Cunliffe David: Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
Cunliffe David: Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:15000] 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
: 
 I rise to speak in support of the amendments tabled by the Hon Trevor Mallard and in particular to amend clause 2 by omitting all the words after “force” and inserting the words “1 April 2012” and to insert new clause 2A “This Act expires on the close of 8 November 2010.” These amendments go to the issue of timing. 
I want to put before the Committee some related issues of timing and I would like the public to hear this sequence of events because it is quite important. On Thursday the 14th of this month Gerry Brownlee convened a meeting attended by the Screen Production and Development Association Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance the Council of Trade Unions and himself. A press release was issued after that meeting which outlined that they had found a way forward; that a deal had been done. Again on timing—the next day Sunday the 17th of this month the Screen Actors Guild decided to lift the boycott. I say that again: the timing was Sunday the 17th of this month; the boycott was to be lifted. 
However I have sighted emails that make clear that Warner Bros requested that the press release not be issued until Peter Jackson had had an opportunity to comment. That is a fair enough request. That was Sunday the 17th of this month. On Monday the 18th of this month Mr Jackson Warner Bros and— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: This debate is about the commencement date on the introduction of the bill. It is about timing related to the introduction of the bill but not about timing or a sequence of what has happened over the last few weeks. I ask the member to come back to the commencement date. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Thank you Mr Chairman. I am trying to explain the reasons why I am supportive of new clause 2A which calls for the expiry— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I hate to do this to my colleague but the clause 2A debate is a separate debate. It is the next debate. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The member is right thank you. We are on clause 2 “Commencement”. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I appreciate my colleague’s comment and of course he will recall that in my opening comments I supported two of his amendments very generously both that one and the previous one—[ 
Interruption 
] 1 April 2012. OK. On timing here is the kicker: the boycott was to be lifted on Sunday the 17th— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I have just mentioned to the member that this is about the commencement. It is a very narrow debate. It is not about what has happened in the past; it is about the commencement and introduction of this bill for the Royal assent. The scope is a very narrow debate. I ask the member to confine his comments to the commencement date not a sequence of events that has happened. That is out of order. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. In the previous contribution from my colleague the Hon Trevor Mallard he raised the issue— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I decide the relevance of the content of the speech. The member has not once mentioned the commencement. The member is talking about timing; timing of a sequel of events. That is what is out of order and I ask the member to come back to the commencement date. That is what clause 2 is about. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Thank you Mr Chairman. In terms of the commencement date of this bill I wonder whether it would be appropriate to have a commencement date 3 days after it should have taken effect because what occurred was a rally of technicians against a boycott which had been lifted 3 days earlier. What is clear is that the parties knew that the Government knew that Peter Jackson knew that Warner Bros knew that and a fictitious protest occurred 3 days after the boycott was lifted—3 days. That is relevant to the commencement date because a 3-day gap between when something should have taken effect and when it actually did take effect would thwart the purpose of the legislation. Moreover it would be false pretences; false pretences are the basis of a protest about a boycott that had already been lifted. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I will not mention to the member again that this debate is about the commencement. There is a very narrow scope. If the member deviates again I will terminate his speech. He has 1 minute 20 seconds remaining. This debate is on the commencement date. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: This bill should not commence on its commencement date. It should not commence at all. This bill is unnecessary just as rallies were unnecessary about a boycott that did not exist at the time. This bill should not commence because there is and was no substantive employment dispute that this bill is designed to fix. This bill is about wedge politics. It is about dog-whistle politics to certain bottom-dwelling members of society that that party wants to lock up as National voters and turn against workers. It was a fictitious bill— 
David Bennett 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. The speaker has gone off the commencement date. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I will determine the relevance. That is not necessary. The member has 30 seconds remaining. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: This bill should not commence. As my colleague Trevor Mallard has said and as Gerry Brownlee said in answer to questions today this bill changes nothing because there was no substantive problem. The court case to which it refers in terms of timing was in 2005—2005. This bill should not commence. It should not commence because it is a political artifice—a political artifice designed to polarise New Zealanders.