Volume 668 Week 58 - Thursday 28 October 2010 
Volume 668 Week 58 - Thursday 28 October 2010 
[Volume:668;Page:14923] 
Thursday 28 October 2010 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Business Statement 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 The House will rise at the end of this day. When the House resumes on Tuesday 9 November the Taxation (International Investment and Remedial Matters) Bill will receive its first reading. The Government will look to make progress on other bills on the Order Paper; there will be some new introductions. Wednesday of the first week back 10 November will be a members’ day. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 Regular viewers of Parliament TV will be noting the difference between “this day” and “today” in the parliamentary procedure I am sure. We thank the Leader of the House for that—the subtle hint. I wonder whether he can tell us whether in the next sitting period that the House will undertake after the adjournment it is his intention to use one of those weeks for an urgency week. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Yes. Some time ago I advised the Business Committee that the second week of the November sitting would be a week where we would have urgency. As agreed the bills that will be dealt with by the House during that time will be made available towards the end of next week to Opposition parties. It is our intention that urgency will be called on Tuesday afternoon but that the House would still lift by 6 o’clock on Thursday of that week. The purpose of this is to give the House effectively twice as much time in that week to deal with bills on the Order Paper. 
Questions to Ministers 
Employment Legislation Film Production—Factors Influencing Changes 
1. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
 to the  
Minister for Economic Development 
: What factors did the Prime Minister take into account when he agreed with Warner Bros executives to change employment legislation in New Zealand? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister for Economic Development) 
: 
 That is not the question Mr Speaker. Point of order. My apologies Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is the Minister OK now? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Yes. The— 
Hon Member 
: Cut! 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Well there is a huge amount of public sentiment out there in favour of the Warner Bros films being made in New Zealand—the two  
Hobbit 
 films. I noticed that Labour has said that it will have a bloody battle in the House today to try to prevent the legislation going through that will facilitate the films. I am wearing my red tie so that no one will see that blood on my shirt. I noticed the member asking the question is wearing his brown corduroy trousers. I ask him what he is worried about. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There was a little humour at the start but the question asked what factors the Prime Minister had taken into account when he agreed with Warner Bros executives to change employment legislation in New Zealand. There is nothing political about that question. OK a member interjected; it was a reasonably humorous interjection and the member responded with some good humour and then indicated one reason. If that was the only reason that is fine but the question did not justify the rest of what the Minister was saying. But if the Minister feels that he has answered in terms of the factors that is fine. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: There were a number of factors including the uncertainty of the legal status of independent contractors in the film industry. The legislation will clarify the distinction between independent contractors and employees as it relates to the film production industry. It was also evident that assurances from the Council of Trade Unions although offered in a genuine way were caveated by the call for a collective agreement on the  
Hobbit 
 movies. That served only to exacerbate the confusion around the status of contractors and that is what the Government intends to clear. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Was a reduction in protection for film workers designed to encourage investment in  
The 
Hobbit? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I completely reject any suggestion that any change to clarify the employment status of people who are engaged to perform tasks in the film industry is a reduction of protection. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Does he characterise the removal of the right to collectively bargain as an improvement or a reduction in the rights of the workers? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I will take my lead from the thousands of workers who turned out on Labour Day to protest against the position that the  
Hobbit 
 movies should be subject to collective agreements. I therefore cannot agree that it is a reduction in their rights. 
Keith Locke 
: Did Warner Bros require that changes to our industrial legislation be passed this week therefore requiring urgency in Parliament today? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Warner Bros did not put any requirements on us to do anything. The New Zealand Government has recognised that there were employment issues that needed to be sorted out and we are going to move to clarify those. We think that the last 7 weeks have been shameful as far as the support for the film industry is concerned and we are going to urgently move to fix that situation. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Which agencies gave him advice on this issue? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: When it came to advice on whether there was an issue around employment relations the Government sought opinion from Crown Law. It confirmed there were a number of anomalies that might need to be cleared up. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Was the Prime Minister cognisant of clause 4 of article 1 of the Chinese free-trade agreement which states: “The parties recognise that it is inappropriate to encourage trade or investment by weakening or reducing the protections afforded in domestic labour laws regulations policies and practices.” when this decision was made? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Yes and I believe that on each of the points the members likes to raise we have acted opposite to the way he is suggesting. 
Keith Locke 
: Does the Prime Minister agree that in order to be sure about its consequences changes in employment law should be informed by public submissions particularly from employers union representatives and lawyers; if so why is he rushing an employment law change under urgency today? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I am not speaking for the Prime Minister but I can tell the member— 
Hon Members 
: You are. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: No I am not. The question is to the Minister for Economic Development. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This question was as I am sure you are aware addressed to the Prime Minister and was transferred to the Minister. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is not strictly a point of order at all. The Government is at liberty to transfer questions to appropriate Ministers and the Minister on this occasion is answering as the Minister for Economic Development; he is not answering on behalf of the Prime Minister. The Minister was quite correct: he is not answering on behalf of the Prime Minister. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I can only point the member to a recent news poll that suggests that about 75 percent of respondents polled think that this was a good idea and 25 percent think that it was not. That seems to me to be about right according to the way we observe public opinion on this. 
Keith Locke 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My question asked about a public submission process not about an opinion poll of what people might have thought. That is different from a parliamentary submission process. The Prime Minister did not really answer that question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Actually it is the Minister for Economic Development. Because of the time lapse from when the member asked his question—there was a point of order intervention—I will allow the member to repeat his question so that we all hear it accurately. 
Keith Locke 
: Does the Minister agree that in order to be sure about the consequences changes in employment law should be informed by public submissions particularly from employers union representatives and lawyers; if so why is he rushing through an employment law change in urgency today? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: In most cases but not in this case. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Was the Government aware through various news reports or directly from Warner Bros that Ireland was the main alternative to New Zealand for filming  
The Hobbit 
? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: That is not the information we understood. 
Keith Locke 
: Can the Minister confirm that later today New Zealand’s sovereign Parliament will be sitting under urgency to pass a new law at the request of a foreign multinational corporation? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I choose to answer the latter part of that question and the answer is no. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Did the Minister read the reports in US newspapers which indicate—[ 
Interruption 
] Mr Speaker are you a loser? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will just ask his question. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Did the Minister read in the  
New York Times 
 and other US newspapers that Ireland was the main alternative for Warner Bros for the filming of  
The Hobbit 
; if so was he aware that the Irish Government agreed on 27 September this year to extend collective bargaining in Ireland to actors for the first time? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: No. I do not have as much time on my hands as the member to be able to read foreign newspapers. But I also say that the member’s supposition is simply incorrect. 
Hon John Boscawen 
: What role did the various political parties in Parliament play in helping secure this deal? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Central to the success of keeping filming of  
The Hobbit  
in New Zealand was the need to clarify and create certainty in respect of some aspects of our industrial relations law. It became apparent that change to the law to clarify the status of employees versus contractors was necessary. I thank the ACT Party for the very prompt way and very helpful way in which it understood that problem and chose to support that course of action. In the same vein I thank the leader of United Future for his support and today I am advised that the Maori Party will also support this legislation and I want to thank it for that. All the Government parties support this legislation because they know the value of the 
 Hobbit 
 films being produced in New Zealand; they know that this is a good decision for workers in the film industry. 
Film Industry—Minister for Economic Development’s Actions 
2. 
KATRINA SHANKS (National) 
 to the  
Minister for Economic Development 
: What specific actions has he taken since becoming Minister for Economic Development to secure the New Zealand film industry? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister for Economic Development) 
: 
 I have undertaken a number of activities to secure the film industry in New Zealand. I have been looking closely at the capacity constraints that will hold back the expansion of this industry in New Zealand. I have examined closely the commercial motivations of the major studios to bring productions to New Zealand. I have helped bring the parties together to update the guidelines for the Pink Book something that has not happened since the Australian union showed up in 2005. I have had ongoing discussions with New Line Cinema and Warner Bros and over the past couple of days it has been my privilege to assist the Prime Minister to bring those talks to a successful conclusion which will ensure that the two mega-budget  
Hobbit  
movies will be filmed in New Zealand. That will lead to further expansion of our already $2.8 billion screen production industry. 
Katrina Shanks 
: What benefit will New Zealand gain from hosting the production of the two  
Hobbit  
movies? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: The  
Hobbit  
movies are some of the most expensive films ever produced anywhere in the world and the majority of that expenditure will be in the New Zealand economy. The promotional value of those movies is also obvious to any New Zealander.  
The Lord of the Rings  
has become part of our national identity. In addition we have formed a long-term strategic partnership with Time Warner group. That will work for us in assisting the promotion of New Zealand’s trade tourism and creative industries. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Is he rethinking his view that spending $140000 a year on relationship-building exercises around the Oscars is a waste of money contrasting it with the $33 million extra and the loss of sovereignty that his neglect of the relationship has resulted in? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I do not think it would have mattered how many expensive Trevor Mallard - style cocktail parties we had held in Los Angeles. The fact is that the moment an Australian union decided it was going to engage in industrial actions in this country this film was in trouble. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Has he seen the email from Stephen Carroll the vice-president of Warner Bros pictures of 18 October US time referring to the solution that had been reached at a meeting that Mr Brownlee chaired on the 14th ? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I do not know what the gentleman was talking about. No solutions related to  
The Hobbit  
were reached on the date the member quotes. 
Economic Recovery—JP Morgan Bank’s Statement 
3. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Does he agree with JP Morgan investment bank that “the recovery in New Zealand effectively has stalled”? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Associate Minister of Finance) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Finance 
: No the Minister does not agree with that assessment because it is incorrect. Some people of course thrive on a negative headline—including perhaps some not too far from where I am standing—but the facts are that the economy has grown for five consecutive quarters— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am not sure whom the Minister was referring to but he was clearly trying to insult somebody in his answer to the primary question that my colleague had asked. I think the people of Rodney have had very dignified representation for many years and if he is the alternative I am quite worried. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member went one step too far with that comment—[ 
Interruption 
] A point of order is being considered and members on both sides will be silent while that is the case. In fairness to the Minister I think he was away from the House when there was a ruling from the Speaker on Ministers not employing gratuitous comments when answering a straight question. This question was a straight question: does he agree with JP Morgan investment bank? The Minister answered that question; I think he said he did not. That is a sufficient answer to the question. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: What response does he have to the comments of TV3’s Duncan Garner that “National’s economic plan if there is one doesn’t appear to be working.”? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: Although acknowledging of course Duncan’s role as a pre-eminent economist in New Zealand I would have to respectfully disagree with “His Eminence” because the Government has a very comprehensive plan as the member is aware. The plan includes investment in infrastructure; the taxation package; investment in education and skills business innovation and trade; improving productivity in the public sector; and simplifying and improving regulations to ensure that businesses can succeed in this country. In fact there is one example that the House will have an opportunity to consider this afternoon to ensure that filming of the 
 Hobbit 
 movies takes place in New Zealand. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: In light of that answer which part of the following further summary from Duncan Garner does he disagree with if any: “Alan Bollard says the economy is fragile. English can’t rule out the cash deficit blowing out even further. He says ‘recessionary factors’ are still at play. There are no signs of new jobs. … National’s economic plan seems to be to cross its collective fingers and dare I say it -‘borrow and hope.’ ”? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: As I said before I do of course respect the eminent “Professor” Garner’s economic assessments but of course the world has just come through the global financial crisis. It is important to point out to the member opposite that the Government’s fiscal deficit this current year is something like $13.3 billion so the Government is basically on behalf of taxpayers investing to keep the economy going to the degree that it is. But the reality is that if the member thinks we should do more then he is actually talking about lifting the Government debt even further and I think he should come out and say that. 
John Hayes 
: What measures is the Government taking to ensure that the economic recovery is sustainable and how will this differ from the period between 2005 and 2008? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: The Government is taking several steps with its six-point plan to achieve faster and more sustainable economic growth. One such measure was the very well-received tax package on 1 October which provided across-the-board income tax cuts and left the vast majority of New Zealanders better off. The switch between income tax and consumption tax is the latest step in the Government’s programme to move the economy away from the borrowing consumption and housing speculation of the past decade. The Minister is pleased to see reports that show that households and businesses are moving away from that spending and borrowing which became features of our lopsided economy from about 2005. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: How does he respond to the Reserve Bank’s comments that show that the only glimmer of any economic activity over the coming year is in the form of high export prices and repairs in Canterbury neither of which the Government can claim credit for? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: Selective quoting has its limitations. I would suggest a couple of other things that Dr Bollard says in the recent Reserve Bank annual report when he points out that the global financial crisis “highlighted New Zealand’s external imbalances demonstrated by our deficit in the balance of payments on goods and services and our negative net investment income position. These deficits are now … improving.” For example the current account deficit averaged about 8 percent of GDP over the last 4 years of the previous Government; the current account deficit is now just 3 percent and is forecast to remain below 5 percent. Dr Bollard also noted that “Households have been reducing mortgage debt where possible and have been … cautious about re-entering the housing market—attitudes that have been reinforced [positively] by recent tax changes.” All these things and other things that the Reserve Bank governor has said have pointed out that the rebalancing this economy needs so much is occuring. 
John Hayes 
: What reports has he seen about business attitudes to the recovery? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: The Minister noted yesterday that the National Bank’s latest business outlook survey showed that business confidence has picked up in October. A net 24 percent of respondents expect general business conditions to improve in 12 months’ time up 10 points on the previous month. These surveys of course continue to fluctuate and as I have said the economic conditions remain challenging for many businesses as the economy makes the necessary adjustments away from debt consumption and housing speculation towards saving investments and exports. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: When he told the Finance and Expenditure Committee yesterday that “This is not the typical recession where we come out of it aggressively.” did he deliberately choose his words to directly contradict and undermine his leader who had predicted exactly the opposite? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: Of course I cannot verify the exact comments the Minister of Finance made at the select committee yesterday. I point out to the member that the Prime Minister’s full quote from March 2009 is that “by the end of 2009 early 2010 this time next year we’ll be starting to come out of that and I think actually starting to come out of it reasonably aggressively I’m more optimistic about 2011 than 2010 but nevertheless I think 2010 will be positive.” The reality is that those statements were proven entirely correct. We started to come out of recession by the end of 2009 2010 will be positive and 2011 will see a considerable improvement. In terms of aggressive growth the House should note that the New Zealand economy has actually grown more in the last 9 months than it did in the whole 4-year period before that. 
Research and Development—Technology Transfer Voucher Scheme 
4. 
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
 to the  
Minister of Research Science and Technology 
: What recent announcements has he made that help businesses to undertake research and development? 
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP (Minister of Research Science and Technology) 
: 
 Last Wednesday I announced further steps in the Government’s innovation strategy. This is one of the six elements of the Government’s economic growth strategy. Six research institutions have been approved to undertake research and development for the voucher scheme. This is a scheme for small to medium enterprises under which they can essentially get a voucher worth around $100000 and perhaps up to $1000000 matched one-for-one by the businesses and they get their research done by these institutions. The initial six institutions are the University of Auckland Otago University the University of Canterbury Auckland University of Technology WelTec and Industrial Research Ltd covering of course polytechnics universities and Crown research institutes in order to cover the full range of participating research institutions. There will be more announcements down the track. 
Colin King 
: What other announcements has he made? 
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: On 6 October I also announced a TechNZ grant of $3.7 million to Compac Sorting Equipment an excellent company in Auckland—in Maungakiekie in fact. It is a niche producer that has 40 percent of the global market in its sector and exports to 30 countries. It increased its revenue by 20 percent. It is that kind of commitment that really drives growth. I should also mention the grant of $5.8 million to Weta Digital which was announced in July 2009. That was to be matched 2:1 by Weta Digital. Of course that kind of grant only matters if films can actually be made in New Zealand. 
David Shearer 
: How has the Minister explained to businesses that the amount of money for research and development under his grants scheme is less than half of what they would have received under the 15 percent tax credit and that they now need to apply to a Government bureaucracy that will decide whether their research and development is worthy of funding? 
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: The very first thing businesses say to me is how pleased they are to have a National Government in office because of the responsible fiscal management that we undertake rather than the wasteful expenditure of the previous Government. They are very pleased to have the more targeted approach that the Government has announced rather than the discredited tax credit scheme of the previous Government. The system is seen as effective focused and driving innovation. 
Drink-driving Blood-alcohol Limit—Public Support for Reduction 
5. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Transport 
: Have the views of 76 percent of the respondents in a scientific poll by the  
Herald on Sunday 
 who say they would not drive after drinking beyond an effective blood-alcohol limit of 50 mg caused him to reconsider his decision not to lower the adult blood-alcohol limit for driving; if not why not? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 Firstly I must point out to the member that the survey he referred to did not refer to a blood-alcohol limit as his question suggests but to the number of alcohol drinks people can drink before driving. The distinction is important because public opinion surveys over the years have shown a disconnect between those surveys that discuss the number of drinks someone drinks versus what they think the adult blood-alcohol limit should be lowered to. In fact the Minister of Transport survey published in the  
Safer Journeys 
:  
discussion document 
 in August 2009 showed a similar result to this one. I have consistently stated that we need an enduring consensus for road law changes and we need to know the actual level of harm caused by drivers with a blood-alcohol level between 0.05 and 0.08. The reality is that we do not have that information currently but with the law change that is currently in front of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee as part of the amendment bill for land transport safety we will. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Can he not see that he has misjudged this issue when not a single submitter at the select committee he has referred to has appeared to speak in favour of the current 0.08 limit that over 30000 people have signed up to the Two Drinks Max campaign since Sunday and that a majority of MPs in this House would vote to lower the limit if there were a free vote; and given how many good decisions this Minister has made on road safety why is he being so stubborn on this one? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I am reasonably new to this place but I have to say the select committee process often brings out people who are most interested in some form of change and obviously that is the situation that has occurred in this place. The reality is that this has been an emotional issue in this country for many many years. The previous Government knows that because it made no attempt to change the law during its 9 years in Government and suddenly it is a very urgent matter for it to address today! I think that in order to form an enduring consensus on what would be a significant change in traffic law we should be prepared to change the law so we can collect the actual data before proceeding with such a change. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Why will he not take advantage of the political consensus that he has been offered and the overwhelming public support that is now absolutely clearly there so that he can tell the submitters who come to the select committee and who have sadly lost family members and friends that he is doing everything with the full support of Parliament that is in his power to make our roads comprehensively safer? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I think there are a couple of things there. Firstly I think most of the member’s question was answered by my previous answer but I point out to members that this change being proposed would sadly not solve a lot of the issues that we see in terms of drink-driving on our roads. Unfortunately very many of the issues that we see on our roads are from repeat drink-drivers who are already over the existing legal limit. That is why the Government has made the changes it put in front of the select committee in terms of a nil limit for repeat drink-drivers in terms of doubling the penalties in prison for those subject to the worst offences that cause death in terms of the nil limit for young drivers and in terms of the alcohol interlocks. All those measures will also help—in fact I suspect more aggressively—in reducing the carnage from alcohol on our roads. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: How on earth is it inappropriate for him as Minister of Transport to refuse to endorse the Two Drinks Max campaign as he claimed it would be on Tuesday? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: Again I say that I am reasonably new in this place but I would have thought as the Minister whose job is to make these sorts of decisions signing up to public campaigns is probably not a way to show people that Ministers bring an open mind to these decisions when they make them. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: When he said that the television poll that said that two-thirds of people were in support of lowering the alcohol limit was not enough and that he would need to see it at 75 percent does that mean that he will now set a new higher target seeing that his earlier one has now been met by a scientific newspaper poll and do we really need to get to North Korean levels of support before he will finally admit that he has this issue wrong? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I point out to the member that as I said in answer to the first question the Ministry of Transport survey published in the  
Safer Journeys: 
discussion document 
 in August 2009 showed a similar result to this. But again it was about the amount of alcohol people felt they should drink before they drive rather than whether the limit should be lowered. Right throughout recent years when those two questions have been asked in different ways there have been different numbers of people who support a change. The reality is that this a contentious issue and it has been a contentious issue for many many years. It is important to collect the data. The previous Government had an opportunity to do just that way back I think in 2001 but turned it down and refused to make any change. 
Coastal Management—2010 New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement 
6. 
JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) 
 to the  
Minister of Conservation 
: What steps is the Government taking to improve coastal management? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON (Minister of Conservation) 
: 
 I am pleased to announce that I will be recommending that the Governor-General approve the 2010 New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement which meets the Government’s promise to provide more national guidance for local authorities to meet their obligations under the Resource Management Act. The New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement will provide stronger direction on natural character outstanding landscapes and biodiversity; provide updated policy on managing coastal hazards; and emphasise the priority the Government places on public access to the coast. I thank the board of inquiry for its contribution to this new policy statement. 
Jacqui Dean 
: What new types of protection will be included in the 2010 New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: I am very pleased to announce for a start that some of New Zealand’s finest surf breaks will receive additional protection and recognition as being nationally significant. Those surf breaks are in Northland Raglan Coromandel Gisborne Taranaki Kaikoura and Otago. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Kia ora tatou. What will be the practical impact of the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill which allows iwi and hapu to take part in statutory conservation processes within their relevant common marine and coastal area? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: In noting that the bill is the responsibility of the Attorney-General I point out that the practical impact of the universal award which provides for iwi and hapu to take part in statutory conservation processes is that it formalises many of the current practices of the department’s consultation with iwi and hapu. These include processes relating to marine reserve applications marine mammal sanctuaries permits for marine mammal watching and proposals to extend conservation protected areas. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: What is envisaged will be the effect of the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill which allows iwi and hapu with recognised customary marine title the right to give or withhold permission for specified conservation activities and the right to participate in certain conservation decisions? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: If iwi or hapu gain customary title they have a right of refusal over whether marine reserves or conservation protected areas are established or concessions granted in the customary title area. The right relating to marine reserves and conservation-protected areas is subject to an essential-protection purposes test which the Minister of Conservation may use to override the customary titleholder’s view. In using the test the Minister must have regard to the views of the customary title holder and other criteria set out in the bill including protection of rare or unique habitats. 
Foreshore and Seabed—Taipa Point Land Occupation 
7. 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
 to the  
Attorney-General 
: Why has the Government not done more to deal with the occupation of the Taipa Point public reserve by foreshore and seabed protesters? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) 
: 
 The protest on Taipa Point public reserve is happening on the dry land reserve owned by the Far North District Council. It is for the council to serve a trespass notice on the occupiers. This could then be enforced by the police or the council could apply to the court for an injunction as happened recently in the Coromandel region. Ministers cannot direct the police on operational matters. I refer the member to section 16(2) of the Policing Act 2008. It is also not for central government to interfere in the operational affairs of local government. 
Hon David Parker 
: Given the assurance that the Attorney-General offered to a public meeting at Taipa recently why has his Government not acted to help the council and the local community enforce the law at Taipa? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: I gave a number of assurances at Taipa. They included my willingness to consult with the people up there quite apart from the select committee process currently under way and my assurance to ensure that any legislation restored access to justice and respected property rights—two points that the audience certainly recognised. 
Hon David Parker 
: Is it true that senior local government representatives have personally asked both him and the Prime Minister for help to enforce the rule of law at Taipa and why have both of them left the local council to deal with the problem alone? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: A number of people have contacted me. I do not know that they are necessarily senior members of the local council but certainly people who were in the audience at my public meeting at Taipa have expressed concerns. As to what the Government is doing I have already said in my answer to the primary question exactly what the appropriate course of action is. I am sure the member does not want me to start issuing directions that would contravene the Policing Act or interfere in the affairs of local government. 
Hon David Parker 
: Does the Attorney-General accept that the false expectation his Government and the Maori Party have created around the foreshore and seabed has fed the aggressive behaviour of the protesters at Taipa? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: No I think that is an absolutely ridiculous proposition. Both the Maori Party and National are concerned about two things—restoration of the right of access to justice and property rights—and I would suggest that the actions of a few miscreants should not be allowed to get in the way of a principled debate on those two very important issues. The Foreshore and Seabed Act is disgraceful legislation and needs to be repealed. 
Hilary Calvert 
: Why will the Government not refuse to proceed with Ngati Kahu’s Treaty settlement until their representatives are prepared to obey the rule of law and cease their trespass and occupation? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: Ngati Kahu has a longstanding Treaty grievance and it is my responsibility as Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations to negotiate a just and durable settlement. A very odd proposition in my view seems to be implicit in that question—that the actions of a few should condemn an entire iwi. 
Hon David Parker 
: Has it not all gone too far when just hours ago the democratically elected far north mayor was thrown off the Taipa public reserve and does this not show that the  
New Zealand Herald 
 was right last year in its editorial dated 8 March when it stated: “Review of foreshore law opens wound that had begun to heal”? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: Well I disagree with that editorial—wounds had not begun to heal. The Foreshore and Seabed Act was a real problem. It continues to be a problem. Until fundamental principles of access to justice and respect for property rights are restored for a substantial section of the population this issue will continue and I would hope that the Labour Opposition would be prepared to deal with this matter on a principled basis. 
Hon David Parker 
: I seek leave to table an article. It is a press article but it is from the  
Northland Age 
 which is not in circulation. It is entitled— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No no. As a Northlander I have to say that Northland is not so backward that we do not have access to those sorts of press articles. 
Employment Legislation—Urgency 
8. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
 to the  
Minister for Economic Development 
: Why is his Government intending to change industrial relations law under urgency instead of through the normal parliamentary process? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister for Economic Development) 
: 
 Because it will ensure the incomes of many hundreds if not thousands of New Zealanders and will lead to a very large contribution to the overall economy. 
Keith Locke 
: Why is the Minister in legislation as he has presented it overturning a decision of the Supreme Court from 2005 at the request of Warner Bros? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I have not presented the legislation to the House nor has Warner Bros made that request. 
Keith Locke 
: Will the Government’s readiness to acquiesce to Warner Bros’ demands encourage other overseas film companies to push for more tax breaks and expect the Government to take their side in disputes with local workers; if not why not? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: No. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Is it the Government’s intention to bring legislation to the House to amend the Large Budget Screen Production Grant Scheme to incorporate the enhancements that the Prime Minister agreed to yesterday? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Work is being undertaken to determine whether it is a legislative change or a policy change. 
