Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill

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.

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.

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.

I thank members for their contributions. I say that the Leader of the House has raised, indirectly, the issue of substantiality, which is that amendments need to be significantly different from each other. I say to him that this amendment does not fall into that category, because commencement and expiry are two significantly different things. We only have to look at our birth certificates and death certificates to realise that they are radically different. The time of this might be somewhat closer but I think the order is not that it is substantially the same; it is significantly different.

The issue then is its proximity. It is not for me to make a judgment about whether it is so proximate to the commencement to make it substantially the same; that is for the Committee to decide. It has a starting date, and I accept that. It is now proposed to have an expiry date, and it is for the Committee to determine whether that is so close as to make the bill a nonsense. That is for the Committee to decide. I cannot see any grounds for the Committee ruling it out; it is, therefore, a matter for the Committee itself to decide. There are no procedural grounds that I can see for ruling out the amendment.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. You have now left me somewhat confused and concerned. First, although I have seen my birth certificate, I most certainly have not seen my death certificate. Second, if anybody else has, I would appreciate knowing the hour and the moment.

I think the Leader of the House’s political death certificate could be written up about his inattention in this particular area. With a little bit of tolerance early in the morning from the Chairperson, I want to show people what came into my inbox from Japan overnight. A young Kiwi asked what is happening to New Zealand. He said that New Zealand sovereignty is finished—

💬 Hon Tau Henare: And he lives in Japan.

He is an exceptionally talented young Kiwi, who is currently working in Japan. I am sure he will come home, but he is less likely to come home with that member in Government. Why is that? We heard earlier—without referring to the point of order—that the Leader of the House does not know the difference between commencing and expiring. Gerry Brownlee showed earlier on that he does not know the difference between coming and going, and Warner Bros took advantage of that.

💬 Chris Hipkins: They saw him coming.

They saw him coming and they said: “We’ll go for it. We can see a buffoon who is not on top of his job. We can see a Government in chaos. Therefore, we will ask for some stuff.” Actually, Warner Bros did not ask for this. I want to make it clear that I believed Gerry Brownlee when he said that this was not a requirement of Warner Bros and that this was not necessary. That is why—because it was not a requirement of Warner Bros and it was not necessary in order to get The Hobbit—this legislation can expire. This legislation is not necessary, and therefore there is no problem with it being relatively short-term legislation. That would be the effect of this. The Committee has decided that the Act should come into force the day after it receives its Royal assent. Therefore, we accept that as things normally happen, if the Government maintains its majority through the 28th, for however long that lasts, then it is likely that the legislation will need an expiry date or it will go on for ever. I think even the Minister in the chair is not satisfied that legislation of this sort of quality should be in there on an unending basis. She has already made one amendment, and I think there will probably be three or four more that she will want to make as the errors in her drafting are pointed out to her. It may well be that she makes a decision to hook some additional legislation on to another employment relations bill—without reporting to the House the business of the select committee—and, when we get to another day, that will be back on the Table of the House. At that point, because there is this other legislation going through, it will be a lot easier to get coherent legislation.

However, I make it clear that I am slightly evenly divided here. I am not sure whether it is better to get this legislation tidy. I have, in fact, been very, very critical of my colleague Charles Chauvel for acting as the drafting adviser for the Minister. I have told him to hold on to the other ones—he has found three or four other errors—rather than assist the Government as he has done in making bad law. It is bad enough making bad law that does not work, but making bad law that does work is reprehensible, and assisting the Government in it is something I think is relatively shocking. But there is no doubt that if law is bad law, then the best thing is for the country to have it on the law books for the shortest possible period. We looked at the time when we thought the Governor-General would be available to sign it, and we thought it would be possibly some time next week. Some of us contemplated different days for its expiry. Some of us thought that 5 November might be a good time. Then others thought that if we are going to get beyond this, then 11 November, Remembrance Day, would be good—the day that peace broke out, Fran Wilde’s birthday; there are a variety of reasons—

💬 Grant Robertson: 1 April?

Well, no. I do not think 1 April is a good date. I think the expiry of this is a date that should be celebrated. It should probably come in on 1 April. That is why we had 1 April 2012 as a commencement date, because that is a day for fools. But I will not refer back to a previous debate that has been decided, even if it has been decided in a rather unfortunate manner.

So we have here relatively compact legislation; it is not a large piece of legislation. There would be an advantage in having the expiry date as 8 November 2010. I will look to my learned friend on my right, Charles Chauvel, to give me some advice in this area. If this amendment goes in and comes out so quickly, that would probably mean that the statutes do not have to be annotated in order to show it as being current legislation. I ask whether Butterworths still does it. [Interruption] My colleague thinks that the statutes might have to be annotated twice, which seems to me to be an absolutely ridiculous—

💬 Charles Chauvel: It’s a job creation scheme.

