edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Hughes Darren: Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Hughes Darren: Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:15008] 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I think the danger here is getting into a discussion or debate about the substance or nature of the amendment. The Opposition does not want to do that by way of a point of order; we want to do that by way of debate. The reason for my speaking to the point of order is that the Leader of the House on several occasions has referred to decisions that the House had made in respect of amendments and clauses in the bill. I think it is very important to stress that the House has taken no decisions. We are in the Committee of the whole House and it will be a decision for the House about whether it accepts the report of the Committee. If the Committee makes a series of decisions that are not logical or do not follow then the House can make the decision not to accept the report of the Committee of the whole House. I think the assertion by the Leader of the House that amendments should be ruled out because of decisions made by the House is not the case. They are decisions that may be made in the future but up until that point the Committee of the whole House across all the clauses of the bill is free to consider amendments providing they are within order. 
As Mr Mallard has stated his amendment is in order. The Leader of the House objects to it; he disagrees with it and I suspect he will vote against it. But those are debating matters not matters of whether the amendment is in order because this Committee is yet to report to the House on the final shape of this legislation.
Tremain Chris: Summary Proceedings Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Tremain Chris: Summary Proceedings Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:668;Page:15063] 
CHRIS TREMAIN (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I seek the leave of the House for the Committee stage of the Summary Proceedings Amendment Bill (No 2) to be taken as one debate with multiple calls. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection.
Mallard Trevor: Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Mallard Trevor: Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:15007] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I do not want to take much of the Committee’s time because I think the answer is pretty obvious. I think most members in the Committee understand the difference between starting and finishing between commencement and expiry. The comments made by the Leader of the House could well be good debating points during the debate on the expiry date of the bill. 
Clearly some members on this side of the Chamber think that if such bad legislation is to come in it should be short-term legislation and should have a sunset clause. The concept of a sunset clause is one that is common. Normally I accept the view of the member that there are a few more actual sunsets before the sunset comes down on legislation but I think it is also fair to say that this is very controversial legislation. Members have a strong view and they have a right to debate it.
Brownlee Gerry: Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Brownlee Gerry: Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:15007] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Clearly discussions are going on that indicate that I may be wasting my time but I think the reality is that this debate sets a very bad precedent—a very bad precedent. Clause 2 which has the Act coming into effect the day after it receives its Royal assent has been passed. An amendment to clause 2 which would have required the Act to come into force on 1 April 2012 was defeated by the Committee. In defeating that particular date the Committee said that it expects that the bill will be enacted at that time 1 April 2012. It seems to me that because the Committee expressed very very clearly that it specifically rejected that date it is an utter nonsense to then immediately go through this exercise of working out whether the bill should expire before that date. We are getting into an absurd situation where the Committee expresses its will that the bill will come into effect on 1 April 2012 but is then asked to consider the expiry of the Act on 8 November 2010. That is an utter nonsense. 
We have been through this sort of exercise last year in fact—and at times this year—and I know that the argument will be that one question is about commencement and the other is about expiry. But commencement and expiry are not unlinked. If the Committee has expressed a desire that something should not only have commenced but be enacted on 1 April 2012 it would then be an absurdity for the Committee to ask itself whether it would be a good idea for the Act to expire on 8 November 2010. We end up getting into all sorts of ludicrous situations. We could equally go into a day-by-day arrangement and we have already had an expression from the Speaker—indeed I think Erskine May put forward the proposal—that if a decision was made by the Committee about a future date and there was rejection of other dates leading to it then there was no need to go day by day. This debate is in that same category. 
To be clear I say that the Committee in my mind has said that it expects that this bill will be enacted as a law on and beyond 1 April 2012 but it is now being asked to consider having the Act expire on 8 November 2010. That is retrospective on the decision that has previously been made by the Committee and it would be utterly appalling if we have to spend time going through this exercise today.
Sittings of the House 
Sittings of the House 
[Volume:668;Page:15059] 
Sittings of the House 
JO GOODHEW (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 Now that we have made such good progress and have finished that bill I wonder whether it might be in order that I seek leave of the House for us to go to the lunch break and to resume after that. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Leave is sought to go to the lunch break now and resume at 2 o’clock. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Sitting suspended from 1 p.m. to 2 p.m.