Keith Locke 
: Would our pride in the 
 Hobbit 
 movie being produced in New Zealand not be enhanced if we knew that our actors were guaranteed the same right as their counterparts in other Western countries to collectively press their claims for decent pay and working conditions? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I think the questioner misunderstands how the industry works in New Zealand and assumes that people engaged on these productions are poorly treated. They are not. 
Keith Locke 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My question was not about whether actors were poorly treated by their employers. My question asked whether they had the right to collectively press their claims for decent pay and working conditions. The Minister did not answer that question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not think the Minister dodged the question. He answered the question in the way that he saw fit and I cannot be too pedantic about exactly how the Minister should answer. 
Drinking-water Standards—Unsafe or Untested Water 
9. 
BRENDON BURNS (Labour—Christchurch Central) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Is he concerned at the report in yesterday’s  
Press 
 saying that one in five New Zealanders are drinking water that is unsafe or untested and that five of 12 hospitals and health services with their own drinking-water supplies have failed to meet the minimum standards? 
Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health) 
: 
 Yes I am concerned about the report in the  
Press 
 as it misrepresents the Ministry of Health’s  
Annual Review of Drinking-water Quality in New Zealand 2008/9 
 which was released in June 4 months ago. It is quite incorrect to say one in five New Zealanders is receiving unsafe or untested drinking-water. In fact over half of those people are outside the regime as they supply their own water—for example through rainwater tanks. The key finding of the Ministry of Health’s report is that the number of people who had bacteria detected in their water fell from 3 percent to 2 percent which some might describe as a reduction of 33 percent. 
Brendon Burns 
: Is the Minister agreeing with his ministry’s report identifying that hospitals 20 percent of schools and many other suppliers are not delivering safe water to what it says are 137000 more New Zealanders than in the previous year surveyed or is he siding with his bench mate who last week told the House that the drinking-water standards are “Rolls-Royce” and unaffordable? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: I think it is very important to look behind what is being mentioned by the member opposite. If for example we look at his description of “five of 12 hospitals” not complying I think we should be clear that three of those are small clinics the size of a house on Great Barrier Island and Waiheke Island that are supplying water equivalent to local home supplies. Another is a facility owned by a trust with which the district health board is working to reduce the risks. The fifth is Princess Margaret Hospital in Christchurch which remained in this status while that member’s Government was in office. 
Brendon Burns 
: Why did the Minister blame the 4 September Christchurch earthquake for delays in the review of drinking-water funding introduced by the previous Labour Government when he said in announcing the review 14 months ago that he expected it to be completed “early next year.”? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: The report has taken longer to prepare than had been expected but announcements will be made in due course. 
Brendon Burns 
: Will the Minister give all New Zealanders on a reticulated supply an assurance that their water is or soon will be safe to drink or will he continue to wring his hands and wash his hands of the issue saying it is local government’s responsibility despite the Government’s having frozen the funding and having put a 3-year moratorium on meeting the minimum World Health Organization guidelines for safe drinking-water? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: It is the responsibility of water suppliers. We know that to be the case because that member’s Government passed the legislation to that effect while in office. 
Tourism—Value to Economy 
10. 
TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua) 
 to the  
Minister of Tourism 
: What recent reports has he received on the value of tourism to the New Zealand economy? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Acting Minister of Tourism) 
: 
 I have seen some great reports most notably the Tourism Satellite Account prepared by Statistics New Zealand for the year ended March 2010. It shows that a record $22.4 billion was spent by international and domestic tourists up from $21.9 billion in the previous year. Spending by international tourists increased by $150 million during this period making tourism New Zealand’s largest export earner worth $9.5 billion to the New Zealand economy. That demonstrates the value of tourism to the New Zealand economy and shows that the Government’s decision to put an extra $50 million into tourism over the past 2 years was an excellent one. 
Todd McClay 
: What reports has the Minister seen on growth in tourism numbers from Australia and how has the Government encouraged tourist visitations from Australia? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: We always knew that Australian visitors would be vital to keeping the sector going through the recession. In 2009-10 Tourism New Zealand worked with regional tourism organisations and commercial airlines to promote New Zealand to Australians and $10 million was spent on joint ventures. So it is good to announce that Statistics New Zealand figures show that in the year ended September 2010 visitor numbers from Australia were up by 7 percent to 1.122 million. It is clear that this Government initiative has paid off. 
Todd McClay 
: What recent initiatives has the Government taken to increase awareness of the New Zealand tourism brand overseas? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: Last night the Government announced that it has agreed to work together in a long-term strategic partnership with Warner Bros to promote New Zealand as both a film production and tourism destination. New Zealand will also host one of the premieres of the  
Hobbit 
 movies. These arrangements are likely to be worth tens of millions of dollars to the New Zealand economy and the New Zealand tourism sector. It is a further example that this Government is looking to increase the value of tourism to New Zealand and to grow the economy. 
State Housing Acquisitions—Budget 2010 Allocation Compared with Budget 2007 
11. 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Housing 
: How much is in Budget 2010 for the acquisition of new State-owned houses and how does that compare to the $48 million in Budget 2007 for State house acquisitions? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY (Minister of Housing) 
: 
 The Housing New Zealand Corporation has budgeted $74 million of its own income to build 241 new properties and purchase a further 96 properties. It has also budgeted an additional $40 million to lease 455 new properties. The National Government has not got a particular appropriation for State housing but it is investing in $5.8 million worth of community group houses. That will help community groups to house people who have particular complex needs. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I did not hear an answer to the second part of the question about the comparison with Budget 2007. 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: The question gave the figure for 2007 and I gave figures of the current Government. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will let the member asking the question follow that up. 
Moana Mackey 
: Can he confirm that of the $18 million in Budget 2010 for acquisition and improvement of State houses $6.5 million is for the Housing New Zealand Corporation’s energy efficiency programme $5.7 million is for Healthy Housing—a reduction of more than $9 million—and $5.8 million is for community group housing leaving precisely zero dollars for new houses? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: I think I made it crystal clear that in the final year she is talking about the Housing New Zealand Corporation will build 241 new properties purchase a further 96 properties and lease 405 properties. That the funding does not come from the Government but comes from the Housing New Zealand Corporation’s annual billion-dollar rental income makes no difference to all those hundreds of families that will be housed. 
Moana Mackey 
: Does he remember criticising Labour for funding a net increase of “only” 475 State houses in 2008 and will he retract that criticism given that he has announced that he will “slow down and probably stop” building up the Government’s housing stock? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: I remember rightly criticising Labour for a lot of things. 
Moana Mackey 
: Has he seen the report from First National Real Estate released today outlining a severe shortage of rental properties; the report from his own Housing Shareholders’ Advisory Group pointing to a current housing shortage of 70000 homes which is set to get worse; and the report from Jennian Homes released yesterday saying that home builders are suffering because the building sector has never been this quiet; if so why is he the only person who thinks that now is the right time for the Government to stop investing in housing? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: I released a report saying we think there is a shortage in housing so clearly I am well aware of that; it is just that I do not believe that the Government is the one that has to run out and build them all. We would like to work with community group organisations across the country and resource them to build buy and lease houses in order to house more people who are struggling like the struggling families on the waiting list. 
Chester Borrows 
: How does the $100 million provided by the Government in February 2009 for upgrades of State houses compare with the funding for upgrades in Budget 2007-08? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: Oh this is fascinating! The National Government invested $109 million on more than 13000 upgrades of old cold and mouldy houses. That is a grand total of $109 million compared with the $7.5 million invested by the previous Labour Government. In other words the Labour Government invested only 10 percent of what National did in 2009. Do members know why that is? It is because the National Government and John Key believe that the quality of housing for our tenants is just as important as the quantity of housing for our tenants; otherwise we would house them in dog kennels like the previous Government did. 
Moana Mackey 
: How many people could have been housed with the $1.6 billion being spent on the Puhoi to Wellsford “Holiday Highway” now known as the “Steven Joyce Road of Personal Significance”? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: At this time although it is way at the top of my list I have not done that calculation. 
Chester Borrows 
: What has been the result of the additional $109 million? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: In 2009-10 more than 25000 upgrades of State houses were carried out. Housing New Zealand Corporation tenants across the country benefited from improved insulation and heating. Their homes were damp-proofed. New bathrooms and kitchens were fitted as well and other vital improvements carried out. Those improvements enhanced tenants’ living conditions by making their homes warmer healthier and much safer. John Key the Prime Minister is not a slum landlord. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Hon Annette King 
: No but he gets a free house. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There will be no interjection while I am on my feet. The last part of the answer was in response to a question from one of the Minister’s own colleagues and there is no need for gratuitous comments in response to questions from one’s own colleagues. I am perfectly happy for him to compare what this Government is doing with what the previous Government might have done but I am not going to have patsy questions used to make gratuitous comments. The Minister has done that on a couple of successive days now and that is why I am raising it because it is not fair. If members opposite are foolish enough to ask political questions the Minister can give political answers. I have no problem with that; we have heard a few of them today. But I am not going to have patsy questions used to make gratuitous comments. I have no problem with his comparing performance but I will not have gratuitous comments. 
Hon David Parker 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I thank you for that ruling. You have made that ruling on a number of occasions over the last couple of weeks and it has been repeatedly ignored by National Ministers— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am on my feet and I do not need any assistance. I have made clear what I intend and there is no further issue. My insisting on Ministers not doing that will not be assisted if members of the Opposition try to take advantage of it. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This is quite a separate point of order but it might assist the House. I just want to make it clear that we do not associate ourselves with the comments of my colleague with regard to the highway— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: We know that it was you. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Speaker must not be brought into the debate—although I sympathise with the member’s point of view! 
Information and Communications Technology Delegation—Visit to China 
12. 
MELISSA LEE (National) 
 to the  
Minister for Communications and Information Technology 
: What results have been achieved to date by the recent ICT trade delegation he led to China? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Communications and Information Technology) 
: 
 Many of the companies that participated in the delegation are following up very strong leads facilitated by their meetings last week with some of China’s largest information and communications technology firms. For example Tomizone is looking to increase its roll-out of Wi-Fi hotspots in two Chinese cities Datacom is looking to develop service centres for new Chinese customers and Mobile Mentor is negotiating with China Unicom to provide training in the use of new smart phones. The delegation facilitated introductions between New Zealand firms and some of the largest information and communications technology providers in the world. Deals that could result would bring millions of dollars of value into the New Zealand economy and would demonstrate our firms’ abilities to compete in the world’s fastest-growing information and communications technology market. 
Melissa Lee 
: What feedback has he received from companies who participated in the recent information and communications technology trade delegation to China? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: All participants greatly valued participating in the delegation and the reception they were given by their Chinese counterparts. Thanks to the excellent work by New Zealand Trade and Enterprise and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade they were given high-level access to executives in large companies. Opening doors to some of China’s largest information and communications technology firms is not easy but the New Zealand firms have demonstrated their preparedness and have impressed their Chinese colleagues. This was the sixth such delegation to China this year which underlines the Government’s determination to continue to grow our trade and orient New Zealand to the export-led growth that we need to both grow the country faster and create more jobs. 
Urgent Debates Declined 
Large Budget Screen Production Grant—Criteria Changes 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from the Hon Trevor Mallard seeking to debate under Standing Order 380 the announcement last night regarding changes to widen the qualifying criteria for the Large Budget Screen Production Grant. This is a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility. The member in his application acknowledges that legislation is to be introduced today that relates to one aspect of the agreement between the New Zealand Government and Warner Bros relating to the 
 Hobbit 
 movies. The member’s application relates to another element of that agreement. 
The test for whether a particular case of recent occurrence requires the immediate attention of the House is a high one. It is relevant when considering whether a matter requires the urgent attention of the House to consider whether the matter proposed to be discussed must come before the House reasonably soon in the form of legislation and whether there are other parliamentary means of debating the subject. In addition to today’s legislation there will be other opportunities to consider the criteria for the Large Budget Screen Production Grant. Select committees are currently considering financial reviews and there was a question for oral answer today. I am not persuaded that the business of the House should be set aside today. The application is therefore declined. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is a very narrow point of order and not disputing in any way your ruling but it goes to your words “in addition to the debate today”. Can I take it from that that it will be appropriate for today’s debate on the employment relations legislation to be slightly widened in order to consider these matters as well? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Mr Mallard clearly as a member of one of the Opposition parties that was provided with the bill earlier in the day knows its content. He will also know that it is an extremely narrow bill. I do not think it would be appropriate for the Speaker to rule that where a bill is presented to the House matters completely unrelated to that bill—completely unrelated to that bill—can be part of the debate on that bill. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 Mr Speaker given that assurance from the Minister about the total lack of a relationship between the two would you like to review your ruling? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: A nice try! What I will say is the Government has chosen for whatever reasons to put a bill on a controversial issue through all its stages under urgency. There therefore is not the opportunity for the bill to be considered by a select committee and for public submissions to be heard on it. In those circumstances it would be my belief—but of course it is up to the presiding officer in the Chair at the time—that in the first and second readings and especially the second reading where the wider context of the bill is debated the fact that the bill is being put through without the possibility of select committee consideration does mean that the debate could be widened somewhat around the context of the bill. The honourable member makes a perfectly fair point that if the Speaker believed that that was not possible maybe the Speaker should have allowed an urgent debate on the matter. I am not sure which the Government would prefer— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Not that you would take that into account! 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Not that the Speaker would take that into account! I can assure you that the Speaker has had no communication with the Government whatsoever on this matter and its view does not enter the Speaker’s consideration of the matter but if the Government wants to make an argument in the way that it has—but the fact is my decision was influenced somewhat by the fact that the legislation is going through under urgency without select committee consideration and therefore in the second reading in particular the context of the bill would be relevant. 
Urgency 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That urgency be accorded the introduction and passing of Government bills.  
It is the Government’s intention to bring to the House two bills under this urgency motion for consideration by the House. One of them as is well known relates to the employment status of persons employed—or I should say engaged—in the film industry. [ 
Interruption 
] There is so little joy among Labour these days that its members take any opportunity for a little bit of light relief in their life. The second bill deals with matters relating to provisions of a legal nature. I am sure that the need for urgency in the second case will be apparent when the bill is introduced. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That urgency be accorded. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand Labour 41; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Motion agreed to. 
The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 69 Noes 51. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I ask you for some clarification as to whether Standing Order 55(2)(b) applies in this particular case. I will not go into the matter surrounding the second bill but you will remember that at the Business Committee there was discussion of a bill on legal matters. An undertaking was given by the Labour Opposition—and I think by all Opposition members at that committee—that because it was an important but not contentious piece of legislation we would get it through the House by 6 o’clock and I think it followed some discussions on the bill that were led by Nathan Guy. The Business Committee was given notice of the intention to move one piece of urgency for a specific matter and it was agreed that there is not any intention to sit between 7.30 and 10 tonight. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 The problem with the suggestion made by the member is that the assumption behind what he is suggesting is that there had to be agreement about whether there was urgency. There was in fact and the effect of that is that the House can sit till 10 p.m. tonight. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I think this matter goes to the purpose of Standing Order 55(2)(b) to the discussions before and actually to a certain extent to the integrity of the Business Committee. If the Business Committee is led to believe that there is to be urgency for a particular item as we were—without going into it because it is not appropriate to go into detail at this point as to the item—and urgency is used for another purpose it is my strong view that Standing Order 55(2)(b) does not apply because otherwise the Business Committee could be consistently misled as to the nature of urgency. I think that would lead to a breakdown in the trust that we have developed—and I have seen in my experience over the last 18 months or so a committee that works very much on the basis of trust. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I appreciate the comments the member makes about the need for trust in these matters. None the less Standing Order 55 accords the opportunity for the House to sit till 10 o’clock on a Thursday night if the intention of the Government to move urgency is notified to the Business Committee at the meeting earlier in the week which it was. 
There is no requirement for the Government to negotiate what the urgent business will be. The mere fact that it is a matter of urgency would tend to indicate that it is one of those matters that come up from time to time and need to be dealt with in such a way—quickly. Therefore I do not think there can be any contradiction here. 
Conventions on how the House operates are changing and I am very supportive of those changes. For example we know that in the second week of the November sitting the House will be taking urgency and everyone will know well ahead of time what work we are doing. There is a notice of motion on the Order Paper—it has been there all year—looking for a way to extend the hours of the House because we think that would be worth considering. The halfway house that I have introduced—by indicating a long time out when urgency for the purpose of getting additional hours is required—is I think a good development but it is a halfway house and it has no standing in Standing Orders. 
Standing Order 55(2)(b) is specific: “if the Government has advised Business Committee of the intention to move on a Thursday to accord urgency to business the sitting on that Thursday is suspended between 6 pm and 7.30 pm and between 10 pm and 9 am”. There is no requirement in that Standing Order for the Government to notify what business it is taking urgency for at that time. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have heard sufficient on this matter. I think the matter is quite clear. The Standing Order as the honourable Leader of the House has pointed out does not require the Government to advise the Business Committee of the precise nature of the business. If the House is to sit between 7.30 and 10 p.m. all that the Standing Order requires is that the Government has advised the Business Committee of its intention to accord urgency to business. The Government did that and it has successfully moved a motion to take the House into urgency. As I see the Standing Order and the advice I have received that is the situation. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I will not litigate your ruling but I suggest that at some stage the Standing Orders Committee could look at this matter in this particular circumstance. As I remember the purpose of this Standing Order was to allow members to plan later in the week—to get notice early in the week of a change that was going to occur late in the week and plan their arrangements in their electorates. It was on that basis that as you remember I left the room in order to seek an assurance from our member that we could get the legislation through the House by 6 and therefore not notify. In the end I think the Standing Orders Committee has to look at whether this Standing Order as it is now written achieves the purpose of giving members notice when it is brought into effect. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It is certainly something that the Standing Orders Committee can do and I hear what the honourable member is saying with regard to members’ ability to plan their business. It is a significant issue. 
Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill 
First Reading 
Hon KATE WILKINSON (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
 Over the past weeks industrial issues have highlighted a significant concern about the way that the international film industry operates. The Government is moving to ensure that New Zealand’s law is clear on the distinction between independent contractors and employees in the film production industry. This legislation will provide film producers with the confidence they need to make movies in New Zealand. The film industry is worth $2.8 billion to the New Zealand economy and the two  
Hobbit 
 films alone will bring in $670 million. It is essential that we protect this industry and the livelihoods of the thousands of hard-working Kiwis who depend on it. 
The Government is introducing this bill to provide certainty and clarity at the outset about the status of workers such as actors crew members and other production personnel involved in film-related work. The bill makes it clear that the status of these workers as contractors or employees is based on the decision they make at the beginning of the employment relationship. If they sign on as independent contractors they are independent contractors. If they sign on as employees they are employees. This change reflects common industry practice. Actors crew members and production staff are commonly hired as independent contractors. 
This bill amends the Employment Relations Act 2000 to provide clarity and certainty about the status of workers involved in film production work including production work for video games. It does not cover production work on programmes initially intended for television. It will address the uncertainty that can arise about the employment status of these workers and prevent unnecessary delays and litigation. Most people have agreed that these workers are independent contractors. However the potential for disputes about employment status creates uncertainty for film producers particularly if a dispute arises after production has commenced. This uncertainty can increase the cost involved in producing a film if it delays filming. The uncertainty has also been added to by the international boycott supported by local unions. 
Under the current law a previous agreement in relation to a person’s employment status can be challenged and overturned by the courts. Despite what the contract or agreement states the courts can look through it and decide whether the relationship is a contract for service or a contract of service. These legal challenges can create uncertainty for all the parties involved and can create high legal and compliance costs to reach a resolution. We need to provide this clarification so that the film industry will continue to make a significant investment in our economy and will film the 
 Hobbit 
 movies in New Zealand. Therefore it is appropriate that this bill be considered under urgency and through all stages.  
The Hobbit 
 was the catalyst for this amendment without a doubt but with or without  
The Hobbit 
 the uncertainty still remained. 
Film workers are intelligent and they understand perfectly the difference between being a contractor and being an employee. This law does not alter how they will approach their employment arrangements. It is business as usual. This law does not remove rights from anyone. It is not retrospective and it does not affect any existing employment agreements. Neither is it a new concept; sharemilkers and real estate agents already have industry-specific exceptions. 
This dispute began because a union without a mandate issued an international boycott against  
The Hobbit 
 as its first action in an effort to negotiate a collective agreement which is illegal under New Zealand law. For the unions this issue was never about workers’ rights; it was about power. This bill responds to the needs of the film industry by providing the certainty needed to continue making films in New Zealand—not just the two  
Hobbit 
 films but major films to come. The Government believes that this bill is in step with industry practice and is a simple and common-sense response. I commend this bill to the House. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I move  
That the motion be amended by omitting “now” and adding “this day 3 months” 
. I want to make it very clear that Labour supports the 
 Hobbit 
 films being made in New Zealand. The decision to film them in New Zealand is fantastic news for our film industry and our tourism industry and it is very important for the economy. 
However this matter has been totally mismanaged by the Government by John Key and especially by the Hon Gerry Brownlee. It is yet another example of how our relaxed Prime Minister has ignored what has been going on for nearly 2 years then has let it boil over into controversy and has had to come in with a patch-up job—and a very very expensive patch-up job at that. If the Minister in charge of this area the Minister for Economic Development was on top of the issues he would have seen what was coming down the track. If he had had regular meetings with Warner Bros as Ministers before him did—and I say that they were mostly convivial meetings but every now and again there was some tension as the issues were worked through—if the Minister had done that then we would have had a sort of arrangement whereby people picked up the phone and whereby Gerry Brownlee and John Key stood beside Helen Kelly when the issue was sorted. 
When the issue was sorted it included an email from Warner Bros on 18 October. That is when the industrial relations issues were sorted. I have heard Gerry Brownlee describe the $140000 exercises on an annual basis as “hangi and hui” but those were the meetings that helped with the continuing investment of movies in New Zealand. I think that that is something that has been particularly useful to New Zealand. I might say that my only regret about being part of that is that I never actually got to go to the Oscars. I do not want to criticise Helen Clark but she was not always very generous to me as far as travel was concerned; at the point that the Oscars started I got on the plane to come home. There are one or two stories that are particularly interesting from that time which some members have heard and which I might tell in the Committee stage. 
I also want to ask Gerry Brownlee about Sir Peter Jackson and his review of the New Zealand Film Commission. Peter Jackson made some very good suggestions in that and what has Gerry Brownlee done with them? Can he remember receiving the report? If he had focused on his job—I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I know that I speak relatively loudly and sometimes I interject a reasonable amount myself but there appears to be someone who has shifted his seat and is continually interjecting. I wonder whether I might have some protection from the Chair. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I say to members that there was some interjecting when the Hon Kate Wilkinson was speaking. I thought that was reasonable but I have to make the observation that the tenor and the tone have gone up subsequent to that. This will be a robust debate. There will be interjections. I say to members that we should be reasonable about it; we want to have a free flow of debate. Mindless shouting will be out. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I refer members opposite in particular to the recommendations from Peter Jackson in his review about the importance of film incentives and of getting them right. He is absolutely right in that because every time we had a discussion in Hollywood with one of three or four studios on each occasion we discussed the incentives. They were adjusted and they were tweaked—sometimes it cost us money and sometimes it did not—on things like the timing and the avoidance of foreign exchange risk. There were a lot of changes that occurred but we knew that if there was an issue both sides could pick up the phone. We talked regularly because we had a good relationship although I say that once or twice it was not quite as good. 
I want to talk about process as well. Labour received a copy of the Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill at 12.40 p.m. today despite promises from the Leader of the House that we would have it at 9.30 this morning. I want to say that in our time an undertaking made by a Minister was kept. If we undertook to supply a bill at a particular time we did. Maybe we were not as free with our undertakings but when we were seeking support as the Prime Minister did we kept our word because that was important. 
This bill changes employment law in a way that is not necessary. It is absolutely unnecessary. If this was a critical area as the Government claimed why was Kate Wilkinson not at the negotiating table with Warner Bros? Why was Kate Wilkinson not the lead negotiator when in fact Gerry Brownlee and Steven Joyce were doing the work? I must say that I think it is a little bit sad for that pair that the person who ended up actually doing the work was Steven Joyce. I also say that it is really interesting that Bill English promised there would be no change in the law and no more money. Where was he today to answer the question on behalf of the Prime Minister? Bill English said there would be no more money and no change in the law. I want to say that I am not at the point because we do not know all the details yet about the money where I am criticising all of it because I think some of it was necessary. I will be very critical about a direct advertising subsidy for a US company; that is absolutely wrong because it is not available to New Zealand companies. It is a very uneven playing field. I am prepared to look— 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: How long a list do you want of companies that the Labour Government preferred during its time in office? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I think it was never a US company over a New Zealand company in those circumstances. It was never a US company with a specific arrangement like that over a New Zealand company. 
Members opposite have been trying to say that this does not weaken the law so why are they doing it? Who gains and who loses? 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: We’re strengthening the law. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: It strengthens the law on the part of employers; I agree with Gerry Brownlee. This strengthens the law on the part of employers and reduces the protections that are available to people within New Zealand. There are very basic protections in New Zealand labour law and one of the things that Warner Bros told me when I worked with the company was that it actually liked New Zealand labour law. I will tell members why. It is because we do not have the rigid occupational classifications that most Western countries have. Warner Bros often used to refer to set construction. In the United States the United Kingdom and most parts of Australia when constructing a set someone who uses a hammer is not allowed to use a paintbrush. One is the job of a painter and the other is the job of a carpenter. Although Mr Assistant Speaker Barker might approve of that sort of arrangement it is not one that we have had in New Zealand for a number of years and Warner Bros told us that the arrangement here meant it was able to pay more reasonable wages but ended up with more productivity as a result. So our labour law arrangement was something that attracted Warner Bros and other companies to New Zealand rather than being something negative as has been indicated by members opposite. 
