker earlier on, but I take the point.
Certainly, there could be a whole lot of adjustments in the banner, as Chris Tremain has pointed out. This bill could be the “Unrelated Relationships Between Employers and Workers Bill”, because that is what it is. It could be the “Relevant Support of Workers’ Rights Bill”.
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA Link to this
I know what the bill is about, I say to Mr Henare. It is about increasing the number of the 169,000 people who are unemployed. The bill could be the “Increase the Unemployed Numbers Bill”. It could be that. It could decrease numbers, but then like all those other issues relevant to this, the mighty international corporate will swan off with support—
JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) Link to this
I think I must have been looking eager to speak. I acknowledge that we really are privileged to have such a wide range of colleagues in the Chamber tonight, in particular, within the troop of Muppets. We have had Waldorf and Statler, and David Bennett’s particular speech earlier in the night has given me a new appreciation for his role as Beaker, from The Muppets.
I have listened to some of the debate this evening, and I have come up with a new title for the Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill. It relates specifically to the fact that in all of the discussion we have had to date, members on this side of the Chamber have been very careful to make rational arguments as to why this legislation is unnecessary. All I have seen on that side of the Chamber is repeated generalisations and character assassinations to a degree that I have not seen in the Chamber before. So I think we could just call this bill the “Excuse for Character Assassination Bill” or the “Excuse to Generalise about Unions Bill”, and it has been an excuse to run down Helen Kelly, whom I have great admiration for. She has, I think, received unprecedented and unnecessary attacks in the Chamber, and I think we will be revisiting the nature of some of those attacks from that side of the Chamber in weeks to come. All of that has been given extra leverage by this bill. I think this bill is a front. It is a front for a whole lot of arguments that that side of the Chamber wants to run, and they are entirely unnecessary.
On this side of the Chamber, we have repeated time and time again the facts of this scenario. We on this side of the Chamber have acknowledged from the beginning that this issue could have played out differently. Both sides of the argument could have played out differently. We have been fair and acknowledged that. What have members opposite acknowledged? They have made simplistic statements that Labour, by opposing this legislation, is anti-film and anti - New Zealand. In fact, David Bennett went one step further. David Bennett tried to claim that Labour purposely tried to stop this movie from happening. So I would almost call this bill the “Excuse to Give Rubbish Speeches Bill”, because that is exactly what we had from David Bennett. For him to imply that Labour did not want this film to occur is absolutely outrageous and, I think, an insult to the member’s own intelligence.
David BennettThat is the biggest compliment I will give the member tonight. What was this issue about? I am currently discussing the “Excuse to Give Rubbish Speeches Bill”, Mr Chairperson.
If we knew on 18 October that the specific issues of employment relations that were being brought forth had been resolved, 10 days ago, then we would have to now ask what this bill is really about. This comes to the heart of the title debate, because if we discover the true meaning, we can give the bill the appropriate title. My colleagues have already rightly pointed out that this is a trial period for something that the Government wishes to extend beyond just the film industry because, in fact, the film industry does not need this legislation. From the outset, the actors have said that they want to be independent contractors. That is what they want. They have never denied that. So why then does this bill—
I can explain to Mr Brownlee that even from over here I could understand what was going on. The actors wanted to discuss terms and conditions; they did not want to be considered employees. They never did. That proves that this bill is the “Unnecessary Piece of Legislation Bill”. It is completely unnecessary, which means we have to look for the true motive.
If we are looking for true motive, I ask where we should look. What is the benefit of calling someone an independent contractor rather than an employee? We do not have to scratch too far to figure that out. The actors know that they are better off being independent contractors because that is the nature of their work. But for a number of other people involved in the film industry, it is a very different scenario. So I ask why we would want to call someone an independent contractor rather than an employee.
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) Link to this
I am mindful of the Speaker’s ruling earlier today that it is appropriate that this be a wide-ranging debate, given that there is—
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) Link to this
I need to respond to that. I listened very carefully to what the presiding officer at the time said and I have also taken the time to check the Hansard of that. His reference was to the first and second readings—particularly the second reading. I have set out the parameters of the debate now and that is how it will be chaired. I think we need to put that out there.
