Robertson Grant: Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
Robertson Grant: Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:15003] 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to speak on clause 2 the commencement date clause of the Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill. I will pick up a theme that my colleague Trevor Mallard was talking about in his contribution and that is the question of whether this legislation should be backdated. 
Simon Bridges 
:  
Bro’Town 
. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: “Clark Kent” on  
bro’Town 
? No I say to Mr Bridges. This is about whether the commencement date should in fact be a retrospective date. The reason I raise that question is that if there is a problem here in terms of our industrial law it has existed for a very long time; it has not just come into existence now. As has been mentioned already in the debate this issue is a result of the case that went to the Employment Court in the name of Mr Bryson and that case has been discussed a number of times. If this Government is seriously suggesting that some major issue in the film industry needs to be resolved then the same issue has existed since 2005 when the law in this area was settled. If we are taking National at its word that is a justification I believe for an amendment to the commencement date to backdate the legislation to 2005. 
In the context of whichever commencement date we might have it is important to look at what the outcome really was from that case. A very important thing came out of the judgment from the Supreme Court: the nature of the employment relationship depends not only on what the parties intend and agree on but also on what they do and how they conduct themselves. That was the settled conclusion from that particular case. 
I think it is important to note that it is not just a simple matter of choice as Mr Hayes and others have said in interjections across the Chamber tonight. This is actually a matter of quite important employment law that was settled as far as most people in New Zealand were concerned in 2005. That would be a justification if National was following its own logic for backdating this commencement date. At that point we had a settled piece of law and subsequent to that time movies have been made in New Zealand under that particular provision. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Giant movies. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: Very big movies.  
Avatar 
 for instance—the movie about the Bluegreens; Nick Smith’s movie.  
Avatar  
was made after this settled piece of law. Therefore if National’s logic is to be followed the commencement date should be backdated. 
The problem for National is that there is no logic though. There is no logic to follow for when the commencement date should be because the commencement date should follow that finding in 2005. But the legislation is unnecessary. It does not need to commence because the law in this area has been settled movies have been made and people have got on with the job. A backdated commencement date would make sense in the context of a problem—an imagined problem in this case—that somehow or other National is looking to solve. If we followed National’s logic there would be a case for a backdated commencement date. But I do not believe that there is a case; I believe that the fact that this bill is to come into force immediately after it receives the Royal assent is National trying to get rid of this issue. It knows it has dug itself into a hole that requires it to have a quick commencement date right away. It has dug itself into a hole. 
John Hayes 
: Absolutely not. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: Mr Hayes says that National has not dug itself into a hole but it has actually done that here. National did not follow this issue through. 
Another reason for backdating the commencement date is actually the enormous amount of work that has gone into  
The Hobbit  
in Wellington over a long period of time. Again if there was a problem here it already existed for the work on  
The Hobbit 
. That is another reason that National if it was following its own logic would backdate the bill. 
The problem is that the bill should not commence at all as an Act. As a piece of legislation it is simply National addressing a problem that did not exist created by a crisis of its own making. That is essentially what we have here today. National cannot decide whether this bill was forced on it by Warner Bros or whether it is doing it of its own volition. If it is doing it of its own volition then the commencement should be backdated. That is the truth of it. If it was a problem in industrial law then it has been a problem since 2005 and the commencement date should have been backdated. But if in fact the legislation has been forced on this Government by Warner Bros—if this is in fact the Government rolling over and saying it will do whatever Warner Bros wants—then maybe a commencement date in the future is somehow or other allowable. Unfortunately we are seeing in this Chamber tonight yet another bill being rammed through—