Smith Nick: Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Smith Nick: Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:15028] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 The fact that that was the very first speech on the substance of the Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill and that it amounted to 10 minutes of personal denigration speaks volumes about the differences between members on this side of the Chamber who are advocating for the national interest for our country and an Opposition that is more interested in playing personality politics and looking after its Aussie union mates than in looking after what is important for our country. 
Let us go to the core of what this clause is about. It is a very simple issue: is the law clear about whether people working in the film industry are contractors or employees? I think that this Committee should agree that having certainty about that is in everybody’s interests. Let us see what actually happened in the courts. The Employment Relations Authority decided that the person in question was a contractor. When the same case went to the Employment Court the court said that no that person was an employee. Then when the matter went to the Court of Appeal there was a different decision again—a reinforcement that the person was a contractor—and then the Supreme Court decided that the person was an employee. So there we had four judicial bodies coming to two different conclusions. That in my view makes it absolutely plain to this Parliament that the law is not clear and that the right thing to do in the national interest is that we make the law clear with this bill. 
Members opposite have made all sorts of extravagant claims about Warner Bros and the like. But we know that really pulling the strings here are the Aussie unions. It is all very well for members opposite to stand up and make extravagant claims but we are acting in the national interest. I challenge members opposite to tell me who agrees with the description of Sir Peter Jackson—one of the great New Zealanders a man who has done so much for the film industry—as a spoilt brat a spoilt brat by the head of the Council of Trade Unions Helen Kelly. I ask which members opposite disagree with Helen Kelly. Not one! That speaks volumes about the differences in culture and values between this Government and members on the other side of the Chamber. Successful New Zealanders—those who are creating jobs wealth and opportunities for young people—are despised by people opposite and those members write off successful New Zealanders as spoilt brats. We on this side of the Chamber are proud to stand behind Sir Peter Jackson his success the jobs that he will create and the way in which he has successfully promoted our country. 
We have had arguments from members opposite that there should be absolutely no special treatment when defining contractors in employment law. That is what members opposite have argued. Well that is pretty interesting because in the very employment law that they passed they said that when it came to sharemilkers they would have a specific clause. When it came to real estate agents Labour said that no it would have a specific clause. My challenge to members opposite is to ask where their principles are. If there really are absolutes and if there should not be any definition that differentiates between different industries I ask why every member of Labour voted for an Employment Relations Act that specifically differentiates in working through the definitions of who is a contractor and who is an employee in relation to sharemilkers and an Act that also covers those in the real estate industry. 
I note another pathetic argument—and this was one that I really found entertaining. Damien O’Connor got to his feet and said it was absolutely disgraceful that when Warner Bros executives came to New Zealand they were transported by the Government’s cars: “Was that not awful? Did that not show us up?”. In the next speech Grant Robertson said that the Government’s real fault was that we had not had a $100000 booze-up function in Los Angeles to look after the executives. I would love for those members opposite to please explain the logic about why one of those actions is somehow immoral and one is right. 
The last point that I make is about what this issue goes to the core of in terms of some of the arguments about sovereignty. The real sovereignty argument here is whether we are going to allow New Zealanders’ jobs and opportunities to be held to ransom by an Aussie union. Just as the editorial in the  
Dominion Post  
says this morning this Government would not be doing anything in this space if it were not for the botched—the botched—union attempts to blackmail the production of  
The Hobbit  
in New Zealand. 
Grant Robertson 
: Oh! 
Kelvin Davis 
: Rubbish! 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Well if that is the case I ask what has changed. I ask the members who are chipping in whether they support the call by the Aussie actors’ union for a boycott on  
The Hobbit 
. They are silent. It is interesting that they have no view. In my view it was a disgraceful attempt by an Aussie union to disadvantage New Zealand’s most important film industry. I say that this bill that Kate Wilkinson has brought to this Chamber is about the national interest; it is about doing the right thing for New Zealand jobs and it is about doing the right thing for the New Zealand film industry. 
I will make one last point and it is this: members opposite think that the certainty argument does not matter. I would simply like to draw attention to another case before the courts with respect to IDEA Services. In this particular case people went into an employment relationship and the courts later said that the relationship had been misinterpreted. Both employees and the employer in the case of IDEA Services were working in the crucial area of providing support for New Zealanders who needed special care. The courts have come to a decision that will cost IDEA Services $500 million—$500 million. And that decision will change what everybody had thought. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I have two points. I know that it is unusual for an Opposition member to take issue with the width of debate but IHC New Zealand and the film industry are two quite different areas. Probably more important I think that as the member is aware this is a case on which a hearing is currently being held and a decision has not yet been issued. I think the Speaker Dr The Rt Hon Lockwood Smith has ruled on the matter pretty carefully recently. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: On the first point this has been a much broader-ranging debate than I am comfortable with but I am not sure that there has been any greater transgression with the material that the Hon Dr Nick Smith has introduced than with that of some other members. On the second point about a matter before a hearing I am not aware of that matter but if in fact this matter is sub judice the member ought not to refer to the specifics of the case. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: My point is very clear. It is that uncertainty about employment law which down the track can result in hundreds of millions of dollars of cost is an investment killer. That is why this Parliament has a duty to provide certainty in employment law—certainty for employees certainty for employers—and that is exactly what the Minister is attempting to achieve. The legislation is in the national interest it is the right thing to do and if there is any skulduggery going on here it is in the way in which Aussie unions have tried to disrupt the growth of the very important New Zealand film industry.