Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill

Clause 2 is particularly interesting to the Labour Party because it goes to the timing of the Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill coming into effect and the method by which it is brought into effect. Part of the debate will be around the timing, and part will be around the method.

These days, as we sacrifice our economic sovereignty, our political sovereignty, and our parliamentary sovereignty, perhaps the bill should be brought into effect by being stamped by Warner Bros in the United States, rather than by Royal assent in New Zealand. We will have a discussion about what the appropriate method is these days, now that we have sacrificed our integrity as a Parliament to the whims of a foreign company, according to Mr Joyce. Actually, I tended to believe Gerry Brownlee when he said in answer to question No. 1 this afternoon that this legislation was not really important to Warner Bros and they did not want it, rather than believing what Steven Joyce said. That may or may not be the case.

The next point that we need to focus on is what we mean by “the day after the date”. Do we mean the New Zealand date, or the date on the west coast of the United States? By “the day after”, do we mean the day in the United States after the date in New Zealand, or vice versa? Is it “a” and “a”, “b” and “b”, “a” and “b”, or “b” and “a”? There are combinations of days and dates that we have to consider in working through this particular matter. The member Russel Norman mentioned Avatar recently. If we took some of the interesting approaches to time within that movie, where there was the ability to time shift and world shift, it might be that we would come up with a number of unusual answers. The “day after the date on which it receives the Royal assent” could, in fact, be quite a long way back in Middle Earth, if we jump from Avatar back to the Lord of the Rings series. Given the modern world that we live in and the world of movies, there is a lack of preciseness in this clause.

The next question is whether, as part of this exercise, we will move to have the date of Parliament—currently unsponsored—sponsored. Will 28 October be sponsored by Warner Bros? Is that what we will have? Is that how we will have the date of Parliament? If that is the case, will the date move forward under urgency, stay the same, or take the industrial relations approach of the National Government and move backwards?

I want to make a slightly irrelevant passing comment about Avatar, which was referred to by Russel Norman. An interesting experience for me was spending time with James Cameron at one of these hui criticised by Gerry Brownlee. Cameron was trying to make up his mind whether he wanted Avatar to be produced in New Zealand. But that was US time rather than New Zealand time. That was west coast time. There is 6 hours’ difference. I think it would probably be getting on for 3.30 a.m. over there now, but 3.30 a.m. of yesterday. I think that just about sums up Gerry Brownlee’s approach on this bill. He thinks he is slightly ahead but he is actually quite a long way behind. The world has just about caught up to him, because he has been so backward in this particular area.

The question of time is one on which there is some focus in The Hobbit. In fact, The Hobbit is full of riddles, and one of them is called the time riddle. It is this one:

This thing; All things it devours:

Birds, beasts, trees, and flowers:

Gnaws iron, bites steel;

Grinds hard stones to meal;

Slays kings, ruins town,

And beats high mountain down.

It is one of Gollum’s riddles for Bilbo Baggins, and the answer, of course, is time. That is what we talking about now. The answer we are talking about today is time, and we are trying to work out when would be the right time to bring this legislation into effect. Some of us would say there is never a right time, but others would say that given the possibility of this bill going through the House, we should think about whether there might be a better time to bring it into effect. I have an amendment—it is different from my next amendment, which is to insert an expiry clause—to omit all the words after “force” and insert the words “1 April 2012”.

The reason is relatively simple. Warner Bros have already spent $100 million on the movie. A deferral would give them a chance to get on with making the movie, and we would be able to see whether this legislation is necessary. My bet is it would be totally unnecessary. It was unnecessary for the 120 feature films that were made in New Zealand in the last decade, with the help of the work done by, mainly, my colleague Pete Hodgson to facilitate them. He facilitated schemes and did work in that area. This legislation was not necessary then. But Labour members are reasonable people; we will keep a bit of an open mind on it, and we are prepared over the next year, over the period of the next election campaign, to work through whether this legislation is necessary. A deferral of it being brought into force would give us the possibility of examining it more carefully, and other amendments of ours provide for other methods of examination.

