Norman Russel William: Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
Norman Russel William: Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:15004] 
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.