Hipkins Chris: Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Hipkins Chris: Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:15013] 
CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) 
: 
 I am happy to take a brief call on the amendment to clause 2 to insert new clause 2A into the Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill in which my colleague Trevor Mallard proposes to set an expiry day for this outrageous Warner Bros bill that would amend the Employment Relations Act. However I will pick up on a comment made by Mr Mallard. 
Mr Mallard suggested that 8 November would be an auspicious day on which this bill could expire—a day on which people could celebrate. He rejected the idea of 5 November and so on. I do not think that 8 November is an appropriate day to celebrate. In fact it is a very bad day for us in the Labour Party because 2 years ago on 8 November the National Party won the election. That is certainly not a day that we want to celebrate on this side of the Chamber. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: This could be a rebalancing. 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: Perhaps this could be a rebalancing. It was the day that I was elected however so I guess we can certainly celebrate that on this side of the Chamber. There are probably more auspicious dates than 8 November for us to set for the expiry of this legislation. 
There are very good reasons for this law to expire and be off the statute book as fast as possible. In fact the  
New Zealand Herald  
editorial today points out how crazy the Government is to go ahead and rush this legislation through at the behest of Warner Bros. I am a little confused about why we are doing this under urgency. The Government seems to be trying to have it both ways. On the one hand it says Warner Bros did not want this legislation and on the other it throws Parliament into urgency to push it through because without it we would not have  
The Hobbit 
. So which is it? Is it that Warner Bros does not want it or is it that Warner Bros would take  
The Hobbit  
away without it? I am still waiting to hear. The Government cannot seem to make up its mind as to whether Warner Bros actually wanted this legislation. 
I think the  
New Zealand Herald  
hit the nail on the head when it said: “Warner Bros simply seized the chance to apply pressure on unrelated issues.” That is from the  
New Zealand Herald 
’s editorial and it hit the nail on the head. Warner Bros saw the Government coming. It saw the Government coming when John Key sent the VIP cars out to the airport to pick them up and whisk them away to Premier House for a high-level summit. Suddenly the price went up. Warner Bros realised it could demand whatever it wanted for  
The Hobbit  
to stay in New Zealand and the Government would acquiesce because it was so desperate. John Key was so desperate not to lose the photo opportunity of standing next to  
The Hobbit 
. 
We know that that is what this Government is all about: how many photos John Key can smile and wave in. The Government will oppose the sunset clause that Trevor Mallard has proposed for this legislation because it does not want to do anything that would risk losing John Key’s photo opportunities. Ultimately that is what this whole Government is geared towards: more photo opportunities for the Prime Minister. There is no substance to its programme. There is no plan to deliver on all the promises it made at the last election—no plan at all. It is all about photo opportunities. That is why it is so keen to keep  
The Hobbit  
in New Zealand. 
I want to see  
The Hobbit  
stay in New Zealand. I am glad  
The Hobbit  
is staying in New Zealand. But I do not think we should give up our sovereignty in order to have  
The Hobbit  
stay in New Zealand. I do not think we should become the Warner Bros colony that John Key wants to turn this country into as this fantastic diagrammatic representation that arrived overnight via email suggests. I think the Government should have had a bit more backbone than that. I actually think the Government should have gone into bat for New Zealanders. It should have shown that it has some principles rather than simply giving Warner Bros whatever it asked for. Apparently if we listen to what the Government is saying we find that it gave Warner Bros stuff that it did not ask for. The Government cannot make up its mind whether Warner Bros asked for this legislation. It says Warner Bros did not ask for it but it thinks it is really important so it will push it through under urgency in a single day. What a load of rubbish that is. It is one or the other: either Warner Bros did not want it or it did. The Government cannot make up its mind on that so the  
New Zealand Herald 
 editorial got it right. 
The other reason why this bill should have a sunset clause in it is very very relevant I think. The  
New Zealand Herald  
editorial got it right when it said “the granting of exemptions such as this almost invariably equates to bad law-making.” It went on to argue: “It is foolish to go down the slippery slope of offering ever-greater subsidies to attract industry or investment. That race always ends in tears.”