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE Link to this
Thank you for that clarification, Mr Chairperson. As is traditional, the title of a bill seeks to encapsulate its meaning. New Zealanders up and down the country wonder what the meaning of this bill, the Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill, could possibly be. It has not escaped their attention that the case that this refers to, Bryson v Three Foot Six, was dated 2005, well before a lot of other movies were made. My colleague Phil Twyford has read out the list, so I will not take the time of the Committee to do that. Clearly, there was no substantive problem, so the public is wondering what this bill is designed to fix.
We have been attempting to dissect that rationally, but, really, it is not about rational, legal logic. This is about politics, and the politics of it are, simply, that this is the “Let’s Demonise the Unions and the Labour Party While Trying to Cut a Deal With the Film Company Bill”. Let us run through the logic and the timing. Labour came out of a historically successful conference, and several days later the Prime Minister argued that Labour was in cahoots with the unions to wreck The Hobbit.
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE Link to this
That is right; he did say it, but it is far from the truth. Let us check the logic. Firstly, the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions was involved in the discussion to mediate a solution. It could see the stand-off between the Australian union and the film company so it was seeking to mediate a solution. Secondly, Labour said nothing. Why? Because it was not Labour’s role as a political party to get involved in an industrial discussion. Anyway, why would we? But that did not stop the Prime Minister from demonising the head of the Council of Trade Unions. Anybody who knows Helen Kelly knows that she is a woman of integrity and a woman with good mediation skills. The Prime Minister has sought to demonise her, the Council of Trade Unions, and the entire union movement, purely for political ends.
The second part of the argument around the renaming of this bill goes to its obvious use in domestic politics. Why bring Labour into this? It had nothing to do with the Labour Party. Labour had issued no statement on it. Labour knew that a sensitive negotiation was under way. Labour was brought into it in order to stop the momentum of a party that was on a roll. Lies were told about Labour because telling the truth leaves them no advantage. This bill is about politics. It is not about employment law. How could it be? The case was in 2005, and my colleague Charles Chauvel argued it in the Supreme Court. That is how well we know the law—a Labour front-bench colleague argued it at the Supreme Court. I might say that that reflects the quality of our caucus. There he was, in the Supreme Court, arguing the case.
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE Link to this
At a very, very young age.
The next reason why this bill needs to be renamed is that it should be called the “Fiscal Disaster Bill”. Let us understand the background to that.
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE Link to this
The member can take the next call and have his say, and we can try to trump the names. The bill is a fiscal disaster because the special deal that has been cut here for one multinational film company is not available to the domestic industry.
CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour) Link to this
I rise to speak on the title of the Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill. I believe that we could do a better job of naming this bill to accurately reflect its content and background. I quite like the amendment in the name of my colleague the Hon Trevor Mallard to omit the words “Film Production Work” and insert the words “As Requested by Warner Bros”. As I said earlier, the reason I like this idea is I think it accurately reflects the issue and the question of what is happening to New Zealand’s political and economic sovereignty. What we have seen over the last few days has made a lot of us very worried about the extent to which our domestic policies and legislation are our own or are driven by outside forces. I asked questions earlier today, and I am still waiting for an answer, about whether labour laws should be changed in response to domestic concerns and issues; if not, on what basis changes to those labour laws should be contemplated. I am still waiting for the Minister to respond to those questions.
Secondly, I asked in what circumstances sovereign States like New Zealand have changed labour laws in response to demands of foreign corporates. Again there was no response from the Minister. The circumstances I am aware of are for things like export processing zones in South-east Asia, where effectively all rights for workers have been removed. I am looking for examples of when a developed country like New Zealand has responded to the demands of a foreign corporate to change its domestic labour laws. Then, of course, I am seeking some assurance from the Government that it is not looking at changes to any element of our labour laws in response to the demands of foreign corporates—that it will not go down that line if some other corporate comes along and says it will do something only if the Government reduces the minimum wage, or does something else. It would be really helpful if we could have that assurance. I believe that the amendment from the Hon Trevor Mallard encapsulates the concern I have about our sovereignty, so I support it from that point of view.