Points of Order — Bills—Availability in Urgency 
Points of Order — Bills—Availability in Urgency 
[Volume:668;Page:15041] 
Points of Order 
Bills—Availability in Urgency 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It does not relate to the Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill. I want to check with the Government that it is still its intention to proceed with another bill after this legislation. I note that that bill is not yet on the Table. I wonder whether that situation will be rectified by the Government. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 No and that is right. The urgency motion allows for the introduction of Government bills as they come up. My understanding is that the bill has been with Opposition parties since the middle of the week. Copies are available. When we are procedurally able to do so they will be tabled.
Mallard Trevor: Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Mallard Trevor: Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:15020] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I am sorry; I was out of the Chamber. I am not sure whether we are allowed to refer to watching the debate on television; I think that is for people outside. I will not refer to watching on television. The question I have is whether it is in order seeing as we are proposing amendments to the Employment Relations Act—because it goes to whether the Opposition might support this clause; clearly we will not support the bill—for other amendments that are obviously related and within the general scope of the bill to be added. As the train is going through can additional carriages be added to it? I think we can accept there cannot be general totally unrelated amendments to the Employment Relations Act but how far the Act is opened up by this clause affects whether in fact we support it. Some of us would like to make some other changes as well and we might well be supportive if that was the case. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I think I will now read Speaker’s ruling 108/5: “Members must focus on the wording of the bill on the intention in this bill and not focus on alternatives that are not part of this bill.” I think that answers the member’s question.
Bennett David: Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Bennett David: Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:15014] 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Brownlee Gerry: Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
Brownlee Gerry: Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:15006] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I want to just get some clarity about the relevance of this clause given that the Committee has expressed its desire that the bill should come into force as soon as it— 
Debate interrupted.
Hutchison Paul: Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
Hutchison Paul: Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:15005] 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Hayes John: Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
Hayes John: Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:15004] 
JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Bridges Simon: Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
Bridges Simon: Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:15003] 
SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Vote: Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
Vote: Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:14998] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand Labour 41; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Clause 1 agreed to.
Mallard Trevor: Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
Mallard Trevor: Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:14998] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. This bill is not in parts. I think you mean clause 1. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I did mean clause 1 and I did say “clause” after I said “part”. My apologies. I will put the motion again.
Mallard Trevor: Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
Mallard Trevor: Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:14998] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Labour had an assurance from the Associate Minister of Finance Steven Joyce that this bill was requested by Warner Bros. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: That is not a point of order. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: It is an outrageous ruling. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: That is not a point of order. I am the judge of whether an amendment is in order and I have ruled that your amendment is out of order. We will move to the vote. The question is that Part 1 stand part. Those of that opinion will say “Aye”—clause 1.
Vote: Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
Vote: Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:14998] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand Labour 41; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Motion agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: We have an amendment in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard. It is a typescript amendment to amend the title of the bill. I have ruled it out of order as not being a serious description of the bill.
Upston Louise: Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
Upston Louise: Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:14996] 
LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupo) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Bennett David: Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
Bennett David: Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:14993] 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Locke Keith: Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
Locke Keith: Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:14986] 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 I am sure my Labour colleagues will get a chance later on to speak on the Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill. A lot of good suggestions have come out for a title. One of the problems with them though is that they are a little bit long. I am working on shortening the title. For example just using the term “Warners” rather than “as requested by Warner Bros” such as in the “Warners Employment Relations Amendment Bill” would shorten it a bit. Even the “Warners Bill” could be used to abbreviate it. Warner Bros is responsible for this bill but we have to give it respect. I do not know whether it is within the Standing Orders—and possibly the Chair or the Minister in the chair Kate Wilkinson could inform us on this—to use the official Warner Bros logo. Is that possible within the Standing Orders? The Minister could tell me a bit later on. Certainly we want to give Warner Bros recognition because it is the force behind this bill. I also think that it will have to cop all the flak for it and that is fair enough. When opprobrium is heaped on this bill as it causes all the legal tangles that I referred to in my second reading speech and that Charles Chauvel went into some detail about and as it collapses in confusion in the District Court High Court Court of Appeal and Supreme Court if it is called the “Warners Bill” we will know who is really responsible. We do not want Warner Bros to get off the hook in any way. 
