edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Court Simon; Salesa JennySIMON COURT (ACT): ACT will support this bill because it removes a regulatory barrier to using land more efficiently. Now imagine if the Labour Government spent as much time giving their emotional support to other ways to slash red tape and to get rid of regulation that stops people from using their land how they want to. But that's not what they're doing. That's not what the resource management reform will deliver. That's not what tax reform is needed. But what we're hearing is that Palmerston North City Council needs this bill so they can change the way they use their land and the ACT Party supports that. What we'd also support is getting on with the remainder of the House's businesses on this members' day rather than wasting time waxing lyrical about how much you all love Palmerston North. I'm a big fan of Palmy in the Manawatū Massey University centre of excellence for agricultural economics and environmental science—love Palmy just want them to get on with it. We'd love Labour to get on with members' day. ACT supports this bill.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): I call on Angie Warren-Clark. The next call is a split call—five minutes.
Simpson ScottHon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you Madam Speaker. My friend and colleague Ian McKelvie has given a very good analysis of this bill at its third reading. I've had an opportunity to speak in the first reading second reading during the committee of the whole House and at the Environment Committee on this bill so there's not much more to say. But I think that the point Ian McKelvie raised about legacy legislation that dates back in some cases to the 1800s is an issue that this House will actually have to address at some point not just for matters relating to Palmerston North but for a whole range of other bespoke pieces of legacy legislation that were passed by our predecessors decades and decades ago and that now are no longer suitable or fit for purpose. Then the only mechanism available to address those matters is redress by amending legislation through this House and that raises questions about the efficiency of doing so. But I want to congratulate the member who has been sponsoring this bill the Palmerston North MP Tangi Utikere. He's managed the process thoroughly and he's been successful working with the council and the select committee and the Parliament in a way that his predecessors have not been able to be successful. So kudos to both the Palmerston North City Council and to Tangi Utikere for their stewardship of this piece of legislation. It's a common-sense sensible little piece of legislation. There's nothing contentious about it. But the only point that I would make in summary is that it does I think highlight a larger issue that confronts the House with historic legacy legislation bespoke pieces of legislation that apply to councils district councils reserves and racecourses as Ian McKelvie indicated. There are a lot of those pieces of legislation and I think that at some point this House maybe needs to consider some kind of streamlined methodology for addressing those issues. We on this side of this House are pleased to support the legislation.
O'Connor GregCHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members the time has come for me to report progress.Progress to be reportedHouse resumed.REPORT OF COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE HOUSECHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Mr Speaker the committee has considered the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill and reports it without amendment. The committee has also considered the Screen Industry Workers Bill and reports it with amendment. The committee has also considered the Plant Variety Rights Bill and reports progress. I move That the report be adopted.Motion agreed to.Report adopted.DEPUTY SPEAKER: In accordance with a determination of the Business Committee the House is suspended and I'll resume the Chair at 9 a.m. tomorrow for the extended sitting to consider private local and members' orders of the day.Sitting suspended from 9.57 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Thursday).
Plant Variety Rights Bill — In Committee—Part 4
Collins JudithHon JUDITH COLLINS (National—Papakura): Thank you Madam Chair. Now we come to clause 28. Look I've got a Supplementary Order Paper from our colleague Andrew Bayly Supplementary Order Paper 192 and he's suggesting that there be some amendments to clauses 28 and 52. So the Minister spoke as though there needs to be consultation with the Māori Plant Varieties Committee. I'm not sure it actually is consultation. It says in the bill that—it really sounds more like it's a veto power. So I would normally ask the Minister but since he seems to just sit down after I've asked my question and sat down I really don't want to waste my time waiting for him to find the answer and answer the question. So I think this is something that does need to be looked at. Is this really going to be where we go where we decide that there is now going to be a veto power? If that's what it is then the Government should say what it is. If it is in fact a consultation that's not the same because I don't see how the Māori Plant Varieties Committee decides" can actually be "and I'm consulting with the Māori Plant Varieties Committee". I think that's really more like a veto and people need to know that. In fact Andrew Bayly has suggested that that be changed to "Māori Plant Varieties Committee advises" because that sounds more like consultation. Saying that that is a consultation is a bit like the Auckland Council sending me the rates bill and saying they're consulting with me; it's already been decided. So I'm not really sure how that can be consultation or if that's the new thing under the Ardern Government—of "consulting". So we are suggesting from this side of the Chamber that there be less of a false consultation and more of reality. So it's going to be "The Māori Plant Varieties Committee advises under section 65(1)(c) that an agreed or proposed condition must be a condition of grant of a PVR the Commissioner might impose that condition when granting the plant variety right." This is not a consultation. What is in this bill is actually a veto power because it says very clearly that if the committee decides that something needs to be a condition in the plant variety right or condition of it then that's the way it has to be. Now if it is the Government should be upfront about it. We should know what it is we're being asked to vote for and we believe it shouldn't be that veto power but it should be advising and giving advice on. That is in our opinion on this side of the House more like consultation rather than a decision. So I wonder if the Minister could actually rise to his feet and maybe just you know cut the actual insults and get down to that. Is it a decision or is it consultation?"
