Norman Russel William: Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
Norman Russel William: Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:14967] 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I am speaking today on the “Warner Bros Employment Relations Amendment Bill”. I am speaking today to the Warner Bros Parliament sponsored by Warner Bros—a Parliament that is now in session under the instruction of Warner Bros so that we can pass legislation in urgency for the benefit of the multinational corporation called Warner Bros. 
The Green Party is very pleased that  
The Hobbit 
 is in New Zealand. The Green Party is very pleased that we have kept  
The Hobbit 
 in New Zealand but we do not believe that it was necessary for the New Zealand Government National to give away our sovereignty in order to keep  
The Hobbit 
 in New Zealand. The National Government has compromised the sovereignty of New Zealand and of this Parliament in order to satisfy the whims of the multinational corporation called Warner Bros. 
This Parliament is now the Warner Bros Parliament. The majority in this Parliament are now voting literally under the instructions of the executive of Warner Bros. Warner Bros is giving clear directions to the National Party—and no doubt the ACT Party—majority whose members came to this House today in order to vote for a bill written on behalf of Warner Bros. Warner Bros executives and lawyers did the drafting of this legislation. Warner Bros executives have been involved in giving the direction to the New Zealand Government in order to pass this legislation. 
This is a shameful day for what used to be called the National Party but is now called the Warner Bros National Party. It used to be called the National Party but now sponsored by Warner Bros the Warner Bros National Party is passing legislation in this House at the behest of Warner Bros. 
Chris Tremain 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I bring to the attention of the House what this speaker is doing. Under the Standing Orders he is unable to imply or convey that members of this House are under the influence of members from outside this House. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I think it has long been the case that there is an ability to refer to parties in that way. I do not think there has been any direct suggestion on the part of Mr Norman of corruption as was implied by Mr Tremain. I think Mr Tremain might have drawn attention to it. No one is suggesting for example that that point of order was sponsored by WingNut Films or anything similar to that. 
Chris Tremain 
: I refer to Speaker’s ruling 52/1. The member has been implying that we have been under the direction of Warner Bros which he cannot do. 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN 
: Speaking to the point of order— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: No I do not need any— 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN 
: It is about me Mr Assistant Speaker. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: I am on my feet. This is a robust debate. I do not believe that the member has breached the rulings on page 51 of  
Speakers’ Rulings 
 and there are two or three. He is skirting with a notion and being quite colourful but it has to be quite a significant statement to breach page 51 of  
Speakers’ Rulings 
. I have been listening very carefully and I will continue to listen carefully. I caution the member that he is on the bevel shall we say.  
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN 
: We are speaking today about the Warner Bros Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill. The Warner Bros bill is sponsored by Warner Bros which has promoted the language in this bill. It is being promoted in the House by the National Party which I have been calling the Warner Bros National Party because it seems to be promoting a bill that is to the benefit of the Warner Bros. 
We are here under urgency. The entire New Zealand Parliament is operating under urgency in order to satisfy the demands of a multinational corporation called Warner Bros. This is a very sad day for this Parliament. Around us on these walls we have the names of battles that were fought in order to protect the sovereignty of this country. People gave their lives in those battles to protect sovereignty yet the National Government working under the instructions of Warner Bros is introducing a bill into this House that contravenes— 
Hon Dr Wayne Mapp 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I refer to Speaker’s ruling 52/1: “It is not in order to say that the Government or a member has been dominated by has received instructions from has received directions from”. The word “instruction” was used by the member. I believe that he has strayed beyond what is appropriate. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: I did caution the member that he was on the slope or the bevel. The Speakers’ rulings on pages 51 and 52 state quite clearly that members cannot accuse a party or a member of taking instruction from outside the House. In that respect if the member used those words and I believe he did then he crossed that line. I just caution the member. He is dancing on a bit of a pinhead here and I will pull him up if he crosses the line and say that he has done so. 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN 
: Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. 
Here we stand in this Parliament acting under urgency which the National Government has introduced in this House. For the sake of demonstrating the problem I have called it the Warner Bros National Party. I am not suggesting that National is corrupt—I am not suggesting that at all. What I am suggesting is that we in this House today have been called together because Warner Bros wants us to pass this bill. I am not suggesting that the National Government or any particular member is acting under the instruction of Warner Bros; what I am suggesting is that the National Government has worked with Warner Bros so that we have before us tonight this bill and we are acting under urgency. 
