Mallard Trevor: Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Mallard Trevor: Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:668;Page:14941] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I move  
That the motion be amended by omitting “now” and adding “this day 3 months” 
. I want to make it very clear that Labour supports the 
 Hobbit 
 films being made in New Zealand. The decision to film them in New Zealand is fantastic news for our film industry and our tourism industry and it is very important for the economy. 
However this matter has been totally mismanaged by the Government by John Key and especially by the Hon Gerry Brownlee. It is yet another example of how our relaxed Prime Minister has ignored what has been going on for nearly 2 years then has let it boil over into controversy and has had to come in with a patch-up job—and a very very expensive patch-up job at that. If the Minister in charge of this area the Minister for Economic Development was on top of the issues he would have seen what was coming down the track. If he had had regular meetings with Warner Bros as Ministers before him did—and I say that they were mostly convivial meetings but every now and again there was some tension as the issues were worked through—if the Minister had done that then we would have had a sort of arrangement whereby people picked up the phone and whereby Gerry Brownlee and John Key stood beside Helen Kelly when the issue was sorted. 
When the issue was sorted it included an email from Warner Bros on 18 October. That is when the industrial relations issues were sorted. I have heard Gerry Brownlee describe the $140000 exercises on an annual basis as “hangi and hui” but those were the meetings that helped with the continuing investment of movies in New Zealand. I think that that is something that has been particularly useful to New Zealand. I might say that my only regret about being part of that is that I never actually got to go to the Oscars. I do not want to criticise Helen Clark but she was not always very generous to me as far as travel was concerned; at the point that the Oscars started I got on the plane to come home. There are one or two stories that are particularly interesting from that time which some members have heard and which I might tell in the Committee stage. 
I also want to ask Gerry Brownlee about Sir Peter Jackson and his review of the New Zealand Film Commission. Peter Jackson made some very good suggestions in that and what has Gerry Brownlee done with them? Can he remember receiving the report? If he had focused on his job—I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I know that I speak relatively loudly and sometimes I interject a reasonable amount myself but there appears to be someone who has shifted his seat and is continually interjecting. I wonder whether I might have some protection from the Chair. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I say to members that there was some interjecting when the Hon Kate Wilkinson was speaking. I thought that was reasonable but I have to make the observation that the tenor and the tone have gone up subsequent to that. This will be a robust debate. There will be interjections. I say to members that we should be reasonable about it; we want to have a free flow of debate. Mindless shouting will be out. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I refer members opposite in particular to the recommendations from Peter Jackson in his review about the importance of film incentives and of getting them right. He is absolutely right in that because every time we had a discussion in Hollywood with one of three or four studios on each occasion we discussed the incentives. They were adjusted and they were tweaked—sometimes it cost us money and sometimes it did not—on things like the timing and the avoidance of foreign exchange risk. There were a lot of changes that occurred but we knew that if there was an issue both sides could pick up the phone. We talked regularly because we had a good relationship although I say that once or twice it was not quite as good. 
I want to talk about process as well. Labour received a copy of the Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill at 12.40 p.m. today despite promises from the Leader of the House that we would have it at 9.30 this morning. I want to say that in our time an undertaking made by a Minister was kept. If we undertook to supply a bill at a particular time we did. Maybe we were not as free with our undertakings but when we were seeking support as the Prime Minister did we kept our word because that was important. 
This bill changes employment law in a way that is not necessary. It is absolutely unnecessary. If this was a critical area as the Government claimed why was Kate Wilkinson not at the negotiating table with Warner Bros? Why was Kate Wilkinson not the lead negotiator when in fact Gerry Brownlee and Steven Joyce were doing the work? I must say that I think it is a little bit sad for that pair that the person who ended up actually doing the work was Steven Joyce. I also say that it is really interesting that Bill English promised there would be no change in the law and no more money. Where was he today to answer the question on behalf of the Prime Minister? Bill English said there would be no more money and no change in the law. I want to say that I am not at the point because we do not know all the details yet about the money where I am criticising all of it because I think some of it was necessary. I will be very critical about a direct advertising subsidy for a US company; that is absolutely wrong because it is not available to New Zealand companies. It is a very uneven playing field. I am prepared to look— 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: How long a list do you want of companies that the Labour Government preferred during its time in office? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I think it was never a US company over a New Zealand company in those circumstances. It was never a US company with a specific arrangement like that over a New Zealand company. 
Members opposite have been trying to say that this does not weaken the law so why are they doing it? Who gains and who loses? 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: We’re strengthening the law. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: It strengthens the law on the part of employers; I agree with Gerry Brownlee. This strengthens the law on the part of employers and reduces the protections that are available to people within New Zealand. There are very basic protections in New Zealand labour law and one of the things that Warner Bros told me when I worked with the company was that it actually liked New Zealand labour law. I will tell members why. It is because we do not have the rigid occupational classifications that most Western countries have. Warner Bros often used to refer to set construction. In the United States the United Kingdom and most parts of Australia when constructing a set someone who uses a hammer is not allowed to use a paintbrush. One is the job of a painter and the other is the job of a carpenter. Although Mr Assistant Speaker Barker might approve of that sort of arrangement it is not one that we have had in New Zealand for a number of years and Warner Bros told us that the arrangement here meant it was able to pay more reasonable wages but ended up with more productivity as a result. So our labour law arrangement was something that attracted Warner Bros and other companies to New Zealand rather than being something negative as has been indicated by members opposite. 
I finish with one point: what does it look like for New Zealand as a democracy as a country with integrity and as a country with sovereignty when a group of people come from offshore and shake us down for $33 million and for a change in our law that undermines the rights of New Zealand workers? That is the approach the Government has taken. It opens up New Zealand for anyone who wants to try to shake us down and I think it is a real pity. It is a backward step for democracy. John Key’s leadership has taken us backwards.