SpeechPart 4 Grant of plant variety rightsCHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members we come now to Part 4. This is the debate on clauses 28 to 51 Grant of plant variety rights". The question is that Part 4 stand part.Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): Thank you Madam Chair. Part 4 of the bill sets out all the details around granting a plant variety right (PVR) including the criteria that must be met the information required with an application and how that application will be considered. If a candidate variety meets the five criteria set out in International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants 91 and replicated in the bill then a PVR will indeed be granted.The exception to this is when the candidate variety may be from a species that is taonga to Māori. In this instance the application will first go to the Māori Plant Varieties Committee who will consider possible impacts on kaitiaki relationships and then determine whether the application can proceed or not. We'll come to the provisions governing that process in Part 5 so that's a slightly separate debate.There was nothing particularly controversial raised about provisions in Part 4 during the select committee process though the committee has made some useful amendments. Submitters raised concerns that some acts though not commercial in nature may destroy the novelty requirement rendering the variety ineligible for a PVR. The select committee addressed that issue by carrying over provisions from the current Act to prevent that happening.Some Māori submitters raised concerns about information shared by kaitiaki during the application process. The default setting is that all information relating to an application is made publicly available. Submitters were concerned that this may not be appropriate for some information shared by kaitiaki—for example in relation to their mātauranga. The select committee added a requirement that before making any such information publicly available the commissioner must first consult with the Māori Plant Varieties Committee and must follow any recommendations they make."
Plant Variety Rights Bill — In Committee—Part 3
SpeechCHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that the Minister's amendments to Part 3 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 132 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 108New Zealand Labour 64; New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10; Sharma.Noes 10Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Amendments agreed to.Part 3 as amended agreed to.
Collins JudithHon JUDITH COLLINS (National—Papakura): Thank you Madam Chair. I bring the attention of the committee to clause 28(2) and I note the Supplementary—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Sorry; point of order. Could the member just tell me which clause she is referring to.Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Clause 28—sorry Madam Chair; the issue of clause 25A is what I meant to talk about. The issue around the expiry of a plant variety right (PVR)—the restrictions during and following expiry; there are some issues around that. Not only that but also in relation to a plant variety having been say developed but not having been so fully developed as to be able to get its PVR rating as such or authorisation. I just wonder whether or not there is any thought being given by the Minister as to whether or not there is going to be any protection given to those people who are inventing new varieties or working on new varieties while they're waiting for the PVR to be granted. Is there any thought to doing that?
Penk ChrisCHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you very much Madam Chair. Thanks to the Minister and others on this side of the Chamber who have been engaging I think in a really interesting discussion.Hon Dr David Clark: Fruitful!CHRIS PENK: Fruitful discussion indeed! So in Part 3 we've heard about infringements and remedies and so forth so the Minister's opening comments have been helpful. I do want to take him to Subpart 2 which is called infringement proceedings—that's clause 27. So this provision is titled: Types of relief available for infringement". I wonder if the Minister through this bill is meaning to say that the court can grant only some types of remedies but not others. And the context for anyone who's following this debate with great interest or at least following it but without the bill in front of them it says "The relief that the court may grant for an infringement of a PVR includes—(a) an injunction; and (b) at the option of the plaintiff damages or an account of profits." So we're having ruled in the things that can be awarded by the court but I wonder if that implies that others can't or if maybe the bill is saying "These ones can and others may or may not."? I think it would be a significant step and I don't say an incorrect one but significant either way for this House to derogate from the inherent jurisdiction of a court to hear a matter in relation in this case to plant variety rights—PVRs—and to tie the hands of that court and to say that only certain types of remedies can be offered; that seems to me would be an interesting exercise in those two different branches of Government respecting each other's roles and responsibilities.And it might be that I've got the wrong end of the stick. I didn't have the benefit of the discussion at the select committee as others have talked about as chaired—no doubt ably and very capably—by our Jamie Strange. But if he maybe or others who are on the select committee or indeed the Minister himself—and I see he's consulting officials so I'll keep talking a little bit longer to allow that in case there should be no other contributions on Part 3 because I think it would be quite interesting and helpful to know the answer to that question. I sense that the Minister's getting very close to being able to provide it and I don't know if Judith Collins who's made herself expert in these matters but also knows a thing or two about the law might have a contribution to make as well.Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): Thank you Madam Chair. Just to respond to the member's questions: it is a non-exhaustive list and it mirrors I'm told what's in the Patents Act."