I ask whether that is really why all the people commemorated by the names of battles on the walls around us fought wars to protect the sovereignty of this country. I ask whether we fought to have parliamentary democracy in our country so that a multinational corporation Warner Bros can effectively write the law of this country. Is that what it is all about? Is that what it has come to? In 2010 after all of these years and all of these struggles to protect our democracy and sovereignty here we are today at the behest of Warner Bros which is promoting this legislation. We are acting under urgency to put forward legislation that suits Warner Bros. 
The second point I will talk about is the so-called great negotiating strategy of the National Government. If we are to accept the word of Warner Bros on the face of it it said that industrial relations was an issue for it. The Council of Trade Unions and the unions came out and said that they would guarantee that there would not be industrial action. If the Government was acting in the best interests of New Zealand in the negotiation between Warner Bros and New Zealand Inc then the Prime Minister would have come out and said that he accepted the word of the trade union movement that there would not be industrial action in order to maximise the negotiating position of the New Zealand Government. 
If we wanted to maximise our negotiating position in the negotiations with Warner Bros then we would have accepted the word of the trade union movement. The Prime Minister would have come out and said that he accepted there would not be industrial action which would have undermined the negotiating position of Warner Bros. The Prime Minister did the exact opposite. He came out and said that he did not trust the word of the trade union movement and that he did not believe what it was saying. By doing that he made it easier for Warner Bros right? 
So in a negotiation between the Prime Minister representing New Zealand and Warner Bros the Prime Minister was on the side of Warner Bros. Instead of being on the side of New Zealand Inc the Prime Minister negotiated on the side of Warner Bros by saying he accepted that there would not be industrial peace and that he did not believe the word of the trade union movement. By doing that he made it easier for Warner Bros in the negotiation. It was a negotiation between New Zealand and Warner Bros in which the Prime Minister was on the side of Warner Bros because he was saying that he did not accept the word of the trade union movement. 
If we accept Warner Bros’ argument that industrial legislation was one of the negotiating points on the table then surely the Government representing New Zealand should have tried to get the maximum best outcome for New Zealand. Instead the Prime Minister actually helped Warner Bros’ position in the negotiation when he said that he did not accept the word of the trade union movement that there would be industrial peace. That is a fundamentally ridiculous negotiating strategy. If we have the best interests of New Zealand Inc at heart it does not make any sense to argue a case that helps Warner Bros’ position. 
The Prime Minister argued a case that helped Warner Bros’ position during this negotiation. We do not know how much that has cost us so the whole project is somewhere in the order of $100 million in terms of tax incentives. We do not know how much that has cost us. Because the Prime Minister argued a position that helped Warner Bros in the negotiation we do not know how much that added to the bill for the New Zealand taxpayer. We know that it did not help New Zealand in the negotiations to have the Prime Minister assisting Warner Bros by undermining the trade unions’ assurance that there would be industrial peace. 
Why would the Prime Minister do that? It does not make any sense. If our Prime Minister is the great trader the great negotiator—and I accept that he has a lot of experience—then I ask why he would take a position that assisted the other side. It is not logical unless of course the National Government actually wanted to weaken industrial relations legislation anyway and that is the sad truth at the heart of all of this. National is happy to weaken industrial relations legislation and to make it harder for workers in the film industry than it is currently. That is the tragedy at the centre of this matter. 
The last thing I will say—and I will say this to Labour and National—is that there is a logical outcome to free trade and globalisation. When we embrace a free-trade globalisation agenda sometimes we find ourselves dealing with a company like Warner Bros which is globally mobile. It has mobile capital. It deals with nation States that are trying to deal with mobile capital. The free-trade globalisation agenda has made it harder for us in those kinds of negotiations. It puts us in a more difficult position. 
When we embarked down the globalisation pathway the Greens and others had a lot of criticism of that pathway. We said that it strengthens global capital and weakens nation States. What we have seen in the last 48 hours is a graphic demonstration of the reality of the difficulty nation States have in negotiating with those global giants. I do accept that it was a difficult position. The Government made a mess of it but it was a difficult position. I would ask those who have embraced a free-trade globalisation agenda to think about the logical outcome of that particular strategy and the difficulty it puts the Governments of democratically elected nation States in vis-à-vis globally mobile capital. Thank you.