Another very short term for the bill would be the “No Strike Bill”. It is very simple because that is what it is about. It denies workers who are in the film industry the right to any collective industrial action at any stage in the production of film. Basically it is because an employer when signing up actors or film workers for a period can say that they have to sign up as independent contractors with no rights or they will not get the job. There is nothing in the bill to stop employers acting in that way. I think we could have a simple title like the “Warners Bill” the “No Strike Bill” or perhaps we could join up those two concepts and have the “Warners No Strike Bill”. I think in some ways Warner Bros is lucky here because normally when we give naming rights and put logos on things we charge the company concerned. Again it might be against the Standing Orders to charge Warner Bros for having its logo on this bill. Even so we are giving it a freebie. That is in the spirit of the bill and in the spirit of what the Government has done. Is it $100 million? I have lost track of the millions that the Government has just handed over to Warner Bros but it would be in the spirit of that to give Warner Bros this freebie of naming rights to the bill and its logo on the bill full stop. Thank you.
Hutchison Paul: Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
Hutchison Paul: Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:14994] 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Vote: Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
Vote: Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:14980] 
A party vote  was called for on the question  
That the Employment Relations (Film Production) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand Labour 41; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Bill read a second time.
Tisch Lindsay: Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
Tisch Lindsay: Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:14980] 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I thank the member for those comments and I have McGee open at the page. My ruling is based on the fact that the amendment you have put forward is differently framed from what you are referring to in McGee on page 365. The member’s amendment is entirely in terms of omitting a clause and inserting a schedule. This is a very narrow bill; it has only four clauses. So doing what the member wants to do is foreign to the bill and I have ruled the amendment out of order on that basis. 
Can I refer the member to McGee—obviously you have McGee there—page 364. It states: “On the second reading of a bill members are asked to endorse the bill by giving it a second reading but they may instead decide to defer a decision on it or decide definitively that it should not proceed. Deferral or defeat can also be effected by amending the question for the bill’s second reading. The question for the second reading of the bill is open to amendment in a way that is relevant to one of these objects.” The member’s amendment does not ask for a deferral or for a defeat. “An amendment which merely seeks to add words to the motion does not do either of these things. Such an amendment would attach conditions to the second reading and leave the House’s decision unclear.” On that basis I have ruled the amendment out.
Adams Amy: Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
Adams Amy: Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:14997] 
AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Tisch Lindsay: Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
Tisch Lindsay: Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:14980] 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I note in regard to the comment relating to McGee page 365 that a reasoned amendment must offer an alternative to the second reading and that the issues contained in the bill must be taken up in a different way or forum. The member’s amendment simply offers alternatives for possible consideration in the Committee if they are in fact in order. There is opportunity for the member’s amendment to be dealt with in the Committee of the whole House. I ruled it out for those reasons so I intend to put the question.
Mallard Trevor: Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
Mallard Trevor: Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:14979] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I want to discuss the ruling you have just made. I refer you to page 365 of  
Parliamentary Practice in New Zealand  
by David McGee and to the section on adverse or reasoned amendments. He says: “An amendment moved on the question for the second reading may put forward an abstract proposition relating to the bill—what is known as a reasoned amendment. The proposition will be unfavourable to the bill receiving its second reading that day but it must offer an alternative to the second reading. An amendment declining to give a bill a second reading until certain amendments had been made to it and the money saved expended in other ways was accepted because it offered an alternative course of action to the second reading.” 
What my amendment does is give an alternative course of action. The alternative course of action is obviously the inclusion of an area of employment protection. So it satisfies that test. I assure you that I have looked very carefully at the Standing Orders and Speakers’ rulings in this area and I have taken advice on it. The advice that I have is not consistent with the ruling you have given. I do not know whether there is much more that I can say other than that this is considered it is reasoned and it meets the McGee test set out on page 365 and that area of the Standing Orders has not been changed.
Tisch Lindsay: Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
Tisch Lindsay: Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:14979] 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: This debate is concluded. We have an amendment in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard. He has moved an amendment to omit the word “now” and substitute the words “until the bill has been amended” to remove clause 4 and to insert a schedule of employment protections. The amendment is not in order. On a second reading an unequivocal decision must be reached: either the principles of the bill are adopted or they are not. I refer the member to Speaker’s ruling 103/5. An amendment that adds words attaches conditions and leaves the House’s decision unclear is out of order.