I finish with one point: what does it look like for New Zealand as a democracy as a country with integrity and as a country with sovereignty when a group of people come from offshore and shake us down for $33 million and for a change in our law that undermines the rights of New Zealand workers? That is the approach the Government has taken. It opens up New Zealand for anyone who wants to try to shake us down and I think it is a real pity. It is a backward step for democracy. John Key’s leadership has taken us backwards. 
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. 
Voting 
Correction—Urgency 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: The vote on the urgency motion was incorrectly announced. The record will be changed to read the result as Ayes 68 Noes 51. 
Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill 
First Reading 
Debate resumed. 
CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour) 
: 
 I intend to put a few facts into the mix today. We have just listened to the most ridiculous set of misleading half-truths stereotypes and absolutely ridiculous comments from the Minister for Economic Development. But before I do that I want to make a few points on my behalf and on behalf of my colleagues. 
I reiterate the point made by the Hon Trevor Mallard that on this side of the House we value our creative industries. We take great pride in our creative industries. If we look at the track record of the previous Government we can see absolute chapter and verse how we supported the creative industries in this country. So first of all—fact—we support the creative industries. Just ask the people who work in those industries about the last Government’s support for their industries. Secondly we want  
The Hobbit 
 to be made in New Zealand and are glad that it is being made in this country. Like everybody else in Parliament and like all of the people in New Zealand we are proud of films like  
The Lord of the Rings 
 films and I am sure we will be proud of  
The Hobbit 
. I want that on the table as a matter of fact. That is what was driving some of the polls referred to earlier; all New Zealanders want to see this film made here. 
But I want to dive beneath that to look at some of the detail and try to get a few questions answered. We know that the creative industries provide jobs in this country. We know that economically they are very valuable in terms of the money spent in New Zealand. We also know their value for tourism. But we have to have some answers to our questions. This whole debacle has been a major embarrassment for our country. To watch Government members across the House acting in the way they have in relation to Warner Bros has been an absolute embarrassment for this country. What about the economic and political sovereignty of New Zealand? I intend to ask some questions on that. I intend to ask some questions on how members opposite handle disputes because honestly it has been appalling. There is a labour dispute and where is the Minister of Labour? Nowhere to be seen. Thirdly I intend to look at the actual issues at stake in this dispute and fourthly to look at the actual nature of the bill before the House. We will be debating the Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill over several hours. There are many questions to be answered and I hope the media will start to dig beneath the headlines and ask some hard questions of the Government because they need to be asked. Once the public starts to hear the answers to some of these questions I think we will see quite a different reaction from the one we see at the moment. 
On the issue of economic and political sovereignty I want to know whether this Government can confirm that labour laws should be changed in response to domestic concerns and issues. Maybe the Minister of Labour if she is so inclined could confirm to us whether that is the case—that labour laws are a domestic matter and should be changed in response to our own domestic concerns and issues. If not on what basis should labour law changes be contemplated? That is my first question. My second question is whether the Minister is aware of other sovereign States that have changed labour laws in response to the demands of foreign corporates. Let me say that again: which States have changed labour laws in response to the demands of foreign corporates? I am aware that in South-east Asia there are quite a few examples of what are called export processing zones where exactly that has happened—where countries have changed labour laws to meet the needs of foreign corporates—but it is not something I have seen happen in this country. 
Keith Locke 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I cannot hear Carol Beaumont because of the shouting. I think— 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: You can’t help good luck sometimes! 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Humour is appreciated but not on this particular occasion. The member makes a fair point; this is a chamber of free speech and free speech means that people are free to speak and that members are able to listen to them. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: You wouldn’t want to pay for this. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I am giving a ruling. 
CAROL BEAUMONT 
: As I was saying it is very important to consider why sovereign nations would change their labour laws in response to the demands of foreign corporates. The only examples I can come up with involve export processing zones in South-east Asian countries. Perhaps the Minister of Labour if she can be bothered might answer those questions. The other thing I would like to know is whether we can get some confirmation that there are elements of our labour laws that will not be changed in response to demands by foreign corporates. Are we going to say that any item in our law is open to change if foreign corporates demand it? Perhaps we would reduce the minimum wage if a foreign corporate wants to come here but thinks it is too expensive to employ New Zealand workers. Should we change the minimum wage and say that it can be less for employees of a foreign corporate? This is about a Government that seems willing to make changes to important domestic matters at the behest of foreign corporates. That is my first lot of questions. I hope the Minister will take the time to reassure us on those matters. 
In looking at the Government’s handling of this dispute I point out that the Hon Trevor Mallard has talked about the issues related to the incentives for film companies operating in New Zealand and has asked some questions about them. I note that Sir Peter Jackson raised questions in July of this year about the level of incentive. I have no idea why it was not dealt with by the Government separately from this dispute but somehow it has now become an outcome of this dispute. 
I want to talk more about the issue of the so-called lack of clarity over the legal status of people working in the creative industries. I am sure that my colleague Charles Chauvel will deal with it in a lot more detail but I can say that there is no uncertainty. As others have said including members across the House a lot of the people in the film industry operate now as independent contractors. That is not in question and nobody is disputing that. The Bryson case that has been referred to has not led to the status of a whole lot of people suddenly being changed. This is all a red herring. That 2005 Supreme Court decision has not led to widespread change in the industry. I do not know what the matter is that requires clarification by the bill. We have been told it is about clarifying the status of people in the industry but their status is quite clear and the decision of the Supreme Court was quite clear so it is not about that. 
This bill provides a default provision. As I read the bill in the short time I have had it the default position is that people will be independent contractors. It goes on to say who those people are. It talks about “actor voice-over actor stand-in body double” etc. but also goes on to talk about any person engaged in film production work in any other capacity. That could be the person who answers the phone. I am not sure that such people really require clarification of their status as independent contractors. I am sure that that will come up further on in this debate but I want to keep going with the questions I want to ask. 
I am concerned that this bill will be used to undermine wages and conditions and I want to know that that is not the intention. Independent contractors when they are famous actors and so on are clearly well-paid people and clearly choose that status but it seems to me that no other person in the film production industry benefits from having the status of independent contractor. In fact they would lose a lot of protections that exist under employment law and they would be required to do a number of things like pay their own tax accident compensation levies and so on. There is a risk factor if this status is intended to be extended to cover people other than the people being talked about—the actors the technicians and so on. The Government might wish to keep talking about high-paid actors but many in this industry are not well paid and I am sure that other members will talk about that. But what we know is that this Government puts in place shonky arrangements then extends them elsewhere. We need only look at the 90-day bill which introduced 90 days’ employment with no rights to see precisely that situation occurring. 
The real issue—and I will come back to this point in a later speech—is collectively negotiating terms and conditions and this bill does not deal with that issue at all. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party is strongly opposed to the Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill. This is a very sad day for New Zealand because not only is the Government moving legislation through this Parliament at the behest of a foreign multinational Warner Bros which is an affront to our sovereignty but also it is completely abusing the parliamentary process. It is rushing important industrial legislation through Parliament through all stages in a few hours under urgency and is denying all chance for the legal profession employers union leaders and members of the community to make submissions on it. In fact members of Parliament have had only a couple of hours in which to look at the bill and prepare their contributions. 
Any other bill sits on the Table for 3 days which means that members of the public including those following this debate have the chance to figure out what the bill is before we discuss it in the House. There will be a lot of confusion out there among the people listening to this debate on the radio or watching it on TV. MPs are not being given a proper chance to scrutinise this legislation. 
Industrial legislation is very tricky and complicated legislation. In the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee this morning we finalised a couple of bills: the Holidays Amendment Bill and the Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2). Those bills have been around for months. We received many submissions on them we had many debates on them including debates on interpretation and they were quite divisive in many respects. That shows the complexity of industrial law and it is quite wrong to rush such law through Parliament. That is particularly so given that Gerry Brownlee said when I questioned him earlier today that Warner Bros has not said that this bill needs to go through this week. Well why are we pushing it through this week? Either there is some misinformation there or we could have a proper select committee process on this bill. 
What is the problem with having a proper select committee process? The Minister of Labour said that the bill does not really change anything and that we are just creating some certainty. I think Gerry Brownlee had a slightly different interpretation. This bill produces more uncertainty in our industrial relations law because the concept behind this bill is quite different from the concept behind the rest of the Employment Relations Act. That concept was clarified in the 2005 Supreme Court decision of  
Bryson v Three Foot Six 
 which defined what an employee is. That decision was codified and explained by the screen producers organisation the Screen Production and Development Association of New Zealand or SPADA which produced a little document on what it would mean. 
Essentially the Screen Production and Development Association explained what we would call the duck test—that is if something walks like a duck swims like a duck and quacks like a duck then it is a duck. In this case the association laid out things such as the control that actors have over their work situation where it happens what is done and the timing of it etc. In reality a lot of those things are under the control of the director so in that sense independent contractors are similar to employees. Another test the association outlines is the extent to which workers when going into this job provide their own equipment take financial risks related to the production and so on and generally actors do not do that. So there are a lot of parallels with the work that actors actually do in being employees. 
This bill goes completely in the opposite direction from the duck test. It says that when the employer or the film producers and the actors or people in the film industry in general sign a contract what they say in that contract—whether the actor is an independent contractor or an employee—is what determines rights from there on. That is quite contrary to the general theme of the Employment Relations Act. Where that puts actors at a disadvantage is that now employers know that under this arrangement they do not need to give actors the right to collective bargaining. They will say that if actors want to be in their movie they will give them a contract that says they are independent contractors and not employees and that they can take it or leave it. If they do not take it they do not get the job on the film. 
That will mean that these people then lose all rights to collective bargaining in relation to their employer—the film company—and that of course is a big problem. It will provide a feast of work for lawyers and judges in the future who will bring back that Supreme Court decision and look at it as it applies to the Employment Relations Act as a whole. They will say that this amendment is in conflict with that Act and they will ask whether such a person is an independent contractor or an employee and they will ask what that person’s rights are. It will be a legal feast. That is why we need to take submissions on this bill rather than just rushing it through. 
There is a whole history of people like actors bringing their skills and labour to a short-term work situation or a fixed contract. For example many people in the construction industry get a job on a building for a fixed period of time. They are paid certain amounts and even though they are contractors contracting for that work they retain rights similar to the rights of employees under the Employment Relations Act. It is also good for the film industry to give film workers and actors more rights. In my experience the more rights that people have the more confident they feel and I think confidence is a big thing in the acting profession. If actors are kicked around and denied their rights then their work will suffer and the film will suffer. 
All of us here—every New Zealander I think—wants  
The Hobbit 
 to be a success. This debate has never been about whether  
The Hobbit  
should be produced here. Everyone wanted it to be produced directed and made in New Zealand. We in the Green Party are saying that it would be a more successful film if the rights of actors and film workers in general were respected and not undermined in this way. I agree with previous speakers. Sometimes over the years we have talked about banana republics and Governments that have been— 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Banana constitutional monarchy. 
KEITH LOCKE 
: I agree with the interjection. We are not even a banana republic; we are a banana constitutional monarchy. So we have a couple of things on our hands here. 
The term “banana republic” was originally used as a reference to countries in Central America in particular whose dominant industry was bananas. The big banana companies like United Fruit in earlier times or Del Monte would essentially run the State because they had such a big weight in the economy. Now we see that New Zealand a developed and multifaceted economy is acting in the way of the banana republics. 
Warner Bros comes along and says: “We’re not going to make this film here unless you give us more money and change your industrial laws to suit us and bow and scrape.” So we forget about our sovereignty and forget about our honour. Do we not have honour as a people? We can just say: “Yes sir no sir.” and then pretend it is all for the good of the workers concerned. In fact if we study the Employment Relations Act we see that it does not have any good spin-offs for this bill. This bill is in contradiction to the Employment Relations Act and the Green Party is very opposed to it. Thank you. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am not sure whether it is your responsibility or the responsibility of the Government but I have been informed that this legislation the Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill has not yet appeared online on the New Zealand Legislation website. People are now ringing to ask why the normal practice of— 
Charles Chauvel 
: It’s the Attorney-General’s responsibility. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I am informed that it is the Attorney-General’s responsibility. But through you I ask the Leader of the House to ask the Attorney-General to ensure that New Zealand Legislation is updated so that people who are looking for this legislation can get it. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: The member has made his point. It is not a point of order of the House; a point of order of the House is about the order of the House. The Government’s requirement here is to have a bill on the Table. Of course it would be in the public’s interest to have the bill available online and I am sure the Attorney-General will send a message to make sure that that happens in due course. 
Hon RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I rise joyously to support the Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill. We have heard from all the political parties present today that they want the 
 Hobbit 
 movies to be a great success. Every political party also says they want the 
 Hobbit 
 movies to be made in New Zealand. I can assure this House that there is only one reason why these movies are to be made in New Zealand and it comes down to one man our Prime Minister John Key. It is impossible to imagine that Helen Clark would have had the ability to sit down with Warner Bros negotiate this deal and give Warner Bros confidence. As for Phil Goff he has been deafening in his silence while New Zealand has— 
Paul Quinn 
: Where is Phil Goff? 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: I do not know. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The member cannot refer to a member who is not here. 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: Quite. I will not refer to Phil Goff again. Trevor Mallard would not have been able to sit down with Warner Bros and negotiate a deal. I do not think Russel Norman would have been able to sit down and negotiate a deal with Warner Bros. We are very fortunate. One thing we know about our Prime Minister is that he can cut a deal. He can look Warner Bros in the eye as the Prime Minister of New Zealand give it the assurance it needs and protect New Zealand’s interests. 
Let us be absolutely clear about the sequence of events. The 
 Hobbit 
 movies were to be made in New Zealand—and it is all very well for Labour Party members to talk about foreign interests—until a foreign union turned up in New Zealand. On 17 August Mr Simon Whipp of the international actors union from Australia—he is not even a Kiwi—threatened a global boycott of the 
 Hobbit 
 movies and turned it— 
Hon Members 
: Shh! 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: I know Labour members hate hearing this but it is the truth. Simon Whipp turned up here and threatened a global boycott of the movies and it turned pear-shaped. By the way I waited to hear the Labour Party’s condemnation of that attack. I waited to hear the Labour Party’s condemnation of this overseas union. What did we hear? Nothing. There was deafening silence. 
So outrageous was this union’s behaviour that we had the remarkable experience of New Zealanders spontaneously organising themselves to protest on Labour Day against the union movement and its attack on New Zealand and on the fundamental interests of workers in this country. Where was Phil Goff? We did not hear a thing. Where was Trevor Mallard? We did not hear a thing. Where was Parekura Horomia? Actually I think I know where he was but I am not allowed to say. There was nothing from the Labour Party and nothing from the Green Party yet they come to the House and say they would like the 
 Hobbit 
 movies to be made in New Zealand and to be a success. Those movies were going to go down the gurgler. 
The National Government approached the ACT Party and asked whether we would support legislative change. We asked what it would do. It said it would clarify that if a worker signs up as an individual contractor that is what that worker will be. That is not bad is it? If a worker signs a contract to be an individual contractor that is what that worker will be. We said that of course we would support it because we think that English words should mean what they say. If those words specify an individual contractor it is not an employment contract. What could be easier to understand than that? I can understand Warner Bros scratching its head thinking about our Supreme Court and the way it interprets simple contracts and saying: “Wow! You sign up an individual as a contractor and it might turn out they were an employee.” That is a big risk and of course the ACT Party was happy to support that change. 
I heard Trevor Mallard ask who wins and who loses. I think it was a genuine question from Mr Mallard so here is the answer. New Zealand is the big winner. It is a huge winner because these movies are to be made in New Zealand and they were not to be made in New Zealand. The film industry in New Zealand is clearly a big winner. It is also very very clear that tourism is a big winner particularly with the documentaries that go on the DVDs which will be huge for New Zealand. It is also very clear that the workers in New Zealand are big winners not just in the film industry but right through New Zealand. The confidence that this will put into the market place and into the economy and the tourism it will generate will mean they are the big winners. Undoubtedly the Prime Minister of New Zealand is a big winner because he single-handedly pulled it off. Where was Phil Goff? Where was the Labour Party? Where was the Green Party? 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: Nowhere. 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: They were nowhere. The Prime Minister went out and did it. I would like to think that some of that glory will reflect on the ACT Party and indeed on the Maori Party and United Future and the good people of Epsom will think it was not too bad. We got  
The Hobbit  
because we have a good Government not that ragtag bunch over there who would have destroyed New Zealand’s opportunities. 
Trevor Mallard asks who the losers are. Let me think. I do not think it went very well for Mr Simon Whipp. I do not think it went very well for the international actors union. I do not think they are the winners; I think they look like losers. I do not think that it went very well for Helen Kelly. I do not think the Council of Trade Unions came out of this smelling of roses. I do not think the Council of Trade Unions came out of this too good. I do not think it looked very good for the New Zealand union movement. But the big loser has to be the Labour Party. The big loser has to be Phil Goff. He thought that Labour members would come to this House and oppose this bill. Is that possible? 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Poor Rodney! 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: Poor Mr Darren Hughes! Mr Darren Hughes says: “Poor Rodney!”. I did not lose my seat at the last election; that member did. I actually kept my seat and increased my majority. I did not know this but it turns out that that member was a Minister and now he is sitting on the Opposition backbenches and he says: “Poor Rodney!”. I say: “Poor Darren Hughes!” because the Labour Party is tied to the union movement. The fact that the Labour Party president is the leader of the New Zealand Amalgamated Engineering Printing and Manufacturing Union and the fact that all of Labour’s funding comes from the union movement means that Labour is boxed in on the wrong side of this argument. They are against the interests of the people of New Zealand. The Labour Party members are the losers in this. I tell Darren Hughes to be happy over there. Because of his party’s decision on this day he is going to be a long time in Opposition. I have not even got on to the Greens yet. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Deputy Speaker. Kia ora tatou katoa e hoa ma i roto i te Whare I tenei ahiahi. Clearly the issue at hand has fascinated everybody outside the House before today and today. The debate captures our imagination and fascination. Putting aside the celebrity aspects associated with the profile of actors and film makers in the public psyche it has had the ability to touch on a huge range of issues of high importance to our national reputation. The issue that has resulted in the Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill a tiny 3-page bill has the potential to have massive impacts upon the tourism industry film production the entertainment sector industrial relations our international status foreign investment workers’ rights and the fate of our own domestic economy. That has been the general tenor of the discussion up until this point in time. It is also an issue that has compelled New Zealanders to take action: to take to the streets for goodness’ sake; to flood email addresses with a heap of traffic; and to lobby the Government to listen to them. 
Maori like other people are represented at every level of the film production industry. An increasing number of Maori are working in the film production industry especially as actors and stunt crew. This bill specifies the range of occupations that it encompasses. To cut to the chase what is the bill all about? Some members have alluded to this but I remind those who are listening to this debate that the bill amends section 6 of the Employment Relations Act 2000 which relates to the meaning of the word “employee”. As a result of this legislation the meaning of “employee” will now specifically exclude “a person engaged in film production work as an actor voice-over actor stand-in body double stunt performer extra singer musician dancer or entertainer” and also will exclude “a person engaged in film production work or in any other capacity.” 
As an indication of just how widespread the impacts of this legislation will be I say that even within our own very small team here in Parliament we have amongst our numbers people who have worked in the film industry. I will leave it up to members’ imaginations as to whether that was in performing stunts or in the art of acting. Be that as it may some might say that amongst the current cast of MPs we also have those who have had their fair share of time in front of the camera. Some have been elevated to a national audience by  
University Challenge 
 and others have been in  
Dancing with the Stars 
 or have hosted  
Asia Downunder 
 
to name a few programmes. So the experience of being in front of a camera is not new both within the realms of the House right now and within the parliamentary complex. 
The bill provides incentives for film production to be carried out in New Zealand not only by foreign production companies but by local production companies as well. From our perspective that is great news for Maori film makers and it is great news for the broader workforce engaged in film production. In saying that we acknowledge that all of the people who are pursuing careers in the film industry must be made aware of the importance of securing satisfactory employment agreements with the production companies that they may work for as the Employment Relations Act will no longer cover them. 
I will also touch on some of our concerns that have emerged about workers’ rights under this bill. For those who have worked in the film industry it would seem that the procedures in place provide for a certain degree of rangatiratanga on the part of the individual when engaging in film work. I use the word “rangatiratanga” deliberately because I think that one of the opportunities that can arise in situations like this is that it places incentives on the need to encourage whanau to be pretty much self-reliant and to show their economic leadership. According to those in the know contracts are negotiated between cast and crew members and production companies. The nature of the contract is wholly dependent on the diligence of the individual or group that negotiates it. This is not so much a case of survival of the fittest as one that points to the significance of the collective will in negotiations. It is also evident in the recent comments from New Zealand Actors Equity that it will take steps to ensure that its members sign appropriate employment agreements with film production companies. 
As we have watched this issue unfold it has been obvious that the film production family in New Zealand is a very tight-knit community albeit very small. Those involved in the industry have told us that major issues that arise on sets tend to spread throughout the entire industry grapevine. Perhaps that is why this issue has generated such intense interest because future career prospects and economic opportunities have seemed to be very vulnerable to the personalities and politics involved. But we cannot get away from the fact that an amazing opportunity for film making is now right on our doorstep which as others have said 24 hours ago did not look in any way shape or form to be likely. 
I will share a comment from my colleague Mr Hone Harawira about the enthusiasm that he has gained from talking to people like Lawrence Makoare and others in the film industry—Maori that is—about the amount of work that they got throughout the making of the  
Lord of the Rings  
trilogy and about how just being part of that project changed their lives. According to Hone it gave them a vision of what else they could be and it provided them with a place in history. One just cannot beat that kind of experience and that kind of exposure to things that those people might otherwise never have got involved with had those films not been made in Aotearoa over the last few years. 
On that note I will share another breaking-news moment in the history of Parliament. It is from an email we received earlier today from Hone which I will read for the record. It states: “Congratulations to John Key for pulling off this deal.” 
But of course it is just not a matter of breaking news box-office sales or multimillion-dollar investments that we are talking about in this bill. We have some concerns about the vexed issues of precedent or of anomalies that have not been worked through. As a case in point I wonder whether the Government would jump as rapidly through hoops to bring in pay parity for employees of Maori and iwi health providers. That is an ongoing policy concern that is almost certainly in the national interest to resolve. We have Maori nurses and health workers in the non-governmental organisation sector who are being paid 25 percent less than those who work in the public sector. They do not go on strike because of their total commitment to the people whom they serve. 
In October 2004 20000 New Zealand Nurses Organisation members in the district health boards won a benchmark fair pay settlement which closed the pay gap between nurses midwives and health care assistants employed by district health board and professionals who work in other roles requiring similar skills experience and qualifications such as teachers and the police. That was good news for those who work for district health boards. However the settlement left New Zealand Nurses Organisation members in the primary health sector significantly lagging behind. Although the pay gap has now almost closed for most of the primary health workforce the pay parity gap for Maori and iwi primary health providers—at least in the workforce—is now about 25 percent. It is not as though the solution to that issue would take a task force or an urgent ministerial inquiry to resolve; it is pretty straightforward. Pay parity would mean better health and well-being for our communities and for all New Zealanders. The policy problem is that those of our people who work for Maori and iwi health providers have the skills qualifications and experience that are essential to improve health outcomes for Maori yet they receive far lower salaries than their equivalents who work for district health boards. 
It will be a great day when the health and well-being of Maori are accorded urgency and the needs of Maori health workers are elevated to the level of being a national priority. That this issue has— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I have indicated to the member twice that his comments should be relevant to the bill. This is not a bill about health issues; it is about employment. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL 
: I am closing anyway but I was making the point that issues around pay are relevant to issues of employment. So I say that— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: That’s the feature of an embarrassed party because this— 
TE URUROA FLAVELL 
: Thank you very much Mr Hughes. I was making the point that it would be great if the needs of health workers were elevated to the same level of national priority as the interests of those working on the two movies related to  
The Hobbit.  
Nevertheless we do not want to close off the opportunities for New Zealand to benefit from the immediate opportunities in the film production industry and to that end the Maori Party will support this bill. 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage) 
: 
 The Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill is a very simple bill. It clarifies existing film industry practice and provides greater certainty for producers investors and workers and I am very pleased to support it. 
I was rather disappointed in the contribution from Mr Locke a fair-minded chap who tries to look at both sides of the issues. I was not at all surprised by the response of the Labour Party but Mr Locke at least tries to look at both sides of the issues. He raised a couple of points about the interference of foreigners in New Zealand. I had hoped that he would at least try to be consistent in his outrage about all forms of foreign interference in our film industry and I will read into the record just a couple of comments that I think need to be read in as part of the permanent record of this House. On Monday 11 October Helen Kelly of the Council of Trade Unions attended a meeting of actors in Wellington representing the position of Actors Equity a body that says it is independent of Australian unions. It is worth quoting from an article on Screen Hub written by someone attending that meeting. Asked at the meeting why New Zealand Actors Equity had not taken a full board vote before inviting international guilds and unions to bring pressure to bear on the production Ms Kelly reportedly told the meeting: “Your Australian leaders have been acting in your best interests.” Asked why local actors were not being afforded the chance to sort out any dissatisfaction about terms and conditions via their local representatives Ms Kelly responded that international unions have more muscle. 
Today some people are claiming that the unions have said that there would not be any industrial action on  
The Hobbit 
 so all this is unnecessary and that they simply could not understand why a studio that is investing many hundreds of millions of dollars in New Zealand—in New Zealand jobs in New Zealand’s future and in our film industry—may have some reticence about taking the unions at their word. One needs look no further than the statement from Actors Equity on Radio New Zealand just last Friday: “We’ve been trying this with local productions for a couple of years. The difference with  
The Hobbit 
 was that we did have some support from outside unions. We didn’t encourage them to bully Peter Jackson. They came on board and supported us of their own accord.” 
