Locke Keith: Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Locke Keith: Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:15033] 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 I think the fact that the Minister of Labour has had to put forward two amendments shows the problem of rushing this bill through in urgency. I sat on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee for periods when it considered the employment relations legislation. I have been considering the amendments to the Employment Relations Act that have been before the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and the amendments to the Holidays Act. As with every select committee we have made changes to the legislation. One of the reasons why we do not just rush a bill through in urgency when it is available only at the beginning of debate is that otherwise a bill has to be available for 3 days so that people can have a look at it and get an idea of what might be wrong with it then in the select committee MPs can work out what might be wrong with it and they can take public submissions. All of that is necessary to get good legislation. Even with this very short bill Kate Wilkinson has come up with two amendments in the middle of this very rapid debate. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Corrections. 
KEITH LOCKE 
: “Corrections” the member calls them. But no doubt there are more. 
What is this bill all about? There have been arguments about where the reason for it came from. The reality is that John Key and Kate Wilkinson said that they were open to talking with Warner Bros and Warner Bros wanted to talk to them so why would they not listen to its views? They then came forward with this bill. John Key said pretty explicitly that changing the legislation was part of the deal with Warner Bros. I do not disagree with Kate Wilkinson talking to anyone including Warner Bros. She can talk to anyone in the world; that is her right. But when a bill comes before this Parliament and it is based on talks with only one party that party being Warner Bros a multinational and everyone else—employers unionists political parties community people and any others in New Zealand—is shut out of that discussion before the bill comes to the House I am concerned. That is an abuse of democracy. If you talk only to a multinational and to no one else and you do what that multinational wants you are in effect— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: You are using “you”. 
KEITH LOCKE 
: One of the problems with the bill and the amendments in clause 4 which amend section 6(1) of the Employment Relations Act is that they cover anyone working in any way in the film industry. It lists voice-over actors stand-ins etc. and section 6(1)(d)(ii) states “a person engaged in film production work in any other capacity.” The bill talks further about pre-production work production work and post-production work on or off the set etc. So we can see an example of someone who might be hired to work for 8 hours straight a normal day every day just sweeping the floors in a particular production studio. In every respect in terms of the Employment Relations Act and in terms of the court decision in the Bryson case for that person and the work that they do—they do what they are told they are unskilled they sweep floors it is regular hours—everything is covered as normal. Under this bill the company could say that if someone wants a job sweeping floors that person has to be an independent contractor. If they do not accept that requirement in the contract then they do not get a job there and the company will get someone else to sweep the floor. Is it not absurd that someone who in no way is an independent contractor in substance under this bill can be defined as one and effectively lose all rights to defend their conditions and the right to work with others to improve their conditions—the normal things that unions provide for? That is where it becomes highly unjust. 
Once we put this exception for all film workers including people sweeping the floor in legislation like this as Heather Roy I think said in her speech why not generalise it to everyone? As it is the employers who can determine who signs the contract and in which form because they are the people who hand out the jobs this means we have an un-unionised workforce in New Zealand. Really that is what this is all about: de-unionising labour in New Zealand. Is that in the national interest? I think that Nick Smith said it was all about the national interest. Is it in the national interest?