Blue Jackie: Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
Blue Jackie: Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:14978] 
Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) 
: 
 I am pleased to speak to the second reading of the Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill. This bill will bring clarity to an area of employment law that needs it. It will make clear the status of an employee versus a contractor. Basically employees are employees and contractors are contractors and someone who is employed as a contractor cannot later be deemed to be an employee. It is as simple as that. It will give certainty to both employees and contractors and certainly to the film sector which welcomed this bill. It is important to note that when individuals want to work in the film sector it would be a voluntary choice as to whether they will be contractors or employees. No one will be coercing them into either role; it will be a free choice. It is all about choice. 
This situation has arisen from the industrial action over the last few weeks which highlighted this very concern about the lack of clarity so the Government has responded to it. This bill will rectify the situation so there is clarity and no confusion. Employees are employees and contractors are contractors. It will bring clarity and give confidence to the film sector. The two  
Hobbit 
 movies will bring an estimated $670 million to the New Zealand economy and this legislation will protect the jobs of thousands of New Zealanders. Surely that must be welcomed particularly in this economic climate. The film industry in total is worth almost $3 billion to the economy. This bill will help to give confidence to that sector and that also should be welcomed. I am sure that the 
 Hobbit 
 movies will not be the last movies that are made in New Zealand. I am sure there will be many more because there will be much more confidence. 
I was overseas for the past week and I was getting reports from time to time. I was quite concerned that the whole situation was unravelling and derailing. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: On the world stage! 
Dr JACKIE BLUE 
: I certainly was. Fortunately the Prime Minister stepped in and was able to sort all this out. Thank goodness for his doing so. It has been a very sorry affair. 
Iain Lees-Galloway 
: That is what the line says is it? 
Dr JACKIE BLUE 
: No. The Government is determined to use this opportunity to present New Zealand in the best light as a great place to visit and to promote tourism. I know that this legislation will help with that. I commend this bill to the House.
Bennett David: Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
Bennett David: Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:14971] 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 Today we are discussing the Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill and I think it is time we looked at the reality of what is happening in this House at the moment. The unions went out there and lost a big deal for New Zealand. They went out too hard and they were going to lose this huge deal for New Zealand actors New Zealand artists and New Zealand tourism. They stuffed it up; that is what happened. John Key and his team went in and negotiated a deal that has saved the deal for New Zealand. That is what the public knows. 
The Labour Party and the Green Party members are sitting in the House tonight in the knowledge that they lost it. They know they stuffed it up. They know that their mates made all the mistakes. They come in here and talk about sovereignty and issues like that. They are trying to defend themselves and their actions and say that it is something bigger and different. The reality is that they were donkey deep with the unions. They were behind the unions. They set it up. They were trying to disrupt things and make sure this deal did not come to New Zealand. 
Labour members did not want the 
 Hobbit 
 movies filmed in New Zealand. They did not want them here. They disrupted things for political purposes. The reason we are here now is that the Labour Party lost that deal. National has made the deal happen and today we will be defending that in this House. 
The public out there know that the Government has acted in the best interests of New Zealanders in the best interests of our actors and in the best interests of our artists and that it has the best interests of our film industry at heart. It is not a puppet for a union that is trying to make political capital out of events. It is not a token supporter of this industry which Labour has been for the last 9 years. We are real we are there and we are supporting this industry. 
How dare those members come into this House and try to say that this debate is something about sovereignty when they are trying to cover their tracks. They know deep down in their hearts that they wanted New Zealand to lose  
The Hobbit 
. That is what the Labour Party wanted and what the Green Party wanted. They did not want the best thing for New Zealand; they just wanted to lose it so they could go out and say that National has not delivered for the film industry. I tell those members to get in the real world.
Flavell Te Ururoa: Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
Flavell Te Ururoa: Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:14971] 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker Roy. I am enjoying listening to the discussion with ears fully open and will continue to support this bill.