Another myth perpetrated by the unions is that the industrial relations dispute had nothing to do with money but was about terms and conditions of employment. On 27 September the Australian unionist Simon Whipp told the  
Otago Daily Times 
 that the issue was all about the payment of fees. Last Friday Robyn Malcolm was quoted in the  
Dominion Post 
 as talking about securing financial benefits for those involved in the production. Is it any wonder that investors are reluctant to take the word of the unions in this matter and have sought that the matter be clarified? 
When Simon Whipp told  
The Hollywood Reporter 
 that union success with  
The Hobbit 
 would pave the way for unionising other productions in New Zealand and Helen Kelly told Newstalk ZB that her primary focus was to “unionise the film industry what was the problem with that and that Peter Jackson was a spoilt brat” is it any wonder investors get nervous about the unions’ true intentions? 
What is most revealing is the point made by Mr Hide and Mr Brownlee: “What do the workers think about all of this?”. One need look no further than Labour Day which is the day set aside for workers when thousands of people marched up and down this country against the unions—on Labour Day of all days. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: In their thousands. 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: They marched in their thousands as Mr Henare said. Thousands of people cheered that great New Zealander Sir Richard Taylor in Civic Square. 
Earlier today a true worker in the film industry Mark Harrison stated he did not have any concerns about the proposed legislation. He said this is an area that has needed clarification ever since the Bryson case. It should have been changed by the Labour Government. But was there any chance of that given that Mr Chauvel who is a member of the Labour Party acted for the Council of Trade Unions as an intervener in the Supreme Court? 
I think it is pretty clear that the Labour Party once again is shown to be more concerned about the unions than the economy. That has always been the case whether it was the Waterside Workers Union in 1951 the Seamen’s Union in 1970— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: And the boilermakers. 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: —the Boilermakers Union over the BNZ building or Actors Equity in 2010. The unions come first; the economy comes second. All I want to say is that I very much look forward to next year’s election in the marginal seat of Rongotai when Annette King—the self-proclaimed “MP for Weta”—and I can discuss some of these issues. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 The first thing I want to say in this debate is that as a proud Wellington MP I am glad that it seems the  
Hobbit 
 movies will now be made in this city. I was glad that the  
Lord of the Rings 
 movies were made here. The investment in the city of money energy and the local talent that our local film industry was able to showcase made me really proud. The New Zealand landscapes displayed internationally through those movies married really well with the “100% Pure New Zealand” campaign that was run so effectively by Tourism New Zealand at the time. It is also great that a whole range of local businesses did well out of the films being made here. My own former law firm acted for one of the financiers of the films. I think it is useful to reflect on the fact that all of that happened under a Labour Government. I hope we will see similar benefits from the  
Hobbit 
 movies that we saw from the 
 Lord of the Rings 
 movies including a boost to our local film-making industry. 
But there is a big difference. The 
 Hobbit 
 movies thanks to the mismanagement that we have seen from the Government come at a great cost to this country one that New Zealand did not have to pay to have the 
 Lord of the Rings  
movies made here. The Government proposes to rush through under urgency in the House today and tomorrow all the stages of a completely unnecessary law change. There will be no select committee scrutiny of the legislation. There will be no public or expert submissions heard on it. There will be no advice from officials to members on the amendment. I want to explain to the House—to “read into the record” to quote the words used by the previous speaker the Attorney-General—why this amendment is unnecessary and undesirable. I hope Mr Flavell listens because I think his speech was an extraordinary example of how one can in advocating for something use reasons that undermine one’s advocacy for the position that one is taking. 
As Christopher Finlayson told the House I was a member of the legal team that acted for the Council of Trade Unions in the Supreme Court on the  
Bryson v Three Foot Six 
 litigation. I was really proud to accept the union’s instruction. The Minister seems to think that is not a matter of pride—to be available to one’s clients to take their brief. He should know as the leader of the legal profession that there is no more sacred duty on a lawyer than to do that when approached. I was glad to argue the case. There was fantastic argument in the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court listened carefully to the issues that were presented to it and dealt with the matter very carefully. 
Because we heard a complete mishmash of a summary from Gerry Brownlee as to what actually happened in the Bryson case it is useful to give the facts. In that case a model maker had worked variously for Weta Workshop and Three Foot Six Ltd. Three Foot Six was a company specifically established to administer the production of the  
Lord of the Rings  
movies. During the production of the movies Mr Bryson worked fixed hours: 7.30 or 8 a.m. to 6 or 6.30 p.m. with 45 minutes for a lunch break every day. He was part of a crew of 42 working similar fixed hours. He worked only for Weta Workship and for Three Foot Six. In his first few weeks he received on-the-job training in what he was supposed to do for Weta Workshop and he got an individual initial pay rate of $18 an hour. These are the classic indications in our law of the existence of an employment relationship. But 6 months into that relationship Mr Bryson in common with the rest of his crew was given a document by Three Foot Six referring to “contractor” and “independent contractor”. 
Those are the facts of that litigation. The long and the short of what the courts decided to do—[ 
Interruption 
] That is right 6 months into the relationship Three Foot Six proffered a document mis-describing the relationship as one of an independent nature rather than one of employment which it clearly was. And that was what the Supreme Court confirmed in the litigation. Despite Weta Workshop handing Mr Bryson a document describing him as a contractor he was clearly an employee by every test known to the common law and applied in this and every other common law country for over 100 years. The Supreme Court also confirmed that if the parties had bothered to clearly and correctly label their relationship from the outset New Zealand law would have provided the flexibility for them to choose whether to be in an employment or a contracting relationship. 
This bill will not actually fix anything. There has not been a flood of litigation since the Bryson case; in fact that case which is 5 years old is the last leading case on the question of how one determines in this country whether a person is an employee or a contractor. So much for the great doubt that is said to exist in our law on this point and that is said to be some sort of block on incoming foreign investment that we need so badly in this case that we will do anything including subvert the processes of this House to change the law in order to accommodate a foreign investor. 
But the problem with this legislation with the amendment proposed by the Minister of Labour will be apparent to any employment lawyer looking at its provisions. In any case where anyone asserts that they are in an employment relationship under the proviso in clause 4(2) the court will still have to undertake the very exercise that it undertook in the Bryson litigation. What the proviso says is that if there is an employment relationship or if the person complaining is a party to an employment relationship then they are not subject to the exclusion in the amendment; they will be subject to employment law. Well how does anybody determine whether a person is subject to an employment relationship? They go through the tests that the court had to go through in the Bryson case to determine whether an employment relationship exists. That is the recipe for litigation that the Minister is creating in this rushed and botched legislation. Far from creating some sort of certainty that is said to be sought here we are participating in the creation of massive uncertainty by unleashing on the courts and on the parties to litigation in these sorts of disputes the very sort of inquiry that the Minister thinks she will extinguish. As I say the courts will have to go through the mixed inquiry of fact and law to determine whether in any case an employment relationship exists. An employment contract does not have to be in writing as the Bryson case made very clear. The courts will have to go through the tests look at the reality of the relationship and determine whether in any case before them there is in fact such an employment relationship. 
So after this legislation has been rushed through the House every time there is a dispute in the film industry what will happen? A person will say “I am an employee. I am subject to an employment contract.” They will do that because it is cheaper to take a personal grievance than it is to take a commercial dispute through the ordinary courts. Then the courts or the employment relations authority will have to do exactly what they did in the Bryson case. This Minister through her inexperience her lack of knowledge of employment law and her failure to seek the most basic advice and follow the most basic process— 
Hon Members 
: Ha ha! 
CHARLES CHAUVEL 
: She and the members opposite think it is funny but they are about to put employers in this country through a major new series of employment litigation which has not been seen in this area for 5 years and which they will be responsible for resurrecting. We are tying ourselves up in knots we have sacrificed our sovereignty and we have thrown out due process all for an amendment that simply will not do what the Minister thinks it will. 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 Talk about being able to get on the wrong side of an argument. The diatribe we have just heard from Charles Chauvel sums up where Labour is going wrong. With his legal background he has gone into the very depths of the detail of his legalistic arguments and he is completely out of touch with the majority of New Zealanders. He says that this bill will not fix anything but I can tell members exactly what it has fixed. It means that a production worth $670 million to the New Zealand economy is now going to be made here in New Zealand. Apart from Labour and Green members there is unanimous support out there in New Zealand for what happened yesterday. John Key has literally saved the day and this legislation is saving this massive important project for New Zealand. 
Carol Beaumont 
: What about some facts. 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: Carol Beaumont is showing why the people of Maungakiekie will never vote her in because quite frankly she is completely out of touch with reality on this issue. Charles Chauvel said that this legislation was unnecessary. Well it was absolutely necessary if we were to keep this project in New Zealand. 
Labour members’ response to this issue shows us how tied up they really are with the union movement and the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions because that is where their funding will come from at the next election. There is no question about it. So when members of the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions were out there making complete fools of themselves over this issue Labour members had no option but to back them. It was indicative. It must have been the first Labour Day when we actually had anti-Labour marches. The coalition of Labour and the unions has been quite amazing; they have been able to direct public opinion with incredible force directly against them. If those members over there were in charge they would have been quite happy to see the 
 Hobbit 
 project go offshore. For the cost of $33 million we will get a $670 million boost to the New Zealand economy. 
Labour used to fancy itself as the party of the arts and the party of the film industry; that has been totally blown away. That member Carol Beaumont is so out of touch. If she thinks that her party now has any credibility with the film industry she is out to lunch. Darren Hughes is not saying much because he knows that his party is on the wrong side of this argument. 
I want to talk about the fantastic work that the Prime Minister did yesterday saving this project for New Zealand. Those members—there are about 40 of them—are the only people in New Zealand who feel that what happened yesterday was the wrong move for New Zealand. It was fantastic for the country and it was fantastic for the tourism industry. One in 10 visitors to New Zealand comes to New Zealand because they have seen  
The Lord of the Rings 
. It is amazing but it is true. 
I ask whether members know about the publicity that money just cannot buy that this project will bring to this country. We cannot quantify the positive benefits; they will be massive. I must say that John Key really did a great thing for New Zealand yesterday in getting Sir Peter Jackson and Warner Bros to actively market New Zealand in every DVD sold of the 
 Hobbit 
 movies. 
So there we have it. The Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill is important legislation. It specifically clarifies the employment situation for people working in the film production industry. It gives them a choice: they can decide at the outset whether they want to be contractors or employees. This legislation makes it clear. It is absolutely clear that in order for Warner Bros to make this movie in New Zealand the legal situation had to be clarified. 
Quite frankly beforehand there was a lot of uncertainty. The public needs to remember that before the unions got involved with the backing of Labour  
The Hobbit  
was being made in New Zealand. It was only once the unions the Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance and all the rest jumped in that the project was thrown into major jeopardy. It became a fifty-fifty prospect at best. It took the Prime Minister specifically to come in with his skills and his powers of negotiation to save this project for New Zealand. He deserves full credit for what has gone on. It is a great thing that this production will be coming here. Certainly anyone with any sense will be commending this bill to the House. 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 I have no doubt that Sir Peter Jackson wanted  
The Hobbit  
made in New Zealand just as I have no doubt that the film workers wanted  
The Hobbit  
made in New Zealand; that the New Zealand unions wanted  
The Hobbit 
 made in New Zealand; that National wanted  
The Hobbit  
made in New Zealand; that the Labour Party wanted  
The Hobbit  
made in New Zealand; that the Greens ACT and the Maori Party all wanted this movie made in New Zealand; and even that Warner Bros wanted this movie made in New Zealand. Why did all of those people want that movie made in New Zealand? It is not because the National Government or John Key walk on water but because we have a highly skilled film industry that will make a good movie at a good price. 
What has gone on here is a game of brinkmanship—brinkmanship by all parties. Some of that brinkmanship ended earlier than other brinkmanship. The brinkmanship by the union movement—and there was brinkmanship by the union movement—was pulled out some time ago. Indeed we have the email on file from Warner Bros acknowledging that the union dispute was over. The union dispute was over by 18 October— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: American time. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: —American time. The brinkmanship in respect of Warner Bros was matched by brinkmanship on National’s side. I am not necessarily criticising it for all of that brinkmanship. The Minister of Finance said that we would not spend any more money and we would not change the laws. The Minister for Economic Development said we would not spend more money. We would not expect them to go into a negotiation saying that there was lots more money but it was brinkmanship. The brinkmanship went a bit far and National got a fright because it thought Warner Bros was going to pull the pin that that side of the negotiation would pull the pin and go somewhere else like Ireland. So National got worried and it thought about who it could blame. 
The brinkmanship was going poorly so what did National do? It said that it was all the fault of the Labour Party and the unions. The Labour Party and the unions have been the whipping boy for National because the brinkmanship got away from it and it thought it would lose the deal and get egg on its face. Ever since that risk point was encountered by John Key every media moment that he has he stands up—even though he knows it is not true that the Labour Party has been involved in any meaningful way in these negotiations—and says that it is the Labour Party’s fault that it has been colluding with the Council of Trade Unions and with others because it wants  
The Hobbit  
to be lost to New Zealand. First it is not true that we have been involved. Second it is just not credible to suggest that we do not want  
The Hobbit  
made here just like it is not credible for us to suggest that National does not want  
The Hobbit  
made here. This is baloney—this is baloney. 
I want to read what John Armstrong said in the  
New Zealand Herald  
today in respect of the Government’s agreement to do what is completely unnecessary in respect of our law. It is already clear that in the film industry one can have a contractual relationship rather than an employment relationship; one has just to properly structure it. As Charles Chauvel has already said it happens every day. If multimillion-dollar businesses like the businesses that are running this project cannot properly construct their contractual relationships so that they are contracts of service rather than employment relationships then they are not as good as they think they are. It is a nonsense to suggest that they cannot already do this within current law. 
This is all about National sticking it to the unions and trying to label the Labour Party at the same time. What does John Armstrong say? He says: “… the company walks away from what insiders say were tough negotiations with another $13.4 million to offset the films’ marketing costs.” in addition to the US$15 million in extra tax write-offs. He says further: “Far more unseemly however is the Government’s kowtowing to Warner Bros and agreeing to put legislation before Parliament as soon as today to clarify the distinction between ‘independent contractors’ and ‘employees’ as it relates to the local film industry.” 
I think Professor Roth at the University of Otago called it right in one of the major dailies in New Zealand last week when he said that this is just banana republic stuff rolling over to Warner Bros and changing laws unnecessarily. I do not even think it was driven by Warner Bros; I think it was driven mainly by National and John Key who were playing a game of brinkmanship with Warner Bros. I can understand a bit of brinkmanship in these negotiations but it looked like it was going to turn sour so National wanted someone else to blame. It has tried to draw in the Labour Party as if it was our fault that these negotiations had gone sour when we were nowhere near it. National has been trying to say that this is all the unions’ fault despite the fact that the unions pulled out of the game of brinkmanship long before National pulled out. At the end the two players in the game of brinkmanship were Warner Bros and the Government. Let no one else be fooled: they were the two players left standing in the game of brinkmanship. 
We all know that Warner Bros plays a tough game; it does it every time. There is lots of money involved. It has taken another $25 million from taxpayers through this game of brinkmanship. But what I object to is the Government letting Warner Bros write our sovereign laws in New Zealand when there is not even a material problem to be fixed. 
Hon Member 
: Yeah right! Who believes that? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: If there is a material problem to be fixed why is it not a problem in other industries? Electricians and carpenters work in all sorts of industries. Cleaners and couriers work in contractual relationships. They are exactly the same issues. They are no more difficult in this industry than in any other industry. Indeed as Charles Chauvel has said they have not been a problem in the film industry for the last 5 years. 
This game of brinkmanship from the Government was getting worrisome. The Government is on the ropes for its lack of performance in economic development generally. Its Minister for Economic Development Gerry Brownlee has failed totally in his ambition to close the wage gap with Australia. It has had problems with mining in national parks. Its economic development strategy has been shown to be in tatters and it was at risk of losing  
The Hobbit 
—it was at risk of losing  
The Hobbit 
. 
I have to say that the Prime Minister plays a pretty good game of politics; I acknowledge that. But let us acknowledge it for the reality it is. This is a political game. Brinkmanship has been used as an excuse to stick it to Helen Kelly to stick it to the union movement and to try to label the Labour Party as being the cause of the problem when the underlying reality is that there were some tough negotiations going on between Warner Bros and the New Zealand Government. The New Zealand Government took it to the wire. The “smile and wave” “she’ll be right” attitude of the Prime Minister was carried on probably just a little too long so they did not get down to the hard end of the negotiations until it looked like the movie was at risk of being lost. 
The Prime Minister was very effectively and very politically trying to say that this problem was anyone’s but the Government’s—anyone’s but the Government’s. The Government took the brinkmanship to the wire; so did Warner Bros. Warner Bros released $25 million from taxpayers. That is bad enough but I can live with it. That is the harsh reality of these transactions with a multinational like that. But there was no need for the Government to roll over and let Warner Bros scratch its tummy when it came to a completely unnecessary change to New Zealand’s laws relating to independent contractors. There is no widespread problem. This is a ruse on the part of the Government to hide how close it took it in its game of brinkmanship. 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 Let us be clear: the only person who stuck it to Helen Kelly was Helen Kelly in this incident. She was the only person who did that. The only ones who stuck it to the unions were the unions; they mucked it up hugely. They started—if Mr Parker wants to use the term “brinkmanship”—a game of brinkmanship and they nearly killed the  
Hobbit  
movies in New Zealand. That is the reality of it. 
Let us be clear: if this Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill does not proceed through Parliament the  
Hobbit 
 movies will not come to New Zealand. That is the reality of it and Opposition members need to work that out because they were incredibly silent over the last few weeks and then suddenly today they have landed on a particular side. They are not on the side of jobs for New Zealanders they are not on the side of having the  
Hobbit 
 movies produced in New Zealand they are not on the side of growing the New Zealand film industry they are not on the side of New Zealand tourism and they are not on the side of New Zealand exports and growth. They are on the side of Helen Kelly and her mates trying to rearrange the film industry to their way of thinking and actually stopping the films from being produced in New Zealand. That is the reality of it and it was the industrial action that was causing and creating the doubt for these movies to proceed in this country. That is the reality of it and we cannot change it. We cannot rewrite history; we cannot say that they did not really mean it and that they started the brinkmanship but others finished it. We cannot say all that. That is the reality of what was happening and it was going to be the death of the international film industry in this country. Where were Labour members? Labour members were quite simply quiet and now they are opposing the law that is needed to ensure that the  
Hobbit 
 movies and other movies are produced in this country. 
This Government is proud of its willingness to move to ensure that the two  
Hobbit 
 movies can be produced in New Zealand. The films are massive undertakings they will create massive numbers of jobs for New Zealanders and it is this sort of thing that the Government is trying to encourage. Let it be recorded that it is the Opposition that is trying to stop it it is the Labour Opposition that is trying to frustrate the views of New Zealanders and it is the Labour Opposition that does not care about jobs does not care about growth does not care about tourism and does not care about exports. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: This debate has concluded. The question is that the amendment in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard to omit the word “now” and substitute the words “this day 3 months” be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be amended by omitting “now” and adding “this day 3 months”. 
Ayes 51 
New Zealand Labour 41; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Noes 68 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand Labour 41; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Bill read a first time. 
Second Reading 
Hon KATE WILKINSON (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill be now read a second time 
. This bill is the Government’s response to an issue that has created uncertainty in the film industry. It provides a positive response to these issues by providing certainty for the industry ensuring that the two  
Hobbit 
 films are made in New Zealand and securing thousands of jobs for Kiwi film workers. The film industry makes a significant contribution to the New Zealand economy. It provides employment opportunities and it advertises New Zealand to the world. It is important that we are able to provide the industry with the confidence to continue to invest in New Zealand. 
This bill amends the Employment Relations Act 2000 so that it is clear that a person involved in film production work either is an independent contractor or is an employee based on his or her employment agreement. This status cannot be challenged in court. The issue is described by employment law specialist Peter Cullen who says: “If they sign a document saying they’re contractors then that should be the end of it. We don’t want some disgruntled person who was happily a contractor for 10 years reaping all the benefits of that when we end the contract saying he’s really an employee and suing us.” Actor Mark Harrison agrees saying: “This is an area that needed clarification ever since the Bryson case. It should have been changed by the Labour Government.” 
The bill provides flexibility to parties by allowing them to choose to have an employment relationship if that is more appropriate for their particular circumstances. When workers have an employment agreement that provides that they are employees they will be covered by the provisions of the Employment Relations Act and other employment legislation. 
In summation the Government believes that these amendments will benefit New Zealand through providing the film industry with the certainty and confidence needed to film in New Zealand. Further this initiative will encourage the creation of jobs and economic growth. I commend this bill to the House. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I move  
That the motion be amended by omitting “now” and substituting “until the bill has been amended to remove clause 4 and insert a schedule of employee protections” 
. I think it is interesting as one has been listening to the first reading debate to hear the inconsistencies and the divisibility of the Crown being shown so quickly. We heard from the Hon Gerry Brownlee in question time today and in his speech an absolute assurance for the House that it was not a requirement of Warner Bros that this legislation be introduced. Then we heard the Associate Minister of Finance Steven Joyce very recently telling us that the legislation is a requirement of Warner Bros. 
I know that this matter has been rapidly arranged and is not properly organised but those Ministers cannot both be telling the truth. I am not going to accuse either of them of lying but both of them are fixed with knowledge both of them know what the facts are and both of them have been involved in the negotiations and what they said was diametrically 180 degrees opposed. I think that that is probably a symbol of the disorganisation that has been seen on the part of the Government on this matter over a long period of time—over at least 2 years. In fact if Gerry Brownlee had been properly preparing for his role as Minister for Economic Development he would have spent some time in the United States even before he took up that role meeting with people and developing relationships so that they could work together properly. But in fact he chose to neglect that relationship. 
We have been told that the world is falling apart and that under current industrial relations legislation it is impossible for films to be made in New Zealand. I have with me a list of 120 feature films that have been made in New Zealand in the last decade. I might say that it has been quite interesting to work my way through the list and work out that notwithstanding my becoming more interested in videos over the last couple of years—not like Mr Jones of course—there are still quite a few New Zealand videos of feature-length movies that I have yet to see. The point I am making is that those movies have been made. They have been made the system works and that shows there is no need for this legislation. 
I think the Government would be well advised to listen to the comments of my learned colleague Charles Chauvel. Mr Chauvel has a lot of experience working in an area very very close to this and is someone who has looked at these issues carefully. In fact I do not think it is revealing too much to say that he has been doing some policy work on behalf of the Labour Party on the whole question of dependent and independent contractors and the way the line should be drawn in that particular area. We heard from Mr Chauvel in the first reading—and we will hear more of this as we work our way through the legislation—the fact that the Government’s intention with regard to this bill will not be achieved by it. Some of that will be more a debate for the Committee stage and I am pleased at the earlier ruling that the Committee stage will be a wide debate. We are looking forward to that. But even in the narrow areas that Mr Chauvel will be focusing on that is the case. 
I think what we have seen is a Prime Minister who has been too relaxed in the running of his Cabinet. He is a person who has smiled at Gerry Brownlee as Gerry Brownlee tiptoes—well he hardly tiptoes— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Come on! 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: —stumbles—through this area. We have seen a Prime Minister who has not been holding his Ministers to account for being on top of their portfolios. We have a Prime Minister who is not requiring regular reports on issues vital to New Zealand. It should have been obvious. Certainly in the time that I was Minister for Economic Development at our monthly meetings we would review items of importance to the portfolio; large-screen productions were always part of that and we stayed on top of them. We worked out whether any issues were emerging whether a phone call needed to be made whether people needed to be invited to New Zealand whether we needed to spend some time in the United States whether our consul-general in Los Angeles should make some phone calls or make some visits and when a Minister should be involved. It is just the ordinary stuff of the organisation of proper Cabinet government. It is part of the organisation of the executive. It is part of the role of the Prime Minister to ensure that the basic work of Government occurs. What we have seen with the approach of this Prime Minister is that he actually is not on top of that part of the job. This Prime Minister does very well on photo opportunities and frankly he takes a better photo than many of us. But what he cannot do and what he cannot keep on doing is ignore the basic job and be diverted on to the photo opportunities rather than focus on the job at hand. 
What happens then is what has happened now; we have policy and organisation that end up being run by Kevin Taylor who is known by Mr Brownlee and Mr Joyce as “Captain Panic Pants”. They get “Captain Panic Pants” Mr Kevin Taylor running the show and out of that we get policy and expenditure that is totally unnecessary. Because Gerry Brownlee Steven Joyce and Chris Finlayson—as Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage as well as Attorney-General—have not been doing their jobs properly we have a crisis that is manufactured in the end by Warner Bros. Warner Bros can see an opportunity. Warner Bros can see a Government that has not been doing its work. It can see Ministers who are not across the facts and who do not understand the way the movie industry works. They do not understand that when Warner Bros has put $100 million already into producing  
The Hobbit 
 in New Zealand the chances are that it will want to do it here. So what do they do? In their panic they start writing out cheques. 
Again I want to put on record that I am not opposed to the adjustment of the grants scheme. I adjusted it myself on three or four occasions after discussions to make it more appropriate to make it work for New Zealand to make it work for the film industry and to encourage movies to come to New Zealand. That was a good thing to do. But I do object to writing out cheques not for joint advertising or for the promotion of New Zealand but for the promotion of a particular movie. It is a direct subsidy; a cheque written out that goes straight into the profits of Warner Bros for work that it would have done anyway. 
There is a precedent for how Governments do this. When they want to promote New Zealand they use our promotion agencies such as New Zealand Trade and Enterprise and Tourism New Zealand. They leverage around the world off the premieres of these movies; we do that. It is absolutely inappropriate to do what the Government has been doing—that is throwing cash that we do not have a lot of according to Bill English at people not because it is necessary and not because it makes a difference but because the Government was not prepared to do the work that it should have done. The Government was caught with its pants down. John Key was caught with his pants down and Warner Bros took advantage of that. 
