Brownlee Gerry: Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Brownlee Gerry: Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:668;Page:14943] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister for Economic Development) 
: 
 National will most certainly not be agreeing to the amendment in the name of Trevor Mallard. We will be supporting the motion moved by the Hon Kate Wilkinson. With regard to the last speaker Trevor Mallard let me say that the only foreigners who came to this country and shook us down were the Australian unionists who came in here and destroyed exactly the sort of settled industrial relations arrangements that Trevor Mallard spoke of. That is absolute fact. 
Eight weeks ago this film was going to be made in New Zealand and then Mr Simon Whipp the Australian unionist got the International Federation of Actors to put a black ban on the film telling all actors not to sign on unless it was with a contract negotiated by the Australian union—and every member on that side of the House knows that; they have seen that resolution. I ask them what on earth the Council of Trade Unions has abandoned workers in this country for. Why was it not the New Zealand unions that stepped up and worked for actors and others in this country? The unions did not do it; they simply abandoned actors to the Australian union. I say to Mr Mallard that he should make no mistake: the only foreigners who have come into this country to shake us down have been the Australian unions led by Mr Simon Whipp. 
Mr Mallard’s speech was a very sad rewrite of or attempt to rewrite history. There is no way in which the relationship between the New Zealand Government and Warner Bros is any worse as a result of this—far from it. Fortunately we have been able to pull out of the fire a dreadful situation and turn it into something that will be particularly good for the New Zealand film industry in the long run. Mr Mallard has asked who wins who gains and who loses. I can tell members that it is the workers in that industry who have won out of this—it is the workers in the industry. I am wearing my red tie today which is something I usually never do in this House in solidarity with the workers who marched on Labour Day in support of the Government’s actions in this case. 
We have a dynamic film industry in this country. It has been built up by very creative people and built up by the expertise of the technical crews who have worked behind the films. But all that has been put at risk in the last 7 or 8 weeks by the Australian union so let us clarify how that has worked. Firstly a film was made here earlier this year by Warner Bros called  
Yogi Bear 
 
and that film had no problem whatsoever; there was not a squeak or a skerrick of a murmur from the union. It let that film slide through. But as soon as the big numbers came on the table and as soon as the big opportunities for New Zealanders came on the table without any reference to Warner Bros and without any discussion with Peter Jackson the Australian union set out to put a black ban on that picture. That is absolute fact. 
Then we had the sorry spectacle of the Council of Trade Unions being put in a position of having to support that position. I feel sorry for Helen Kelly. I think she has done the union movement in this country irreparable damage at least for a long number of years because it has been put on the back foot in having to defend the indefensible position taken by that Australian union. But I have seen in the street some of the actors who want to work on this production and they were protesting against the union’s activity. Anyone on that side of the House who wants to say that people somehow are being misled or otherwise assumes that those actors are not intelligent enough to work out that without these films being made here this industry will not grow. 
The Government has moved to try to get things back on the right track. I want to make it very clear that Warner Bros did not tell us what to do. The executives laid out in front of us their deep concerns about the security they would have for making a film in New Zealand—in this case two films in New Zealand—when at any time a union in Australia could call for industrial action that would slow them up. I want an explanation from the great party of the workers the Labour Party as to why it supports Australian unionist activities in New Zealand. It is a pretty simple question. Are New Zealander leaders in that movement not capable of representing those issues? 
Further it is well known that most people engaged for their skills for their trade and for their creativity in the film industry are engaged on the basis of being a contractor to that event-based employment opportunity. They get a number of opportunities that arise from that in relation to taxation etc. and they have the freedom to run their own lives. I ask what is so wrong with that. This industry pays at the higher levels; Mr Mallard made that clear in his speech. So why is there so much animosity towards this industry? 
I can say that a collective contract for something like this simply will not work. I do not believe for one minute that Sir Ian McKellen or any of the other international stars who might end up in this production were running around saying that they could not wait for Mr Whipp and his Australian union to sort out a collective contract for them to sign up to. But I will say that if every worker or every person engaged in producing that film were paid the same as Sir Ian then the rest of them might well want to have a collective contract. So a whole lot of mismatches in there are problematic. 
Further a wee time ago there was a case called the Bryson case. What came out of that was that if the inland revenue tests were applied in Bryson’s case it was deemed that he might not have been a contractor and that the relationship was more in the nature of employer-employee. That proved to be very very expensive for the production company so the Employment Relations (Film Production) Amendment Bill sets out to make it abundantly clear that if someone is employed—or should I say contracted—for services on these films and others then that person will be treated as a contractor with no right to go and have that status questioned. People will say that that is a removal of rights but if someone sign up and says that he or she wants to be a contractor then where is the right for the person who is on the other side of that—the contractee—to expect that that is what the person is. I think it is utterly ridiculous to have a provision that says that people may run off at any time to the Employment Court and ask for help to change their status. Steve Chadwick over there is shaking her head and saying that that is ridiculous. She is right; it is utterly ridiculous. But that is what happened in the Bryson case. 
I will finish my speech by saying that if Simon Whipp the Australian unionist had not put the black ban on this bill we would not be in this situation. We would not have had to go through the exercise we have gone through over the last couple of days. I want to make it abundantly clear again that there has been no request or—the Opposition would say—pressure from Warner Bros to change our law. There has been agreement between the two that this is an issue and that this needs to be sorted out. That is what this bill sets out to do. 
Finally I have some simple questions for the speakers to come: why do New Zealand workers need an Australian union representing them in this industry and what has that Australian union achieved for them? I say that it has achieved nothing but grief. 
Debate interrupted.