Beaumont Carol: Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Beaumont Carol: Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:668;Page:15046] 
CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour) 
: 
 In rising to speak on the third reading of the Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill I will start by acknowledging the Hon Gerry Brownlee for what he has just said. Finally somebody on that side of the House has said what is true and what is evidenced by the facts—that is members on this side of the House support the New Zealand film industry. Of course Labour supports  
The Hobbit 
 being made in New Zealand. We have a very proud record of supporting the New Zealand film industry and I challenge anybody to disprove that. I thank the Hon Gerry Brownlee for making that statement and for putting it on the record. In fact I would go as far as saying there is not a single person in House from any party who does not want to see  
The Hobbit 
 being made here. Of course we do—it is important for our country. 
In the first reading when I started my contributions I said I would ask a number of questions. I have done that in a number of speeches and I still think there are many unanswered questions. Unfortunately the debate from those on the Government benches has largely been a number of key points that go something like this: the Prime Minister has done a great job and has saved the day the union movement was setting out to destroy  
The Hobbit 
 and Labour does not want to see  
The Hobbit 
 being made here. I have dealt with the third of those points and again I thank Gerry Brownlee for recognising that that bit was not true. There were very few substantive contributions from members on that side of the House on the actual issues. I think there are still a number of unanswered questions. The question of what role foreign corporates can have in dealing with a domestic matter and in raising and seeking changes to domestic legislation like labour laws is still deeply troubling. I have had no assurances from the Minister of Labour on where she sees any boundaries around that or what matters are not on the table for foreign corporates to raise in terms of New Zealand labour law and I would still like to hear her answer that question. 
There have been many questions about how this dispute was handled. I have put on record my concern that in terms of labour issues this Government seems to have no ability to intervene in any constructive way when there are problems. The Minister of Labour was completely absent from this whole process. If it comes down in the end to the solution being to give some more tax incentives—well that is not her responsibility; that is the Minister for Economic Development’s responsibility—and to deal with a matter of employment law which is her responsibility then I ask why she was absent from the whole process. That question remains unanswered and this is not the only time that the Minister of Labour has been missing in action. 
This dispute has been mishandled. Even in the debate here we have seen contradictory points of view being made by Government members. Minister Joyce said that Warner Bros wanted this amendment and that it required the change. Gerry Brownlee said very articulately that no it was nothing to do with Warner Bros but that the Government saw the need to clarify this point of view. Both statements cannot be true as others have said. Over the last couple of weeks we have seen all sorts of people jumping in and making different sorts of statements. 
This dispute has not been handled well and what I find particularly unpleasant is that there has been a real desire to use it as an opportunity to say that it is all the union movement’s fault. I do not think everything was handled perfectly and I put that on record. Those who say that this dispute has been all down to the actions of actors and other people working in the film industry and their union are wrong. The vilification of Helen Kelly and the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions has been absolutely unpleasant and uncalled-for. Again I note that Gerry Brownlee has taken a slightly different tack on that one and I am glad that that is also on the record because some of it has been most uncalled-for. This is our central trade union body and any Government that really wants to see this country succeed has to engage with employers and engage with the unions who represent working people in New Zealand. It has to engage properly with the community. To say that one part of that the union movement is outside and is unable to speak on behalf of the people who work in an industry and to say that the union movement is wrong to try to improve those people’s wages and conditions is I think quite despicable. I think that all of those elements of the dispute have been poorly handled. I am sure that my colleague Charles Chauvel will be saying some more on this; he has already very helpfully pointed out some concerns. 
The bill before us raises an issue of competence. Firstly we do not believe that the bill is necessary. There is settled law in the matter of whether people are contractors or employees. The actual issue of dispute was not over that issue; it was over a concern that independent contractors were trying to deal collectively—again I say that Gerry Brownlee reflected on this point—with improving their conditions of employment. It may not be as easy for independent contractors to deal with collective matters as it is for employees who have the right to collectively bargain for a collective employment agreement but it is not impossible. There are examples from around the world both in the film industry and in other industries of independent contractors working collectively to try to set some standards for the way that they work in light of the nature of the conditions they face. I do not think that the competition laws rule that out at all. Yesterday we had an example of the Irish film industry which is grappling with this very issue. I think that a much more constructive response here would have been to look at improving industry standards. An agreement was reached that the Pink Book which has set industry standards would be renegotiated and that it would be done in a collective manner in order to set some standards. That is not anti-competitive. 
I argue not only that this bill is not necessary but also that it is of concern for two other reasons. Firstly the film industry has always had a number of independent contractors operating in it and the law is quite settled in the matter as I have said. But there are other people in that industry who are not independent contractors who are not well paid and they are employees. This bill says that as a default mechanism people in the film industry will be seen as independent contractors. I ask what the implications are for those people and what the wider implications are if this Government seeks to expand this amendment to other industries under the Employment Relations Act. We do not think that is too farfetched an idea to be considering. This Government has shown that it is backward-looking in terms of employment law. It wants to go back to workers having fewer rights. It looks back fondly on the Employment Contracts Act so we are worried about the implications. 
Secondly we are not confident that this bill will do what it sets out to achieve. In fact it could potentially cause a great many more problems than it sets out to resolve. One of the things I will particularly highlight again is the use of urgency which denies scrutiny of legislation. It means that the public experts and members of this House cannot properly scrutinise legislation to make sure that it does not have any unintended consequences and to make sure that we are all fully aware of what the legislation means and what it may or may not do. I think it is shocking to force this bill through under urgency. It makes no difference in practical terms to have this bill passed this week. Again for the record I say that this Government is overusing urgency. It is overusing— 
Charles Chauvel 
: The 42nd bill. 
CAROL BEAUMONT 
: This is its 42nd bill under urgency with no scrutiny by select committees. That is shocking. 
I will conclude by saying that there is a better way to deal with these matters. I feel very concerned that we have a Minister for Economic Development and a Minister of Labour who do not seem to take responsibility for looking at what the real issues are here. I put on record the fact that the issue of  
The Hobbit 
 and whether it would proceed is not related just to recent matters. Last year in December the  
Dominion Post  
had an article headed “Jackson calls for incentives to keep NZ industry alive”. It was known by Gerry Brownlee that there were concerns about the level of incentive and the need for more money to support the film industry. That article was published in December 2009. In July 2010 another  
Dominion Post  
headline was “Movie jobs head north as Hobbit delays continue”. The article stated: “Film-maker Sir Peter Jackson can’t guarantee The Hobbit will ever be made as concerns grow that a lack of jobs is causing movie industry workers to leave Wellington.” That brings me back to the Minister of Labour. She does not have a clue about looking at productive employment relationships better conditions of work higher wages and situations where workers can get together collectively and have their voice recognised as part of a modern economy.