Ardern Jacinda: Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
Ardern Jacinda: Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:14989] 
JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) 
: 
 I think I must have been looking eager to speak. I acknowledge that we really are privileged to have such a wide range of colleagues in the Chamber tonight in particular within the troop of Muppets. We have had Waldorf and Statler and David Bennett’s particular speech earlier in the night has given me a new appreciation for his role as Beaker from  
The Muppets 
. 
I have listened to some of the debate this evening and I have come up with a new title for the Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill. It relates specifically to the fact that in all of the discussion we have had to date members on this side of the Chamber have been very careful to make rational arguments as to why this legislation is unnecessary. All I have seen on that side of the Chamber is repeated generalisations and character assassinations to a degree that I have not seen in the Chamber before. So I think we could just call this bill the “Excuse for Character Assassination Bill” or the “Excuse to Generalise about Unions Bill” and it has been an excuse to run down Helen Kelly whom I have great admiration for. She has I think received unprecedented and unnecessary attacks in the Chamber and I think we will be revisiting the nature of some of those attacks from that side of the Chamber in weeks to come. All of that has been given extra leverage by this bill. I think this bill is a front. It is a front for a whole lot of arguments that that side of the Chamber wants to run and they are entirely unnecessary. 
On this side of the Chamber we have repeated time and time again the facts of this scenario. We on this side of the Chamber have acknowledged from the beginning that this issue could have played out differently. Both sides of the argument could have played out differently. We have been fair and acknowledged that. What have members opposite acknowledged? They have made simplistic statements that Labour by opposing this legislation is anti-film and anti - New Zealand. In fact David Bennett went one step further. David Bennett tried to claim that Labour purposely tried to stop this movie from happening. So I would almost call this bill the “Excuse to Give Rubbish Speeches Bill” because that is exactly what we had from David Bennett. For him to imply that Labour did not want this film to occur is absolutely outrageous and I think an insult to the member’s own intelligence. 
David Bennett 
: Really? 
JACINDA ARDERN 
: That is the biggest compliment I will give the member tonight. What was this issue about? I am currently discussing the “Excuse to Give Rubbish Speeches Bill” Mr Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: You could have fooled me. 
JACINDA ARDERN 
: If we knew on 18 October that the specific issues of employment relations that were being brought forth had been resolved 10 days ago then we would have to now ask what this bill is really about. This comes to the heart of the title debate because if we discover the true meaning we can give the bill the appropriate title. My colleagues have already rightly pointed out that this is a trial period for something that the Government wishes to extend beyond just the film industry because in fact the film industry does not need this legislation. From the outset the actors have said that they want to be independent contractors. That is what they want. They have never denied that. So why then does this bill— 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: Why does the union want a collective contract? 
JACINDA ARDERN 
: I can explain to Mr Brownlee that even from over here I could understand what was going on. The actors wanted to discuss terms and conditions; they did not want to be considered employees. They never did. That proves that this bill is the “Unnecessary Piece of Legislation Bill”. It is completely unnecessary which means we have to look for the true motive. 
If we are looking for true motive I ask where we should look. What is the benefit of calling someone an independent contractor rather than an employee? We do not have to scratch too far to figure that out. The actors know that they are better off being independent contractors because that is the nature of their work. But for a number of other people involved in the film industry it is a very different scenario. So I ask why we would want to call someone an independent contractor rather than an employee.