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP (Minister of Defence) 
: 
 I say that Trevor Mallard’s amendment will not be agreed to. It is stupid and it is fatuous. 
Sometimes it is very clear where fault lies and where the jury of public opinion thinks it lies. More important the jury of the people in the industry knows where the fault lies. It is absolutely clear who the offenders are. This is one of those cases. Unfortunately Labour due to its ideological blinkers cannot see that fact. The fault here lies with the unions. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Wayne was in the Labour Party. 
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: One of the reasons I left was because of the unions in fact. In this instance the unions were totally at fault. They caused this. They have caused the disruption they have destroyed the certainty and we have had to act. What is the evidence for that? I have to say it is pretty clear. Sir Peter Jackson was in no doubt. He said that the first indication he got of this was a global boycott of these two movies. There was no discussion and there were no negotiations; just the indication a clear statement of a global boycott. Meetings up in Auckland run by Jennifer Ward-Lealand who I have to say disappeared out of this pretty quick and Robyn Malcolm who I have to say was a bit slower to leave organised this global boycott which was orchestrated by the Australian union. In that circumstance the world had changed. It was no good talking about the previous 5 years or the previous 10 years the world had changed due to as Peter Jackson himself said the triggering of the nuclear option—do that and one changes things fundamentally. Labour fundamentally refuses to recognise that if certainty is destroyed then an industry is destroyed and we came perilously close to that in this particular instance. So we have had to fix that up. 
Labour members say and I have heard a number of them say it today that they support  
The Hobbit  
being filmed in New Zealand. On one level I guess they do; at an emotional level I guess they do. 
Hon Steven Joyce 
: Theoretically. 
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: Theoretically. But are Labour members willing to do anything practical? Are they willing to do the key things that have to be done to ensure that these movies come to New Zealand? Well no they are not. Labour members might say in a theoretical sense they support the film industry but in a practical sense they do not support the billion dollar movies not the $100 million movies not the $50 million movies and not in fact these little videos that have been just referred to. On the big issues on the day Labour will be judged by the public to be against the 
 Hobbit 
 movies because it has not supported the key thing that matters in this instance. 
I have read the Three Foot Six judgment in which the court said “It was not open to the Court to reach a decision that had general application to the film industry.” So even though the court recognised that its decision would cause trouble for the industry it had no choice under Labour’s law but to rule in the way it did. That is because the 2000 Employment Relations Act required the courts to ignore what was written down in the documents and follow other indicators which were largely drawn from the Income Tax Act as to whether there would be an independent contract or a dependent contract situation. The old law had the virtue of certainty. The one thing that business absolutely requires is certainty especially global businesses and especially when the wreckers of the union movement have destroyed that certainty. 
This Government is about to restore certainty one way or another. We have said to the people in the industry that they have a choice. If they choose to be independent contractors then that choice will bind them which always used to be the law before the 2000 Act and which was recognised by the Supreme Court itself. If people choose to be employees then that will also bind them and that has consequences as well. I ask Labour members what is wrong with that. What is wrong with people having a clear choice? There is the independent contract on the one hand and the employee contract on the other. What is wrong with that? There is a clear choice and effectively a situation where the contracts are of limited duration not for permanent employment but for event-related situations where there is a clear ability to have that choice. The global industry needed that certainty because it had been disrupted. Who disrupted it? The unions did. Did Labour complain about that? No its instinctive position was to support the unions. At one level I can understand that; Labour is dependent on union support. But that will also destroy its reputation in the industry at the moment and will destroy its capability to negotiate internationally. 
This Government is clear on this: we are determined to grow the New Zealand economy. We are determined to do the things that will get innovation into New Zealand. Weta Digital itself received $5.8 million by way of an innovation grant from Technology New Zealand to build its capability. That money would be down the drain if people listened to Labour because the only relevance of that money is if the movies can be made in New Zealand. One thing has been clear this week and that is that National supports growth in New Zealand. We support innovation in New Zealand. Labour on the other side will go with its cloth-cap mates and will be condemned for it. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 Before the Minister of Labour came to Parliament she was a respected practitioner in a respected firm in Christchurch. So I hope she will take a moment to listen carefully to what I say. I repeat the caution I set out in my first reading speech which was that the Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Bill— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: That’s right I’m so bright! 
CHARLES CHAUVEL 
: The reason that Mr Henare might also want to listen is that he used to know something about industrial relations when he worked for a union. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Before he was fired for bottling someone. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL 
: That is right—before he was fired. But he might want to have a listen just like his colleagues because the problem with this bill—despite all the union bashing from Mr Joyce and others and despite all the rhetoric—is that it does not do what National thinks it will do. It will have real and problematic consequences for this Government from its small and medium enterprise constituency and others if National allows this legislation to pass in its current form. All I am doing in this second reading speech is asking the Minister to consider with some care what I am saying. I am not motivated by any desire other than to see this Parliament get the law right and to not make fools of ourselves on this occasion. But I fear that if we pass the legislation in its current form as we appear likely to do that is exactly what we will do. 
The bill on its face provides that a film production worker as defined is to be excluded from the definition of “employee” under the Employment Relations Act. 
Hon Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Unless they choose otherwise. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL 
: Mr Mapp is right—unless they choose otherwise. A proviso deals with that in clause 4(2) of the amendment bill. Here is where the problem arises. The proviso is poorly drafted. It is poorly drafted and it will allow for a litigation bonanza if it is allowed to be maintained in its current form. I will repeat what I said in my first reading speech to describe why that is. The proviso applies employment law notwithstanding the principal provision in the amendment to a person who is “a party to or covered by an employment agreement that provides the person is an employee.” So the first problem is that it is a circular definition. 
The second problem and this is where the litigation bonanza will arise is that as soon as anything goes wrong in a workplace relationship—let us use the generic term—in the film industry after the passage of this legislation aggrieved parties will submit a personal grievance to the Employment Relations Authority and say that they should have the benefit of the proviso because they are subject to an employment agreement. They will do that because it is much cheaper as we know to pursue a personal grievance than it is to mount a commercial dispute through the Districts Courts or through the High Court. 
But how will they be able to do this? Well most people with some experience in employment law know a couple of basic things. Firstly an employment agreement need not be in writing. Nothing in this legislation—again despite the rhetoric we have heard from members opposite—will change that basic attribute of the law. Its existence and terms in any case are a mixed question of fact or law in the first instance for the Employment Relations Authority and thereafter for the courts to determine on appeal. 
How will they do this? How will the courts decide whether there is an employment relationship on foot that allows somebody to claim the benefit of the proviso? They will apply the tests that were applied in the Bryson case. The reason they will do that is those tests despite what Mr Mapp said have been applied by the common law courts to determine whether an employment relationship exists in any case for about the last 150 years across the common law world. Mr Mapp can shake his head as much as he likes but if he reads the Supreme Court decision he will see that much of the criticism that was directed at the Employment Court judge was that she was said to have erred in law by applying some new test to discover the existence of an employment relationship beyond what would have applied after 2000. She is said to have misapplied the TNT Express Worldwide case which was the leading case before Bryson. The Supreme Court said that there was actually no great difference in the tests. The law was not substantially altered on this point by the 2000 legislation. 
I was astounded to hear the Minister quote an actor from Christchurch saying that the Labour Government should have fixed the law on its watch. The fact is that this was the last piece of litigation that dealt with this question in New Zealand. Five years ago the law was settled by the Supreme Court in the Bryson case. The reason the law has not been touched since then is that it is settled. It is really clear. The tests that should be applied to determine whether an employment relationship or a contracting relationship exists in any case are clear and settled matters of law. 
We heard members opposite say that the law should be that if a label appears in a relationship—if somebody says they are a contractor or that someone is a contractor to them and they are that person’s principal—then that should be the end of it. What if the facts in Bryson apply? What if the relationship bears no resemblance to an independent one? What if it is clearly an employment relationship by law? Should we condone the sham? Should we participate in the lie? Should Parliament say that the party with the economic power can call it whatever it likes even 6 months into the relationship once it is well on foot and that will be an end to the inquiry? Is it saying that never mind whether the relationship is clearly something other than one of principal and contractor if the person in the relationship with the economic power wants to call it that of contractor then that should be the end of the inquiry? I do not think so. That will never be the law in this country because the common law courts will never apply the law in that way—they never have. I seriously doubt that unless this Parliament uses the clearest words which it is not doing on this occasion it ever will. 
Thanks to this amendment we will see more litigation not less. This is a major own goal on behalf of the Government and the Minister. I ask again that they reconsider the drafting and that they think about whether this sort of legislation ought to be rushed through under urgency. In rushing through legislation that she thinks will provide certainty in the film industry the Minister is opening up a whole new area of uncertainty. Parliament will be led tonight into sharing that error unless there is a rethink. It is caused by rushed drafting and because this amendment will not receive proper scrutiny. Unless there is a rethink it will be passed through all its stages in a matter of hours. There will be no select committee process. We will not hear from employment practitioners or Employment Court judges who sometimes take the time to submit on employment law reforms. I guess no one should be surprised by this. By my count this is the 42nd non-Budget piece of legislation since November 2008 to be the subject of the suspension of the Standing Orders. There is a reason that over the past 25 years we have bothered with the select committee process. People out there actually know more stuff about things than we do and sometimes it is a good idea to take their temperature on these matters. This is certainly one of those occasions. 
There is a final reason why our process today is so deplorable. If we put aside the bad drafting which could well have the opposite effect of what the Minister intends and if we put aside the poor process that is again being adopted here by this Parliament under this Government the problem is that we are doing it at the behest of a foreign corporate. Whatever happened to being ambitious for New Zealand? Whatever happened to choosing a brighter future? What about owning our future as a start? On that ground as well as the other two I have described this is a very sad day for New Zealand and for this Parliament. 
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. 
Hon HEATHER ROY (ACT) 
: 
 I rise to speak to the second reading of the Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill. The ACT Party will be supporting this bill as we have already indicated. I will not use my full 10 minutes but I will make some brief comments about what was said by the member we have just heard from Dr Russel Norman. The capacity that people have to turn what they have seen happening into an argument that suits themselves is amazing is it not? We have heard all sorts of things about the unions and I will come back to them. 
Firstly I say to the Green member that those who participated on our behalf in the battles commemorated around this debating chamber—not that they knew they were doing that at the time or knew what would happen in the future—were fighting for freedom. That freedom extends to freedom in the area of employment. What we see in this legislation is a clarification of the sort of arrangement that somebody wants to have with the person who is paying him or her. That might be in an employment capacity with an employer and an employee or it might be a different sort of arrangement that somebody wants to have in terms of having a contract. This legislation clarifies the difference between those two arrangements and that is a good thing. 
My regret with this bill is that it is called the Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill. I would like to have seen this bill called the “Employment Relations Amendment Bill” and to see this provision apply not just to film workers but also to all across the board. That would have had me standing here very proudly on my feet to say that we were doing the right thing for the entire population of New Zealand not just for those employed in the film industry. But this is a very good start. We will see what will happen with this bill because who knows where it might lead. That is certainly the hope of the ACT Party. 
I would like to come back to some comments made by the Green Party member who was the previous speaker on the unions. I ask how he could have possibly turned such an abortive attempt by the unions to do something positive for New Zealand into something that was completely counter-productive. It is also why we find ourselves in this very debating chamber tonight when members could have been off home at 6 p.m. as they normally are on a Thursday evening. They could have been back in their constituencies serving all New Zealanders not just trying to patch up a botched job due to the inadequate actions of the unions. We had people here from Australia. Do members think that the chappie from Australia actually had any intention of helping New Zealanders get  
The Hobbit 
 made here? Absolutely not. He had not a jot of an intention of doing that. 
Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman 
: He said he didn’t care. 
Hon HEATHER ROY 
: That is exactly right; I thank Dr Coleman. The chappie from Australia said that he did not care whether  
The Hobbit 
 was filmed in New Zealand. The reason we are here tonight is the parties on this side of the House—the National Party the ACT Party I think United Future and definitely the Maori Party—care about having  
The Hobbit 
 filmed here and that is why we are supporting this bill. 
I regret that this legislation will apply only to the film production industry. It should apply across the board to all New Zealanders so that they can choose what sort of employment circumstances they want. I will end my call there. ACT will support this legislation and we think for the very right reasons this is an important move for New Zealand. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker Roy. I am enjoying listening to the discussion with ears fully open and will continue to support this bill. 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 Today we are discussing the Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill and I think it is time we looked at the reality of what is happening in this House at the moment. The unions went out there and lost a big deal for New Zealand. They went out too hard and they were going to lose this huge deal for New Zealand actors New Zealand artists and New Zealand tourism. They stuffed it up; that is what happened. John Key and his team went in and negotiated a deal that has saved the deal for New Zealand. That is what the public knows. 
The Labour Party and the Green Party members are sitting in the House tonight in the knowledge that they lost it. They know they stuffed it up. They know that their mates made all the mistakes. They come in here and talk about sovereignty and issues like that. They are trying to defend themselves and their actions and say that it is something bigger and different. The reality is that they were donkey deep with the unions. They were behind the unions. They set it up. They were trying to disrupt things and make sure this deal did not come to New Zealand. 
Labour members did not want the 
 Hobbit 
 movies filmed in New Zealand. They did not want them here. They disrupted things for political purposes. The reason we are here now is that the Labour Party lost that deal. National has made the deal happen and today we will be defending that in this House. 
The public out there know that the Government has acted in the best interests of New Zealanders in the best interests of our actors and in the best interests of our artists and that it has the best interests of our film industry at heart. It is not a puppet for a union that is trying to make political capital out of events. It is not a token supporter of this industry which Labour has been for the last 9 years. We are real we are there and we are supporting this industry. 
How dare those members come into this House and try to say that this debate is something about sovereignty when they are trying to cover their tracks. They know deep down in their hearts that they wanted New Zealand to lose  
The Hobbit 
. That is what the Labour Party wanted and what the Green Party wanted. They did not want the best thing for New Zealand; they just wanted to lose it so they could go out and say that National has not delivered for the film industry. I tell those members to get in the real world. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is out of order to question motives or to attribute motives in a way that causes offence. I have taken offence at the comments the member has just made. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: I am trying to be consistent here. I initially ruled that Dr Russel Norman was on the slope but not out and I feel that David Bennett was in about the same territory. He was heading to be out but I do not believe he actually crossed the line. This is a robust debate but I do not believe that he made an accusation of improper motive; I do not believe he actually did that. 
CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to speak on the second reading of the Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill. When I spoke in the first reading I proposed a number of questions. Just to recap I was looking at issues about sovereignty—and other members have spoken about that—the economic and political sovereignty of our country. I was looking at the ability of this Government to handle industrial disputes and I will talk a little about that in this contribution. I also talked about the many questions that the public and the media will be asking I believe over the next few weeks as we get over the hype and get down to the reality. 
I would like to inject some facts into the debate. I think the contribution made by the previous speaker questioning the commitment of this party to the film industry and to the creative industry more generally was just ridiculous. On the facts on Labour’s record it will be seen that that is the case. I think it might be worth that member taking the time to have a look at what was done under the previous Labour Government in terms of our film industry. I also think that the facts so far have talked about what the real situation is in relation to the clarification of the status of workers in the film industry and I will come back to that point. 
I think Charles Chauvel raised a really important point about what this bill will do and whether it will have some fairly major consequences that will be in complete contradiction of what the Government says it is trying to do; I hope that the Minister is taking that seriously. David Parker also raised some very important issues about negotiation and brinkmanship and the Government’s role there. 
Facts are important in a debate and I hope that members on the other side start to inject some facts into the debate instead of spin after spin. I am sure the speaking notes of members on the other side of the House say things like: “Remember to praise the Prime Minister; John Key saved the day.” and “Remember to attack the unions.” because after all unions of course could not possibly want jobs in this country—that would be hard to believe would it not? I am sure the third part says: “Don’t forget to say that Labour doesn’t want  
The Hobbit 
 made in New Zealand.” This is all completely ridiculous spin. Spin is what it is. 
The list of questions I raised in my first reading speech have now been added to and after dealing with the matter of this dispute I will hopefully come back to my additional questions. The Government’s role in the handling of this dispute I think has been quite extraordinary. The Minister of Labour has been completely absent and that has been the situation since this Government was elected. In any situation that has involved difficulties in relation to negotiations and at times when some big issues have been on the table there has been no sign of the Minister of Labour. She is just not interested in getting in there and trying to work with the parties. 
The reality has been that the change that was being talked about the issue that was on the table was not about clarifying the status of people in the film industry. It was not about whether they were independent contractors or whether they were employees so goodness knows why we have this legislation in front of us. The issue at dispute was about independent contractors trying to improve their situation and their conditions of being independent contractors and having the ability to act collectively to do that. It was not about getting a collective employment agreement as some have asserted; it was about acting collectively. That is not a surprise. It is something that has happened before. Others in this House are fully aware of the importance of the pink book that sets industry standards. The dispute was about trying to improve on those standards. That is what was at stake there. International actors organisations were supporting New Zealand actors in that intention. That is what was going on. It was not about whether people were independent contractors or employees and whether they were negotiating a collective employment agreement; it was about whether they were able to act collectively to improve their situation. The bill before the House does not deal with that issue so I just make that point. 
I have been listening very carefully to the debate and I think that more and more questions are coming up. I hope that the New Zealanders who are listening to this debate will take the time to think through some of these things. I am sure they will because people are not stupid. People do not think that this is about whether Labour wanted to destroy  
The Hobbit 
 and the chance for  
The Hobbit 
 to be made in New Zealand. That is clearly ridiculous; it is not about that issue. 
What did Warner Bros require or not require? We have heard completely different views. Mr Joyce said that Warner Bros did require this legislation that is before the House and Mr Brownlee said that the company did not require anything—that none of this was Warner Bros’ idea; it was the Government’s idea. 
Another question that has been added to my list asks why there is such a need to attack unions and vilify people like Helen Kelly. What is that about? I think that what is going on here despite Heather Roy’s great assertions about freedom is that the other side of the House has no commitment to the freedom for workers to join together collectively and no commitment to the freedom for unions to attempt to improve the situation of people in their industry so they can act together. In fact legislation that we were dealing with in the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee just this morning shows quite clearly that this Government is willing to reduce rights and to attack workers’ conditions and their ability to organise. So I think that the reason for speech notes across the House and for every single member across the House to attack unions is that that is what those members believe. They believe that unions have no role. 
Frankly I think the vilification of Helen Kelly is most unfortunate. Not too long ago John Key was very pleased to ensure that Helen Kelly was right there at the Job Summit and National was supposedly great friends with the trade union movement. But I think that this bill is about the Government not liking the opposition that the trade union movement is putting up to the changes that this Government is putting in place; the trade union movement is calling this Government to account for a lack of focus on jobs and on skills. When people start to analyse the facts they will see that the Council of Trade Unions intervened to try to resolve this dispute and in fact it was successfully part of doing so. That fact has been conveyed. People can deny it as much as they like; the facts are there. Warner Bros knew that the ban had been lifted that the dispute was settled and that the parties intended to renegotiate the pink book I referred to earlier. 
I will raise a few other questions. As I said I hope the Minister has taken very significant note of what my colleague Charles Chauvel who is an expert in employment law has said about this bill because it is important that we look at it. This is the problem in forcing through legislation under urgency and in not getting advice or submissions or having people who know what they are talking about when analysing legislation. 
Another question we need to ask—and I am sure the public will be asking—is why on earth would there be truth in what the Government has been saying about Labour not supporting the film industry or  
The Hobbit  
being made in New Zealand. I have already commented on our track record and I think the facts speak for themselves but let us use just common sense and logic. We like everybody else as all the speakers from this side of the House have said are very proud of our film industry. We are very proud of the contribution that films like  
The Lord of the Rings  
have made to our economy in providing jobs and in profiling our country. So what the Government has said just does not stack up. I wonder whether members opposite think that the entire country is going to let them get away with the assertions and untruths that are coming through in this debate. I think that people will start to unpick the facts now that the issue of  
The Hobbit  
being made in New Zealand is settled. They will start to look at what happened and at who said what. They will start to ask some of these questions so I think members really need to start debating the facts. 
Finally going back specifically to the bill that we are dealing with in this House tonight I say that this bill will not fix the problem that those across the House say exists. 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 Let us be quite clear in the second reading of the Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill. I will quote John Armstrong that great resident—although he has not got his citizenship yet—in the  
New Zealand Herald  
today. He said: “The Government has made the right decision for the film industry and for the wider economy.” So why are we not happy? We should be happy. Do members know why? Because there are thousands of jobs being created by none other than John Key and Warner Bros sitting down and seeing whether they could not work through the issues. There will be the promotion of this country around the world with the help of people who know what they are talking about when they make movies—that is Warner Bros. That is a great thing. 
Another thing that we should be happy about is that there will be at least $700 million going into our economy. That is not a maximum; that is a minimum. A minimum of $700 million will go into our economy and who sneezes at it? The Greens and Labour. 
Kelvin Davis 
: We’re sneezing at this dumb law. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Oh that is right. That was from the member from up north somewhere. Basically what he is saying is that the workers do not count. In the last couple of days the union movement and Labour went and scabbed on their own members. They went and scabbed on workers in this country and all the ex - union officials know what I am talking about. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I take offence at the use of the word “scab” in relation to the Labour Party. We may be many things but we are certainly not that. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: I am reflecting on that word. I am uncomfortable with it so I ask the member to desist from using it. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Oh well I am not allowed to say— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am going to ask you to be a little stronger on that word. It is a word that has been ruled out and people have apologised for it in the past. To be absolutely clear for members of the labour movement it is an extremely offensive term. I think you need to look at the face of the member who used it to see that he knows that. 
Chris Tremain 
: Throughout yesterday the Opposition particularly Mr Iain Lees-Galloway and the member across the House Kelvin Davis used the term “bent over” which is exceptionally offensive particularly because that party claims to look after women’s rights and gay rights. I have to say that that was particularly offensive. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: I happened to be in the Chair at that time and I asked that member to desist in much the same way as the member has been asked on this occasion. It is a robust debate as one would expect. I have said to the member to not use the word again and I will stand by that. I understand what other members have done but this a robust debate. I ask that the word not be included from this point on. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I want to try to get this one right because I cannot remember whether there is still a list of proscribed words but there certainly used to be a black book to which Speakers went that had a list. That list included the word “scab”. The problem that I have is that previous Speakers have repeatedly ruled it out. It now appears like you are saying that it is not something to be withdrawn and apologised for when previous Speakers have ruled in the opposite direction. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: The member will know that I have been here for some time as well and I have quite a good memory. I am trying to recall any circumstances surrounding this word. I agree that it is an inappropriate word to use in this House. I have been looking at Speaker’s ruling 55/7 which states a word or phrase is inappropriate if it will bring disorder to the House. I have simply ruled out the word. From this point on it is not a word that will take place in this debate . I stand by that. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: If I am not allowed to use that word how about— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think you are aware that notwithstanding the unfortunate nature of your ruling he is not allowed to refer to it. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: The member ought not to have referred to it as being “unfortunate” on my part as well. We will put this word and any acknowledgment of it completely away. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Not a problem. “Rogered” is another word— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. If we go back to just the first three words that the member used we see that they were a comment again on your ruling. I think there is a matter of being able to take an instruction from the Chair rather than to comment on the rulings the Chair has been making. Thank you. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: I think it is now time for the dinner adjournment where we shall all partake of some sustenance and reflect on our good behaviour in the House. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Before the dinner break I was told that I should not use a certain word. I am asking for clarification. Am I not allowed to use the word full stop or only in— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I am not aware of the word. At this stage we are starting a new session after dinner so I ask the member to continue. It depends on what the word is. If it offends somebody or someone sees it as a personal reflection under Standing Order 116 they can object to it and take offence. Let us move on. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Every word has a genealogy or a whakapapa of where it comes from. The word that I am not allowed to use— 
Jacqui Dean 
: What word? 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: It is like “fink” “informer” “canary” “nark” “rat” “snake” “snitch” “squealer”— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: This is a “Tau”. It’s self-definition. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: I do not get upset by those members. They know what they are and they know what they and their mates them and that mob from Australia did to workers. “Mob” is not a derogatory word; in fact the Aboriginal people use it as a word for a group of people. The mob from Australia came over then Helen Kelly and that Malcolm woman conspired. They thought they were conspiring. I suppose one Robyn Malcolm did it because she really wanted  
The Hobbit 
 to be made in New Zealand although I have my doubts. As for the others I say that Helen Kelly would not know what time of day it was over this issue. She fell for the trap that was put there by the Australian guy—what is his name? Steven Fibs? 
Hon Member 
: Simon Whipp. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Simon Fibs. 
Hon Member 
: Whipp. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Simon Whipp. I am sorry; those Australian names are hard to pronounce. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Those f’s and w’s. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: That is absolutely right. I will continue: “snitch” “squealer” “tattle-tale” “weasel” “whistleblower” and this one to round it all off: “blackleg”. That is a really nasty one. They all come from the word “scab”. That is right; I have said it. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. We had quite a long discussion with the Chair previously and it was made clear that that word could not be applied in the House. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I thank the member for that. I watched that interchange before the dinner break. The member cannot use the word “scab”. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Thank you. This is nothing more than a failed attempt by the Australian to do what? I do not know. To ruin the film industry? I say congratulations to our Prime Minister. The members opposite say that it cost us. I say to them listen it cost us nothing. It cost us nothing because we will get thousands of jobs in return and $700 million at a bare minimum will go into the economy. 
What we are doing here tonight is not about railroading workers’ rights or taking away rights; it is about saying that if someone signs on as an employee then that is what they are; but if someone signs on as an independent contractor then that is what they are. That is what we are doing tonight. To say that we are in the hands of Warner Bros and all that sort of Cold War stuff is really old socialist Commo red pinko rubbish. It harks back to a golden age when some of this House followed some naughty people from around the world who were communists and Trotskyites. It is really hard case to listen to some of the speeches from the other side of the House. It really does hark back to a golden age for them but this country and this House have moved on. 
