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:14945] 
CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour) 
: 
 I intend to put a few facts into the mix today. We have just listened to the most ridiculous set of misleading half-truths stereotypes and absolutely ridiculous comments from the Minister for Economic Development. But before I do that I want to make a few points on my behalf and on behalf of my colleagues. 
I reiterate the point made by the Hon Trevor Mallard that on this side of the House we value our creative industries. We take great pride in our creative industries. If we look at the track record of the previous Government we can see absolute chapter and verse how we supported the creative industries in this country. So first of all—fact—we support the creative industries. Just ask the people who work in those industries about the last Government’s support for their industries. Secondly we want  
The Hobbit 
 to be made in New Zealand and are glad that it is being made in this country. Like everybody else in Parliament and like all of the people in New Zealand we are proud of films like  
The Lord of the Rings 
 films and I am sure we will be proud of  
The Hobbit 
. I want that on the table as a matter of fact. That is what was driving some of the polls referred to earlier; all New Zealanders want to see this film made here. 
But I want to dive beneath that to look at some of the detail and try to get a few questions answered. We know that the creative industries provide jobs in this country. We know that economically they are very valuable in terms of the money spent in New Zealand. We also know their value for tourism. But we have to have some answers to our questions. This whole debacle has been a major embarrassment for our country. To watch Government members across the House acting in the way they have in relation to Warner Bros has been an absolute embarrassment for this country. What about the economic and political sovereignty of New Zealand? I intend to ask some questions on that. I intend to ask some questions on how members opposite handle disputes because honestly it has been appalling. There is a labour dispute and where is the Minister of Labour? Nowhere to be seen. Thirdly I intend to look at the actual issues at stake in this dispute and fourthly to look at the actual nature of the bill before the House. We will be debating the Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill over several hours. There are many questions to be answered and I hope the media will start to dig beneath the headlines and ask some hard questions of the Government because they need to be asked. Once the public starts to hear the answers to some of these questions I think we will see quite a different reaction from the one we see at the moment. 
On the issue of economic and political sovereignty I want to know whether this Government can confirm that labour laws should be changed in response to domestic concerns and issues. Maybe the Minister of Labour if she is so inclined could confirm to us whether that is the case—that labour laws are a domestic matter and should be changed in response to our own domestic concerns and issues. If not on what basis should labour law changes be contemplated? That is my first question. My second question is whether the Minister is aware of other sovereign States that have changed labour laws in response to the demands of foreign corporates. Let me say that again: which States have changed labour laws in response to the demands of foreign corporates? I am aware that in South-east Asia there are quite a few examples of what are called export processing zones where exactly that has happened—where countries have changed labour laws to meet the needs of foreign corporates—but it is not something I have seen happen in this country. 
Keith Locke 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I cannot hear Carol Beaumont because of the shouting. I think— 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: You can’t help good luck sometimes! 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Humour is appreciated but not on this particular occasion. The member makes a fair point; this is a chamber of free speech and free speech means that people are free to speak and that members are able to listen to them. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: You wouldn’t want to pay for this. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I am giving a ruling. 
CAROL BEAUMONT 
: As I was saying it is very important to consider why sovereign nations would change their labour laws in response to the demands of foreign corporates. The only examples I can come up with involve export processing zones in South-east Asian countries. Perhaps the Minister of Labour if she can be bothered might answer those questions. The other thing I would like to know is whether we can get some confirmation that there are elements of our labour laws that will not be changed in response to demands by foreign corporates. Are we going to say that any item in our law is open to change if foreign corporates demand it? Perhaps we would reduce the minimum wage if a foreign corporate wants to come here but thinks it is too expensive to employ New Zealand workers. Should we change the minimum wage and say that it can be less for employees of a foreign corporate? This is about a Government that seems willing to make changes to important domestic matters at the behest of foreign corporates. That is my first lot of questions. I hope the Minister will take the time to reassure us on those matters. 
In looking at the Government’s handling of this dispute I point out that the Hon Trevor Mallard has talked about the issues related to the incentives for film companies operating in New Zealand and has asked some questions about them. I note that Sir Peter Jackson raised questions in July of this year about the level of incentive. I have no idea why it was not dealt with by the Government separately from this dispute but somehow it has now become an outcome of this dispute. 
I want to talk more about the issue of the so-called lack of clarity over the legal status of people working in the creative industries. I am sure that my colleague Charles Chauvel will deal with it in a lot more detail but I can say that there is no uncertainty. As others have said including members across the House a lot of the people in the film industry operate now as independent contractors. That is not in question and nobody is disputing that. The Bryson case that has been referred to has not led to the status of a whole lot of people suddenly being changed. This is all a red herring. That 2005 Supreme Court decision has not led to widespread change in the industry. I do not know what the matter is that requires clarification by the bill. We have been told it is about clarifying the status of people in the industry but their status is quite clear and the decision of the Supreme Court was quite clear so it is not about that. 
This bill provides a default provision. As I read the bill in the short time I have had it the default position is that people will be independent contractors. It goes on to say who those people are. It talks about “actor voice-over actor stand-in body double” etc. but also goes on to talk about any person engaged in film production work in any other capacity. That could be the person who answers the phone. I am not sure that such people really require clarification of their status as independent contractors. I am sure that that will come up further on in this debate but I want to keep going with the questions I want to ask. 
I am concerned that this bill will be used to undermine wages and conditions and I want to know that that is not the intention. Independent contractors when they are famous actors and so on are clearly well-paid people and clearly choose that status but it seems to me that no other person in the film production industry benefits from having the status of independent contractor. In fact they would lose a lot of protections that exist under employment law and they would be required to do a number of things like pay their own tax accident compensation levies and so on. There is a risk factor if this status is intended to be extended to cover people other than the people being talked about—the actors the technicians and so on. The Government might wish to keep talking about high-paid actors but many in this industry are not well paid and I am sure that other members will talk about that. But what we know is that this Government puts in place shonky arrangements then extends them elsewhere. We need only look at the 90-day bill which introduced 90 days’ employment with no rights to see precisely that situation occurring. 
The real issue—and I will come back to this point in a later speech—is collectively negotiating terms and conditions and this bill does not deal with that issue at all.