Moroney Sue: Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Moroney Sue: Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:15020] 
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
: 
 I thank the Chair for that clarification. I want to speak on clause 3 which amends the principal Act and names the principal Act to be amended as the Employment Relations Act 2000. I accept that the previous contribution from my colleague Grant Robertson was asking a very important question about whether that is the appropriate Act— 
Grant Robertson 
: The amendments. 
SUE MORONEY 
: The question is whether these amendments are appropriate for the Employment Relations Act because of the objectives that that Act very clearly sets out. 
I think it is important that when a Government particularly in urgency without seeking the views of the New Zealand public—it sought the views of an American corporation but did not ask the views of the New Zealand public—decides to amend one of our domestic laws at the behest of an American corporation without any reference to the New Zealand public it is appropriate that we ask whether these amendments are appropriate for this particular Act. Its objective is to have productive workplace relationships and enhance through good faith those workplace relationships. 
These amendments as I understand them—and perhaps the Minister in the chair the Minister of Labour can get up and correct me if I am wrong—attempt to interrupt the employment relationship. They make an employment relationship for workers less possible in the film industry. These amendments determine that once two parties in the film industry agree—an actor or anyone working in the film industry and the person who is contracting them as an independent contractor—that agreement can never be changed or contested. The parties to that agreement can never ask whether at some point it has changed from being an employment relationship of an independent contractor to an employment relationship of an employee. That is at the heart of what this clause seeks to do. It seeks to amend the Employment Relations Act. That Act was put in place with the objective of enhancing and making more productive employment relationships within workplaces. Yet here we have this bill being put forward which seeks to have less of a relationship between the film industry and the staff whom it—I say loosely—employs. I wonder whether I can still say “employ”. 
The whole point is that this legislation is being put through at the behest of an American corporation without any reference to the New Zealand public and without asking them whether they think it is the right Act to be amended at all. The very point of this amendment is to say that there is not an employment relationship. In the film industry for some reason—in the film industry alone—the vast majority of people will not be in an employment relationship; they will be in something different called an independent contracting arrangement. 
This amendment causes me to think about the other times that the Employment Relations Act has been amended particularly under urgency. I wonder how many times this Government has amended that particular Act without any reference to the New Zealand public and without giving them the opportunity to say: “Hang on that is our Act of Parliament and we have something to say about it.” In fact straight after the election it happened a first time when the so-called 90-day trial period legislation amended the Employment Relations Act and again the New Zealand public had no opportunity to come and voice their issues. Companies could not come and say what they thought workers could not come and say what they thought and even the Law Society could not come and say what it thought about the Employment Relations Act being amended in that way. It has not been able to do that in this instance either. I think that is a very important issue to raise when debating clause 3. We have not had—as we like to have I think in this Parliament—a submission from the New Zealand Law Society. We have not sought its advice about whether this is the appropriate Act to amend in this format given that its objective—[ 
Interruption 
] Pardon? 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Tell them to come and stand for election. 
SUE MORONEY 
: Oh the Law Society? So now anyone who wants to have a say over any legislation according to Tau Henare and National needs to be a member of Parliament. Apparently only members of Parliament can have something to say about whether the Employment Relations Act is the correct Act to amend.