Deferring it would also give some of the thespians in the Chamber time to practise their skills, to hone their skills, and to work towards having roles in The Hobbit. I know there is quite a lot of interest in the Chamber in doing that. It has been a very long time since people wanted me for a part in a movie that involved filming my face. In fact, the last production I was in was bro’Town. That was probably the last dramatic one. Most of my colleagues will not remember Close to Home, but that series was a good, regular source of income when I was a student. I was an employee and made a lot of money. I am not suggesting that this bill should be backdated. In fact, I would be very upset if it was backdated to the late 1960s or early 1970s, or whenever it was that I had bit parts in Close to Home. It might have been the very early 1970s. It was certainly by 1973, because one of my kids had a bit part in it in 1974, I think.

We are focusing now on whether it is appropriate to backdate the legislation’s coming into force—to take the Muldoon approach and make it retrospective, and what the implications of that would be. The more reasonable approach and the one that I have taken is to say that it is grubby legislation, it should never come in, and therefore it should be deferred.

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.

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”.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Tēnā koe, Mr Chairperson. I rise to take a call as the arts spokesperson for the Green Party. Before I start on clause 2, “Commencement”, I also acknowledge that today is the anniversary of the Declaration of Independence 1835 in Aotearoa New Zealand, which people seem to have forgotten. It is a shame that Warner Bros did not actually negotiate with the Confederation of the United Tribes of Aotearoa, because on this day in 1835, it signed a declaration stating that we are a sovereign nation. The confederation said then that we were a sovereign nation, but today we have reduced our level of independence.

Let us come to clause 2, on timing. The commencement date for this bill should be delayed. The reason why the Green Party would like to see it delayed, with or without the Royal assent, is that the movie about this matter has not yet been made. We need not commence this bill until we have hired George Clooney, because George Clooney is the perfect person to play John Key; he has done a really good job playing those kinds of characters in the past. I also believe that we should not commence this stage until we have hired Paris Hilton to play the Minister of Labour, Kate Wilkinson. It is a small part in the movie, but Paris would do a fine job.

I think that we should also reconsider the commencement date because it is very important that we get the right people involved for this movie. We need to commence only when we have the right people. Meryl Streep would be a fine player for the part of Helen Kelly—Meryl Streep with a black wig. You know, I can see it now. She did a really good job on the dingo movie; she could do a great job on this.

If we are to commence, then we need to make sure that we have everything in place. I feel that Warner Bros could play itself. Warner Bros is acting now. It has acted in its own interests and it could play itself.

We should not commence this movie until we have hired Robbie Coltrane. He could do a fabulous job of playing Gerry Brownlee. I can see it now; Robbie is a fantastic actor. I think that Robyn Malcolm could play herself, and many other people could play themselves, but there will be a film, there will be a T-shirt, and there will be a movie.

Before we commence this debacle tonight, we should make sure that we continue with the really ridiculous fantasy world that the Government has drawn us into under urgency in attacking the rights of workers. Time is a very important issue for people working in the film industry. They are interested in the commencement date, because they are already put under stress by an industry that takes up a lot of their time. I have many friends in the industry. They love working for the film industry, but they do not love having very few rights. They are concerned that this commencement date will actually make it more difficult for those in the industry to have their rights as workers.

When people do not get lunch breaks, but they get a party at the end of the year, time is a big issue for them. It is a long time to wait for decent working conditions. It is a long time to wait for decent lunch breaks, when all they get is a party with a lot of champagne at the end of the year. That is what the working conditions in the film industry are like now. Thanks to the Government, and to this absurd urgency and abuse of process, it will be more difficult.

Also, we should not commence this bill, because I heard the ACT Party talk about the real agenda. It likes to wag the dog, but the dog is happy to follow. ACT members are very clear that this is not just about actors; it is about all working people and about reducing them to being in a contractual relationship, where they do not have rights.

Before we commence, and before there is any Royal assent, I say that we need to remember that this is a ludicrous situation. Many people are laughing at this country right now, because there does not need to be a law change to keep these films. In fact, I wish I had been able to speak on the previous clause. I thought we should have called the bill something like the “Feeble Negotiators Bill” or the “Harry Potter and the Poisoned Chalice Bill”, because that is what it will be. It will turn into an absolute joke.