SpeechPart 3 Infringement and enforcementCHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members we come now to Part 3. This is the debate on clauses 21 to 27 Infringement and enforcement". The question is that Part 3 stand part.Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): Part 3 of the bill sets out what constitutes an infringement of a plant variety right (PVR) how and when proceedings can be brought and what relief is available. International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants 91 requires that some measures be put in place to protect breeders' interests between the filing of an application and the grant of a right. This is known as "provisional protection". Different countries take different approaches to this issue.The bill provides that while a PVR can be infringed during this period proceedings cannot be commenced until after the grant is made. That is a change from the current Act under which proceedings can commence during this period. Many submitters expressed concerns at this change; however the problem with the approach that is in the current Act is that if a PVR is never granted the defendant may incur considerable costs even though they were not actually infringing a PVR. The fact that proceedings can be taken in relation to infringements during the provisional protection period but only after a PVR is granted is sufficient to protect the breeder's interests. This is the approach taken by our major trading partners including Australia the United Kingdom and the EU."
Collins JudithHon JUDITH COLLINS (National—Papakura): Point of order. I seek leave of the House to table a letter I received today dated today from the Hon Dr David Clark relating to the matter that we've just been discussing. CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is none.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
SpeechPart 2 Plant variety rightsCHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members we come now to Part 2 which is the debate on clauses 14 to 20 Plant variety rights". The question is that Part 2 stand part."
Collins JudithHon JUDITH COLLINS (National—Papakura): Thank you Madam Chair. Oh sorry I'll take this off. [Removes mask] Thank you Madam Chair. Look just referring to Part 1 we have Supplementary Order Paper 193 which my colleague Andrew Bayly has tabled and he's suggesting that we have an insertion in clause 5 which is for Plant Variety Intellectual Property Review Tribunal or tribunal means a tribunal established under section 127B(a)". I wonder if Minister Clark could address whether or not the Government is going to be supporting that to give some clarity to this. This is actually a very important bill in terms of the work that's going on in science and research obviously and innovation. So that we make sure we have a bill that we don't just have to come back to again next year and correct we have the time as a committee of the whole House to get this right. And I wonder if the Minister could give us an indication of whether or not he's going to be having his party support that particular amendment and clarification."
Prime Willow-JeanPLANT VARIETY RIGHTS BILLIn CommitteeCHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members we come now to the Plant Variety Rights Bill. Members we come to Part 1.WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Junior Whip—Labour): I seek leave for provisions to be taken as one question.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Is there any objection? There is objection. Members first we come—[Interruption] Settle. Part 1. This is the debate on clauses 3 to 13 in Schedule 1 Preliminary provisions". The question is that Part 1 stand part."
SpeechSIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): If we have completed the coda now we are at the epilogue and like a good epilogue it's not too long. So the question really is: should we be calling this Act the Screen Industry Workers Act 2020"? Well of course we can't because now we're in 2022. But the fundamental question is: can we call it the "Screen Industry Workers Act" when possibly because of this very Act there will be no one left in the screen industry to be working and are we creating something erroneous? So I'm not going to suggest alternatives to the Minister but I have a serious concern that because of what he is bringing about here there will be no one in the screen industry to work or to act. So it'd be interesting to know how he's going to juggle that or allow a little bit of flexibility.As I touched on in the coda on Part 5 this is a fast-moving industry. I understand that there's been a bit of debate about when this should come into force but it is a question of why we're now waiting three months. I'm sure there are some who are thinking it should take much much longer; there are some who would argue it should just happen tomorrow. I notice of course once we get Royal assent once that Act—all puns intended; is "act" in the legal and screen industry a pun? It probably is. The regulation powers come into effect after Royal assent which makes sense; they're planning. But why is the Minister waiting three months? As I say there's a debating point there. But my fundamental question is: how can he title this bill the "Screen Industry Workers Act" when in fact I would argue fewer people will actually be acting as workers in the screen industry?"
SpeechCHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members we come now to our final debate which is on clauses 1 and 2 the title and commencement.
SpeechCHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Before I go into voting could those members take their House boxes down from their desks. Thanks. The question is that the Minister's amendments to Part—[Interruption]—there will be silence while I am taking the vote.The question is that the Minister's amendments to Part 5 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 234 be agreed to.
Goldsmith PaulHon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): I'm just curious about new clause 65B where a society is entitled to be registered and an incorporated society—there are two parts to the negotiations. There's the worker organisation and what's called the engager organisation—you might think of if a film is being done the producer of the film or the people organising the film.Now new clause 65B says that an incorporated society to be registered is either a worker or an engager. So if we're thinking of it in terms of the engager—so not the union but maybe the people putting together a film—the requirement is that (2)(a) the object or an object of the society is to promote its members' collective work interests;". I'm not quite sure what that would mean in terms of an engagers' organisation to promote—the "object of the society is to promote its members' collective work interests". I would have thought you know most of the engager organisations would be focused on strengthening the industry dealing with the Government of the day and international advertising—making things work. But the "members' collective work interests"—I'm just not quite sure what that exactly means and how that necessarily applies to the engager side of it.And then when we get to new clause 65G are we talking the functions of the chief executive that's still back at the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment? It's not the Department of Internal Affairs chief executive I presume. We're all getting a bit confused about that now.Then in relation to access in clause 67—that the representatives of the worker organisations are entitled to go on to the film set at any time that they like provided that it minimises disruption to the screen activity protects commercial sensitivity manages health and safety risks and maintains security—I just wonder if Minister Wood had in mind any other elements of a film production that it might not be appropriate for the union rep to turn up at at the critical time which aren't covered by any of these descriptions. I just want to ensure that the Minister is sure that he's covered all the potential situations that wouldn't be appropriate. In terms of insisting that a union representative can come on at any moment and presumably want to talk to workers has he given much thought to that? I just want to make sure that clause 68(2) covers all the appropriate things that would you know potentially create problems for people who are just trying to get on with their work."
SpeechPart 5 Miscellaneous provisions and amendments to other ActsCHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members we come now to Part 5 which is the debate on clauses 66 to 79 Miscellaneous provisions and amendments to other Acts". The question is that Part 5 stand part.Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Mr Bishop earlier in the debate—somewhat not unfairly or rudely—referred to the Department of Internal Affairs (DIA) as being the department that sort of collects up ephemeral things that don't fit in anywhere else and we're perhaps on to the DIA part of the legislation with Part 5 which includes a range of miscellaneous provisions. Probably the key thing for members of the committee to be aware of are the provisions relating to the registrar of screen industry organisations and the provisions relating to workplace access. There are some for the most part relatively minor changes proposed by the select committee in the Supplementary Order Paper I have tabled here. Probably the most significant one from the select committee relates to some changes to the access provision. The provisions in respect of union access do enable access to be denied if there is going to be disruption to screen production activities. There's now effectively an adjunct to that which basically says that the parties will first try and see if you can arrange a way of there being access without that causing that level of disruption before you refuse access entirely. So it's just effectively pointing the parties to having a conversation to see if that can be worked around. Other than that I look forward to discussion and any questions that members have on this part."
SpeechSIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Can I thank the Minister particularly in relation to the whole who's responsible?" I guess the question is how do we know and perhaps it's a privilege—to use a Green Party word; perhaps we're privileged to know on this side of the House—but how does the ordinary New Zealander know which department is responsible? And please Minister I'm not trying to belabour this. I think quite genuinely if someone wants to understand and know where are they to be directed? Is there something explicit on the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment website? Where do we find this? So I just welcome a little bit of clarification if you could.Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): When the legislation is published on the legislation website the Parliamentary Counsel Office will identify the responsible department."
SpeechSIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Thank you. Simon Watts was probably a better choice but at least it's a Simon! Look it's just to be absolutely clear Minister is that now clear in the bill? I may have missed something but I don't think to this point—as I've read it and I'll be honest I'm not going to flick through all 82 pages. But is it clear in the legislation that chief executive" means the chief executive of the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment (MBIE) because that's no longer there. Particularly if I have seen it correctly in your Supplementary Order Paper 234 departments being struck out. So is he able or his officials to point us as a committee of the whole House to be clear? Because I'm very very happy—I want to be abundantly clear—very happy that it should be MBIE but just want to make sure that we've got that correct."
SpeechSIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Two initial points: this is not a dispute—we're going to go after nomenclature—and secondly I don't think the Minister's Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) are minor. Look they're not substantial—making sure I'm on the right SOP. There's quite a number of changes in Part 4. I don't think they're to be disputed but yes it's some substantial changes.Look it's probably quite easy again for the legal beagles to reply to but it's twofold. Firstly in clause 56 we're now talking about persons". Earlier on in the legislation we've been talking about "individuals" and very kindly the Minister or his officials noted to me about individuals in earlier parts actually being "natural persons"—always useful to know—but now we're talking about "persons" in clause 56. I just want to be really really clear and I can see two doctoral legal beagles over there on the other side just getting fired up with excitement between—exactly I can even see thumbs up between "persons" and "individuals" and "natural persons". I just want to get absolute clarity on that.Then to not dispute let's move on to clause 57 where we are referencing the "chief executive" which is jolly decent. But the chief executive is there. I'm assuming the chief executive is in reference to the Employment Relations Authority but why I raise it Minister is that—first and foremost—it is not abundantly clear particularly when one jumps back into the interpretation. It is quite important that we get this very clear because the chief executive according to the interpretation means the "chief executive of the department". Then we carry on and find that actually the Minister's SOP has removed the definition of "department".Now I'm not a legal eagle—I'm a philosopher and actually a politician which is possibly a weird mix—but long and short who is the chief executive? And has the Minister crossed every "t" and dotted every "i"—what's known as a "tittle" just for those people who are into linguistic and English interest. So I am being a bit flippant but actually it's a serious point: I just want to know through officials that we've got this absolutely right. First and foremost with clause 56 is a "person" also an "individual"? And ipso facto is the "individual" a "natural person"? And then with clause 57 is it absolutely clear through the way that this has been structured—or do we need to make a quick fix?—that the chief executive is that of the authority at which point we need a very quick change to clause 10 of Interpretations to say " 'chief executive' means the 'chief executive of the authority' ". Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): I think I can assist with these two matters. In respect of clause 56 "persons" includes individuals and groups who are covered by the legislation including bargaining parties. In respect of clause 57 "chief executive" refers to the chief executive of the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment (MBIE). It's MBIE who is responsible for the provision of mediation services."
Salesa JennyPart 4 Dispute resolution challenges reviews penalties and offencesCHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members we come now to Part 4. This is the debate on clauses 57 to 65 and Schedules 4 Dispute resolution challenges reviews penalties and offences". The question is that Part 4 stand part.Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Part 4 of the bill is a relatively discreet function and really it does what it says on the tin: it focuses on dispute resolution challenges reviews penalties and offences. So we're moving away from the court processes of bargaining now to what happens if parties need support in terms of their employment relationships.Two changes to draw the committee's attention to: one which is proposed by the select committee in its report back is a change to ensure that there is no longer a requirement that the parties have acted in good faith before they're able to receive facilitation. That was effectively about not having a perverse outcome whereby an act of bad faith by one or the other parties could prevent staircasing towards that form of dispute resolution. And secondly in the Supplementary Order Paper there is a clarification that when an agreement is fixed by the authority it is treated as signed and ratified for the purposes of the bill so that there can be no doubt about that matter. Once again I'm happy to answer any question relating to this part."
SpeechHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Well that's a fascinating answer because I think I interpret that to be: an agreement must be reached. And the Minister's right. There are a number of existing and ongoing relationships between production companies and actors and production staff but there will also be new ones and there will also be a series—this is unlike a continuous employment relationship where there are actually a series of discrete contracts job and finish arrangements. That's the nature of independent contracting. I wonder if the Minister—because it goes back to the question that Simon O'Connor asked at the start of Part 3 about whether there would be more or fewer engagements when this bill is passed. It would seem to me that because of clause 27 the answer is going to be emphatically fewer because no production company would come into New Zealand with a big budget and a chequebook to write for these contractors if before they even start the conversation about Are we going to engage with each other?" they're under a legal obligation to conclude that bargaining with a contract. They're just not going to take that risk. And actually they're over a barrel before the negotiations even start. So you know what they're going to do Minister? They're going to go to Poland and Czechoslovakia and India and Australia and the United Kingdom with very mature—Melissa Lee: Korea.Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: And Korea—great movies coming out of Korea. But what they won't have in those countries is the obligation to conclude a collective contract before they even get going. The answer to Simon O'Connor's question must be: fewer. And New Zealand will be the worse for that and so incidentally will be the very people the Minister is trying to protect."
SpeechHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you Madam Chair. My question is in relation to clause 27 a fascinating clause which says The parties bargaining for a collective contract must conclude a collective contract." Now one would normally expect that to be the desired outcome. So my question is what does this mean in relation to two parties who don't previously have a relationship and could the conclusion of the collective contract bargaining be such that it's concluded by both parties walking away without an agreement being reached?And the reason why this is important is because this is not like an employment relationship where the union—or the bargaining agent—and its members already have an employment relationship with the employer. It may be that a production company comes along to an organisation representing a group of—what used to be independent contractors but we'll call them something else for the purposes of this—and saying "We'd like to engage your actors lighting staff grips whatever" and they get around the table and they commence bargaining and they're not able to reach an agreement.My question about clause 27 is does conclusion involve walking away without an agreement being reached? Because if you take The Hobbit example from 2009 and let's sort of replay that through this process: there wasn't already a relationship in respect of that production with these two groups of people. So they get around the table and my question is what then happens if they cannot agree? The bill at clause 27 basically says they "must conclude a collective contract." I want to know whether that was the intention or does conclusion include the possibility of walking away?Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): It is worth noting that there continue to be relationships between unions guilds and employers in the sector and there have been right across the last few years; albeit that there has been in a change in some of the formal relationships because of the previous piece of legislation.The answer in respect of clause 27 is that parties can even if they face difficulties in that bargaining then access the dispute resolution provisions that are contained within this piece of legislation to try and meet the objective of concluding a collective contract."
Webb Duncan; Salesa JennyDr DUNCAN WEBB (Chief Whip—Labour): I move That the question be now put.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): I will come back to this side of the Chamber but I will allow a call for Hon Michael Woodhouse who has not yet had a call on this part.
SpeechHon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): I'll briefly answer a couple of the questions that were asked. Mr Watts asked about clause 33(4) in the version of the bill reported back by the select committee—just for ease of reference for members that's now clause 49C under Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 234 which I have tabled. It's probably useful to understand the particular examples that were in the select committee report back. At clause 39C—sorry I'm getting my numbers confused myself. At clause 33(4) the particular examples that are listed there under subparagraphs (i) and (ii) have actually been removed from the final version of the bill under the SOP just to create greater clarity. Effectively the purpose of this provision is to allow under exceptional circumstances for there to be some limited exemption from provisions of occupational contracts except for provisions which relate to pay. So that's about building in a little bit of flexibility. I think Mr Goldsmith's arguments are largely about a fundamental objection to the bill rather than particular provisions here—a fundamental objection to there being collective bargaining that occurs and an assumption that is always going to result in burdensome cost and complication. I just repeat my comment before that many other sectors are able to manage that and this process has been arrived at through a joint good-faith process. I think that people in the sector would reject his assertion that hard-working innovative producers and companies rely on the goodwill of the Government". It's a bit like Mr Luxon's comment that businesses in New Zealand are soft somehow. These are serious innovative creative successful businesses and organisations who have come together sat down with unions and guilds and agreed on a positive and productive way forward in this area and a fundamental part of that is the ability to access collective bargaining as most other workers in New Zealand can."
