Beaumont Carol: Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
Beaumont Carol: Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:14972] 
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.