Wilkinson Kate: Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
Wilkinson Kate: Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:14961] 
Hon KATE WILKINSON (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill be now read a second time 
. This bill is the Government’s response to an issue that has created uncertainty in the film industry. It provides a positive response to these issues by providing certainty for the industry ensuring that the two  
Hobbit 
 films are made in New Zealand and securing thousands of jobs for Kiwi film workers. The film industry makes a significant contribution to the New Zealand economy. It provides employment opportunities and it advertises New Zealand to the world. It is important that we are able to provide the industry with the confidence to continue to invest in New Zealand. 
This bill amends the Employment Relations Act 2000 so that it is clear that a person involved in film production work either is an independent contractor or is an employee based on his or her employment agreement. This status cannot be challenged in court. The issue is described by employment law specialist Peter Cullen who says: “If they sign a document saying they’re contractors then that should be the end of it. We don’t want some disgruntled person who was happily a contractor for 10 years reaping all the benefits of that when we end the contract saying he’s really an employee and suing us.” Actor Mark Harrison agrees saying: “This is an area that needed clarification ever since the Bryson case. It should have been changed by the Labour Government.” 
The bill provides flexibility to parties by allowing them to choose to have an employment relationship if that is more appropriate for their particular circumstances. When workers have an employment agreement that provides that they are employees they will be covered by the provisions of the Employment Relations Act and other employment legislation. 
In summation the Government believes that these amendments will benefit New Zealand through providing the film industry with the certainty and confidence needed to film in New Zealand. Further this initiative will encourage the creation of jobs and economic growth. I commend this bill to the House.
Vote: Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
Vote: Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:14961] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand Labour 41; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Bill read a first time.
Vote: Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
Vote: Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:14961] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be amended by omitting “now” and adding “this day 3 months”. 
Ayes 51 
New Zealand Labour 41; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Noes 68 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to.
Joyce Steven: Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
Joyce Steven: Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:14960] 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 Let us be clear: the only person who stuck it to Helen Kelly was Helen Kelly in this incident. She was the only person who did that. The only ones who stuck it to the unions were the unions; they mucked it up hugely. They started—if Mr Parker wants to use the term “brinkmanship”—a game of brinkmanship and they nearly killed the  
Hobbit  
movies in New Zealand. That is the reality of it. 
Let us be clear: if this Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill does not proceed through Parliament the  
Hobbit 
 movies will not come to New Zealand. That is the reality of it and Opposition members need to work that out because they were incredibly silent over the last few weeks and then suddenly today they have landed on a particular side. They are not on the side of jobs for New Zealanders they are not on the side of having the  
Hobbit 
 movies produced in New Zealand they are not on the side of growing the New Zealand film industry they are not on the side of New Zealand tourism and they are not on the side of New Zealand exports and growth. They are on the side of Helen Kelly and her mates trying to rearrange the film industry to their way of thinking and actually stopping the films from being produced in New Zealand. That is the reality of it and it was the industrial action that was causing and creating the doubt for these movies to proceed in this country. That is the reality of it and we cannot change it. We cannot rewrite history; we cannot say that they did not really mean it and that they started the brinkmanship but others finished it. We cannot say all that. That is the reality of what was happening and it was going to be the death of the international film industry in this country. Where were Labour members? Labour members were quite simply quiet and now they are opposing the law that is needed to ensure that the  
Hobbit 
 movies and other movies are produced in this country. 
This Government is proud of its willingness to move to ensure that the two  
Hobbit 
 movies can be produced in New Zealand. The films are massive undertakings they will create massive numbers of jobs for New Zealanders and it is this sort of thing that the Government is trying to encourage. Let it be recorded that it is the Opposition that is trying to stop it it is the Labour Opposition that is trying to frustrate the views of New Zealanders and it is the Labour Opposition that does not care about jobs does not care about growth does not care about tourism and does not care about exports. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: This debate has concluded. The question is that the amendment in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard to omit the word “now” and substitute the words “this day 3 months” be agreed to.
Mallard Trevor: Urgency 
Mallard Trevor: Urgency 
[Volume:668;Page:14939] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I think this matter goes to the purpose of Standing Order 55(2)(b) to the discussions before and actually to a certain extent to the integrity of the Business Committee. If the Business Committee is led to believe that there is to be urgency for a particular item as we were—without going into it because it is not appropriate to go into detail at this point as to the item—and urgency is used for another purpose it is my strong view that Standing Order 55(2)(b) does not apply because otherwise the Business Committee could be consistently misled as to the nature of urgency. I think that would lead to a breakdown in the trust that we have developed—and I have seen in my experience over the last 18 months or so a committee that works very much on the basis of trust.