Watts SimonSIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): Thank you very much Madam Chair. I must say this committee stage does remind me of the 2015 movie Everest you know as a tough struggle; hopefully unlike that movie which had a bit of a sad ending—this is probably where this bill is going to end up as well. But anyway let's get to clause 33—a new clause that we haven't talked about tonight. I'm particularly interested in clause 33(4)—again a new area that we haven't touched on but let's get into it because it's one that raises a few I think important points that I'm keen for the Minister to provide some context on. So what I'm referring to here is around the exemptions for terms of occupational-level collective contracts and in particular the subclause (4) which refers to significant disruption"—[Interruption] what's that Mr Goldsmith?Hon Paul Goldsmith: No no no.SIMON WATTS: Oh no just want to give me some tips. The "significant disruption to a production". That's reasonable. We all expect that there may be cases where you're going to face a significant disruption and aspects like that.But clause 33(4)(b) is the one that captured my eye and that is because it refers to "the availability of essential personnel" in particular. Obviously we're acutely aware around the workforce shortages and crises that exist at the moment across multiple sectors. I'm in no doubt that the film and production sector are no doubt probably facing similar challenges around the availability of essential personnel which this clause is referring to.So I'm interested from the Minister in terms of how he sees this specific clause working in practice. The definition of "significant disruption"—I mean there can't be too many people with skill sets in this space in New Zealand with respect and no doubt quite a few of them have probably jumped on the plane and headed to other places to sell their wares in terms of their experience; hopefully not but that's probably the reality. So how will that work in practice? I guess the practical reality of this working in the context of right now is we do have an acute workforce shortage; the likelihood is that that's going to be around into the future. So you know is the reality that is defined as "significant" actually going to be more mainstream in terms of the triggering of this clause in particular?So those are the three questions that I have in regards again to clause 33(4)(b). Thank you."
SpeechHon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): A couple of questions which have come up there: one around bargaining fees from Mr Watts and then some questions around initiation from Mr Goldsmith. In respect of bargaining fees these only apply to enterprise-level bargaining and they only apply where a non-member of the union or guild concerned chooses to sign up to the enterprise-level bargaining. So effectively it's about recognising that that person if they choose to do so will be receiving the benefits of that collective contract bargaining process and it's reasonable to ask them to make a contribution towards the costs of that but others do not have to if they do not wish to sign up there. The fee is struck as I understand it at the lowest level of what the applicable union fee or guild fee would be in that particular case. In respect of the bargaining initiation process for occupational-level contracts that Mr Goldsmith was asking about once the initiating body—the worker body—has put forward an initiation request to the authority the authority will then test support with that occupational grouping. So it will be run by the authority across the whole grouping—not just the union or guild members but across that whole grouping of workers—and they will have to test that there is majority support before that proposal proceeds.
SpeechSIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Thank you Madam Chair; I didn't want to interrupt the Minister if he wished to speak. Look one part I want to echo is where Paul Goldsmith has gone. It's effectively the question as we look at collective bargaining and particularly when we think of the loss of the Amazon production around The Lord of the Rings. Does the Minister believe the insertion of this Part 3 on collective bargaining is going to see more or fewer—note the important grammar—productions coming into New Zealand when they are already leaving? I'll acknowledge that was leaving under the old arrangements or existing arrangements. Does he think this Part 3 is going to lead to more or fewer productions? I'd love to have that on record. As the Minister will know of course the new Lord of the Rings starts tomorrow—the last time it's been in New Zealand. Get into it now.Clause 26 in Part 3 once again talks about good-faith bargaining. I just want to come back to when we were cut short in Part 2; how does the Minister feel we can have good faith which implies equal treatment when his bill is slanting the whole process to one side? So how does he reconcile that?Then to move to clause 31 in particular but not exclusively—particularly in the context of plain language. The context here is that it prescribes in clause 31 what the collective contract might be like and I've got no particular issues with that in the various—well actually it's clause 31 and following. But I noticed in Part 2 clause 16A which we were cut short; we Gloss-ed over—which for those of you who follow television is a very bad and aged pun. We talked about plain language as required; I'm wondering why in Part 2 there must be plain language and yet here we are in Part 3 talking about the nature of collective contracts and there's no prescription for plain language. I'm just wondering why there's an inconsistency there. Carrying on what has been a very bad set of puns Minister throughout the evening—because I'm sort of wanting to reference the Minority Report and Looper looking into the future—one of your colleagues Rachel Boyack has a bill that's going to be read tomorrow around plain language. I'm curious to know that if through the bill where you've mentioned plain language whether you and your officials have had any thought to what that actually means. And by that I mean what does plain language mean legally right now? Do you have any conception—not an Inception; again a very bad movie reference. But any conceptions of what this bill in the future that one of your party is pushing—what does plain language actually mean? And again to draw it back to Part 3 clauses 31 and following why is it that the collective contracts their form and content is not prescribed to be in plain language in the same way that we've seen it prescribed in Part 2?
