SpeechSCREEN INDUSTRY WORKERS BILLSecond ReadingDebate resumed from 11 August.CHRIS BAILLIE (ACT): Thank you Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of ACT in opposition to the Screen Industry Workers Bill. Unfortunately I wasn't there when the bill was introduced and went through the select committee process but I do remember the debate that occurred around 2010 when the amendments were introduced. The change to the Employment Relations Act where the test for employee status for people doing film production work no longer applied to people doing film production work. Instead unless employed under a written employment agreement film production workers are contractors and cannot challenge their employment status in the courts.I remember thinking back then that this industry runs on deadlines and time frames; surely the workforce had to be flexible. The Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment (MBIE) report to Government in 2019 stated These amendments were controversial and polarising. Production companies and others in the film industry saw the changes as important to protect New Zealand's ability to attract and retain international film production work. Many including unions and academics saw the change as a removal of fundament employment rights."—unions and academics. It's not a coincidence with this bill that 30 percent of the Labour Party are ex-unionists so not too sure about the academic side of it.What I do know: to get stuff done; to increase productivity; to be able to pay staff well; to be a thriving exciting business industry and community there must flexibility in the workforce trust between all parties and the understanding of a common goal.The MBIE report also states that "The inability to bargain collectively may contribute to poor outcomes for some workers in the industry. In the screen industry workers tend to be engaged on a project basis. They experience peaks and troughs in their work and tend to work multiple jobs a year." The "peaks and troughs"—that means the employers and the companies also go through these peaks and troughs and they need a workforce that rolls with the same punches that they are going through and also a workforce that accepts that the career path that they have chosen is not a 9 to 5 Monday to Friday like a union leader or an academic.The Film Industry Working Group has suggested four principles apply to all screen production work: (1) parties must act in good faith in their dealings with each other; (2) contractors doing screen production work must be protected from bullying harassment of any kind and discrimination; (3) people who engage contractors must act fairly and reasonably when terminating contracts; (4) contractors doing screen production work must receive a fair rate of pay in relation to their skills and the scale of production. On the face of it all these principles seem fairly reasonable but any employer who has had anything to do with the personal grievance process would be shaking their heads.I spoke last weekend to the owner of a plastering and painting business. They employed a 34-year-old painter. In good faith they had a formal contract a high rate of pay and a company van. It turned out after a few months he wasn't up to the job. Of the 110 days he was employed he was absent for 30. Sometimes he called in sick; most of the time he didn't. He just didn't turn up. After the required warnings were given he was asked to leave. Seemed to be a great example of acting fair and reasonably when terminating a contract—sure enough personal grievance. The employer overlooked the offer of a support person on the final warning; $12000 later legal fees for the business and the employee set free to do the same to the next employer who just wants to make a living pay good hard-working staff.Labour and the Greens really don't understand how difficult running a business is these days. The disdain for business owners is evident every day. I really think it shows you just what they would be like if they ever did take the plunge away from secure Government jobs—where your only worry is how much your KiwiSaver is increasing—and actually attempted to run a business.The redressing the imbalance of power rhetoric in this bill is just not true and hasn't been for many years. Unfortunately this attitude is at the expense of greater productivity—a dirty word I know—which means better pay and conditions for the employees.There are other familiar statements in this bill like "The Film Industry Working Group has recommended that industrial action not be allowed." I'm really surprised that "race to the bottom" isn't embedded in there somewhere.Having listened to Minister Wood many times now trying to justify the need for fair pay agreements while acknowledging that not all industries and businesses need them and that actually conditions have improved for employees since the introduction of employment contracts in 1991—especially pay and holidays. It must make people wonder what the motivation for this bill is. Then you remember "unions and academics".There are things in the bill that require explanations—for me anyway—such as the statement from the select committee report which says "We consider that the intention of the bill is to treat an individual as working for another person even if the individual is providing their services through a third party; for example if the individual worked for a company that was contracted by the other person." I don't quite get it; it just seems unfair to me. Is it like hiring a builder to build your house? Builder gets a concrete truck to concrete the driveway and it's delivered to the wrong place; does that mean it's my fault or my responsibility? I'm not sure but I'm sure that will be addressed in the committee of the whole House stage.ACT believes that most employers are good people who just want to run a profitable productive business. We believe that most employees just want to work hard for the pay they receive. We think the best way to do that is for Government to leave them alone and treat them like adults not children who need babysitting in all aspects of their employment. ACT cannot support this bill."