Beaumont Carol: Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Beaumont Carol: Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:15010] 
CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour) 
: 
 I congratulate my colleague the Hon Trevor Mallard on moving his amendment to insert new clause 2A into the Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill. I think it provides a very good opportunity for us to consider whether this bill is necessary. This amendment brings in an expiry provision for this legislation which is currently suggested to be 8 November 2010. As others have said that would be an interesting scenario given that the legislation would not actually be effective by then. Of course that would be the best possible outcome from the point of view of members on this side of the Chamber. This legislation is ill-thought-through. It is unnecessary and I intend to explain why that is the case. 
As a first suggestion I would urge members opposite to support this amendment and recognise that this legislation is poor lawmaking. New Zealand is in the situation where many people are now questioning the nature of our democracy and sovereignty. If Warner Bros can determine domestic legislation—which labour legislation clearly is; it is about how we organise our workplaces the arrangements that we say will exist and the minimum standards that apply to people in our industries—then we are in deep trouble. Certainly yesterday when I was speaking in the House on this matter I raised a number of questions. That was one of them. I said at that stage that I think questions will now start to be asked. People will want to know what this Government is doing and whether the changes in terms of increasing the subsidies available and also in terms of changing our domestic labour law are necessary. 
Certainly the  
New Zealand Herald  
has taken up the challenge. I can put it on record that the  
New Zealand Herald  
has asked the questions. The heading of its editorial is: “Price to keep Hobbit in NZ is extortionate.” The  
New Zealand Herald  
goes on to say it does not have anything against our film industry—none of us do despite what Government members are saying. But the editorial goes on to say: “In both instances”—in terms of both granting the extra money and changing our domestic labour laws—“Warner Bros used fears that the films would be lost to this country to leverage a better deal for itself. There was no question of  
The Hobbit 
 being shot elsewhere before an industrial boycott—lifted before the negotiations began—involving actors wanting to bargain collectively. Warner Bros simply seized the chance to apply pressure on unrelated issues. In both instances it should have been resisted. The Prime Minister however always seemed relaxed about amending the law to provide ‘clarity’ in the film sector.” 
This is the legislation that we are talking about here. In fact the clarity that this bill is supposedly providing is unnecessary. As many of us have already indicated including my learned colleague Charles Chauvel there is no lack of clarity about the status of people who work in the film industry. People in the film industry many of them work as independent contractors now. There is settled law on this matter. The tests are quite clear. For well-paid technical people and well-paid actors it actually suits their interests to be independent contractors. There are also people in the film industry who are less well paid and who are clearly employees. The tests have been outlined very clearly most recently by our Supreme Court in the 2005 Bryson case. 
This legislation is unnecessary and this is why I support the amendment of the Hon Trevor Mallard to let this legislation expire. If we want to talk about improving the conditions in the film industry that is a different matter. But it is not clarity that is required. In fact this legislation does not even deal with the matter that the dispute was about. The dispute was about independent contractors seeking to collectively organise to improve conditions in the film industry. It was not to negotiate a collective employment agreement as some have incorrectly said but to collectively look at their terms and conditions. This has been done previously in the Pink Book and it is about time that it was improved. International actors’ organisations will tell us that the conditions in New Zealand are not up to par. There was a legitimate question there. We should let this legislation expire and we should deal with the real issues.