Parker David: Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Parker David: Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:668;Page:15055] 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 The underlying dispute with Warner Bros was always about money. It was always brinkmanship on the part of the various parties that have been involved as they tried to maximise their share of the spoils of this commercial endeavour. We know that those involved in brinkmanship included the union movement. We also know that the union movement pulled out from its brinkmanship earlier than was acknowledged by other sides. 
We know that as early as 14 October Gerry Brownlee in his press release thought things were reasonably under control. He now denies that they were completely under control. That may or may not be the case but we know that certainly by 18 October American time the Americans thought that all the industrial disputes were behind them. The brinkmanship that was then left alive was between two parties that we know of: Warner Bros and the Government both of whom were trying to get the best deal possible. 
I certainly accept what Gerry Brownlee said—that the National Government wanted  
The Hobbit  
filmed in New Zealand. I agree with him and I think that everyone except people like David Bennett agrees that other parties in this Parliament share the ambition that these films be filmed in New Zealand. In fact the New Zealand unions—not necessarily the Australian unions—the New Zealand workers the National Party the Labour Party and Sir Peter Jackson all wanted this movie in New Zealand. 
How long has it been about money? We have Sir Peter Jackson recorded in the  
Dominion Post  
on 15 December last year saying that New Zealand’s film industry was being squeezed by a high dollar making movies more expensive to shoot and increased competition from other countries offering better incentives. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: When did he say that? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: He said that on 15 December 2009. He said that if that happened New Zealand could lose out. He said that New Zealand had already lost two major productions to Australia: the third  
Chronicles of Narnia 
 film and a film about Sea Shepherd anti-whaling campaigners—again on 15 December. He also said—and I am referring again to the news article from the  
Dominion Post  
on 15 December—that people thought New Zealand had some magical quality that attracted movies but that it will come down to the dollars. 
Since then the Government and everyone in New Zealand has known that a negotiation was afoot. We also know from history that that is how Warner Bros and New Line Cinema operate. Labour members had that experience when we were in Government. No one is surprised that they were trying to relitigate the deal to try to maximise their share of the profits. We know that brinkmanship was still alive on the part of Warner Bros and on the part of the Government. 
We do not know whether there are other disputes. I actually hope that the fourth estate asks questions as to whether some other negotiations not involving the unions and workers were afoot between Warner Bros and other parties to this deal. It is a question that is yet to be answered. I think that the commentators have got the general point. We have seen all of the major dailies in New Zealand pick up on this point. 
I quote an article from earlier this week from Vernon Small in the  
Dominion Post.  
He was talking about what would have happened if Warner Bros had pulled the plug without an excuse: He wrote: “Had Warner Bros pulled the plug without that excuse”—that is the excuse of the union dispute—“Sir Peter could have come under attack for abandoning his home country to direct ‘our’ movie elsewhere. Warner would have looked greedy for asking for more to stay or venal for leaving and the Government would have looked weak and compliant if it had failed to retain the movie or bent to blackmail.” That is what is behind this. The brinkmanship had gone too far. 
The Government was worried that it was going to lose so it wanted someone to blame other than itself. Despite the record being clear that by then the industrial disputes had been settled and despite the record being clear that the Labour Party has not been involved at all in these negotiations John Key stuck it at every opportunity to the union movement and tried to link the Labour Party with the earlier disputes which by then had been resolved anyway. It has been clever politics on the part of National; I acknowledge that. It has succeeded in fooling many people in New Zealand that this was caused by an industrial dispute. The reality is that it was caused by brinkmanship. The brinkmanship worked. Warner Bros got an extra $34 million of taxpayer money which increases the profitability of this movie for them by that amount. 
Why was the Government motivated to do this? Of course it is at risk—it already knows it—in respect of its failed economic development plans. We have heard this previously but I will list them again. The Government has been shown to be failing in its ambition to close the wage gap with Australia. What has its economic plan been made up of so far? A cycleway which has not created many jobs and a plan for a financial services hub which has gone by the wayside. Mining in national parks was going to be the way we closed that wage gap. That has gone. 
Then the Government faced the risk of losing these movies. It needed someone else to blame despite the fact that it is absolutely clear from what I have read out from the  
Dominion Post  
article of 15 December 2009 that it was money that was behind this issue. The Government did not get on to it earlier. It let this go down to the wire. Actually it was not totally within the Government’s control I have to admit. It was in the interests of Warner Bros to let this go to the wire because the closer it was to leaving the stronger its negotiation position was with the Government and therefore it could screw an extra $34 million worth of concessions out of the taxpayer. 
This legislation is completely unnecessary. There is already the ability to contract with workers in the film industry as independent contractors rather than employees; that is already permissible under our law. It just has to be done properly and it has been done properly in all the films since the decision of the Supreme Court 5 years ago—including  
Avatar 
 that award-winning enormous blockbuster large parts of which were made in New Zealand by Weta Workshop and others. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Discussed with James Cameron in Los Angeles years before we were trying to attract them. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I thank Mr Mallard for that. 
Avatar 
 shows that this was not a necessary change to the law. We only have to contract properly. These are multimillion-dollar enterprises multi-hundred-million-dollar enterprises; they can afford to—and do—purchase the best of lawyers and the best of legal advice. Weta Workshop is a multimillion-dollar organisation. It purchases the best of contractors and the best of advice. I bet that after it lost that Supreme Court case it got its contracts right subsequently. 
There was no need for this change of law. I do not think that this change of law was even central to what Warner Bros wanted. What was central to what Warner Bros wanted was more money. It got its $34 million. This was convenient for National; it enabled National to stick it to the unions and it enabled it to try to link Labour with the earlier actions of some of those Australian unionists. You know we have not in this House been defending what those Australian unionists did when it came to trying to call for a worldwide boycott. Not one Labour person has been heard defending that because we do not defend it. But we will not put up with the misrepresentation long after the labour dispute was settled that that dispute was the reason for what is going down here. It was not. 
What was going down was a shake-down by Warner Bros of an extra $34 million of taxpayers’ money. What was going down from National was that it wanted someone else to blame. It wanted to stick it to the unions and stick it to Labour. No one is fooled by that. We are pleased that  
The Hobbit 
 is being filmed in New Zealand and that other films will continue to be filmed in New Zealand but what drives those films is the creativity of the New Zealand film industry and the competitiveness of the financial rewards of those who back those films.