We want to see a thriving film industry. By doing what he did the other day John Key has saved the film industry. In fact—and I might finish on this point—he took away any chance although it was very slim that the Labour Party had of winning the next election. He took it away. Now what we see in the House tonight are some kids who are really really disappointed that they have had their little toy their little dummy taken off them. That is what we have. 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 Well I will not make reference to who the dummy is around here. I think it is obvious that some people enjoyed a good dinner before they came back to the House given the mispronunciation of names that was prevalent in the early part of the previous speech. 
As I said in my address on the first reading of the Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill it is pretty clear that there has been a lot of brinksmanship around  
The Hobbit 
. There was brinksmanship by the unions there was brinksmanship by Warner Bros and there was brinksmanship by the Government. We all know that Warner Bros plays a hard game. It did it when Labour was in Government. It always tried to ratchet up the terms and conditions that it got so as to make its film enterprises more profitable and it has done it again with this Government. 
According to Mr Tau Henare what has happened here has cost nothing. “It cost us nothing” was the phrase he used. Warner Bros has had $34 million in extra money out of the New Zealand taxpayer— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Same as the private schools got. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Yes it is the same as the amount of extra money that went into the private school sector in the Government’s recent Budget—$34 million was at stake for Warner Bros. It is a lot of money even to Warner Bros and it played a game of brinksmanship. 
It is also true that the union movement had played a game of brinksmanship earlier. The union movement had pulled out by 18 October yet some parties to this debate have had the dishonesty to assert that after 18 October the union movement was still holding a gun to the head of the other parties involved. We had an email from one Warner Bros person to another on 18 October American time showing that Warner Bros knew by then that the threat that it perceived to be apparent from the union movement—the threat may have been overstated but it was whatever threat Warner Bros saw—had gone. Yet after that date we had the Government pretending that that was the reason it had to take this step in respect of this law change which has been forced upon us. 
We also heard Mr Henare say that what the Government is doing is making it clear that if people are contractors then they are contractors and if people are employees then they are employees. That is not what this legislation actually does. Phil Twyford described this legislation to me in his office before the dinner break as formalising a fiction. That is a very good description of what is happening here. It allows people to pretend that an employment relationship is a contractual relationship and even if it is an employment relationship they will call it a contractual one. It formalises a fiction. 
Why is that important? It is important because there are different rights and responsibilities depending on whether people have a contractual relationship or an employment relationship. Contractors do not get holiday pay they pay their own tax they are not entitled to the minimum wage and they are not entitled to sick pay. That is absolutely permissible under our system of law. I am not criticising that; people can choose to have a contractual relationship rather than a relationship as an employee. But the point is that they can already do that at law and we do not need to have this law which effectively formalises a fiction. 
People can under this law have an employment relationship but at law it will be a contractual relationship without employee protections. That is what this law does and it is completely unnecessary because the law relating to contractual relationships is already clear. It has been clear since the Supreme Court decision that was referred to in earlier speeches was delivered 5 years ago. That law has not been problematic since. The organisations that are involved in this multi-hundred-million-dollar enterprise have the very best of lawyers. They have the very best of systems. They can ensure already that they engage people through contracts as contractors rather than as employees. They do not need this legislation. 
The reality is that this legislation is a piece of political opportunism by the Prime Minister and the National Government. They played a game of brinksmanship in respect of whether they could get Warner Bros over the line. I am not blaming the Government for all this brinksmanship; Warner Bros always plays this game. 
The Prime Minister and the National Government were not sure that the $34 million they eventually paid was going to get them here. They thought that they might lose this deal to Ireland or some other film-making country so they wanted someone else to blame—despite the fact that the unions had already stopped their game of brinksmanship and despite the fact that the Labour Party has never been meaningfully involved in these negotiations. Indeed I can attest to that. I remember talking to Trevor Mallard who said that it would be inappropriate for Labour to be stepping into this space because that was the role of the Government and that if he had been the Minister—and he used to be the Minister—and a National Opposition had involved itself in those negotiations then he would have thought that that was inappropriate. That is why Trevor Mallard said that we should stay out of these negotiations and we did. So for the Prime Minister to assert that we are somehow complicit in trying to undermine the likelihood that  
The Hobbit 
 would be filmed here is absolute rubbish. 
I will deal with something that Rodney Hide said. Rodney Hide came down to the Chamber and said that Labour members were without principle. That little hobbit is the man who came to this Parliament and put David Garrett into the position of his law and order spokesperson after he had taken a donation from the Sensible Sentencing Trust. He put him in that position knowing that he had used name suppression to keep his conviction for stealing the identity of a young child for the purpose of passport fraud out of the public eye. That sort of double standard is what I call a lack of principle. That is a lack of principle. I say to Mr Hide that he should not come down here and talk about principle and neither should the Prime Minister because the Prime Minister described Mr Hide’s dealing with those issues as “well handled”. That is a lack of principle from the Prime Minister. That is a lack of principle from ACT. I tell Mr Hide that he should not come here and lecture us about principle because those are both unprincipled acts. 
This legislation is unnecessary. I agree with those people who say that it is not all the fault of the National Government that it had to pay more money in order to secure the Warner Bros films. I agree with that. We did it ourselves when in Government. However I would criticise the way that the Government has done it as it is funding an individual enterprise rather than changing the criteria for major films that could be applied to other enterprises. To me that is really just interfering in an individual contract too directly rather than using a principled approach. 
Paul Quinn 
: Come on David. You know about contracts—interfering in the Auckland Airport sale. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Paul Quinn asks about the Auckland Airport sale but actually I was exercising ministerial discretion. The member obviously does not understand the difference. National would have approved the sale of Auckland Airport to overseas interests just as National has allowed its tummy to be tickled by Warner Bros and allowed our labour laws to be changed as a consequence of this deal and just as it has ticked off every land purchase sought by overseas owners since it took office. 
This legislation is not necessary. It formalises a fiction. We see that the Minister of Labour with this rushed legislation has already had to put an amendment on the Table because she learnt from what Charles Chauvel said in an earlier contribution. Charles Chauvel was right and I see the Minister is nodding. I thank her for the acknowledgment that Charles Chauvel was right on the point that this law as drafted in this hastily put together legislation would not have even achieved the intent that the Government wanted to achieve were it not for the amendment that the Minister has now put forward. We will be voting against that amendment as well but no doubt National with the support of ACT and the Maori Party will ram it through under urgency. 
Paul Quinn 
: That’s a term you understand very well isn’t it? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Oh here we go! We have  
The Muppets 
 now. We are actually debating  
The Hobbit 
 not  
The Muppets 
. We have the two elderly puppets on the back row—Tau Henare and Paul Quinn—who are as ill informed as those elderly puppets in  
The Muppets 
. They cannot quite hear what is going on always get a bit confused and make inappropriate interjections. 
This is bad law. It is unnecessary law. It is driven by a political agenda on the part of the National Government which was so close in its brinkmanship that it wanted someone else to blame. 
Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) 
: 
 I am pleased to speak to the second reading of the Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill. This bill will bring clarity to an area of employment law that needs it. It will make clear the status of an employee versus a contractor. Basically employees are employees and contractors are contractors and someone who is employed as a contractor cannot later be deemed to be an employee. It is as simple as that. It will give certainty to both employees and contractors and certainly to the film sector which welcomed this bill. It is important to note that when individuals want to work in the film sector it would be a voluntary choice as to whether they will be contractors or employees. No one will be coercing them into either role; it will be a free choice. It is all about choice. 
This situation has arisen from the industrial action over the last few weeks which highlighted this very concern about the lack of clarity so the Government has responded to it. This bill will rectify the situation so there is clarity and no confusion. Employees are employees and contractors are contractors. It will bring clarity and give confidence to the film sector. The two  
Hobbit 
 movies will bring an estimated $670 million to the New Zealand economy and this legislation will protect the jobs of thousands of New Zealanders. Surely that must be welcomed particularly in this economic climate. The film industry in total is worth almost $3 billion to the economy. This bill will help to give confidence to that sector and that also should be welcomed. I am sure that the 
 Hobbit 
 movies will not be the last movies that are made in New Zealand. I am sure there will be many more because there will be much more confidence. 
I was overseas for the past week and I was getting reports from time to time. I was quite concerned that the whole situation was unravelling and derailing. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: On the world stage! 
Dr JACKIE BLUE 
: I certainly was. Fortunately the Prime Minister stepped in and was able to sort all this out. Thank goodness for his doing so. It has been a very sorry affair. 
Iain Lees-Galloway 
: That is what the line says is it? 
Dr JACKIE BLUE 
: No. The Government is determined to use this opportunity to present New Zealand in the best light as a great place to visit and to promote tourism. I know that this legislation will help with that. I commend this bill to the House. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: This debate is concluded. We have an amendment in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard. He has moved an amendment to omit the word “now” and substitute the words “until the bill has been amended” to remove clause 4 and to insert a schedule of employment protections. The amendment is not in order. On a second reading an unequivocal decision must be reached: either the principles of the bill are adopted or they are not. I refer the member to Speaker’s ruling 103/5. An amendment that adds words attaches conditions and leaves the House’s decision unclear is out of order. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I want to discuss the ruling you have just made. I refer you to page 365 of  
Parliamentary Practice in New Zealand  
by David McGee and to the section on adverse or reasoned amendments. He says: “An amendment moved on the question for the second reading may put forward an abstract proposition relating to the bill—what is known as a reasoned amendment. The proposition will be unfavourable to the bill receiving its second reading that day but it must offer an alternative to the second reading. An amendment declining to give a bill a second reading until certain amendments had been made to it and the money saved expended in other ways was accepted because it offered an alternative course of action to the second reading.” 
What my amendment does is give an alternative course of action. The alternative course of action is obviously the inclusion of an area of employment protection. So it satisfies that test. I assure you that I have looked very carefully at the Standing Orders and Speakers’ rulings in this area and I have taken advice on it. The advice that I have is not consistent with the ruling you have given. I do not know whether there is much more that I can say other than that this is considered it is reasoned and it meets the McGee test set out on page 365 and that area of the Standing Orders has not been changed. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I note in regard to the comment relating to McGee page 365 that a reasoned amendment must offer an alternative to the second reading and that the issues contained in the bill must be taken up in a different way or forum. The member’s amendment simply offers alternatives for possible consideration in the Committee if they are in fact in order. There is opportunity for the member’s amendment to be dealt with in the Committee of the whole House. I ruled it out for those reasons so I intend to put the question. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I refer you to the very example in McGee where it indicates that “certain amendments had been made to it and the money saved expended in other ways”. That is something that could also have been dealt with in the Committee stage of the legislation—at least according to the book by the previous Clerk of the House and based on the one example the one precedent example that is given there and my understanding is that that goes to the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Amendment Bill back in 1939. So the precedents are not new for this sort of change and the advice I have received is that there has been no change in the Standing Orders that would change that. 
So I reiterate that although it might be an alternative to deal with this in the Committee stage—and I am sure there will be discussions in Committee about quite a large number of alternatives—the fact that it may be dealt with there does not mean it has to be. The example given—money saved being expended in different ways—is something that could also be dealt with very easily within the Committee stage. A finance bill or a Reserve Bank bill are the obvious cases. The case now is that— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I thank the member for those comments and I have McGee open at the page. My ruling is based on the fact that the amendment you have put forward is differently framed from what you are referring to in McGee on page 365. The member’s amendment is entirely in terms of omitting a clause and inserting a schedule. This is a very narrow bill; it has only four clauses. So doing what the member wants to do is foreign to the bill and I have ruled the amendment out of order on that basis. 
Can I refer the member to McGee—obviously you have McGee there—page 364. It states: “On the second reading of a bill members are asked to endorse the bill by giving it a second reading but they may instead decide to defer a decision on it or decide definitively that it should not proceed. Deferral or defeat can also be effected by amending the question for the bill’s second reading. The question for the second reading of the bill is open to amendment in a way that is relevant to one of these objects.” The member’s amendment does not ask for a deferral or for a defeat. “An amendment which merely seeks to add words to the motion does not do either of these things. Such an amendment would attach conditions to the second reading and leave the House’s decision unclear.” On that basis I have ruled the amendment out. 
A party vote  was called for on the question  
That the Employment Relations (Film Production) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand Labour 41; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Bill read a second time. 
In Committee 
Clause 1 Title 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 It will not surprise members of the Government that there will be a number of amendments. The first of the amendments in my name indicates that the words “Film Production Work” in the title should be omitted and “As Requested by Warner Bros” be substituted. We looked at a number of possible titles and did so very recently given the Minister’s adoption of the suggestions of Mr Charles Chauvel. We thought about the title “Employment Relations (Hurriedly and Badly Drafted) Amendment Bill” but we thought that you Mr Chairperson might regard that as something that is facetious. 
We are focusing on trying to get an appropriate title for a bill that is inappropriate and people who look carefully at this bill will not be able to find a title that fits the bill if it is to be considered in a serious manner. The legislation is to be called the Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Act 2010. There is a question there about whether that title is appropriate whether we want an Act of that sort and whether this legislation is designed to focus on an employment relationship. 
I think if we look carefully at the bill and at the intentions of the Government in this area we see that the bill should in fact be titled the “Not an Employment Relations Amendment Bill”. To use the vernacular of Tau Henare it should be the “Employment Relations—Not—Bill”. The Government is saying that this is not an employment relationship so why is it giving the bill a title that suggests that it is? I am sure we will work our way over the next period of time around a number of alternatives that the bill could be called. It could be the “Employment Relations (John Key Kowtowing) Bill”. Mr Brownlee nods his head. I am pleased to see that he accepts the possibility of it being called the “Employment Relations (John Key Kowtowing) Bill”. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: The only one who kowtows around here is that member. Bent over for the unions. That’s him. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: He got bent over. He got rogered. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I think I can anticipate what the point of order is. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Both of them? Did you get the other one? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Well this is a robust debate. I think when the member starts using words like “kowtow”—and I mentioned a bevel in an earlier debate—we start down that process where each response tends to— 
Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman 
: Escalate. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I am on my feet but thank you. Yes it escalates. I try to be fair about this. We have suggested that the term “bend over” should not be used in this debate because of its ambiguity. If we allow it then things degenerate. In the same way I could say that the member’s using the term “kowtow” does exactly the same thing. I will try to keep this debate on a level track. I cannot control what members say; I can only at points in the debate say that we have gone too far. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. That was not actually the offensive term. I do not know whether I have to repeat what Mr Henare said but he used an extremely offensive term. I ask that he be asked to withdraw and apologise for the unparliamentary term he used. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I did not hear; my focus was on something else. If the member said something unparliamentary let us just withdraw it now. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: I did not say anything unparliamentary. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I think we now have a question but we will deal with it through privilege. The member said that I was rogered. I find that exceptionally offensive and I ask for it to be withdrawn. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I must be sort of pure because I really do not understand the significance of that term—and I say that genuinely. But offence has been taken and I ask the member to withdraw. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: I withdraw. I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Last night one of our colleagues took offence at something. She asked you four times for the— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: The member cannot refer to something that is not current. At that time I gave a ruling and I am not going to recanvass that issue. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I think if most members argued with you from their seat after you ruled and called you contradictory you would call them to order. That is what the member just did. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I was listening very carefully. The member said “it contradicts”; he did not personalise it. I am prepared to move on with the debate. I am watching very carefully. If I have to be more vigilant about words that are said I will be. But I want this debate to actually flow. I think that is what we are here for. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Clause 1 is the title clause. It is where we make a decision as to what is an appropriate title for this bill. The Government has suggested Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Act 2010. The Labour Opposition is indicating that it will not support that title because it is inappropriate from a number of angles. One is that it indicates that a particular relationship is not an employment relationship. This bill denies an employment relationship or the opportunity for people to develop an employment relationship—something that is quite foreign to the approach in New Zealand. It says “Film Production Work”. Well if one looks at this bill one sees that it is much broader than film production work. One could start with video games. If Gerry Brownlee and Kate Wilkinson cannot tell the difference between a film and a video game they are of an even worse generation than I am in these matters. I am pretty Neanderthal as far as these things go but I know the difference between a video game and a film. 
It is a pity that a number of members opposite like Tau Henare and the Minister in charge of the bill could not focus on getting a title that more accurately describes the content of the legislation. For example I think it is arguable that acting is not a core part of film production. A lot of actors do voice-overs do body doubles—and I think we might have a bit of fun with body doubles as the debate goes on—work as dancers and work as entertainers. The question is whether all of those people should be covered by this legislation and in what circumstances it is appropriate to cover them. 
I am looking forward to the contribution from the Minister in charge of the bill on this particular clause in respect of the appropriateness of the title. I think there will be considerable debate and a number of alternative titles. I think it is fair to say that some of those titles will be facetious; in the end Mr Chairperson you may end up ruling out some of the amendments as they come to the Committee but that will be a matter of judgment for you. We will try to get them to you at least 30 seconds before they are voted on in order for you to give them the consideration that they deserve. I am aware of the rules; as a whip on the other side of the Chamber I did some work on occasions to try to ensure that amendments to title clauses were serious amendments rather than facetious amendments. If they are facetious amendments of course they can be debated but they cannot be voted on. Therefore we will have quite a lot of debate on facetious amendments and some on serious amendments as well. The way the rules go is sort of unusual. It is quite lovely at the moment from our perspective. There is not a limitation on moving the amendments; the limitation is actually on their being put. That is what the Labour Party will do. 
There are a lot of views around as to better words to go in here. I would be interested in the contribution of the Maori Party as to whether we could have some translations that would fit better in here. I do not want to refer too directly to Mr Brownlee or to the description of a relationship that he had at one stage which suggested that someone was a whale rider. There is a question about whether we could have a translation of that and whether we could work that into the title.  
Whale Rider 
 is an iconic New Zealand movie and one that was made under current legislation. We did not need a bill we did not need a particular title and we did not need a new arrangement in order to make it and maybe that was appropriate. 
Maybe for the Maori Party we will go into the more modern era and talk about its subservient approach on this legislation. I congratulate Hone Harawira on withdrawing his vote on this issue and on not voting with National. Given the approach that National has had to the Maori Party recently maybe “Boy” is the right word to be included in the title of this legislation. Maybe that is its approach to the Maori Party in this sort of legislation. I just want to say that the attitude of ACT does not surprise me; that party thinks that the bill does not go far enough and I will be interested in its amendments. It might be the “Employment Relations (ACT Goes Further) Amendment Bill”. 
CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) 
: 
 This is the first opportunity that I have had to take a call on the Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill; I am sure that it will not be the last. I say first of all I am very pleased that  
The Hobbit 
 is to be filmed here in New Zealand. I am absolutely delighted that it is to be filmed here in New Zealand. I am probably one of the only members in the Chamber who has actually read the book— 
Hon Members 
: No! 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: Oh well there must be others. That is good to hear. I am very concerned about National’s approach to this legislation which is to take the George W Bush approach: “You are either with us or with the enemy.” No subtlety is involved in that but actually it is a load of rubbish—an absolute load of rubbish. 
I went to the movies a few weeks ago; I do not do that very often. I went to see the movie called  
Made in Dagenham 
 which was about the women at the Ford factory in London who went on strike and campaigned in order to be paid the same as the blokes. The women were not very popular at the time either— 
Paul Quinn 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I have listened carefully to the speaker. This particular debate is focused on the title clause and he has not mentioned that clause once so far. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: It is of course possible in a debate on a clause to go right through a speech without actually mentioning that clause and for the speech to still be entirely relevant. I think that when the member opposite gets a bit more experience he will understand that. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: There are some accepted norms about process. One is that a title debate is a very close and tight debate. There is also another expectation that when a bill has not been to a select committee there is a slightly wider tolerance than usual. I stress that this is not a general debate. The Chair tends to show a little more tolerance about examples being brought into the process. We are debating clause 1 which is the title clause. 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: I am getting to that. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Then I invite the member to convince me that that is the case. 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: Thank you very much Mr Chair. Twenty seconds into my speech I am getting to the title. I think it is perfectly acceptable to make some preliminary remarks. What I was talking about was—I will come to an alternative title to the bill in a moment—the film  
Made in Dagenham 
 and the fact that the women who campaigned for equal pay with the blokes were pretty unpopular at the time. But they kept on going and ultimately they got what they wanted. As a result of that around the world now Governments have adopted equal pay legislation. 
With that idea of either being for us or against us which we have heard about from the National members they might as well call this bill the “You’re for Us (the Warner Bros - National Party) Or You’re Against Us Bill”. They may as well call the bill that because effectively that is what they have come into this Chamber and argued. It is absolutely ridiculous. I tell members that the women who went on strike in Dagenham were not anti-car. They were not showing that they were anti-car by going on strike at the Ford factory. The people who are opposed to this legislation are not anti- 
Hobbit 
. In fact I am very keen to see  
The Hobbit 
 filmed in New Zealand and I am delighted that that is to happen. I am very pro- 
Hobbit 
. We are very pro- 
Hobbit 
 on this side of the Chamber. 
So I support Mr Mallard’s amendment to clause 1 which suggests removing the words “Film Production Work” and inserting the words “As Requested by Warner Bros” making this bill the “Employment Relations (As Requested by Warner Bros) Amendment Bill”. From the minute that the Warner Bros representatives got off the plane were met by VIP cars at the airport and were swept away to Premier House they would have been rubbing their hands together and thinking: “Gosh we had better up the stakes a bit here. We were going in a bit low; we will go in a bit higher. We will demand more because we know that we have the Government over a barrel. It’s sent these VIP cars out to the airport to meet us. Maybe we can demand whatever we like now because this Government will just give us whatever we like.” 
The Government has raised the cost of keeping  
The Hobbit 
 in New Zealand. The Government’s mishandling of this issue has raised the cost of keeping  
The Hobbit 
 in New Zealand. That is why the Committee should agree to the amendment put forward by Trevor Mallard that this bill should be called the “Employment Relations (As Requested by Warner Bros) Amendment Bill” because that is why we are here. We are here because the Government is basically doing whatever is requested of it by a large multinational company. That company makes millions if not billions of dollars a year in profits and the Government is giving it more in taxpayer subsidies. The Government is giving the company more in taxpayer subsidies because the Government mishandled this issue from the very beginning. It did not have a relationship with Warner Bros at the very beginning. The Government came into this matter only late in the piece after it looked as though the Warner Bros studios would be pulling out of New Zealand altogether. 
The amendment put forward in the name of Trevor Mallard is in fact a perfectly reasonable amendment to the title clause of this bill. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: What is it again? 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: It is to remove the words “Film Production Work” from the title and replace them with “As Requested by Warner Bros”. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: I’ll think about it. 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: Oh Tau Henare is to think about it. He is in charge; he is in charge of everything. With all of the bitter twisted resentment that he has over there on the National backbenches it is good to know that he has still kept his sense of perspective and that he will consider the amendment put forward by Trevor Mallard. Mr Henare is in National these days; it is hard to keep track of him. 
The critical point here in the debate on the title clause is what the appropriate title for this bill should really be. I am not convinced in any way shape or form that in the suggested title the words “Film Production Work” reflect the true intent behind this bill. John Key is actually—I will give him this—a very very clever politician. He is a very clever politician and he wondered how he could do something that he would not normally get away with: how he could turn this situation into something that would allow him to push through legislation that would not normally gain public support. That is why National came up with this amendment bill. I reckon that the Government members went into the negotiations with Warner Bros thinking that they would use this issue as an excuse to push through legislation that they would not normally get away with. What did we hear from Heather Roy before? Heather Roy let slip and revealed the true National Government agenda behind this legislation: those members do not want this legislation to apply only to the film production industry. 
That is why the title of this bill is misleading. We will be back here—in a matter of months I suspect—to debate the extension of this provision to every worker in the country. That is just what the Government did with regard to the 90-day legislation which started out as a trial period. National said it would affect only a small number of people. But what do we know? Within months because the ACT Party told National to do this the National members have come back here and are pushing through further changes to extend the 90-day probationary period to everybody. 
So the title of this bill which is the Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill is actually misleading. We know what the true agenda is. National should just be honest about it and call the bill the “Employment Relations Amendment Bill”. It should remove the words “Film Production Work” from the title altogether. We know that that is not what National is aiming for here. It wants to set a precedent here so that it can come back in a few months’ time and say it does not actually think film production workers should be treated any differently from other workers and this measure should apply to the entire workforce. All of a sudden all those people—and they are quite vulnerable in some cases—will be pushed out into contract work and they will lose all their rights to bargain collectively. The cleaners and caretakers those types of people will suddenly find themselves deemed to be contractors and they will lose a whole lot of the employment rights that they have fought hard for many many years to gain. So the title of this bill is misleading. It is unfair and it does not give New Zealanders a true glimpse of what the National Party’s real agenda here is. 
I am very supportive of having  
The Hobbit 
 made in New Zealand and I absolutely reject the notion that by being opposed to a change to the employment relations legislation we are somehow anti-film or anti -  
The Hobbit 
. That is absolutely ridiculous. It is like saying the women at the Ford factory who campaigned for equal rights were anti-car. It is like saying the Labour Party by arguing against giving Murray McCully sweeping veto powers over the Rugby World Cup is anti - Rugby World Cup or anti - New Zealand which the National members claimed yesterday. That is absolutely ridiculous. The public of New Zealand deserve to have more than those types of sweeping generalisations from the Government. We have not heard from those members any detailed arguments about why this legislation is necessary. They have given us a lot of platitudes about wanting to support having  
The Hobbit 
 made in New Zealand. I support having  
The Hobbit 
 made in New Zealand but they have not given us any detailed reasons as to why this legislation needs to go through. Why is it imperative that a person who cleans the offices at a film production studio should be treated as a contractor and not as an employee which is what this bill does? 
