Mallard Trevor: Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
Mallard Trevor: Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:14981] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 It will not surprise members of the Government that there will be a number of amendments. The first of the amendments in my name indicates that the words “Film Production Work” in the title should be omitted and “As Requested by Warner Bros” be substituted. We looked at a number of possible titles and did so very recently given the Minister’s adoption of the suggestions of Mr Charles Chauvel. We thought about the title “Employment Relations (Hurriedly and Badly Drafted) Amendment Bill” but we thought that you Mr Chairperson might regard that as something that is facetious. 
We are focusing on trying to get an appropriate title for a bill that is inappropriate and people who look carefully at this bill will not be able to find a title that fits the bill if it is to be considered in a serious manner. The legislation is to be called the Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Act 2010. There is a question there about whether that title is appropriate whether we want an Act of that sort and whether this legislation is designed to focus on an employment relationship. 
I think if we look carefully at the bill and at the intentions of the Government in this area we see that the bill should in fact be titled the “Not an Employment Relations Amendment Bill”. To use the vernacular of Tau Henare it should be the “Employment Relations—Not—Bill”. The Government is saying that this is not an employment relationship so why is it giving the bill a title that suggests that it is? I am sure we will work our way over the next period of time around a number of alternatives that the bill could be called. It could be the “Employment Relations (John Key Kowtowing) Bill”. Mr Brownlee nods his head. I am pleased to see that he accepts the possibility of it being called the “Employment Relations (John Key Kowtowing) Bill”. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: The only one who kowtows around here is that member. Bent over for the unions. That’s him. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: He got bent over. He got rogered. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I think I can anticipate what the point of order is. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Both of them? Did you get the other one? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Well this is a robust debate. I think when the member starts using words like “kowtow”—and I mentioned a bevel in an earlier debate—we start down that process where each response tends to— 
Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman 
: Escalate. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I am on my feet but thank you. Yes it escalates. I try to be fair about this. We have suggested that the term “bend over” should not be used in this debate because of its ambiguity. If we allow it then things degenerate. In the same way I could say that the member’s using the term “kowtow” does exactly the same thing. I will try to keep this debate on a level track. I cannot control what members say; I can only at points in the debate say that we have gone too far. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. That was not actually the offensive term. I do not know whether I have to repeat what Mr Henare said but he used an extremely offensive term. I ask that he be asked to withdraw and apologise for the unparliamentary term he used. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I did not hear; my focus was on something else. If the member said something unparliamentary let us just withdraw it now. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: I did not say anything unparliamentary. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I think we now have a question but we will deal with it through privilege. The member said that I was rogered. I find that exceptionally offensive and I ask for it to be withdrawn. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I must be sort of pure because I really do not understand the significance of that term—and I say that genuinely. But offence has been taken and I ask the member to withdraw. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: I withdraw. I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Last night one of our colleagues took offence at something. She asked you four times for the— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: The member cannot refer to something that is not current. At that time I gave a ruling and I am not going to recanvass that issue. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I think if most members argued with you from their seat after you ruled and called you contradictory you would call them to order. That is what the member just did. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I was listening very carefully. The member said “it contradicts”; he did not personalise it. I am prepared to move on with the debate. I am watching very carefully. If I have to be more vigilant about words that are said I will be. But I want this debate to actually flow. I think that is what we are here for. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Clause 1 is the title clause. It is where we make a decision as to what is an appropriate title for this bill. The Government has suggested Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Act 2010. The Labour Opposition is indicating that it will not support that title because it is inappropriate from a number of angles. One is that it indicates that a particular relationship is not an employment relationship. This bill denies an employment relationship or the opportunity for people to develop an employment relationship—something that is quite foreign to the approach in New Zealand. It says “Film Production Work”. Well if one looks at this bill one sees that it is much broader than film production work. One could start with video games. If Gerry Brownlee and Kate Wilkinson cannot tell the difference between a film and a video game they are of an even worse generation than I am in these matters. I am pretty Neanderthal as far as these things go but I know the difference between a video game and a film. 
It is a pity that a number of members opposite like Tau Henare and the Minister in charge of the bill could not focus on getting a title that more accurately describes the content of the legislation. For example I think it is arguable that acting is not a core part of film production. A lot of actors do voice-overs do body doubles—and I think we might have a bit of fun with body doubles as the debate goes on—work as dancers and work as entertainers. The question is whether all of those people should be covered by this legislation and in what circumstances it is appropriate to cover them. 
I am looking forward to the contribution from the Minister in charge of the bill on this particular clause in respect of the appropriateness of the title. I think there will be considerable debate and a number of alternative titles. I think it is fair to say that some of those titles will be facetious; in the end Mr Chairperson you may end up ruling out some of the amendments as they come to the Committee but that will be a matter of judgment for you. We will try to get them to you at least 30 seconds before they are voted on in order for you to give them the consideration that they deserve. I am aware of the rules; as a whip on the other side of the Chamber I did some work on occasions to try to ensure that amendments to title clauses were serious amendments rather than facetious amendments. If they are facetious amendments of course they can be debated but they cannot be voted on. Therefore we will have quite a lot of debate on facetious amendments and some on serious amendments as well. The way the rules go is sort of unusual. It is quite lovely at the moment from our perspective. There is not a limitation on moving the amendments; the limitation is actually on their being put. That is what the Labour Party will do. 
There are a lot of views around as to better words to go in here. I would be interested in the contribution of the Maori Party as to whether we could have some translations that would fit better in here. I do not want to refer too directly to Mr Brownlee or to the description of a relationship that he had at one stage which suggested that someone was a whale rider. There is a question about whether we could have a translation of that and whether we could work that into the title.  
Whale Rider 
 is an iconic New Zealand movie and one that was made under current legislation. We did not need a bill we did not need a particular title and we did not need a new arrangement in order to make it and maybe that was appropriate. 
Maybe for the Maori Party we will go into the more modern era and talk about its subservient approach on this legislation. I congratulate Hone Harawira on withdrawing his vote on this issue and on not voting with National. Given the approach that National has had to the Maori Party recently maybe “Boy” is the right word to be included in the title of this legislation. Maybe that is its approach to the Maori Party in this sort of legislation. I just want to say that the attitude of ACT does not surprise me; that party thinks that the bill does not go far enough and I will be interested in its amendments. It might be the “Employment Relations (ACT Goes Further) Amendment Bill”.