I am looking forward to the movie and I am looking forward to the commencement date being delayed, so that we can commence a return to sense and commence to commit to having sovereignty in this country. I am sure that Warner Bros is having a good drink at our expense tonight, but a lot of people around this country are tweeting and going on Facebook to say, as the wonderful Ōtara Millionaires Club said, “How Bizarre”. That is where we really are tonight. We are witnessing one of the most bizarre theatrical experiences, which will make a great film, and we should commence it once we have sorted out what is really going on.

I move, That the question be now put.

It is a pleasure to speak on clause 2, the commencement date clause of the Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill. I will pick up a theme that my colleague Trevor Mallard was talking about in his contribution, and that is the question of whether this legislation should be backdated.

💬 Simon Bridges: Bro’Town.

“Clark Kent” on bro’Town? No, I say to Mr Bridges. This is about whether the commencement date should, in fact, be a retrospective date. The reason I raise that question is that if there is a problem here in terms of our industrial law, it has existed for a very long time; it has not just come into existence now. As has been mentioned already in the debate, this issue is a result of the case that went to the Employment Court in the name of Mr Bryson, and that case has been discussed a number of times. If this Government is seriously suggesting that some major issue in the film industry needs to be resolved, then the same issue has existed since 2005, when the law in this area was settled. If we are taking National at its word, that is a justification, I believe, for an amendment to the commencement date to backdate the legislation to 2005.

In the context of whichever commencement date we might have, it is important to look at what the outcome really was from that case. A very important thing came out of the judgment from the Supreme Court: the nature of the employment relationship depends not only on what the parties intend and agree on but also on what they do and how they conduct themselves. That was the settled conclusion from that particular case.

I think it is important to note that it is not just a simple matter of choice, as Mr Hayes and others have said in interjections across the Chamber tonight. This is actually a matter of quite important employment law that was settled, as far as most people in New Zealand were concerned, in 2005. That would be a justification, if National was following its own logic, for backdating this commencement date. At that point we had a settled piece of law, and subsequent to that time movies have been made in New Zealand under that particular provision.

💬 Dr Russel Norman: Giant movies.

Very big movies. Avatar, for instance—the movie about the Bluegreens; Nick Smith’s movie. Avatar was made after this settled piece of law. Therefore, if National’s logic is to be followed, the commencement date should be backdated.

The problem for National is that there is no logic though. There is no logic to follow for when the commencement date should be, because the commencement date should follow that finding in 2005. But the legislation is unnecessary. It does not need to commence, because the law in this area has been settled, movies have been made, and people have got on with the job. A backdated commencement date would make sense in the context of a problem—an imagined problem, in this case—that somehow or other National is looking to solve. If we followed National’s logic, there would be a case for a backdated commencement date. But I do not believe that there is a case; I believe that the fact that this bill is to come into force immediately after it receives the Royal assent is National trying to get rid of this issue. It knows it has dug itself into a hole that requires it to have a quick commencement date right away. It has dug itself into a hole.

💬 John Hayes: Absolutely not.

Mr Hayes says that National has not dug itself into a hole, but it has actually done that here. National did not follow this issue through.

Another reason for backdating the commencement date is actually the enormous amount of work that has gone into The Hobbit in Wellington over a long period of time. Again, if there was a problem here it already existed for the work on The Hobbit. That is another reason that National, if it was following its own logic, would backdate the bill.

The problem is that the bill should not commence, at all, as an Act. As a piece of legislation it is simply National addressing a problem that did not exist, created by a crisis of its own making. That is essentially what we have here today. National cannot decide whether this bill was forced on it by Warner Bros, or whether it is doing it of its own volition. If it is doing it of its own volition, then the commencement should be backdated. That is the truth of it. If it was a problem in industrial law, then it has been a problem since 2005 and the commencement date should have been backdated. But if, in fact, the legislation has been forced on this Government by Warner Bros—if this is, in fact, the Government rolling over and saying it will do whatever Warner Bros wants—then maybe a commencement date in the future is, somehow or other, allowable. Unfortunately, we are seeing in this Chamber tonight yet another bill being rammed through—

I move, That the question be now put.