That is one of the reasons—and I come back to the fact that we are debating the title clause—why the words “Film Production Work” in the title clause are misleading. They are misleading because this legislation applies not just to actors the extras the technicians and so on but also to anybody employed in any way in the film production industry. It includes the people who clean the studios or answer the telephones at a film production studio. It extends far wider than the title would suggest. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 I am sure my Labour colleagues will get a chance later on to speak on the Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill. A lot of good suggestions have come out for a title. One of the problems with them though is that they are a little bit long. I am working on shortening the title. For example just using the term “Warners” rather than “as requested by Warner Bros” such as in the “Warners Employment Relations Amendment Bill” would shorten it a bit. Even the “Warners Bill” could be used to abbreviate it. Warner Bros is responsible for this bill but we have to give it respect. I do not know whether it is within the Standing Orders—and possibly the Chair or the Minister in the chair Kate Wilkinson could inform us on this—to use the official Warner Bros logo. Is that possible within the Standing Orders? The Minister could tell me a bit later on. Certainly we want to give Warner Bros recognition because it is the force behind this bill. I also think that it will have to cop all the flak for it and that is fair enough. When opprobrium is heaped on this bill as it causes all the legal tangles that I referred to in my second reading speech and that Charles Chauvel went into some detail about and as it collapses in confusion in the District Court High Court Court of Appeal and Supreme Court if it is called the “Warners Bill” we will know who is really responsible. We do not want Warner Bros to get off the hook in any way. 
Another very short term for the bill would be the “No Strike Bill”. It is very simple because that is what it is about. It denies workers who are in the film industry the right to any collective industrial action at any stage in the production of film. Basically it is because an employer when signing up actors or film workers for a period can say that they have to sign up as independent contractors with no rights or they will not get the job. There is nothing in the bill to stop employers acting in that way. I think we could have a simple title like the “Warners Bill” the “No Strike Bill” or perhaps we could join up those two concepts and have the “Warners No Strike Bill”. I think in some ways Warner Bros is lucky here because normally when we give naming rights and put logos on things we charge the company concerned. Again it might be against the Standing Orders to charge Warner Bros for having its logo on this bill. Even so we are giving it a freebie. That is in the spirit of the bill and in the spirit of what the Government has done. Is it $100 million? I have lost track of the millions that the Government has just handed over to Warner Bros but it would be in the spirit of that to give Warner Bros this freebie of naming rights to the bill and its logo on the bill full stop. Thank you. 
PHIL TWYFORD (Labour) 
: 
 I also have a suggestion for the title of the Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill. I think this bill should be called the “National Party’s Craven Cynical Attempt to Claim Credit for Inventing the New Zealand Film Industry Bill”. Is that too long? I do not know. It does not have the virtue of brevity but it certainly is more accurate than the name that the Government gave this bill. 
We would think from listening to the debate in the Chamber from the Government benches this afternoon that this movie  
The Hobbit 
 was the first blockbuster movie ever made in New Zealand and that the National-ACT Government was the first Government in New Zealand’s history to ever do anything constructive for the New Zealand film industry. We would think that the Prime Minister had saved the day and single-handedly rescued  
The Hobbit 
 
and that he 
alone is responsible for saving the New Zealand film industry. 
I want to table a document during this call that lists the feature films that have been made in New Zealand. It starts off in 1939 with  
Rewi’s Last Stand 
 and the director was Rudall Hayward. Over the years there have been hundreds and hundreds of great New Zealand movies produced in New Zealand many of them with the support of the Government. In 1999 the fifth Labour Government launched a whole suite of policies to encourage the development of the New Zealand film industry. I will read to the Committee some of the names of the films that were produced with the support of the fifth Labour Government. It started with  
The Lord of the Rings 
 I II and III. In 2002 we had  
Whale Rider 
 which was directed by Niki Caro. It is a film that many of us are familiar with. In 2003 we had  
The Last Samurai 
 which I believe was filmed in Taranaki. 
Jacinda Ardern 
: What was the company? 
PHIL TWYFORD 
: I think it might have been Warner Bros—oh my goodness! In 2004 there was a very good film based on the Maurice Gee novel called  
In My Father’s Den 
 which was directed by Brad McGann. Roger Donaldson made  
The World’s Fastest Indian 
 in 2005. Also in 2005 during the term of the fifth Labour Government Andrew Adamson directed  
The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe 
. It was a vintage year. That year Toa Fraser directed  
No. 2 
 Peter Jackson—that is familiar—directed  
King Kong 
 and also in 2005  
Sione’s Wedding 
 was directed by Chris Graham. In 2006 Robert Sarkies made  
Out of the Blue 
—a great New Zealand movie. Taika Waititi made  
Eagle vs Shark 
 a modern classic of New Zealand film making. In 2007  
The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian 
 was made. In 2008  
Second-Hand Wedding 
 was made and Toa Fraser made  
Dean Spanley 
 which was 
a co-production with the UK—another great New Zealand movie. 
I think it is becoming pretty clear even to the members sitting on the backbench even to Tau Henare that the previous Labour Government gave fantastic support to the New Zealand film industry. In fact 119 New Zealand movies were made during the fifth Labour Government. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: So why do you want to ruin the industry then? 
PHIL TWYFORD 
: We do not. What I object to is this Government cynically manipulating the circumstances of the production of  
The Hobbit 
 to try to claim credit not only for saving the movie but for saving the New Zealand film industry. The name of this bill should be the “Employment Relations (Legal Fiction) Amendment Bill”. My colleague David Parker made the argument before that this bill formalises a lie—it formalises a lie. It changes the law so that someone who is patently an employee can be a declared a contractor. 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Labour—Ikaroa-Rawhiti) 
: 
 Kia ora Mr Chair. There are some great movies like  
Rob Roy 
 and they have great titles. They make great statements about the wind blowing west and the darkened days arising. For example  
The Grapes of Wrath 
 is like what has happened here with the Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill. We are seeing the drifting and the undoing of working classes’ rights in this country; Mr Brownlee knows that. The member from Wairarapa just signalled that the key issue is that the work is either short-term or long-term. That is the moot point—in this bill it is neither. It is about putting peoples’ security at risk. 
It is great that  
The Hobbit 
 will be filmed here. It is great that the film has remained in this country. When the Prime Minister was on TV and was asked how the deal was going he said that it was really touch and go. He is a great man; he is a great actor. He put the signal out but people knew right then that he had the deal sewn up 3 days before it was announced—yes he had. Mr Brownlee knows that. A lot of us watch movies so we know who the good actors are and who the slow actors are. 
Taika Waititi made a great movie in this country  
Boy 
 and I want to talk about Maori participation as in  
The 
Whale Rider 
 because I have heard a whole lot of huffing and puffing and rubbish from the Maori Party member about how the movies will help Maori people. But this is a disgrace in the sense that we are helping major corporates when movies like  
Boy 
 had no support. Is that not amazing? But the Minister sits there and is supposed to be the architect of modern rules and legislation— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Please come back to the title. 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
:—in the sense of what should create a good title for this bill. It could be renamed and restated as a whole lot of things. It could be the “Pork Pie Looney Tunes and All Those Great Titles Bill”. It could be the “Whale Rider Bill” because it is about riding the workers and trying to use leverage to do what you have sneakily been doing— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I ask the member not to use the word “you”. 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
:—what some of those members over there have been trying to do. 
I reiterate what my learned colleague said here earlier on. Those members opposite said that the 90-day bill was for a trial period but that is what this is: a trial period. All of a sudden—oops splish-splash like Mickey Mouse—this bill will prevail over all businesses. So we try to get around that by playing the favourite trick of the corporates and the people who want to control the working class: we move people from full rights within the framework of employment rights to being contractors—as in Telecom and other companies. What is the main nub of a movement like that? It is quite simply that costs and pressures are moved on to individuals. That is real cost saving! 
I heard Te Ururoa Flavell for whom I have a lot of respect mutter and stutter and go on about Maori workers being behind by 25 percent. He talked about the pay imbalance in relation to pay parity with nurses Pakeha and Maori. Well some members might think that that is great—and one member over there—that joker at the back there the party jumper Tau Henare—said that this would give 400 Maori a job. But I ask what about the other 169000 who are losing— 
Chris Tremain 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I bring your attention to Standing Order 107 on relevancy. This clause is about the title of the bill. I have not heard one mention at all about the title of the bill in 2 or 3 minutes. I would like you to bring the member to order please. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I want to keep re-emphasising two points. Although this bill has not gone to a select committee and although there is more tolerance of a slightly wider flavour that does not open up the debate to a general debate style. The member should make references to the statements he is making and the analogies he is using with pertinence to the title. This debate is on clause 1 the title clause. 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: I misunderstood the speaker earlier on but I take the point. 
Certainly there could be a whole lot of adjustments in the banner as Chris Tremain has pointed out. This bill could be the “Unrelated Relationships Between Employers and Workers Bill” because that is what it is. It could be the “Relevant Support of Workers’ Rights Bill”. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Do you know what this bill is about? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: I know what the bill is about I say to Mr Henare. It is about increasing the number of the 169000 people who are unemployed. The bill could be the “Increase the Unemployed Numbers Bill”. It could be that. It could decrease numbers but then like all those other issues relevant to this the mighty international corporate will swan off with support— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Ah the ones that pay you fullas’ wages. 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: No no—with support I tell Mr Henare. 
JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) 
: 
 I think I must have been looking eager to speak. I acknowledge that we really are privileged to have such a wide range of colleagues in the Chamber tonight in particular within the troop of Muppets. We have had Waldorf and Statler and David Bennett’s particular speech earlier in the night has given me a new appreciation for his role as Beaker from  
The Muppets 
. 
I have listened to some of the debate this evening and I have come up with a new title for the Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill. It relates specifically to the fact that in all of the discussion we have had to date members on this side of the Chamber have been very careful to make rational arguments as to why this legislation is unnecessary. All I have seen on that side of the Chamber is repeated generalisations and character assassinations to a degree that I have not seen in the Chamber before. So I think we could just call this bill the “Excuse for Character Assassination Bill” or the “Excuse to Generalise about Unions Bill” and it has been an excuse to run down Helen Kelly whom I have great admiration for. She has I think received unprecedented and unnecessary attacks in the Chamber and I think we will be revisiting the nature of some of those attacks from that side of the Chamber in weeks to come. All of that has been given extra leverage by this bill. I think this bill is a front. It is a front for a whole lot of arguments that that side of the Chamber wants to run and they are entirely unnecessary. 
On this side of the Chamber we have repeated time and time again the facts of this scenario. We on this side of the Chamber have acknowledged from the beginning that this issue could have played out differently. Both sides of the argument could have played out differently. We have been fair and acknowledged that. What have members opposite acknowledged? They have made simplistic statements that Labour by opposing this legislation is anti-film and anti - New Zealand. In fact David Bennett went one step further. David Bennett tried to claim that Labour purposely tried to stop this movie from happening. So I would almost call this bill the “Excuse to Give Rubbish Speeches Bill” because that is exactly what we had from David Bennett. For him to imply that Labour did not want this film to occur is absolutely outrageous and I think an insult to the member’s own intelligence. 
David Bennett 
: Really? 
JACINDA ARDERN 
: That is the biggest compliment I will give the member tonight. What was this issue about? I am currently discussing the “Excuse to Give Rubbish Speeches Bill” Mr Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: You could have fooled me. 
JACINDA ARDERN 
: If we knew on 18 October that the specific issues of employment relations that were being brought forth had been resolved 10 days ago then we would have to now ask what this bill is really about. This comes to the heart of the title debate because if we discover the true meaning we can give the bill the appropriate title. My colleagues have already rightly pointed out that this is a trial period for something that the Government wishes to extend beyond just the film industry because in fact the film industry does not need this legislation. From the outset the actors have said that they want to be independent contractors. That is what they want. They have never denied that. So why then does this bill— 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: Why does the union want a collective contract? 
JACINDA ARDERN 
: I can explain to Mr Brownlee that even from over here I could understand what was going on. The actors wanted to discuss terms and conditions; they did not want to be considered employees. They never did. That proves that this bill is the “Unnecessary Piece of Legislation Bill”. It is completely unnecessary which means we have to look for the true motive. 
If we are looking for true motive I ask where we should look. What is the benefit of calling someone an independent contractor rather than an employee? We do not have to scratch too far to figure that out. The actors know that they are better off being independent contractors because that is the nature of their work. But for a number of other people involved in the film industry it is a very different scenario. So I ask why we would want to call someone an independent contractor rather than an employee. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
: 
 I am mindful of the Speaker’s ruling earlier today that it is appropriate that this be a wide-ranging debate given that there is— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I need to respond to that. I listened very carefully to what the presiding officer at the time said and I have also taken the time to check the  
Hansard 
 of that. His reference was to the first and second readings—particularly the second reading. I have set out the parameters of the debate now and that is how it will be chaired. I think we need to put that out there. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Thank you for that clarification Mr Chairperson. As is traditional the title of a bill seeks to encapsulate its meaning. New Zealanders up and down the country wonder what the meaning of this bill the Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill could possibly be. It has not escaped their attention that the case that this refers to  
Bryson v Three Foot Six 
 was dated 2005 well before a lot of other movies were made. My colleague Phil Twyford has read out the list so I will not take the time of the Committee to do that. Clearly there was no substantive problem so the public is wondering what this bill is designed to fix. 
We have been attempting to dissect that rationally but really it is not about rational legal logic. This is about politics and the politics of it are simply that this is the “Let’s Demonise the Unions and the Labour Party While Trying to Cut a Deal With the Film Company Bill”. Let us run through the logic and the timing. Labour came out of a historically successful conference and several days later the Prime Minister argued that Labour was in cahoots with the unions to wreck  
The Hobbit 
. 
David Bennett 
: That’s right. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: That is right; he did say it but it is far from the truth. Let us check the logic. Firstly the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions was involved in the discussion to mediate a solution. It could see the stand-off between the Australian union and the film company so it was seeking to mediate a solution. Secondly Labour said nothing. Why? Because it was not Labour’s role as a political party to get involved in an industrial discussion. Anyway why would we? But that did not stop the Prime Minister from demonising the head of the Council of Trade Unions. Anybody who knows Helen Kelly knows that she is a woman of integrity and a woman with good mediation skills. The Prime Minister has sought to demonise her the Council of Trade Unions and the entire union movement purely for political ends. 
The second part of the argument around the renaming of this bill goes to its obvious use in domestic politics. Why bring Labour into this? It had nothing to do with the Labour Party. Labour had issued no statement on it. Labour knew that a sensitive negotiation was under way. Labour was brought into it in order to stop the momentum of a party that was on a roll. Lies were told about Labour because telling the truth leaves them no advantage. This bill is about politics. It is not about employment law. How could it be? The case was in 2005 and my colleague Charles Chauvel argued it in the Supreme Court. That is how well we know the law—a Labour front-bench colleague argued it at the Supreme Court. I might say that that reflects the quality of our caucus. There he was in the Supreme Court arguing the case. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: At a very young age. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: At a very very young age. 
The next reason why this bill needs to be renamed is that it should be called the “Fiscal Disaster Bill”. Let us understand the background to that. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I’m going to debate that. I’ll take the next call. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: The member can take the next call and have his say and we can try to trump the names. The bill is a fiscal disaster because the special deal that has been cut here for one multinational film company is not available to the domestic industry. 
CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to speak on the title of the Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill. I believe that we could do a better job of naming this bill to accurately reflect its content and background. I quite like the amendment in the name of my colleague the Hon Trevor Mallard to omit the words “Film Production Work” and insert the words “As Requested by Warner Bros”. As I said earlier the reason I like this idea is I think it accurately reflects the issue and the question of what is happening to New Zealand’s political and economic sovereignty. What we have seen over the last few days has made a lot of us very worried about the extent to which our domestic policies and legislation are our own or are driven by outside forces. I asked questions earlier today and I am still waiting for an answer about whether labour laws should be changed in response to domestic concerns and issues; if not on what basis changes to those labour laws should be contemplated. I am still waiting for the Minister to respond to those questions. 
Secondly I asked in what circumstances sovereign States like New Zealand have changed labour laws in response to demands of foreign corporates. Again there was no response from the Minister. The circumstances I am aware of are for things like export processing zones in South-east Asia where effectively all rights for workers have been removed. I am looking for examples of when a developed country like New Zealand has responded to the demands of a foreign corporate to change its domestic labour laws. Then of course I am seeking some assurance from the Government that it is not looking at changes to any element of our labour laws in response to the demands of foreign corporates—that it will not go down that line if some other corporate comes along and says it will do something only if the Government reduces the minimum wage or does something else. It would be really helpful if we could have that assurance. I believe that the amendment from the Hon Trevor Mallard encapsulates the concern I have about our sovereignty so I support it from that point of view. 
But I have a couple of other suggestions that might find more favour with members on the other side of the Chamber. The first of those is the “Employment Relations (Film Industry Not Really Clarification) Amendment Bill” because we have heard a lot today about this bill being a necessary clarification. Charles Chauvel and others have quite rightly pointed out that there is no need for clarification and that the law with regard to independent contractors and employees—particularly in the film industry—is well settled. The 2005 Bryson case which was heard in the Supreme Court absolutely clarified the situation. Just for the record because I know that some members opposite are perhaps not very familiar with the case I say that we are talking about somebody who was deemed in the end to be an employee. He was on the grand sum of $18 an hour. This was not a high-paid independent contractor as some have alluded to; this was a worker in the film industry on a relatively low wage who was deemed to be an employee in the end. The law is quite well settled so the clarification that was supposedly necessary is not necessary. Gerry Brownlee said that Warner Bros did not require it and that it was done off the Government’s own back whereas the Hon Steven Joyce said quite a different thing a little later. He said that the Government was responding to the requirement of Warner Bros to make these changes. Whichever way around the clarification issue seems to be a little unnecessary. 
That title might cover the clarification issue quite well but I have another title which covers an issue that my colleague Chris Hipkins went into quite well and that is the “Film Industry Stage One Bill”. I will come back to that title later but I think that this bill is the slippery slope. In just the same way that the 90-day legislation is being extended to all workplaces this law could go further too. 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK (Labour) 
: 
 I am pleased to take a call in the Committee stage of the Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill on the title. I would name this bill the “Warner Bros Film Industry Requirement Bill” and I would strip out altogether any wording about employment relations or film production. This bill is totally unnecessary. It is not what was ever required by Actors Equity. It was never ever an issue that the union said needed to be sorted out at all. 
In this Chamber are about four people who understand the film industry. I would give it to the Hon Gerry Brownlee that he has got to grips with the film industry. The other three people are the Hon Trevor Mallard Grant Robertson and I. In my role as arts spokesperson I have learnt a lot about the industry. What I have learnt about the industry is that both actors and technicians in the film production industry have a very lumpy income. It is an incredibly lumpy income. It needs smoothing so that they get a decent income over the year because they lurch from production to production. 
When the initial dispute that led us to be debating this totally superfluous and unnecessary bill in urgency tonight arose the actors said they were quite happy about their status as independent contractors. They simply wanted to negotiate collectively on their employment conditions. Minister Gerry Brownlee knows that because when the Screen Production and Development Association also started ringing to say that it needed to get together with the actors and that they needed to listen to one another the Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage ignored the offer to get the parties together that I had made to him 2 months before. He totally ignored it. All that needed to happen was for Gerry Brownlee to get them in a room together—and he did. He did. Both parties came out of that meeting and said that they had had a really good meeting and had clarified a lot. They said they had really moved on and had reached agreement. 
Lynne Pillay 
: They stepped up. 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK 
: Yes they definitely did step up. We were then put into the situation of believing that we were there that we had reached agreement that Gerry Brownlee had facilitated the reaching of that agreement and that both parties were feeling a lot better. Then something went terribly wrong. It was Warner Bros. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: No it wasn’t. 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK 
: In charged Warner Bros and the Minister knows that. He knows that. Warner Bros received an email saying that the dispute was resolved and the Minister knows that too. But Warner Bros was just looking for leverage on getting the greatest deal. Its representatives are businessmen. They are hard-nosed businessmen and they wanted the best deal. They got good deals offered in the UK and they got good deals offered in the Czech Republic. So the Ministers were put into a position of having to negotiate and I do not envy them that at all. 
We in Labour are delighted that we have secured  
The Hobbit  
to be made in New Zealand but we have secured it at a price. I think the worst price is the stripping away of workers’ rights by this unnecessary law that we are debating in urgency tonight. That is the disgraceful price of getting this film secured in New Zealand. It is not what the actors asked for at all so it is definitely the “Warner Bros Film Industry Requirement Bill”. 
The title of the bill before us talks about relationships. We in Labour have been panned by National for spending $160000 on developing an enduring relationship with the film industry in Los Angeles. [ 
Interruption 
] Yes it is an enduring relationship—it certainly is with producers—and we are now in the position of providing $33 million of funding for one production. The total funding appropriated through the Large Budget Screen Production Grant scheme is only $51 million—$33 million of that has gone to one production in order to keep it in the country. It is simply a challenge— 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South) 
: 
 This is the first opportunity that I have had to take a call on this bill the Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill. I will talk about the title clause which as a number of my colleagues have said is very misleading. 
First of all I say that I love  
The Hobbit 
. Everyone loves  
The Hobbit 
. I have read it at least twice. I ask those members who have not read  
The Hobbit 
 to put up their hands. Ah there are a few members who have not read  
The Hobbit 
. Of course not only have I read  
The Hobbit 
 but also most of us who have children would have read  
The Hobbit 
 to our children. My children liked  
The Hobbit 
 so much that in January they applied to be extras on  
The Hobbit 
. They have not heard back yet. I would have applied to be an extra on  
The Hobbit 
 too except I cannot quite picture myself as a hobbit; I am more of an elf. There are quite a few people in this Chamber who look like hobbits or goblins trolls dark lords and all those sorts of things—not on this side of the Chamber though. 
I would like to talk about a number of alternative titles tonight. Because everyone wanted  
The Hobbit 
 to be made in New Zealand a good title for this bill is “Everyone Does Want  
The Hobbit  
To Be Made in New Zealand Bill” and that is not the issue. But what it has resulted in is the “Rushed Botched and Unnecessary Legislation Bill” which is another alternative title for the bill. This bill as we know will remove protections for many workers in the film industry. It is bad law. It is resulting in uncertainty so it is the “Resulting in Uncertainty in the Film Industry Bill”. 
I have another alternative title. I refer to the former Australian Prime Minister and Treasurer Paul Keating. He famously warned in May 1986 that if Australia did not get manufacturing going again and keep moderate wage outcomes and a sensible economic policy it would end up being a third-rate economy—a banana republic. I know that a number of my colleagues have referred to a banana republic tonight and again that is an alternative title for the bill: “The Banana Republic Bill”. 
Paul Keating said that Australia needed strong and coherent economic policy which is what we do not have in this country right now. We do not need knee-jerk reactions and kowtowing to foreign capital. What kind of a country are we becoming where the rights of groups of workers are being sold off to satisfy the whim of big corporate interests? Maybe that is an alternative title: “The Rights of Groups of Workers Being Sold Off to Satisfy the Whims of Big Corporate Interests Bill” or as my colleague Parekura Horomia said “The Break Down in Relationships between Workers and Employers Bill” could be an alternative title for the bill. 
I will mention that reporting from overseas is already exclaiming at the power that a big corporate can wield over a small nation. There has been some interesting international coverage and I will read a quote from  
The 
Hollywood Reporter 
 that stated a few days ago: “However the question on the minds of observers is whether this studio will also seek and extract from the government higher production incentives than the existing 15% Large Budget Screen Production Grant. If so the result would be a dramatic demonstration of the power a mediate conglomerate can assert over a small nation desperate to retain a $500 million production. One measure of the gravity of the situation is the contention by currency analysts that the continuing uncertainty had helped drive down the value of the New Zealand dollar.” That is an overseas organisation reporting on this situation. 
We have also heard employment law specialists criticising the Government’s plan—in particular Professor Nigel Haworth from the University of Auckland business school. He did not see a need for the change in the law which could also be an alternative title for this bill. There is no need for a change in the law. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour) 
: 
 I always believe that any bill should have truth in labelling I guess and should reflect what it will do. Many people have spoken in the House of their love of  
The Hobbit 
; in fact it was mentioned before. But one thing we all love is New Zealand and what is happening around New Zealand at this moment—and I spoke to some friends just an hour ago—is that people are embarrassed. They are absolutely embarrassed at what is happening in this Parliament the Parliament of a sovereign nation under urgency. 
I put it to the Committee that this bill should be called “The New Zealand Cringe Bill”. Members on the other side of the Chamber laugh. They should go out and ask intelligent New Zealanders what they think about this whole exercise. New Zealanders are absolutely embarrassed and they cringe at the thought of a few executives flying from Hollywood to this country alighting from their plane and being met by ministerial limousines to transport them to Premier House for a meeting with the Prime Minister. 
I have had the privilege as a Minister of going to Hollywood to meet with executives and deal with issues. There have been immigration issues to be dealt with so that some of those companies can bring into this country the actors whom they want to appear in their films. We have worked through immigration issues and taxation issues and we have built up a relationship with them on the basis of mutual respect. What has happened now is that we have been rolled by a large multinational sitting in the US. Do not ask us; just go and read the US newspapers— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Come back to the title. 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR 
: I am speaking around the title of the bill. People should look at the international comment about what Warner Bros has done to the New Zealand Government. Intelligent sensible New Zealanders cringe at the thought that for a few million dollars more we have had to bow down to their demands. But it is more than the money—money is always an issue. I am not a student of history but is it not true that this Parliament is the oldest pure democracy in the world? Is that not true? It is the oldest pure democracy in the world where men and women have all had the vote. This democracy has been brought to its knees by a few executives from Warner Bros. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: Oh rubbish! 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR 
: The Leader of the House says that is rubbish. He has put this House into urgency to bring into place legislation that will undermine what the Americans would call constitutional rights around labour law. The Americans would not stand for this. This is why the title of the bill should be “The New Zealand Cringe Bill”. 