But I have a couple of other suggestions that might find more favour with members on the other side of the Chamber. The first of those is the “Employment Relations (Film Industry Not Really Clarification) Amendment Bill”, because we have heard a lot today about this bill being a necessary clarification. Charles Chauvel and others have quite rightly pointed out that there is no need for clarification and that the law with regard to independent contractors and employees—particularly in the film industry—is well settled. The 2005 Bryson case, which was heard in the Supreme Court, absolutely clarified the situation. Just for the record, because I know that some members opposite are perhaps not very familiar with the case, I say that we are talking about somebody who was deemed in the end to be an employee. He was on the grand sum of $18 an hour. This was not a high-paid independent contractor, as some have alluded to; this was a worker in the film industry on a relatively low wage, who was deemed to be an employee in the end. The law is quite well settled, so the clarification that was supposedly necessary is not necessary. Gerry Brownlee said that Warner Bros did not require it, and that it was done off the Government’s own back, whereas the Hon Steven Joyce said quite a different thing a little later. He said that the Government was responding to the requirement of Warner Bros to make these changes. Whichever way around, the clarification issue seems to be a little unnecessary.
That title might cover the clarification issue quite well, but I have another title, which covers an issue that my colleague Chris Hipkins went into quite well, and that is the “Film Industry Stage One Bill”. I will come back to that title later, but I think that this bill is the slippery slope. In just the same way that the 90-day legislation is being extended to all workplaces, this law could go further, too.
Hon STEVE CHADWICK (Labour) Link to this
I am pleased to take a call in the Committee stage of the Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill on the title. I would name this bill the “Warner Bros Film Industry Requirement Bill”, and I would strip out altogether any wording about employment relations or film production. This bill is totally unnecessary. It is not what was ever required by Actors Equity. It was never ever an issue that the union said needed to be sorted out at all.
In this Chamber are about four people who understand the film industry. I would give it to the Hon Gerry Brownlee that he has got to grips with the film industry. The other three people are the Hon Trevor Mallard, Grant Robertson, and I. In my role as arts spokesperson, I have learnt a lot about the industry. What I have learnt about the industry is that both actors and technicians in the film production industry have a very lumpy income. It is an incredibly lumpy income. It needs smoothing so that they get a decent income over the year, because they lurch from production to production.
When the initial dispute that led us to be debating this totally superfluous and unnecessary bill in urgency tonight arose, the actors said they were quite happy about their status as independent contractors. They simply wanted to negotiate collectively on their employment conditions. Minister Gerry Brownlee knows that, because when the Screen Production and Development Association also started ringing to say that it needed to get together with the actors and that they needed to listen to one another, the Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage ignored the offer to get the parties together that I had made to him 2 months before. He totally ignored it. All that needed to happen was for Gerry Brownlee to get them in a room together—and he did. He did. Both parties came out of that meeting and said that they had had a really good meeting and had clarified a lot. They said they had really moved on and had reached agreement.
Lynne PillayHon STEVE CHADWICK Link to this
Yes, they definitely did step up. We were then put into the situation of believing that we were there, that we had reached agreement, that Gerry Brownlee had facilitated the reaching of that agreement, and that both parties were feeling a lot better. Then something went terribly wrong. It was Warner Bros.
Hon STEVE CHADWICK Link to this
In charged Warner Bros, and the Minister knows that. He knows that. Warner Bros received an email saying that the dispute was resolved, and the Minister knows that, too. But Warner Bros was just looking for leverage on getting the greatest deal. Its representatives are businessmen. They are hard-nosed businessmen and they wanted the best deal. They got good deals offered in the UK, and they got good deals offered in the Czech Republic. So the Ministers were put into a position of having to negotiate, and I do not envy them that, at all.
We in Labour are delighted that we have secured The Hobbit to be made in New Zealand, but we have secured it at a price. I think the worst price is the stripping away of workers’ rights by this unnecessary law that we are debating in urgency tonight. That is the disgraceful price of getting this film secured in New Zealand. It is not what the actors asked for, at all, so it is definitely the “Warner Bros Film Industry Requirement Bill”.
The title of the bill before us talks about relationships. We in Labour have been panned by National for spending $160,000 on developing an enduring relationship with the film industry in Los Angeles. [Interruption] Yes, it is an enduring relationship—it certainly is with producers—and we are now in the position of providing $33 million of funding for one production. The total funding appropriated through the Large Budget Screen Production Grant scheme is only $51 million—$33 million of that has gone to one production in order to keep it in the country. It is simply a challenge—
CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South) Link to this
This is the first opportunity that I have had to take a call on this bill, the Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill. I will talk about the title clause, which, as a number of my colleagues have said, is very misleading.
