Parker David: Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
Parker David: Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:14958] 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 I have no doubt that Sir Peter Jackson wanted  
The Hobbit  
made in New Zealand just as I have no doubt that the film workers wanted  
The Hobbit  
made in New Zealand; that the New Zealand unions wanted  
The Hobbit 
 made in New Zealand; that National wanted  
The Hobbit  
made in New Zealand; that the Labour Party wanted  
The Hobbit  
made in New Zealand; that the Greens ACT and the Maori Party all wanted this movie made in New Zealand; and even that Warner Bros wanted this movie made in New Zealand. Why did all of those people want that movie made in New Zealand? It is not because the National Government or John Key walk on water but because we have a highly skilled film industry that will make a good movie at a good price. 
What has gone on here is a game of brinkmanship—brinkmanship by all parties. Some of that brinkmanship ended earlier than other brinkmanship. The brinkmanship by the union movement—and there was brinkmanship by the union movement—was pulled out some time ago. Indeed we have the email on file from Warner Bros acknowledging that the union dispute was over. The union dispute was over by 18 October— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: American time. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: —American time. The brinkmanship in respect of Warner Bros was matched by brinkmanship on National’s side. I am not necessarily criticising it for all of that brinkmanship. The Minister of Finance said that we would not spend any more money and we would not change the laws. The Minister for Economic Development said we would not spend more money. We would not expect them to go into a negotiation saying that there was lots more money but it was brinkmanship. The brinkmanship went a bit far and National got a fright because it thought Warner Bros was going to pull the pin that that side of the negotiation would pull the pin and go somewhere else like Ireland. So National got worried and it thought about who it could blame. 
The brinkmanship was going poorly so what did National do? It said that it was all the fault of the Labour Party and the unions. The Labour Party and the unions have been the whipping boy for National because the brinkmanship got away from it and it thought it would lose the deal and get egg on its face. Ever since that risk point was encountered by John Key every media moment that he has he stands up—even though he knows it is not true that the Labour Party has been involved in any meaningful way in these negotiations—and says that it is the Labour Party’s fault that it has been colluding with the Council of Trade Unions and with others because it wants  
The Hobbit  
to be lost to New Zealand. First it is not true that we have been involved. Second it is just not credible to suggest that we do not want  
The Hobbit  
made here just like it is not credible for us to suggest that National does not want  
The Hobbit  
made here. This is baloney—this is baloney. 
I want to read what John Armstrong said in the  
New Zealand Herald  
today in respect of the Government’s agreement to do what is completely unnecessary in respect of our law. It is already clear that in the film industry one can have a contractual relationship rather than an employment relationship; one has just to properly structure it. As Charles Chauvel has already said it happens every day. If multimillion-dollar businesses like the businesses that are running this project cannot properly construct their contractual relationships so that they are contracts of service rather than employment relationships then they are not as good as they think they are. It is a nonsense to suggest that they cannot already do this within current law. 
This is all about National sticking it to the unions and trying to label the Labour Party at the same time. What does John Armstrong say? He says: “… the company walks away from what insiders say were tough negotiations with another $13.4 million to offset the films’ marketing costs.” in addition to the US$15 million in extra tax write-offs. He says further: “Far more unseemly however is the Government’s kowtowing to Warner Bros and agreeing to put legislation before Parliament as soon as today to clarify the distinction between ‘independent contractors’ and ‘employees’ as it relates to the local film industry.” 
I think Professor Roth at the University of Otago called it right in one of the major dailies in New Zealand last week when he said that this is just banana republic stuff rolling over to Warner Bros and changing laws unnecessarily. I do not even think it was driven by Warner Bros; I think it was driven mainly by National and John Key who were playing a game of brinkmanship with Warner Bros. I can understand a bit of brinkmanship in these negotiations but it looked like it was going to turn sour so National wanted someone else to blame. It has tried to draw in the Labour Party as if it was our fault that these negotiations had gone sour when we were nowhere near it. National has been trying to say that this is all the unions’ fault despite the fact that the unions pulled out of the game of brinkmanship long before National pulled out. At the end the two players in the game of brinkmanship were Warner Bros and the Government. Let no one else be fooled: they were the two players left standing in the game of brinkmanship. 
We all know that Warner Bros plays a tough game; it does it every time. There is lots of money involved. It has taken another $25 million from taxpayers through this game of brinkmanship. But what I object to is the Government letting Warner Bros write our sovereign laws in New Zealand when there is not even a material problem to be fixed. 
Hon Member 
: Yeah right! Who believes that? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: If there is a material problem to be fixed why is it not a problem in other industries? Electricians and carpenters work in all sorts of industries. Cleaners and couriers work in contractual relationships. They are exactly the same issues. They are no more difficult in this industry than in any other industry. Indeed as Charles Chauvel has said they have not been a problem in the film industry for the last 5 years. 
This game of brinkmanship from the Government was getting worrisome. The Government is on the ropes for its lack of performance in economic development generally. Its Minister for Economic Development Gerry Brownlee has failed totally in his ambition to close the wage gap with Australia. It has had problems with mining in national parks. Its economic development strategy has been shown to be in tatters and it was at risk of losing  
The Hobbit 
—it was at risk of losing  
The Hobbit 
. 
I have to say that the Prime Minister plays a pretty good game of politics; I acknowledge that. But let us acknowledge it for the reality it is. This is a political game. Brinkmanship has been used as an excuse to stick it to Helen Kelly to stick it to the union movement and to try to label the Labour Party as being the cause of the problem when the underlying reality is that there were some tough negotiations going on between Warner Bros and the New Zealand Government. The New Zealand Government took it to the wire. The “smile and wave” “she’ll be right” attitude of the Prime Minister was carried on probably just a little too long so they did not get down to the hard end of the negotiations until it looked like the movie was at risk of being lost. 
The Prime Minister was very effectively and very politically trying to say that this problem was anyone’s but the Government’s—anyone’s but the Government’s. The Government took the brinkmanship to the wire; so did Warner Bros. Warner Bros released $25 million from taxpayers. That is bad enough but I can live with it. That is the harsh reality of these transactions with a multinational like that. But there was no need for the Government to roll over and let Warner Bros scratch its tummy when it came to a completely unnecessary change to New Zealand’s laws relating to independent contractors. There is no widespread problem. This is a ruse on the part of the Government to hide how close it took it in its game of brinkmanship.