Parmar ParmjeetDr PARMJEET PARMAR (National): I'm taking this call to oppose the Screen Industry Workers Bill in the first reading. I would like to start by reminding members in Government that when National came in in 2008 the global financial crisis was coming our way. We were doing everything possible to cushion our families and businesses from the adverse impacts of the global financial crisis. Yes we had to make some changes in a very very short time to ensure we were able to retain jobs here in New Zealand. We didn't want to see our film industry going offshore. That is the reason we had to do a lot of changes—Marja Lubeck: That's got nothing to do with this bill at all.Dr PARMJEET PARMAR: —we had to bring in policies to support—DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Order! I won't speak to Marja Lubeck again. You are not in your position. You are at the back of the House. You cannot move your seat in order to interject I'm sorry.Hon Iain Lees-Galloway: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Whilst that is a literal and precise interpretation of the Standing Orders and Speakers' rulings it is normal practice at this time of night for members to move more towards the main block of the House. Marja Lubeck is still in the back row of the Government benches and it is not unusual for members to occupy a seat in that position and to interject in a normal fashion during a debate. I think your ruling this evening departs significantly from the way Speakers usually address these kinds of issues and I'd ask you to reflect on that.DEPUTY SPEAKER: I have reflected on it. I did give the member a warning. There were two members who were continually interrupting. It was not normal interjection and I think other members can support that. Marja Lubeck has been interjecting constantly and that's why I have spoken.Dr PARMJEET PARMAR: And we stand by the change that we did to the employment legislation that brought the law which is commonly called the Hobbit law". Definitely we know that that law is working really well because in the film industry we have seen the flexible labour market is giving us the revenue that we need to support our economy. We have seen since that Government came in the economy is going down—economic growth is sliding down. When we were in Government we were supporting the economy. This is another piece of legislation that is a good example of policies that they are bringing to damage our economy.This bill is nothing except supporting their union friends. Yes—exactly. This is about bringing collective bargaining for people that are not defined as employees in their employment agreement. They want to capture each and every individual—Hon Dr Megan Woods: Usually you say "union mates" FYI.Dr PARMJEET PARMAR: —working in the film industry to ensure that they become union members. It's all about "You scratch my back and I'll scratch your back" because unions obviously—Hon Member: What?Dr PARMJEET PARMAR: Yes in the last election—Kieran McAnulty: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. This is the chair of the Education and Workforce Committee and I think it's highly improper—and I would argue in breach of Speakers' rulings 49/1 and 49/2—to suggest that this Government is acting in a way that is under the direction of another body. The suggestion that this is as the member said "You scratch my back; I scratch yours" "this Government's doing it to build union membership"—that is an improper suggestion on this bill.DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yeah I can't agree entirely. I think it is borderline but I think to suggest that saying "You scratch my back I'll scratch yours" is implying that there's some outside force being brought to bear is probably a step too far. As the Minister in the chair has said across the House in interjections "What you normally say is 'your union mates' ". So I think there's a bit of give and take here but I will ask the member to be a bit more careful.Dr PARMJEET PARMAR: Speaking to the point of order.DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well I don't think I really need any help. I'm not ruling it out of order; I'm just saying that the member needs to be careful because it is against the Standing Orders to suggest that anyone outside is bringing force to bear in order to gain an advantage.Dr PARMJEET PARMAR: Thank you Madam Speaker and I was going to actually build on that but—[Interruption] I can see why they're so scared. They don't want me to talk about that and now they're laughing because they're so embarrassed about what's coming out through this legislation. It's really obvious—it's obvious—Kieran McAnulty: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I do firmly believe that that comment from the member is actually reflecting on your ruling. You've just instructed this member not to go down this line because it is in your words "borderline" and arguably a breach of Speakers' rulings—to then stand up and say "Well I know why they don't want them to say it." We brought it up because it's a breach of Speakers' rulings not for any other reason and I think her suggesting that is actually reflecting on your ruling Madam Speaker.Hon Member: A ruling that it didn't breach Speakers' rulings.DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you; I can deal with this. Yeah there wasn't actually a breach. And unfortunately in the three or four minutes we have left and in the laughter and hilarity that's happening I think it was a reasonable to and fro between both sides and I decided not to intervene but I will ask Parmjeet Parmar to continue addressing the bill that is before this House.Dr PARMJEET PARMAR: So this Government is really keen on bringing in collective bargaining and definitely there are questions about that—why this Government is so keen on bringing in collective bargaining in each and every industry. They don't care about how many jobs are being created; all they care about is how many people are getting collective bargaining access—that's all they care about and we know the underlying reason for that.This legislation does nothing. It just unwinds the good work that was done by the previous National Government. And then we also see that the select committee process is going to be a truncated process. So that means they don't want the industry to have their say in the select committee process because they want to deliver this result before this election because they want to go out and say that yes there are more people now in collective bargaining. We do not support this legislation.DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'm sorry—just a bit slow getting to my feet. This debate is interrupted and is set down for resumption next sitting day.Debate interrupted.The House adjourned at 10 p.m."