First of all, I say that I love The Hobbit. Everyone loves The Hobbit. I have read it at least twice. I ask those members who have not read The Hobbit to put up their hands. Ah, there are a few members who have not read The Hobbit. Of course, not only have I read The Hobbit but also most of us who have children would have read The Hobbit to our children. My children liked The Hobbit so much that in January they applied to be extras on The Hobbit. They have not heard back yet. I would have applied to be an extra on The Hobbit too, except I cannot quite picture myself as a hobbit; I am more of an elf. There are quite a few people in this Chamber who look like hobbits, or goblins, trolls, dark lords, and all those sorts of things—not on this side of the Chamber, though.
I would like to talk about a number of alternative titles tonight. Because everyone wanted The Hobbit to be made in New Zealand, a good title for this bill is “Everyone Does Want The Hobbit To Be Made in New Zealand Bill”, and that is not the issue. But what it has resulted in is the “Rushed, Botched, and Unnecessary Legislation Bill”, which is another alternative title for the bill. This bill, as we know, will remove protections for many workers in the film industry. It is bad law. It is resulting in uncertainty, so it is the “Resulting in Uncertainty in the Film Industry Bill”.
I have another alternative title. I refer to the former Australian Prime Minister and Treasurer Paul Keating. He famously warned, in May 1986, that if Australia did not get manufacturing going again, and keep moderate wage outcomes and a sensible economic policy, it would end up being a third-rate economy—a banana republic. I know that a number of my colleagues have referred to a banana republic tonight, and again that is an alternative title for the bill: “The Banana Republic Bill”.
Paul Keating said that Australia needed strong and coherent economic policy, which is what we do not have in this country right now. We do not need knee-jerk reactions and kowtowing to foreign capital. What kind of a country are we becoming, where the rights of groups of workers are being sold off to satisfy the whim of big corporate interests? Maybe that is an alternative title: “The Rights of Groups of Workers Being Sold Off to Satisfy the Whims of Big Corporate Interests Bill”, or, as my colleague Parekura Horomia said, “The Break Down in Relationships between Workers and Employers Bill” could be an alternative title for the bill.
I will mention that reporting from overseas is already exclaiming at the power that a big corporate can wield over a small nation. There has been some interesting international coverage, and I will read a quote from TheHollywood Reporter that stated a few days ago: “However, the question on the minds of observers is whether this studio will also seek and extract from the government higher production incentives than the existing 15% Large Budget Screen Production Grant. If so, the result would be a dramatic demonstration of the power a mediate conglomerate can assert over a small nation desperate to retain a $500 million production. One measure of the gravity of the situation is the contention by currency analysts that the continuing uncertainty had helped drive down the value of the New Zealand dollar.” That is an overseas organisation reporting on this situation.
We have also heard employment law specialists criticising the Government’s plan—in particular, Professor Nigel Haworth from the University of Auckland business school. He did not see a need for the change in the law, which could also be an alternative title for this bill. There is no need for a change in the law.
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour) Link to this
I always believe that any bill should have truth in labelling, I guess, and should reflect what it will do. Many people have spoken in the House of their love of The Hobbit; in fact, it was mentioned before. But one thing we all love is New Zealand, and what is happening around New Zealand at this moment—and I spoke to some friends just an hour ago—is that people are embarrassed. They are absolutely embarrassed at what is happening in this Parliament, the Parliament of a sovereign nation, under urgency.
I put it to the Committee that this bill should be called “The New Zealand Cringe Bill”. Members on the other side of the Chamber laugh. They should go out and ask intelligent New Zealanders what they think about this whole exercise. New Zealanders are absolutely embarrassed, and they cringe at the thought of a few executives flying from Hollywood to this country, alighting from their plane, and being met by ministerial limousines to transport them to Premier House for a meeting with the Prime Minister.
