Mallard Trevor: Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Mallard Trevor: Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:15008] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I think the Leader of the House’s political death certificate could be written up about his inattention in this particular area. With a little bit of tolerance early in the morning from the Chairperson I want to show people what came into my inbox from Japan overnight. A young Kiwi asked what is happening to New Zealand. He said that New Zealand sovereignty is finished— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: And he lives in Japan. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: He is an exceptionally talented young Kiwi who is currently working in Japan. I am sure he will come home but he is less likely to come home with that member in Government. Why is that? We heard earlier—without referring to the point of order—that the Leader of the House does not know the difference between commencing and expiring. Gerry Brownlee showed earlier on that he does not know the difference between coming and going and Warner Bros took advantage of that. 
Chris Hipkins 
: They saw him coming. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: They saw him coming and they said: “We’ll go for it. We can see a buffoon who is not on top of his job. We can see a Government in chaos. Therefore we will ask for some stuff.” Actually Warner Bros did not ask for this. I want to make it clear that I believed Gerry Brownlee when he said that this was not a requirement of Warner Bros and that this was not necessary. That is why—because it was not a requirement of Warner Bros and it was not necessary in order to get  
The Hobbit— 
this legislation can expire. This legislation is not necessary and therefore there is no problem with it being relatively short-term legislation. That would be the effect of this. The Committee has decided that the Act should come into force the day after it receives its Royal assent. Therefore we accept that as things normally happen if the Government maintains its majority through the 28th for however long that lasts then it is likely that the legislation will need an expiry date or it will go on for ever. I think even the Minister in the chair is not satisfied that legislation of this sort of quality should be in there on an unending basis. She has already made one amendment and I think there will probably be three or four more that she will want to make as the errors in her drafting are pointed out to her. It may well be that she makes a decision to hook some additional legislation on to another employment relations bill—without reporting to the House the business of the select committee—and when we get to another day that will be back on the Table of the House. At that point because there is this other legislation going through it will be a lot easier to get coherent legislation. 
However I make it clear that I am slightly evenly divided here. I am not sure whether it is better to get this legislation tidy. I have in fact been very very critical of my colleague Charles Chauvel for acting as the drafting adviser for the Minister. I have told him to hold on to the other ones—he has found three or four other errors—rather than assist the Government as he has done in making bad law. It is bad enough making bad law that does not work but making bad law that does work is reprehensible and assisting the Government in it is something I think is relatively shocking. But there is no doubt that if law is bad law then the best thing is for the country to have it on the law books for the shortest possible period. We looked at the time when we thought the Governor-General would be available to sign it and we thought it would be possibly some time next week. Some of us contemplated different days for its expiry. Some of us thought that 5 November might be a good time. Then others thought that if we are going to get beyond this then 11 November Remembrance Day would be good—the day that peace broke out Fran Wilde’s birthday; there are a variety of reasons— 
Grant Robertson 
: 1 April? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Well no. I do not think 1 April is a good date. I think the expiry of this is a date that should be celebrated. It should probably come in on 1 April. That is why we had 1 April 2012 as a commencement date because that is a day for fools. But I will not refer back to a previous debate that has been decided even if it has been decided in a rather unfortunate manner. 
So we have here relatively compact legislation; it is not a large piece of legislation. There would be an advantage in having the expiry date as 8 November 2010. I will look to my learned friend on my right Charles Chauvel to give me some advice in this area. If this amendment goes in and comes out so quickly that would probably mean that the statutes do not have to be annotated in order to show it as being current legislation. I ask whether Butterworths still does it. [ 
Interruption 
] My colleague thinks that the statutes might have to be annotated twice which seems to me to be an absolutely ridiculous— 
Charles Chauvel 
: It’s a job creation scheme. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Well there are a number of job creation schemes for lawyers around the place and for people who work for lawyers but the idea that we would annotate a statute to say that it is in when it is already out seems to be a job creation scheme of the type that National would think of rather than one that is in the proud traditions of the make-work schemes for the lawyers. I must say that this Parliament spends quite a lot of time on making work for lawyers including in my view this particular legislation. This legislation creates a tension and puts people into an employment category that they do not want to be in. What is more—and I think we need to keep coming back to whether this legislation should expire—it is something that Gerry Brownlee said Warner Bros did not require and did not ask for. The legislation is not being passed for Warner Bros. If that is the case then I ask who it is being done for. We have had legislation that has not been brought in and has not expired which has been there effectively in the same form since I think 1907. [ 
Interruption 
] Again my learned colleague Mr Chauvel on my right says that— 
Grant Robertson 
: Not often on his right. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: He is always on my right! My colleague Mr Chauvel indicates that it was the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act of 1894 that brought in this substantive area of law. We are changing legislation in the industrial area and also I think it is fair to say common law. We are managing to change stuff that goes way way back in the common law of the United Kingdom and the common law of New Zealand. This legislation is at the core of our labour relations system and has been since before the formation of both the National Party and the Labour Party and we are changing it for a reason that no one wants. For that reason I think it does not hurt for it to be a short-term change. In fact I have just had another idea. Maybe we could look at another expiry date whereby this legislation expires 90 days after it comes into force. That way we could call it trial legislation. It could test the arrangements and we could see whether it is appropriate and necessary.