Robertson Grant: Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Robertson Grant: Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:15019] 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 I will certainly endeavour to focus on the Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill which as you say Mr Chairperson amends the Employment Relations Act 2000. I think that in the debate at this point we can assess whether that is the appropriate Act to be amending what that Act does and whether this amendment is appropriate in terms of the Act. 
I refer the Committee to the object of the Employment Relations Act 2000. In particular the object of this Act as stated in section 3(a) is firstly “to build productive employment relationships through the promotion of good faith in all aspects of the employment environment and of the employment relationship—”. I will say that again for members. The object of the Employment Relations Act—mentioned in clause 3 which we are discussing here—is “to build productive employment relationships through the promotion of good faith in all aspects of the employment environment and of the employment relationship—”. The question I ask is whether this amendment bill supports that object. I ask whether this bill which says that no matter what happens in the employment relationship and no matter how it might change over time people are locked into the relationship they were in when they signed the contract supports that object. I say to Ms Wagner that that is what this bill does. 
This bill says despite what might have been decided in 2005 that whatever happens after a contract is signed people are locked into the relationship they were in when they signed the contract. When we look at the Bryson decision we see that the main element to arise from it was that the nature of the employment relationship depends not only on what the parties intend and agree but also on what they do and how they conduct themselves. This amendment bill says that the second part of that what parties do and how they conduct themselves is no longer a relevant consideration. The Employment Relations Act is now limited to such a point that there is now no ability to take into account how the relationship evolves over time. There is also now no ability to go to court to even test whether the relationship has changed in such a way that it is no longer appropriate to consider someone to be an employee or a contractor. 
We are looking at clause 3 in this bill that amends the Employment Relations Act and it is important to look at the objects of the Employment Relations Act and how this bill supports or does not support those objects. In my opinion the kind of change that the Government is proposing here is against the idea of good faith. It is saying that no matter what actually happens in an employment relationship if good faith is not progressed and if things change in the employment relationship the relationship is still locked down to how it was when the contract was signed on day one. Mr Bryson’s case shows us that employment relationships can change. Someone can be taken on as a contractor but then in effect become an employee by the nature of ongoing work within the same organisation and by doing a similar piece of work. Eventually both parties might consider that person to be an employee but under this bill they cannot do that. They cannot take the relationship to court to test it and they cannot change it; it is locked down. As we look at clause 3 of this bill which amends the Employment Relations Act my view is that the objects of the Act are no longer being fulfilled by this amendment. 
Let us continue to the second part of the object of the Employment Relations Act. Section 3(a)(i) states that the object of this Act is to build productive employment relationships “by recognising that employment relationships must be built not only on the implied mutual obligations of trust and confidence but also on a legislative requirement for good faith behaviour;”. Trust confidence and good faith are key objects of the Employment Relations Act which is mentioned here in clause 3. They are being broken by this amendment. How can trust and confidence be there if it is actually impossible for somebody to relook at the nature of his or her employment relationship? How can it possibly improve trust and confidence which are the objects of the Employment Relations Act if someone can no longer go to court to assess whether that relationship has changed? 
The law in this area is settled. There is no need for so-called clarity. Movies have continued to be made in New Zealand since 2005. Major big-budget production films have been operating perfectly well in settled law. There is no need to undo the Employment Relations Act. This bill amends the Employment Relations Act. The Act in itself has in its object clear things—