Brownlee Gerry: Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Brownlee Gerry: Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:668;Page:15044] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister for Economic Development) 
: 
 There has been an attempt over the last number of hours in the House to rewrite history in a way that conveniences the arguments being put forward by opponents of the Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill. 
Firstly the Hon Trevor Mallard said that this has been a sorry saga; I agree with him that it has been. There was a suggestion throughout the contributions offered from the other side of the House that somehow New Zealand was put in a difficult position and was required to capitulate to some foreign national corporation. We should be very very clear that if it had not been for the actions of the Australian Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance and its director Mr Simon Whipp we would not be in this position right now. The blinkers on the members from the other side of the House have absolutely prevented them from seeing that point which has been a little bit disappointing in this argument. 
If we look at the history we see that there is no doubt there were some financial concerns about the future of  
The Hobbit 
. Everyone knows that. Those concerns have been sorted. There were some concerns about the effect of  
Bryson v Three Foot Six 
 but there had been a history over a period of 4 years where it felt like we were getting to a slightly more settled position. Indeed Warner Bros came here earlier this year and made a movie called  
Yogi Bear 
 which was about $160 million worth and there was no issue at that point. 
Where things tipped over seriously is when the Australian union decided through the International Federation of Actors to issue a ban on anyone signing a contract for  
The Hobbit 
 unless that contract was negotiated by the Australian Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance. That was the problem. At that point everybody who was likely to have a stake financially in the picture asked themselves what that would mean for the next 4 years as they went ahead producing those pictures. It was pretty clear that there was an unsettled industrial road ahead. 
People might say that there was no need for this legislation because I convened a meeting in Auckland where the screen producers gave their position; where the Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance of Australia gave its position and the Actors Equity sort of watched on sad and forlorn not knowing what was going on; and where Helen Kelly from the Council of Trade Unions played a very constructive role. There was a possibility that the Pink Book conditions which form the basis for contracts in New Zealand and have done for some years could be updated with negotiations. It is wrong for anyone to say that it was settled at that point—quite wrong. 
Repeatedly Simon Whipp went to the media and said that all the actors wanted was a collective contract with the producers of  
The Hobbit 
. That was exactly the problem. Under our commerce law it is not possible for people who want to engage others in a production as contractors to negotiate collective arrangements of those contracts—that is anti-competitive. Sure a piece of legal advice floated around and was provided at huge expense to the New Zealand Actors Equity but equally a piece from New Zealand Crown Law made it abundantly clear that that was the situation. Our question was whether we believe Crown Law or the Queen Street lawyers who have produced an opinion for the man who writes the cheques Mr Simon Whipp. 
In the end it was clear to us that this was a problem. At some point we had to sort out how big it was. We met with Warner Bros executives as everyone knows and their nervousness was very clear to us on this particular issue. It was an interesting exercise to find out what was on the table for them from other jurisdictions and for us to come to the realisation that relocation was a serious prospect. There was lots of talk from people on the other side of the House that Warner Bros was never going to go that it would never walk away and all the rest of it. But no one will commit NZ$600 million to NZ$700 million to an investment based on securing people to offer their talents to that endeavour if they are uncertain that those talents would be there at the end as they were at the start particularly with film where even one person going off the reservation can cause such huge cost and devastation to production. 
Once that was understood it was incumbent I think in the short time space we had for us to come up with a solution and that is what the Government has done. Nothing in this bill takes away from the rights of those who participate in the production of those movies—nothing at all. All it does is codify the arrangements under which their engagement is contracted. That is perfectly reasonable. 
Carol Beaumont 
: But will it work? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I believe it will work I think it will work and I am quite confident it will work. It will mean that if people decide part-way through a production that they are not a contractor and they go off to the court and say that actually they are an employee the courts will not have jurisdiction to determine that matter. It is stated as a piece of law through the New Zealand Parliament. 
The other suggestion—that is that people who work in the back office or anything else will caught up in this legislation—also steps too far. In any of these circumstances things will always be placed in the worst possible light. In the end we have in New Zealand a $2.8 billion screen production industry which was at risk. If the production of the  
Hobbit  
movies had exited here so much of the expertise that is domiciled in New Zealand would have had to move with it. How we would have ever got that expertise back is beyond me. 
I am in no doubt having been close to this issue for a long time that if it had not been for the influence of the Australian union over the hapless people who call themselves New Zealand Actors Equity we would have been in severe trouble. I will go even further and say that if the Council of Trade Unions—and this is a big statement from me—and Helen Kelly had been involved right from the start and were not put in a position of having to defend an Australian who frankly has very little going for him at all then I think the situation may have been different. But it was not. The gun was put to Warner Bros head and the dreadful attacks on Sir Peter Jackson and Lady Fran were completely unacceptable. New Zealand is a country that should value that talent. We do value that talent and I know that the Labour Party deep down supports these pictures being made here. I accept that completely but there can be no uncertainty for those who are making such a big investment. We need to understand that that investment although it can be quantified as around $600 million or $700 million is far far bigger because others will come here as a result of certainty; there is already evidence of that. 
This is a good move by the Parliament of New Zealand to support the income opportunities of our most talented New Zealanders.