Mallard Trevor: Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
Mallard Trevor: Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:14949] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am not sure whether it is your responsibility or the responsibility of the Government but I have been informed that this legislation the Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill has not yet appeared online on the New Zealand Legislation website. People are now ringing to ask why the normal practice of— 
Charles Chauvel 
: It’s the Attorney-General’s responsibility. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I am informed that it is the Attorney-General’s responsibility. But through you I ask the Leader of the House to ask the Attorney-General to ensure that New Zealand Legislation is updated so that people who are looking for this legislation can get it. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: The member has made his point. It is not a point of order of the House; a point of order of the House is about the order of the House. The Government’s requirement here is to have a bill on the Table. Of course it would be in the public’s interest to have the bill available online and I am sure the Attorney-General will send a message to make sure that that happens in due course.
Barker Rick: Voting — Correction—Urgency 
Barker Rick: Voting — Correction—Urgency 
[Volume:668;Page:14945] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: The vote on the urgency motion was incorrectly announced. The record will be changed to read the result as Ayes 68 Noes 51.
Smith Lockwood: Urgency 
Smith Lockwood: Urgency 
[Volume:668;Page:14940] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It is certainly something that the Standing Orders Committee can do and I hear what the honourable member is saying with regard to members’ ability to plan their business. It is a significant issue.
Mallard Trevor: Urgency 
Mallard Trevor: Urgency 
[Volume:668;Page:14940] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I will not litigate your ruling but I suggest that at some stage the Standing Orders Committee could look at this matter in this particular circumstance. As I remember the purpose of this Standing Order was to allow members to plan later in the week—to get notice early in the week of a change that was going to occur late in the week and plan their arrangements in their electorates. It was on that basis that as you remember I left the room in order to seek an assurance from our member that we could get the legislation through the House by 6 and therefore not notify. In the end I think the Standing Orders Committee has to look at whether this Standing Order as it is now written achieves the purpose of giving members notice when it is brought into effect.
Smith Lockwood: Urgency 
Smith Lockwood: Urgency 
[Volume:668;Page:14940] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have heard sufficient on this matter. I think the matter is quite clear. The Standing Order as the honourable Leader of the House has pointed out does not require the Government to advise the Business Committee of the precise nature of the business. If the House is to sit between 7.30 and 10 p.m. all that the Standing Order requires is that the Government has advised the Business Committee of its intention to accord urgency to business. The Government did that and it has successfully moved a motion to take the House into urgency. As I see the Standing Order and the advice I have received that is the situation.
Mallard Trevor: Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
Mallard Trevor: Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:14971] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is out of order to question motives or to attribute motives in a way that causes offence. I have taken offence at the comments the member has just made. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: I am trying to be consistent here. I initially ruled that Dr Russel Norman was on the slope but not out and I feel that David Bennett was in about the same territory. He was heading to be out but I do not believe he actually crossed the line. This is a robust debate but I do not believe that he made an accusation of improper motive; I do not believe he actually did that.
Vote: Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
Vote: Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:15006] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 67 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 3; United Future 1. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand Labour 41; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Clause 2 agreed to.
Brownlee Gerry: Urgency 
Brownlee Gerry: Urgency 
[Volume:668;Page:14939] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I appreciate the comments the member makes about the need for trust in these matters. None the less Standing Order 55 accords the opportunity for the House to sit till 10 o’clock on a Thursday night if the intention of the Government to move urgency is notified to the Business Committee at the meeting earlier in the week which it was. 
There is no requirement for the Government to negotiate what the urgent business will be. The mere fact that it is a matter of urgency would tend to indicate that it is one of those matters that come up from time to time and need to be dealt with in such a way—quickly. Therefore I do not think there can be any contradiction here. 