I have had the privilege, as a Minister, of going to Hollywood to meet with executives and deal with issues. There have been immigration issues to be dealt with, so that some of those companies can bring into this country the actors whom they want to appear in their films. We have worked through immigration issues and taxation issues, and we have built up a relationship with them on the basis of mutual respect. What has happened now is that we have been rolled by a large multinational sitting in the US. Do not ask us; just go and read the US newspapers—
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR Link to this
I am speaking around the title of the bill. People should look at the international comment about what Warner Bros has done to the New Zealand Government. Intelligent, sensible New Zealanders cringe at the thought that for a few million dollars more we have had to bow down to their demands. But it is more than the money—money is always an issue. I am not a student of history, but is it not true that this Parliament is the oldest pure democracy in the world? Is that not true? It is the oldest pure democracy in the world, where men and women have all had the vote. This democracy has been brought to its knees by a few executives from Warner Bros.
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR Link to this
The Leader of the House says that is rubbish. He has put this House into urgency to bring into place legislation that will undermine what the Americans would call constitutional rights around labour law. The Americans would not stand for this. This is why the title of the bill should be “The New Zealand Cringe Bill”.
The Prime Minister, who leads this country, and his fellow Ministers have kowtowed to a few smart executives. All credit to them—they are smart players. They are hard-nosed players. They want more money, they want the best deal they can get from any country they go to, and they saw the naive Prime Minister John Key as a soft target—absolutely. They seized upon the opportunity to come here and blame the unions. So the Prime Minister’s mates on the right wing of this country are saying: “Come on, John. Toughen up. We want a bit more hard legislation.” He said: “All right. We will bring down some legislation to undermine the rights of the workers in this country.”, while, at the same time, bowing down and kissing the butts of a few executives from Hollywood.
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR Link to this
Oh, no—Mr Brownlee knows that that is the truth, and so does every fair-minded New Zealander.
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) Link to this
It is a pleasure to take a call on the title debate. This is my first call on the Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill, and as the MP for Wellington Central I want to make clear how pleased I am that The Hobbit will be made here in Wellington. A number of my constituents will be working on the production, and, indeed, already have been. I think it is excellent that it is being made here. Members on this side are all strong supporters of The Hobbit being made in New Zealand.
But I refer to what could be a potential title for the bill, the “Employment Relations (Gerry Goes off the Boil) Bill”, because quite frankly that is what we are debating tonight. The Government’s incompetent management of its relationship with Warner Bros and with the film industry in America has led us to a crisis situation. Gerry Brownlee might not have too many National MPs based in Wellington with whom he can talk, because they are not that thick on the ground in Wellington.
Some of them are thick, but they are not that thick on the ground in Wellington—that is right. If there had been more National MPs for Gerry Brownlee to talk to over the last 2 years, they would have been able to reflect what everyone in Wellington knew—that there were issues concerning The Hobbit. There were issues with Warner Bros about the financing. They were worried about what was happening with MGM. Everyone in Wellington knew about this over the last 2 years, and what did Gerry Brownlee do? He sat there. He did not go over to talk to Warner Bros. He thought he could rely on the reputation that Labour had built up with it over 9 years. He sat there and let this issue fester. We come to this House today with a legal fiction of a bill, with a crisis manufactured and opportunistically taken up by Warner Bros, because Gerry Brownlee was not doing his job as Minister for Economic Development. That is why, I say to Mr Brownlee, the title of this bill could well be the “Employment Relations (Gerry Goes off the Boil) Bill”. That is why we are here tonight, I say to Mr Brownlee. We are here because as Minister for Economic Development, you did not do your job properly—[ Interruption] I am talking to Mr Brownlee, and I am saying Mr Brownlee did not do his job properly.
I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. He is using the word “you”, and bringing you into the debate.
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) Link to this
I thank the member for that. The member knows that, because I called “Order” at the time, and he did refer to Mr Brownlee.
It is interesting that Tau Henare is very worried. I think Tau Henare is mainly concerned about this because he wanted a role in The Hobbit but they would not give him one. They offered him one in Kojak but not in The Hobbit. That is why Tau Henare is upset.
There is another title we could use, which is the “Employment Relations (Chaos and Shambles in the Government) Bill”. We have heard today from Gerry Brownlee himself that it was not pressure from Warner Bros that led to this bill, except the Prime Minister himself told us that it was critical for Warner Bros that this legislation be passed and the movies would not be made in New Zealand if this legislation was not passed.
