Sowry Roger: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Sowry Roger: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:613;Page:9789] 
3.  
Hon ROGER SOWRY (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Labour 
: Is the recent Employment Court decision that found a set model technician hired as a contractor on  
The Lord of the Rings 
 was actually an employee the result she intended when she introduced the Employment Relations Act 2000; if so why? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 My intention was that the court do what it was required to do under the Employment Relations Act. The Act intended that such matters should be determined by looking at all the facts to determine the real nature of the relationship and the court has done exactly that in this case. 
Hon Roger Sowry 
: Has the Minister seen the statements of  
The Lord of the Rings  
producer Mr Barry Osborne warning of “significant consequences that are unfortunate to the film industry” arising from the decision of the Employment Court; and will she accept responsibility for those negative outcomes as a result of her decision to change the law that previously provided certainty to the film industry? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: Yes and I do not accept that there are inevitable negative outcomes as a result of this decision but I am very happy to talk to the industry about it. 
Hon Mark Gosche 
: Why is it important that parties are clear about the real nature of their employment arrangements? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: When parties determine the nature of their relationships the rights and obligations of the parties differ of course depending on whether they are classified as employees or contractors. Certainty of rights and obligations is critical in business as well as in law. That is why it is always best to address those issues clearly at the start of the working relationship—which was not done in this situation. 
Rodney Hide 
: Could the Minister explain to the House what it says about her Government’s whole-of-Government approach to issues when on the one hand the Hon Jim Anderton goes around the country trumpeting the big success of spending taxpayers’ money to the tune of $40 million to try to get the film industry down here and on the other hand her legislation is effectively canning that investment? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: The legislation was passed by this Parliament and I do not believe that the two policies are in contradiction at all. They do in fact support each other. 
Paul Adams 
: In the light of the focus in the primary question on the implementation of the Employment Relations Act will the upcoming amendment bill allow employers to impose a 1-month prohibition period for new employees as vigorously promoted by the Minister for Small Business John Tamihere; if not why not? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: No. 
Hon Roger Sowry 
: Why did the Minister change the law regarding this situation when prior to the Employment Relations Act it had been clear and extremely workable; and does she think it is in the best interests of New Zealand to now risk losing a $300 million film like  
The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe 
? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: I do not believe that in fact those projects are at risk at all. 
Hon Roger Sowry 
: Given that the Minister does not believe that the $300 million film  
The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe 
 is at risk why on earth would the  
Lord of the Rings 
 producer say it was at risk; does he not know what he is talking about? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: I cannot speak for the person who made that statement. What I do know is this particular case was decided on its own facts and that in fact it was stated within the case that the precedent consequences of it had been much overstated. As I said the answer is in the hands of the parties and of course I and the Government are always available to assist them to ensure there is clarity in their contractual relationships.