O'Connor SimonSIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): This will be very uncomfortable for the left because they don't really like hearing consistent logical thought so brace yourselves and buckle in. You can see the lack of commitment from the left—they're taking exceptionally exceptionally short calls. After almost years of prevarication on this bill they've finally—finally—got it to the House. Angela Roberts: So are we rushing it?SIMON O'CONNOR: I have to address this—if someone says they're rushing it of course they are. Angela Roberts: Or are we dragging it out?SIMON O'CONNOR: Now they're saying Have we been dragging it out?" Well actually the Labour Party has because like so many of their promises they said that they would sort this in their first 100 days and as Sam Uffindell has just pointed out we are well past 100 days of this Government. In fact I think most Kiwis are finding that they're well past this Government entirely. But that's the first question around this bill: why has it taken so long for a Labour Party promise to come to the House? This is not a question about the merit of the bill—obviously the left like it. The question is: why has it taken so so long to get here? [Interruption] We sort of have a choir going on from our lefty friends today which is involving only two words—they probably can't be heard. One is "support" and one is "contractors" as if stating two words is in itself an argument. The problem we have fundamentally is that this bill is increasing union rights which is going to be a detriment to the industry and I would argue to the very workers that the union is supposed to represent and we'll tease that out a bit.But first and foremost—well it's not first and foremost. I'm already two minutes in; I've already done twice as long as any Labour MP. Jo Luxton pointed out concerns around sexual harassment and other conditions that this bill touches on. The National Party has absolutely no problem with that but like any legislation this bill the Screen Industry Workers Bill goes much much wider. So I stress that for anybody who's watching this the National Party supports a good amount of what's in this legislation. As I say increased protections around harassment bullying and so forth makes absolute and perfect sense. However that's not simply what the bill is about; it gives enormous powers to the union to negotiate contracts.Now the counterargument from the other side is that what's known as the "Hobbit law" passed by the John Key Government went too far in the other direction basically stripping—well there was no union power. Contracts were negotiated between individuals and if you're a good left-wing Marxist like most of them are on the other side you'll talk about hierarchies and power imbalances and so forth. Tāmati Coffey laughs because he doesn't quite understand what the word "Marxist" means but they would argue that it went far too far. The only corollary of course is that this bill like any good pendulum has flipped completely out the other side. And so the left is here today patting itself on the back. They're absolutely delighted. They think it's going to be marvellous—all these new union conditions that are going to be imposed.So first and foremost it's certain payback. We definitely know—we can see though the legislative changes being pushed through this House including around fair pay agreements—that the unions are absolutely delighted. The Labour Party has taken a great leap backwards to take us into the 1950s and 1960s—the cloth cap makers across the country will be delighted. The payback is being given. But the other element that's going to be kicking forward—or kicking backwards strictly—is that there will not be the contracts for the union to negotiate. So the unions probably think this is a win. The Labour Party certainly thinks it's a win. The Greens probably think it's a win. Some in the industry yes think it's a win and that it's just great except they're going to find there is no industry actually and let's just elucidate on that in two particular ways.Barbara Edmonds actually gave a very thoughtful contribution mentioning two people from New Zealand who are doing work overseas which I think is absolutely fantastic and very much an expression of our modern environment. I would be relatively confident—I'd better be clear: I don't know but I'd be relatively confident—that this law will not impact those people because if they're working in New Zealand for a company overseas those are external international contracts and this law has no impact. In fact it's symbolic of what is going to happen more. New Zealanders will be doing screen production work for overseas companies. Yes they can still be in New Zealand which is tremendous—probably thanks to the ultra-fast broadband that National rolled out—but actually they're going to be governed by international contracts.The second point—and I raised this; I can't remember whether it was in the second reading or maybe the first reading speech—is that we are already seeing an industry that's under pressure and I used Amazon as a really good example. I will admit I have downloaded Prime. I'm paying a subscription to watch The Lord of the Rings. It's not quite in the spirit of Tolkien but you know it's still entertaining and it's a distraction from occasional life in Parliament. But Amazon has already left New Zealand. Things were already getting difficult enough for them. It was a major screen industry and as I pointed out before they're leaving because of the Labour Government. In effect the ridiculous COVID rules mandates and proscriptions that the Government pushed basically saw them leave. Paul Goldsmith is completely correct. New Zealand is not the only country that has mountains and rivers and so forth. They can go to Slovakia and the UK and a whole lot of other places and they are—they have. And so already we are seeing an exodus and this bill is going to make it even worse I would argue. I could be wrong. I'm more than happy for the left to come back at me in years to come and say "Look the movie industry in New Zealand the screen—Hon Member: It's a deal.SIMON O'CONNOR: —industry is thriving." Jo Luxton or someone on the other side has said "It's a deal."—they'll come back and tell me I'm wrong and I'd be happy to be wrong but I don't think I'm going to be. I think the screen industry in New Zealand is already struggling. It's already under major pressure and this law change is going to make things much much more difficult. So it's pyrrhic victory—once again to offend the principles of plain language that the Labour Government is keen on. It's a pyrrhic victory. Today the Labour Party the Green Party various union officials and others will delight in what has happened but they're going to find and those contractors are going to find that there just isn't the work here in New Zealand. It's as simple as that. And related to it as well is that in recent days the screen industry not only on the international side but also the domestic side will lose funding. Now under Willie Jackson most of the money from New Zealand On Air that used to go to the likes of SPADA—the Screen Production and Development Association—and others to do screen industry work in New Zealand is going to go to Willie Jackson's new multimedia TVNZ/RNZ. In other words we're also seeing pressure on the screen industry where domestic funding's been removed So we have a bill here that is changing the conditions which is going to make it even harder for anyone to actually do any film production and simultaneously we have a Government now looking to strip the funding which some of our screen production associations are using. As I say the funding from New Zealand On Air is going to be diverted—not all of it and most of those on the left are looking confused because Willie Jackson probably hasn't explained it to them or if he did they couldn't understand a word he was saying which is pretty normal. They are taking money that the screen industry and if you will the workers use and it's to be pumped into this new—I've forgotten what they call it—New Zealand media company the fusion of Radio New Zealand and TVNZ. So I would suggest to the House and to you Madam Speaker that this piece of legislation is not going to help the industry at all; in fact I think we're seeing unfortunately an industry going backwards. You can see the great benefits we've had of a screen industry that has been thriving up until recent years. Again I want to acknowledge that COVID had an impact—rather not COVID but the rules the Labour Government held to.Hon Members: Oh!SIMON O'CONNOR: They sigh of course but these guys have probably never talked to an Amazon or all the companies in New Zealand that had work through them. It's now gone. Again we want to stress that—gone. That's thousands of jobs thousands and thousands of jobs and if the left think that this bill is going to make things better they are sorely wrong.So I want to conclude where I started. To bookend this little story—well it will be 10 minutes—even if those on the left think that the previous law and what is currently the existing law is wrong they are welcome to think that. And you can make a relatively coherent and rational argument of why it was not a good law. I personally think it was fine but I can understand the rational argument against it. This bill is like a pendulum which is swinging far too far in this case to the left. Once again they say "Oh the industry wants"—yeah fine. It's great that they want it. It's going to be really interesting in the coming months and years when they find there is no industry and they're all wringing their hands and saying "Oh I wish the Government would give us more money. Oh we need bailouts because there's just no one coming here. Oh we've lost all our best talent overseas." I look forward to the left and those people opining. Anyway thank you very much Madam Speaker."