Gerry Brownlee said “That’s right.” So why has Gerry Brownlee not stood up in the Chamber tonight to say that he was sorry that he misled the House earlier today when he said that this was not because of pressure from Warner Bros. “Shambles and Chaos” should be the title of this bill—the “Employment Relations (Shambles and Chaos in the Government) Bill”. The Government simply cannot get its house sufficiently in order to know whether we are here because Warner Bros made us be here, or whether we are here because the Government has somehow mysteriously decided a change was necessary—despite the fact that since 2005 the law has been settled in this area. All of a sudden it is a crisis and we are here under urgency. We are here under urgency because the Government has not got its act together, so the bill could have the title “The Government Has Not Got Its Act Together Bill”.
There could also be another title of this bill—a serious title change. If we are trying to reflect what is in this bill, it should be the “Employment Relations (Film Production and Video Games Work) Bill”, because this bill goes far beyond film production. We have not had a substantive call from a member of the Government to tell us how video games ended up in this bill. Nobody discussed anything about video games. There are some high-quality video game manufacturers and developers in Wellington. How did that even end up in this bill? It is not mentioned in the title, so the title is immediately misleading even on the Government’s own terms. We have not had the Government take a call on this. Its members have sat there, simply allowing us to stand and raise questions that are unanswered, because the Government is pushing through a bill, but it does not know why.
LOUISE UPSTON
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) Link to this
I rise to speak on the title clause of this “Warner Bros Bill” that we have before us. I rise to speak to what sadly has become the Warner Bros Parliament. We are sitting tonight at the behest of Warner Bros because Warner Bros want to push this bill through the House.
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) Link to this
The member was pulled up during the second reading—[ Interruption] I am on my feet. Speaker’s ruling 52/1 makes it very clear that although we can say that Warner Bros may influence an outcome, we cannot say that they have directed it. It is quite a good paragraph, which the member might like to refer to. It is Speaker’s ruling 52/1.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I apologise to the member. I think the Speaker’s ruling refers to members and to parties. I am not sure whether it refers to the Parliament. I have never heard that expression before.
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) Link to this
I have. By referring to Parliament it brings the members within Parliament into that frame.
They have had tremendous influence on this bill. The fact is that Parliament is tonight meeting under urgency in order to deal with this bill that would benefit Warner Bros.
It seems to me that we have become used to corporate welfare. Corporate welfare has become well known across the planet. It used to involve just money. OK, on this occasion it is $100 million and the National Government has added an extra $33 million to the previous level of corporate welfare, but it used to mean just money. But it now means that if this is the “Employment Relations (Warner Bros) Amendment Bill”, not only are Warner Bros getting money but they are also bringing about a change in New Zealand’s industrial relations law. That is an entirely new level in the meaning of corporate welfare. If this bill, the “Employment Relations (Warner Bros) Amendment Bill”, sets a new standard globally for changing legislation for a sovereign, democratic Parliament in a way that would suit a corporate multinational, this is an entirely new level.
Tonight we are debating under urgency a bill that has been influenced by Warner Bros, as I am allowed to say under Speakers’ Rulings. This bill has been influenced by Warner Bros, and we are debating it under urgency. It is not about just money. It used to be about just money. All taxpayers have to put their hands in their pockets to provide corporate welfare. It is now also, under the “Employment Relations (Warner Bros) Amendment Bill”, as I would like to rename it, about changing the very legislation under which our country is governed. It represents a whole new level of altering the basic relationships between a people and their Government.
The relationship between a people and their Government, in a democratic system, is supposed to be one where there is representation. But under this bill, the “Employment Relations (Warner Bros) Amendment Bill”, as I think it should be renamed, Warner Bros are in fact interfering in the relationship between a people and their Government. It is a fundamental transgression of the idea of sovereignty in our country for us to rewrite industrial relations law for the benefit of Warner Bros.
There is another title we could come up with for this bill. The National Government has said it does not like to lead on climate change. “We will not be leaders on climate change.”, its members tell us. However, they are willing to be leaders in the race to the bottom, so we could call the bill the “Employment Relations (Race to the Bottom) Amendment Bill”. We are leading in the global race to the bottom to make Warner Bros happy by weakening our industrial relations laws. So if we were to call the bill the “Employment Relations (Race to the Bottom) Amendment Bill”, we could say that the National Government is finally leading on something. It is not leading on climate change, and it is not leading on anything else. It is finally leading in the race to the bottom to weaken our industrial relations law for the benefit of a corporate multinational.
