Cunliffe David: Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
Cunliffe David: Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:14990] 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
: 
 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) 
: 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 
: 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 
. 
David Bennett 
: That’s right. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: 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 Trevor Mallard 
: At a very young age. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: 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 Trevor Mallard 
: I’m going to debate that. I’ll take the next call. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: 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.