I rise to speak to clause 2 of the “Employment Relations (Film Production Warner Bros) Amendment Bill”. I wish to make two points about the commencement clause, clause 2, of the Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill. The first point is about the date at which the bill should become active. It seems to me that this bill should come into force on 6 February 1840. The reason for that is quite simple: the Treaty of Waitangi was an agreement between the Crown and tangata whenua, between iwi and the Crown. If we are to say that the New Zealand Parliament is no longer sovereign, that the Crown is no longer represented, that the New Zealand Parliament does not decide laws, and that in fact it is Warner Bros that decides laws, then why should the Treaty of Waitangi be between iwi and the Crown, when the Crown or the democratic Parliament has given up on the idea that it is sovereign? It seems to me that we should backdate the commencement of the legislation to the date when the Treaty of Waitangi was signed, and we should just say that the Treaty of Waitangi will now be active between tangata whenua and multinational corporations.

It would simplify things if we made the commencement date 6 February 1840, and if we just got over this funny little interlude when we tried to establish a democratic Parliament in Aotearoa New Zealand. We went through this experiment to have democracy, but now National has decided that it is a bad idea. National would rather have multinational corporations deciding what the law is in New Zealand. We should backdate the commencement of this bill back to the Treaty of Waitangi, so that it is a simple agreement between tangata whenua and multinational corporations, and we can just avoid the whole experiment with democracy. National, ACT, and the Māori Party are saying to us tonight that this experiment where the Crown—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Order!

This is attending to the commencement date, Mr Chair, to say that the commencement date should be 6 February 1840, and the rationale for that is that the democratically elected Crown is no longer present.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): The member is way off track. The relevance of that is not part of this debate. We are speaking on the commencement. The member will come back to that, or I will terminate the speech.

We are talking about clause 2, which is about the commencement date, and I am making a simple argument as to why the commencement date should in fact be 6 February 1840, because of the fact—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): That is not a serious matter; 1840 is not a serious part of the debate. This is about relevance. If the member does not come back to the commencement as the bill is presented, then I will terminate the speech.

The previous speaker, Grant Robertson, talked about retrospectivity in the discussion with regard to the commencement date, but the Chair has said that I cannot discuss retrospectivity, because he does not like what I say about it.

Let me discuss another aspect of clause 2, which is the question of the Royal assent. It is overlooked because people think that clause 2 is simply about the commencement date. I suggest that we should get rid of the provision that says that the legislation has to receive the Royal assent, which is part of clause 2, and we should say that the legislation should simply have Warner Bros consent. It would be much simpler. We should say that the bill comes into force—looking at clause 2—not when it receives Royal assent but when Warner Bros approves the bill, because that is what the Government is effectively saying. My interpretation is that National is saying that the commencement under clause 2, which discusses when this bill comes into force after it receives the Royal assent, comes into force after Warner Bros says that it is OK.

We should amend clause 2, and say that instead of “This Act comes into force on the day after the date on which it receives the Royal assent.”, we should say “The Act comes into force the day after Warner Bros says that it’s OK.” Once it gives the tick to National, it will say: “We really like what you’ve written, National, and we think that it can come into force now”. Rather than going through this Governor-General business, this democracy, and the sovereignty, which is all a bit of a nuisance, we will have the date when Warner Bros says it should come into force. Clause 2 is about when the legislation will come into force, and instead of the bill coming into force after it receives the Royal assent, which is a bit of a hangover from the old days, after all—the old Commonwealth and all of that, and we are all for moving on beyond the Queen and all that—well, we will move beyond the Queen, and instead of the Royal assent, it will be Warner Bros consent.

We can achieve a republic and be subservient to multinational corporations all at once, by a simple amendment to clause 2, by replacing the word “Royal” with “Warner Bros”, which is entirely within the scope of this debate. It is a very simple amendment to clause 2: instead of “Royal assent”, which obviously National does not like, because it wants to move beyond the monarchy, National is proposing that it is actually when Warner Bros gives its consent; that is when the bill can come into force. We can get over all this nonsense about the Queen and all of that business.

I move, That the question be now put.