SpeechMARJA LUBECK (Labour): I move That the question be now put.
SpeechSIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): It's actually to pick up on clause 17. I agree with the Minister: we do not want people being fired or having their contracts terminated because of that reason but how does he perceive this working in reality when for example's sake a screen worker is doing a very poor job but just claims that they are being retaliated against? How does he perceive that's going to work? Is this going to become an excuse and how does he see that being moderated?Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Ultimately the provisions of the bill will give the worker some basis to go to if they believe that they have a grievance in this area. They will have to resolve that grievance through the dispute resolution processes that are set up in the bill. Often that could be through directly raising the concern with the employer it could be seeking the assistance of mediation services or more formal legal processes—so not dissimilar to the processes that we would expect to see playing out in other employment relationship issues. We can't guarantee any outcome through the legislation that we provide but we can set very clear standards which can then be tested legally based on the evidence that's available.
Salesa JennyPart 2 Workplace relationships and individual contractsCHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members we come now to Part 2 which is the debate on clauses 13 to 20 Workplace relationships and individual contracts". The question is that Part 2 stand part.Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Part 2 deals specifically with matters pertaining to individual contracts under the bill. It doesn't deal with occupation or enterprise-based bargaining. It focuses purely on individual contracts and relationships between workers and engagers.A couple of things that are worth noting here in terms of changes that have been made since this was last in the House: the select committee I think has made a couple of useful changes. My understanding is that from the select committee's report I think there was broad support for these including expressed in the National Party minority view in terms of just improving some of the baseline protections that will play out in individual contracts. The first is that engagers will be required to tell workers that they can seek individual advice before they engage in a contract or be required to give those workers reasonable time to consider that advice before they confirm their intentions. And there will secondly be enhanced protection against terms that might prevent complaints being raised by the individual worker under those individual agreements.I think probably the most noteworthy change that's proposed in the ministerial Supplementary Order Paper is additional provisions in clause 17 which extends prohibitions on retaliatory actions to include the non-renewal of contracts which is a relatively significant tool which you can imagine in this sector—given that people are by definition contractors—could have a significant impact on people. So it's just making it very clear that there can't be retaliatory action in response to complaints that have been made through the non-renewal of contracts. So again effectively the changes from both the select committee and the Supplementary Order Paper are about extending some of those basic protections for individuals who are engaging in contracting with an engager."
SpeechPart 1A Freedom of associationCHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): Members we now come to Part 1A. This is the debate on clauses 12A to 12E Freedom of association". The question is that Part 1A stand part.SIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Previously on an earlier episode or part—CHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): Start again.SIMON O'CONNOR: Yeah I'm just trying to understand why the Minister in his Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) has inserted "good faith" alongside "freedom of association." It's not that we're against good-faith bargaining—that's of course important—but I mean the very nature of what this bill is doing is in many ways taking away the need for good faith.Or rather put in other terms he's skewing the field—the Minister is skewing the field of negotiations in discussions between screen industry workers and their employers which makes it a little bit odd to then talk about "good faith". So I want to be really really clear to the Minister and to the committee that we're all for good faith on this side but good-faith bargaining good-faith discussions—whatever it is—generally works on a level playing field and the copious amounts of pages here indicate that the Minister as I say trying to skew the field a little bit.The second question is just for him to elaborate for the clarity of the committee—because we are bouncing between the select committee's version of the bill and now his SOP—and to define for us what he deems to be a "worker organisation" and an "engager organisation". The only reference I find is I think—I jump now to clause 65A in his SOP—"incorporated society".So I suppose I'm just trying to get a quick understanding—and please I'm not trying to trifle through the Chair with the Minister—to get a bit of a handle on it. Because if I'm reading the legislation right—or wrong both are possible; perhaps the latter—is it implied that a worker organisation or an engager organisation has to be an incorporated society? Because that's all that I see referenced in clause 65A. Where do unions fit within this? Is it arguable that a screen worker does not have to be part of a union? Is that covered within it? I hope that clarifies it enough; I'm sorry about my confusion.CHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): Members the time has come for me to leave the Chair. The committee will return at 7 p.m.Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7 p.m."
SpeechIBRAHIM OMER (Labour): I move That the question be now put.