We are sitting under urgency tonight to deal with this bill, which under the title clause we are debating should be called the “Employment Relations (Warner Bros) Amendment Bill”. We are meeting under urgency tonight under the influence of Warner Bros, as I am allowed to say under Speakers’ Rulings, in order to ram through this bill so that it becomes the law of the land in what is supposedly a democratic and sovereign country. It is embarrassing, it is unacceptable, and it is a fundamental transgression of the idea of democratic sovereignty. The National Government should be ashamed of itself.
The Green Party joins with Labour and others in welcoming the fact that The Hobbit will be based in New Zealand and filmed here. I note that Avatar was also based in New Zealand, and there was no need to change the existing labour relations regime. I remind National members that Avatar was about an environmental issue. They might have heard about the environment. That film was a great success. It was the story of a people fighting against a giant corporation, not unlike Warner Bros. We would like to rename this bill the “Employment Relations (Warner Bros) Amendment Bill”. In Avatar, which was successfully filmed in New Zealand under the existing industrial relations framework, it was the people who were being attacked by a giant corporation that sought to take over their planet. That is not entirely unlike the attack that Warner Bros has launched.
AMY ADAMSA party vote was called for on the question,
That the question be now put.
Ayes 68
Noes 51
Motion agreed to.
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) Link to this
We have an amendment in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard. It is a typescript amendment to amend the title of the bill. I have ruled it out of order as not being a serious description of the bill.
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Labour had an assurance from the Associate Minister of Finance, Steven Joyce, that this bill was requested by Warner Bros.
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) Link to this
That is not a point of order. I am the judge of whether an amendment is in order, and I have ruled that your amendment is out of order. We will move to the vote. The question is that Part 1 stand part. Those of that opinion will say “Aye”—clause 1.
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. This bill is not in parts. I think you mean clause 1.
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) Link to this
I did mean clause 1 and I did say “clause” after I said “part”. My apologies. I will put the motion again.
A party vote was called for on the question,
That clause 1 be agreed to.
Ayes 68
Noes 51
Clause 1 agreed to.
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) Link to this
Clause 2 is particularly interesting to the Labour Party because it goes to the timing of the Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill coming into effect and the method by which it is brought into effect. Part of the debate will be around the timing, and part will be around the method.
These days, as we sacrifice our economic sovereignty, our political sovereignty, and our parliamentary sovereignty, perhaps the bill should be brought into effect by being stamped by Warner Bros in the United States, rather than by Royal assent in New Zealand. We will have a discussion about what the appropriate method is these days, now that we have sacrificed our integrity as a Parliament to the whims of a foreign company, according to Mr Joyce. Actually, I tended to believe Gerry Brownlee when he said in answer to question No. 1 this afternoon that this legislation was not really important to Warner Bros and they did not want it, rather than believing what Steven Joyce said. That may or may not be the case.
The next point that we need to focus on is what we mean by “the day after the date”. Do we mean the New Zealand date, or the date on the west coast of the United States? By “the day after”, do we mean the day in the United States after the date in New Zealand, or vice versa? Is it “a” and “a”, “b” and “b”, “a” and “b”, or “b” and “a”? There are combinations of days and dates that we have to consider in working through this particular matter. The member Russel Norman mentioned Avatar recently. If we took some of the interesting approaches to time within that movie, where there was the ability to time shift and world shift, it might be that we would come up with a number of unusual answers. The “day after the date on which it receives the Royal assent” could, in fact, be quite a long way back in Middle Earth, if we jump from Avatar back to the Lord of the Rings series. Given the modern world that we live in and the world of movies, there is a lack of preciseness in this clause.
The next question is whether, as part of this exercise, we will move to have the date of Parliament—currently unsponsored—sponsored. Will 28 October be sponsored by Warner Bros? Is that what we will have? Is that how we will have the date of Parliament? If that is the case, will the date move forward under urgency, stay the same, or take the industrial relations approach of the National Government and move backwards?