Conventions on how the House operates are changing and I am very supportive of those changes. For example we know that in the second week of the November sitting the House will be taking urgency and everyone will know well ahead of time what work we are doing. There is a notice of motion on the Order Paper—it has been there all year—looking for a way to extend the hours of the House because we think that would be worth considering. The halfway house that I have introduced—by indicating a long time out when urgency for the purpose of getting additional hours is required—is I think a good development but it is a halfway house and it has no standing in Standing Orders. 
Standing Order 55(2)(b) is specific: “if the Government has advised Business Committee of the intention to move on a Thursday to accord urgency to business the sitting on that Thursday is suspended between 6 pm and 7.30 pm and between 10 pm and 9 am”. There is no requirement in that Standing Order for the Government to notify what business it is taking urgency for at that time.
Brownlee Gerry: Urgency 
Brownlee Gerry: Urgency 
[Volume:668;Page:14939] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 The problem with the suggestion made by the member is that the assumption behind what he is suggesting is that there had to be agreement about whether there was urgency. There was in fact and the effect of that is that the House can sit till 10 p.m. tonight.
Mallard Trevor: Urgency 
Mallard Trevor: Urgency 
[Volume:668;Page:14939] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I ask you for some clarification as to whether Standing Order 55(2)(b) applies in this particular case. I will not go into the matter surrounding the second bill but you will remember that at the Business Committee there was discussion of a bill on legal matters. An undertaking was given by the Labour Opposition—and I think by all Opposition members at that committee—that because it was an important but not contentious piece of legislation we would get it through the House by 6 o’clock and I think it followed some discussions on the bill that were led by Nathan Guy. The Business Committee was given notice of the intention to move one piece of urgency for a specific matter and it was agreed that there is not any intention to sit between 7.30 and 10 tonight.
Vote: Urgency 
Vote: Urgency 
[Volume:668;Page:14938] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That urgency be accorded. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand Labour 41; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Motion agreed to. 
The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 69 Noes 51.
Brownlee Gerry: Urgency 
Brownlee Gerry: Urgency 
[Volume:668;Page:14938] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That urgency be accorded the introduction and passing of Government bills.  
It is the Government’s intention to bring to the House two bills under this urgency motion for consideration by the House. One of them as is well known relates to the employment status of persons employed—or I should say engaged—in the film industry. [ 
Interruption 
] There is so little joy among Labour these days that its members take any opportunity for a little bit of light relief in their life. The second bill deals with matters relating to provisions of a legal nature. I am sure that the need for urgency in the second case will be apparent when the bill is introduced.
Smith Lockwood: Urgent Debates Declined — Large Budget Screen Production Grant—Criteria Changes 
Smith Lockwood: Urgent Debates Declined — Large Budget Screen Production Grant—Criteria Changes 
[Volume:668;Page:14938] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: A nice try! What I will say is the Government has chosen for whatever reasons to put a bill on a controversial issue through all its stages under urgency. There therefore is not the opportunity for the bill to be considered by a select committee and for public submissions to be heard on it. In those circumstances it would be my belief—but of course it is up to the presiding officer in the Chair at the time—that in the first and second readings and especially the second reading where the wider context of the bill is debated the fact that the bill is being put through without the possibility of select committee consideration does mean that the debate could be widened somewhat around the context of the bill. The honourable member makes a perfectly fair point that if the Speaker believed that that was not possible maybe the Speaker should have allowed an urgent debate on the matter. I am not sure which the Government would prefer— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Not that you would take that into account! 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Not that the Speaker would take that into account! I can assure you that the Speaker has had no communication with the Government whatsoever on this matter and its view does not enter the Speaker’s consideration of the matter but if the Government wants to make an argument in the way that it has—but the fact is my decision was influenced somewhat by the fact that the legislation is going through under urgency without select committee consideration and therefore in the second reading in particular the context of the bill would be relevant.
Mallard Trevor: Urgent Debates Declined — Large Budget Screen Production Grant—Criteria Changes 
Mallard Trevor: Urgent Debates Declined — Large Budget Screen Production Grant—Criteria Changes 
[Volume:668;Page:14937] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is a very narrow point of order and not disputing in any way your ruling but it goes to your words “in addition to the debate today”. Can I take it from that that it will be appropriate for today’s debate on the employment relations legislation to be slightly widened in order to consider these matters as well?