The Prime Minister who leads this country and his fellow Ministers have kowtowed to a few smart executives. All credit to them—they are smart players. They are hard-nosed players. They want more money they want the best deal they can get from any country they go to and they saw the naive Prime Minister John Key as a soft target—absolutely. They seized upon the opportunity to come here and blame the unions. So the Prime Minister’s mates on the right wing of this country are saying: “Come on John. Toughen up. We want a bit more hard legislation.” He said: “All right. We will bring down some legislation to undermine the rights of the workers in this country.” while at the same time bowing down and kissing the butts of a few executives from Hollywood. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: Mr Chair! 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR 
: Oh no—Mr Brownlee knows that that is the truth and so does every fair-minded New Zealander. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: That is enough. I am terminating the member’s speech. 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to take a call on the title debate. This is my first call on the Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill and as the MP for Wellington Central I want to make clear how pleased I am that  
The Hobbit 
 will be made here in Wellington. A number of my constituents will be working on the production and indeed already have been. I think it is excellent that it is being made here. Members on this side are all strong supporters of  
The Hobbit 
 being made in New Zealand. 
But I refer to what could be a potential title for the bill the “Employment Relations (Gerry Goes off the Boil) Bill” because quite frankly that is what we are debating tonight. The Government’s incompetent management of its relationship with Warner Bros and with the film industry in America has led us to a crisis situation. Gerry Brownlee might not have too many National MPs based in Wellington with whom he can talk because they are not that thick on the ground in Wellington. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Some of them are thick. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: Some of them are thick but they are not that thick on the ground in Wellington—that is right. If there had been more National MPs for Gerry Brownlee to talk to over the last 2 years they would have been able to reflect what everyone in Wellington knew—that there were issues concerning  
The Hobbit 
. There were issues with Warner Bros about the financing. They were worried about what was happening with MGM. Everyone in Wellington knew about this over the last 2 years and what did Gerry Brownlee do? He sat there. He did not go over to talk to Warner Bros. He thought he could rely on the reputation that Labour had built up with it over 9 years. He sat there and let this issue fester. We come to this House today with a legal fiction of a bill with a crisis manufactured and opportunistically taken up by Warner Bros because Gerry Brownlee was not doing his job as Minister for Economic Development. That is why I say to Mr Brownlee the title of this bill could well be the “Employment Relations (Gerry Goes off the Boil) Bill”. That is why we are here tonight I say to Mr Brownlee. We are here because as Minister for Economic Development you did not do your job properly—[ 
Interruption 
] I am talking to Mr Brownlee and I am saying Mr Brownlee did not do his job properly. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. He is using the word “you” and bringing you into the debate. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I thank the member for that. The member knows that because I called “Order” at the time and he did refer to Mr Brownlee. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: It is interesting that Tau Henare is very worried. I think Tau Henare is mainly concerned about this because he wanted a role in  
The Hobbit  
but they would not give him one. They offered him one in  
Kojak  
but not in  
The Hobbit.  
That is why Tau Henare is upset. 
There is another title we could use which is the “Employment Relations (Chaos and Shambles in the Government) Bill”. We have heard today from Gerry Brownlee himself that it was not pressure from Warner Bros that led to this bill except the Prime Minister himself told us that it was critical for Warner Bros that this legislation be passed and the movies would not be made in New Zealand if this legislation was not passed. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: That’s right. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: Gerry Brownlee said “That’s right.” So why has Gerry Brownlee not stood up in the Chamber tonight to say that he was sorry that he misled the House earlier today when he said that this was not because of pressure from Warner Bros. “Shambles and Chaos” should be the title of this bill—the “Employment Relations (Shambles and Chaos in the Government) Bill”. The Government simply cannot get its house sufficiently in order to know whether we are here because Warner Bros made us be here or whether we are here because the Government has somehow mysteriously decided a change was necessary—despite the fact that since 2005 the law has been settled in this area. All of a sudden it is a crisis and we are here under urgency. We are here under urgency because the Government has not got its act together so the bill could have the title “The Government Has Not Got Its Act Together Bill”. 
There could also be another title of this bill—a serious title change. If we are trying to reflect what is in this bill it should be the “Employment Relations (Film Production and Video Games Work) Bill” because this bill goes far beyond film production. We have not had a substantive call from a member of the Government to tell us how video games ended up in this bill. Nobody discussed anything about video games. There are some high-quality video game manufacturers and developers in Wellington. How did that even end up in this bill? It is not mentioned in the title so the title is immediately misleading even on the Government’s own terms. We have not had the Government take a call on this. Its members have sat there simply allowing us to stand and raise questions that are unanswered because the Government is pushing through a bill but it does not know why. 
LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupo) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I rise to speak on the title clause of this “Warner Bros Bill” that we have before us. I rise to speak to what sadly has become the Warner Bros Parliament. We are sitting tonight at the behest of Warner Bros because Warner Bros want to push this bill through the House. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The member was pulled up during the second reading—[ 
Interruption 
] I am on my feet. Speaker’s ruling 52/1 makes it very clear that although we can say that Warner Bros may influence an outcome we cannot say that they have directed it. It is quite a good paragraph which the member might like to refer to. It is Speaker’s ruling 52/1. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I apologise to the member. I think the Speaker’s ruling refers to members and to parties. I am not sure whether it refers to the Parliament. I have never heard that expression before. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I have. By referring to Parliament it brings the members within Parliament into that frame. 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN 
: Warner Bros have clearly had some influence as the Speaker’s ruling allows me to say. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Did they buy the naming rights? 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN 
: They have had tremendous influence on this bill. The fact is that Parliament is tonight meeting under urgency in order to deal with this bill that would benefit Warner Bros. 
It seems to me that we have become used to corporate welfare. Corporate welfare has become well known across the planet. It used to involve just money. OK on this occasion it is $100 million and the National Government has added an extra $33 million to the previous level of corporate welfare but it used to mean just money. But it now means that if this is the “Employment Relations (Warner Bros) Amendment Bill” not only are Warner Bros getting money but they are also bringing about a change in New Zealand’s industrial relations law. That is an entirely new level in the meaning of corporate welfare. If this bill the “Employment Relations (Warner Bros) Amendment Bill” sets a new standard globally for changing legislation for a sovereign democratic Parliament in a way that would suit a corporate multinational this is an entirely new level. 
Tonight we are debating under urgency a bill that has been influenced by Warner Bros as I am allowed to say under  
Speakers’ Rulings 
. This bill has been influenced by Warner Bros and we are debating it under urgency. It is not about just money. It used to be about just money. All taxpayers have to put their hands in their pockets to provide corporate welfare. It is now also under the “Employment Relations (Warner Bros) Amendment Bill” as I would like to rename it about changing the very legislation under which our country is governed. It represents a whole new level of altering the basic relationships between a people and their Government. 
The relationship between a people and their Government in a democratic system is supposed to be one where there is representation. But under this bill the “Employment Relations (Warner Bros) Amendment Bill” as I think it should be renamed Warner Bros are in fact interfering in the relationship between a people and their Government. It is a fundamental transgression of the idea of sovereignty in our country for us to rewrite industrial relations law for the benefit of Warner Bros. 
There is another title we could come up with for this bill. The National Government has said it does not like to lead on climate change. “We will not be leaders on climate change.” its members tell us. However they are willing to be leaders in the race to the bottom so we could call the bill the “Employment Relations (Race to the Bottom) Amendment Bill”. We are leading in the global race to the bottom to make Warner Bros happy by weakening our industrial relations laws. So if we were to call the bill the “Employment Relations (Race to the Bottom) Amendment Bill” we could say that the National Government is finally leading on something. It is not leading on climate change and it is not leading on anything else. It is finally leading in the race to the bottom to weaken our industrial relations law for the benefit of a corporate multinational. 
We are sitting under urgency tonight to deal with this bill which under the title clause we are debating should be called the “Employment Relations (Warner Bros) Amendment Bill”. We are meeting under urgency tonight under the influence of Warner Bros as I am allowed to say under  
Speakers’ Rulings 
 in order to ram through this bill so that it becomes the law of the land in what is supposedly a democratic and sovereign country. It is embarrassing it is unacceptable and it is a fundamental transgression of the idea of democratic sovereignty. The National Government should be ashamed of itself. 
The Green Party joins with Labour and others in welcoming the fact that  
The Hobbit  
will be based in New Zealand and filmed here. I note that  
Avatar 
 was also based in New Zealand and there was no need to change the existing labour relations regime. I remind National members that  
Avatar  
was about an environmental issue. They might have heard about the environment. That film was a great success. It was the story of a people fighting against a giant corporation not unlike Warner Bros. We would like to rename this bill the “Employment Relations (Warner Bros) Amendment Bill”. In  
Avatar 
 which was successfully filmed in New Zealand under the existing industrial relations framework it was the people who were being attacked by a giant corporation that sought to take over their planet. That is not entirely unlike the attack that Warner Bros has launched. 
AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand Labour 41; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Motion agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: We have an amendment in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard. It is a typescript amendment to amend the title of the bill. I have ruled it out of order as not being a serious description of the bill. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Labour had an assurance from the Associate Minister of Finance Steven Joyce that this bill was requested by Warner Bros. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: That is not a point of order. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: It is an outrageous ruling. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: That is not a point of order. I am the judge of whether an amendment is in order and I have ruled that your amendment is out of order. We will move to the vote. The question is that Part 1 stand part. Those of that opinion will say “Aye”—clause 1. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. This bill is not in parts. I think you mean clause 1. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I did mean clause 1 and I did say “clause” after I said “part”. My apologies. I will put the motion again. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand Labour 41; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
Clause 2 Commencement 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 Clause 2 is particularly interesting to the Labour Party because it goes to the timing of the Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill coming into effect and the method by which it is brought into effect. Part of the debate will be around the timing and part will be around the method. 
These days as we sacrifice our economic sovereignty our political sovereignty and our parliamentary sovereignty perhaps the bill should be brought into effect by being stamped by Warner Bros in the United States rather than by Royal assent in New Zealand. We will have a discussion about what the appropriate method is these days now that we have sacrificed our integrity as a Parliament to the whims of a foreign company according to Mr Joyce. Actually I tended to believe Gerry Brownlee when he said in answer to question No. 1 this afternoon that this legislation was not really important to Warner Bros and they did not want it rather than believing what Steven Joyce said. That may or may not be the case. 
The next point that we need to focus on is what we mean by “the day after the date”. Do we mean the New Zealand date or the date on the west coast of the United States? By “the day after” do we mean the day in the United States after the date in New Zealand or vice versa? Is it “a” and “a” “b” and “b” “a” and “b” or “b” and “a”? There are combinations of days and dates that we have to consider in working through this particular matter. The member Russel Norman mentioned  
Avatar 
 recently. If we took some of the interesting approaches to time within that movie where there was the ability to time shift and world shift it might be that we would come up with a number of unusual answers. The “day after the date on which it receives the Royal assent” could in fact be quite a long way back in Middle Earth if we jump from  
Avatar 
 back to the  
Lord of the Rings 
 series. Given the modern world that we live in and the world of movies there is a lack of preciseness in this clause. 
The next question is whether as part of this exercise we will move to have the date of Parliament—currently unsponsored—sponsored. Will 28 October be sponsored by Warner Bros? Is that what we will have? Is that how we will have the date of Parliament? If that is the case will the date move forward under urgency stay the same or take the industrial relations approach of the National Government and move backwards? 
I want to make a slightly irrelevant passing comment about  
Avatar 
 which was referred to by Russel Norman. An interesting experience for me was spending time with James Cameron at one of these hui criticised by Gerry Brownlee. Cameron was trying to make up his mind whether he wanted  
Avatar  
to be produced in New Zealand. But that was US time rather than New Zealand time. That was west coast time. There is 6 hours’ difference. I think it would probably be getting on for 3.30 a.m. over there now but 3.30 a.m. of yesterday. I think that just about sums up Gerry Brownlee’s approach on this bill. He thinks he is slightly ahead but he is actually quite a long way behind. The world has just about caught up to him because he has been so backward in this particular area. 
The question of time is one on which there is some focus in  
The Hobbit 
. In fact  
The Hobbit 
 is full of riddles and one of them is called the time riddle. It is this one: 
This thing; All things it devours: 
Birds beasts trees and flowers: 
Gnaws iron bites steel; 
Grinds hard stones to meal; 
Slays kings ruins town  
And beats high mountain down. 
It is one of Gollum’s riddles for Bilbo Baggins and the answer of course is time. That is what we talking about now. The answer we are talking about today is time and we are trying to work out when would be the right time to bring this legislation into effect. Some of us would say there is never a right time but others would say that given the possibility of this bill going through the House we should think about whether there might be a better time to bring it into effect. I have an amendment—it is different from my next amendment which is to insert an expiry clause—to omit all the words after “force” and insert the words “1 April 2012”. 
The reason is relatively simple. Warner Bros have already spent $100 million on the movie. A deferral would give them a chance to get on with making the movie and we would be able to see whether this legislation is necessary. My bet is it would be totally unnecessary. It was unnecessary for the 120 feature films that were made in New Zealand in the last decade with the help of the work done by mainly my colleague Pete Hodgson to facilitate them. He facilitated schemes and did work in that area. This legislation was not necessary then. But Labour members are reasonable people; we will keep a bit of an open mind on it and we are prepared over the next year over the period of the next election campaign to work through whether this legislation is necessary. A deferral of it being brought into force would give us the possibility of examining it more carefully and other amendments of ours provide for other methods of examination. 
Deferring it would also give some of the thespians in the Chamber time to practise their skills to hone their skills and to work towards having roles in  
The Hobbit 
. I know there is quite a lot of interest in the Chamber in doing that. It has been a very long time since people wanted me for a part in a movie that involved filming my face. In fact the last production I was in was  
bro’Town.  
That was probably the last dramatic one. Most of my colleagues will not remember  
Close to Home 
 but that series was a good regular source of income when I was a student. I was an employee and made a lot of money. I am not suggesting that this bill should be backdated. In fact I would be very upset if it was backdated to the late 1960s or early 1970s or whenever it was that I had bit parts in  
Close to Home 
. It might have been the very early 1970s. It was certainly by 1973 because one of my kids had a bit part in it in 1974 I think. 
We are focusing now on whether it is appropriate to backdate the legislation’s coming into force—to take the Muldoon approach and make it retrospective and what the implications of that would be. The more reasonable approach and the one that I have taken is to say that it is grubby legislation it should never come in and therefore it should be deferred. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
: 
 I rise to speak in support of the amendments tabled by the Hon Trevor Mallard and in particular to amend clause 2 by omitting all the words after “force” and inserting the words “1 April 2012” and to insert new clause 2A “This Act expires on the close of 8 November 2010.” These amendments go to the issue of timing. 
I want to put before the Committee some related issues of timing and I would like the public to hear this sequence of events because it is quite important. On Thursday the 14th of this month Gerry Brownlee convened a meeting attended by the Screen Production and Development Association Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance the Council of Trade Unions and himself. A press release was issued after that meeting which outlined that they had found a way forward; that a deal had been done. Again on timing—the next day Sunday the 17th of this month the Screen Actors Guild decided to lift the boycott. I say that again: the timing was Sunday the 17th of this month; the boycott was to be lifted. 
However I have sighted emails that make clear that Warner Bros requested that the press release not be issued until Peter Jackson had had an opportunity to comment. That is a fair enough request. That was Sunday the 17th of this month. On Monday the 18th of this month Mr Jackson Warner Bros and— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: This debate is about the commencement date on the introduction of the bill. It is about timing related to the introduction of the bill but not about timing or a sequence of what has happened over the last few weeks. I ask the member to come back to the commencement date. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Thank you Mr Chairman. I am trying to explain the reasons why I am supportive of new clause 2A which calls for the expiry— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I hate to do this to my colleague but the clause 2A debate is a separate debate. It is the next debate. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The member is right thank you. We are on clause 2 “Commencement”. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I appreciate my colleague’s comment and of course he will recall that in my opening comments I supported two of his amendments very generously both that one and the previous one—[ 
Interruption 
] 1 April 2012. OK. On timing here is the kicker: the boycott was to be lifted on Sunday the 17th— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I have just mentioned to the member that this is about the commencement. It is a very narrow debate. It is not about what has happened in the past; it is about the commencement and introduction of this bill for the Royal assent. The scope is a very narrow debate. I ask the member to confine his comments to the commencement date not a sequence of events that has happened. That is out of order. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. In the previous contribution from my colleague the Hon Trevor Mallard he raised the issue— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I decide the relevance of the content of the speech. The member has not once mentioned the commencement. The member is talking about timing; timing of a sequel of events. That is what is out of order and I ask the member to come back to the commencement date. That is what clause 2 is about. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Thank you Mr Chairman. In terms of the commencement date of this bill I wonder whether it would be appropriate to have a commencement date 3 days after it should have taken effect because what occurred was a rally of technicians against a boycott which had been lifted 3 days earlier. What is clear is that the parties knew that the Government knew that Peter Jackson knew that Warner Bros knew that and a fictitious protest occurred 3 days after the boycott was lifted—3 days. That is relevant to the commencement date because a 3-day gap between when something should have taken effect and when it actually did take effect would thwart the purpose of the legislation. Moreover it would be false pretences; false pretences are the basis of a protest about a boycott that had already been lifted. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I will not mention to the member again that this debate is about the commencement. There is a very narrow scope. If the member deviates again I will terminate his speech. He has 1 minute 20 seconds remaining. This debate is on the commencement date. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: This bill should not commence on its commencement date. It should not commence at all. This bill is unnecessary just as rallies were unnecessary about a boycott that did not exist at the time. This bill should not commence because there is and was no substantive employment dispute that this bill is designed to fix. This bill is about wedge politics. It is about dog-whistle politics to certain bottom-dwelling members of society that that party wants to lock up as National voters and turn against workers. It was a fictitious bill— 
David Bennett 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. The speaker has gone off the commencement date. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I will determine the relevance. That is not necessary. The member has 30 seconds remaining. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: This bill should not commence. As my colleague Trevor Mallard has said and as Gerry Brownlee said in answer to questions today this bill changes nothing because there was no substantive problem. The court case to which it refers in terms of timing was in 2005—2005. This bill should not commence. It should not commence because it is a political artifice—a political artifice designed to polarise New Zealanders. 
CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Chairperson. I rise to take a call as the arts spokesperson for the Green Party. Before I start on clause 2 “Commencement” I also acknowledge that today is the anniversary of the Declaration of Independence 1835 in Aotearoa New Zealand which people seem to have forgotten. It is a shame that Warner Bros did not actually negotiate with the Confederation of the United Tribes of Aotearoa because on this day in 1835 it signed a declaration stating that we are a sovereign nation. The confederation said then that we were a sovereign nation but today we have reduced our level of independence. 
Let us come to clause 2 on timing. The commencement date for this bill should be delayed. The reason why the Green Party would like to see it delayed with or without the Royal assent is that the movie about this matter has not yet been made. We need not commence this bill until we have hired George Clooney because George Clooney is the perfect person to play John Key; he has done a really good job playing those kinds of characters in the past. I also believe that we should not commence this stage until we have hired Paris Hilton to play the Minister of Labour Kate Wilkinson. It is a small part in the movie but Paris would do a fine job. 
I think that we should also reconsider the commencement date because it is very important that we get the right people involved for this movie. We need to commence only when we have the right people. Meryl Streep would be a fine player for the part of Helen Kelly—Meryl Streep with a black wig. You know I can see it now. She did a really good job on the dingo movie; she could do a great job on this. 
If we are to commence then we need to make sure that we have everything in place. I feel that Warner Bros could play itself. Warner Bros is acting now. It has acted in its own interests and it could play itself. 
We should not commence this movie until we have hired Robbie Coltrane. He could do a fabulous job of playing Gerry Brownlee. I can see it now; Robbie is a fantastic actor. I think that Robyn Malcolm could play herself and many other people could play themselves but there will be a film there will be a T-shirt and there will be a movie. 
Before we commence this debacle tonight we should make sure that we continue with the really ridiculous fantasy world that the Government has drawn us into under urgency in attacking the rights of workers. Time is a very important issue for people working in the film industry. They are interested in the commencement date because they are already put under stress by an industry that takes up a lot of their time. I have many friends in the industry. They love working for the film industry but they do not love having very few rights. They are concerned that this commencement date will actually make it more difficult for those in the industry to have their rights as workers. 
When people do not get lunch breaks but they get a party at the end of the year time is a big issue for them. It is a long time to wait for decent working conditions. It is a long time to wait for decent lunch breaks when all they get is a party with a lot of champagne at the end of the year. That is what the working conditions in the film industry are like now. Thanks to the Government and to this absurd urgency and abuse of process it will be more difficult. 
Also we should not commence this bill because I heard the ACT Party talk about the real agenda. It likes to wag the dog but the dog is happy to follow. ACT members are very clear that this is not just about actors; it is about all working people and about reducing them to being in a contractual relationship where they do not have rights. 
Before we commence and before there is any Royal assent I say that we need to remember that this is a ludicrous situation. Many people are laughing at this country right now because there does not need to be a law change to keep these films. In fact I wish I had been able to speak on the previous clause. I thought we should have called the bill something like the “Feeble Negotiators Bill” or the “Harry Potter and the Poisoned Chalice Bill” because that is what it will be. It will turn into an absolute joke. 
I am looking forward to the movie and I am looking forward to the commencement date being delayed so that we can commence a return to sense and commence to commit to having sovereignty in this country. I am sure that Warner Bros is having a good drink at our expense tonight but a lot of people around this country are tweeting and going on Facebook to say as the wonderful Otara Millionaires Club said “How Bizarre”. That is where we really are tonight. We are witnessing one of the most bizarre theatrical experiences which will make a great film and we should commence it once we have sorted out what is really going on. 
SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
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— 
JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I rise to speak to clause 2 of the “Employment Relations (Film Production Warner Bros) Amendment Bill”. I wish to make two points about the commencement clause clause 2 of the Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill. The first point is about the date at which the bill should become active. It seems to me that this bill should come into force on 6 February 1840. The reason for that is quite simple: the Treaty of Waitangi was an agreement between the Crown and tangata whenua between iwi and the Crown. If we are to say that the New Zealand Parliament is no longer sovereign that the Crown is no longer represented that the New Zealand Parliament does not decide laws and that in fact it is Warner Bros that decides laws then why should the Treaty of Waitangi be between iwi and the Crown when the Crown or the democratic Parliament has given up on the idea that it is sovereign? It seems to me that we should backdate the commencement of the legislation to the date when the Treaty of Waitangi was signed and we should just say that the Treaty of Waitangi will now be active between tangata whenua and multinational corporations. 
It would simplify things if we made the commencement date 6 February 1840 and if we just got over this funny little interlude when we tried to establish a democratic Parliament in Aotearoa New Zealand. We went through this experiment to have democracy but now National has decided that it is a bad idea. National would rather have multinational corporations deciding what the law is in New Zealand. We should backdate the commencement of this bill back to the Treaty of Waitangi so that it is a simple agreement between tangata whenua and multinational corporations and we can just avoid the whole experiment with democracy. National ACT and the Maori Party are saying to us tonight that this experiment where the Crown— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Order! 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN 
: This is attending to the commencement date Mr Chair to say that the commencement date should be 6 February 1840 and the rationale for that is that the democratically elected Crown is no longer present. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The member is way off track. The relevance of that is not part of this debate. We are speaking on the commencement. The member will come back to that or I will terminate the speech. 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN 
: We are talking about clause 2 which is about the commencement date and I am making a simple argument as to why the commencement date should in fact be 6 February 1840 because of the fact— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: That is not a serious matter; 1840 is not a serious part of the debate. This is about relevance. If the member does not come back to the commencement as the bill is presented then I will terminate the speech. 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN 
: The previous speaker Grant Robertson talked about retrospectivity in the discussion with regard to the commencement date but the Chair has said that I cannot discuss retrospectivity because he does not like what I say about it. 
Let me discuss another aspect of clause 2 which is the question of the Royal assent. It is overlooked because people think that clause 2 is simply about the commencement date. I suggest that we should get rid of the provision that says that the legislation has to receive the Royal assent which is part of clause 2 and we should say that the legislation should simply have Warner Bros consent. It would be much simpler. We should say that the bill comes into force—looking at clause 2—not when it receives Royal assent but when Warner Bros approves the bill because that is what the Government is effectively saying. My interpretation is that National is saying that the commencement under clause 2 which discusses when this bill comes into force after it receives the Royal assent comes into force after Warner Bros says that it is OK. 
We should amend clause 2 and say that instead of “This Act comes into force on the day after the date on which it receives the Royal assent.” we should say “The Act comes into force the day after Warner Bros says that it’s OK.” Once it gives the tick to National it will say: “We really like what you’ve written National and we think that it can come into force now”. Rather than going through this Governor-General business this democracy and the sovereignty which is all a bit of a nuisance we will have the date when Warner Bros says it should come into force. Clause 2 is about when the legislation will come into force and instead of the bill coming into force after it receives the Royal assent which is a bit of a hangover from the old days after all—the old Commonwealth and all of that and we are all for moving on beyond the Queen and all that—well we will move beyond the Queen and instead of the Royal assent it will be Warner Bros consent. 
We can achieve a republic and be subservient to multinational corporations all at once by a simple amendment to clause 2 by replacing the word “Royal” with “Warner Bros” which is entirely within the scope of this debate. It is a very simple amendment to clause 2: instead of “Royal assent” which obviously National does not like because it wants to move beyond the monarchy National is proposing that it is actually when Warner Bros gives its consent; that is when the bill can come into force. We can get over all this nonsense about the Queen and all of that business. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 67 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 3; United Future 1. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand Labour 41; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard to clause 2 be agreed to: 
to omit the words after “force” and substitute “1 April 2012”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 51 
New Zealand Labour 41; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Noes 67 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 3; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 67 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 3; United Future 1. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand Labour 41; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Clause 2 agreed to. 
New clause 2A 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I want to just get some clarity about the relevance of this clause given that the Committee has expressed its desire that the bill should come into force as soon as it— 
Debate interrupted. 
Sitting suspended from 10.00 p.m. to 9.00 a.m. (Friday)