I want to make a slightly irrelevant passing comment about Avatar, which was referred to by Russel Norman. An interesting experience for me was spending time with James Cameron at one of these hui criticised by Gerry Brownlee. Cameron was trying to make up his mind whether he wanted Avatar to be produced in New Zealand. But that was US time rather than New Zealand time. That was west coast time. There is 6 hours’ difference. I think it would probably be getting on for 3.30 a.m. over there now, but 3.30 a.m. of yesterday. I think that just about sums up Gerry Brownlee’s approach on this bill. He thinks he is slightly ahead but he is actually quite a long way behind. The world has just about caught up to him, because he has been so backward in this particular area.
The question of time is one on which there is some focus in The Hobbit. In fact, The Hobbit is full of riddles, and one of them is called the time riddle. It is this one:
And beats high mountain down.
It is one of Gollum’s riddles for Bilbo Baggins, and the answer, of course, is time. That is what we talking about now. The answer we are talking about today is time, and we are trying to work out when would be the right time to bring this legislation into effect. Some of us would say there is never a right time, but others would say that given the possibility of this bill going through the House, we should think about whether there might be a better time to bring it into effect. I have an amendment—it is different from my next amendment, which is to insert an expiry clause—to omit all the words after “force” and insert the words “1 April 2012”.
The reason is relatively simple. Warner Bros have already spent $100 million on the movie. A deferral would give them a chance to get on with making the movie, and we would be able to see whether this legislation is necessary. My bet is it would be totally unnecessary. It was unnecessary for the 120 feature films that were made in New Zealand in the last decade, with the help of the work done by, mainly, my colleague Pete Hodgson to facilitate them. He facilitated schemes and did work in that area. This legislation was not necessary then. But Labour members are reasonable people; we will keep a bit of an open mind on it, and we are prepared over the next year, over the period of the next election campaign, to work through whether this legislation is necessary. A deferral of it being brought into force would give us the possibility of examining it more carefully, and other amendments of ours provide for other methods of examination.
Deferring it would also give some of the thespians in the Chamber time to practise their skills, to hone their skills, and to work towards having roles in The Hobbit. I know there is quite a lot of interest in the Chamber in doing that. It has been a very long time since people wanted me for a part in a movie that involved filming my face. In fact, the last production I was in was bro’Town. That was probably the last dramatic one. Most of my colleagues will not remember Close to Home, but that series was a good, regular source of income when I was a student. I was an employee and made a lot of money. I am not suggesting that this bill should be backdated. In fact, I would be very upset if it was backdated to the late 1960s or early 1970s, or whenever it was that I had bit parts in Close to Home. It might have been the very early 1970s. It was certainly by 1973, because one of my kids had a bit part in it in 1974, I think.
We are focusing now on whether it is appropriate to backdate the legislation’s coming into force—to take the Muldoon approach and make it retrospective, and what the implications of that would be. The more reasonable approach and the one that I have taken is to say that it is grubby legislation, it should never come in, and therefore it should be deferred.
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) Link to this
I rise to speak in support of the amendments tabled by the Hon Trevor Mallard and, in particular, to amend clause 2 by omitting all the words after “force” and inserting the words “1 April 2012”, and to insert new clause 2A “This Act expires on the close of 8 November 2010.” These amendments go to the issue of timing.
I want to put before the Committee some related issues of timing, and I would like the public to hear this sequence of events, because it is quite important. On Thursday, the 14th of this month, Gerry Brownlee convened a meeting attended by the Screen Production and Development Association, Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance, the Council of Trade Unions, and himself. A press release was issued after that meeting, which outlined that they had found a way forward; that a deal had been done. Again, on timing—the next day, Sunday, the 17th of this month, the Screen Actors Guild decided to lift the boycott. I say that again: the timing was Sunday, the 17th of this month; the boycott was to be lifted.
However, I have sighted emails that make clear that Warner Bros requested that the press release not be issued until Peter Jackson had had an opportunity to comment. That is a fair enough request. That was Sunday, the 17th of this month. On Monday, the 18th of this month, Mr Jackson, Warner Bros, and—
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) Link to this
This debate is about the commencement date on the introduction of the bill. It is about timing related to the introduction of the bill but not about timing or a sequence of what has happened over the last few weeks. I ask the member to come back to the commencement date.
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE Link to this
Thank you, Mr Chairman. I am trying to explain the reasons why I am supportive of new clause 2A, which calls for the expiry—
[... plus a further 39 contributions not shown here]