Well, there are a number of job creation schemes for lawyers around the place and for people who work for lawyers, but the idea that we would annotate a statute to say that it is in when it is already out seems to be a job creation scheme of the type that National would think of, rather than one that is in the proud traditions of the make-work schemes for the lawyers. I must say that this Parliament spends quite a lot of time on making work for lawyers, including, in my view, this particular legislation. This legislation creates a tension and puts people into an employment category that they do not want to be in. What is more—and I think we need to keep coming back to whether this legislation should expire—it is something that Gerry Brownlee said Warner Bros did not require and did not ask for. The legislation is not being passed for Warner Bros. If that is the case, then I ask who it is being done for. We have had legislation that has not been brought in and has not expired, which has been there effectively in the same form since, I think, 1907. [Interruption] Again, my learned colleague Mr Chauvel, on my right, says that—

💬 Grant Robertson: Not often on his right.

He is always on my right! My colleague Mr Chauvel indicates that it was the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act of 1894 that brought in this substantive area of law. We are changing legislation in the industrial area and also, I think it is fair to say, common law. We are managing to change stuff that goes way, way back in the common law of the United Kingdom and the common law of New Zealand. This legislation is at the core of our labour relations system and has been since before the formation of both the National Party and the Labour Party, and we are changing it for a reason that no one wants. For that reason, I think it does not hurt for it to be a short-term change. In fact, I have just had another idea. Maybe we could look at another expiry date whereby this legislation expires 90 days after it comes into force. That way we could call it trial legislation. It could test the arrangements, and we could see whether it is appropriate and necessary.

I congratulate my colleague the Hon Trevor Mallard on moving his amendment to insert new clause 2A into the Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill. I think it provides a very good opportunity for us to consider whether this bill is necessary. This amendment brings in an expiry provision for this legislation, which is currently suggested to be 8 November 2010. As others have said, that would be an interesting scenario, given that the legislation would not actually be effective by then. Of course, that would be the best possible outcome from the point of view of members on this side of the Chamber. This legislation is ill-thought-through. It is unnecessary, and I intend to explain why that is the case.

As a first suggestion, I would urge members opposite to support this amendment and recognise that this legislation is poor lawmaking. New Zealand is in the situation where many people are now questioning the nature of our democracy and sovereignty. If Warner Bros can determine domestic legislation—which labour legislation clearly is; it is about how we organise our workplaces, the arrangements that we say will exist, and the minimum standards that apply to people in our industries—then we are in deep trouble. Certainly, yesterday, when I was speaking in the House on this matter, I raised a number of questions. That was one of them. I said at that stage that I think questions will now start to be asked. People will want to know what this Government is doing and whether the changes, in terms of increasing the subsidies available and also in terms of changing our domestic labour law, are necessary.

Certainly the New Zealand Herald has taken up the challenge. I can put it on record that the New Zealand Herald has asked the questions. The heading of its editorial is: “Price to keep Hobbit in NZ is extortionate.” The New Zealand Herald goes on to say it does not have anything against our film industry—none of us do, despite what Government members are saying. But the editorial goes on to say: “In both instances,”—in terms of both granting the extra money and changing our domestic labour laws—“Warner Bros used fears that the films would be lost to this country to leverage a better deal for itself. There was no question of The Hobbit being shot elsewhere before an industrial boycott—lifted before the negotiations began—involving actors wanting to bargain collectively. Warner Bros simply seized the chance to apply pressure on unrelated issues. In both instances, it should have been resisted. The Prime Minister, however, always seemed relaxed about amending the law to provide ‘clarity’ in the film sector.”

This is the legislation that we are talking about here. In fact, the clarity that this bill is supposedly providing is unnecessary. As many of us have already indicated, including my learned colleague Charles Chauvel, there is no lack of clarity about the status of people who work in the film industry. People in the film industry, many of them, work as independent contractors now. There is settled law on this matter. The tests are quite clear. For well-paid technical people and well-paid actors, it actually suits their interests to be independent contractors. There are also people in the film industry who are less well paid, and who are clearly employees. The tests have been outlined very clearly, most recently by our Supreme Court in the 2005 Bryson case.

This legislation is unnecessary, and this is why I support the amendment of the Hon Trevor Mallard to let this legislation expire. If we want to talk about improving the conditions in the film industry, that is a different matter. But it is not clarity that is required. In fact, this legislation does not even deal with the matter that the dispute was about. The dispute was about independent contractors seeking to collectively organise to improve conditions in the film industry. It was not to negotiate a collective employment agreement, as some have incorrectly said, but to collectively look at their terms and conditions. This has been done previously in the Pink Book, and it is about time that it was improved. International actors’ organisations will tell us that the conditions in New Zealand are not up to par. There was a legitimate question there. We should let this legislation expire, and we should deal with the real issues.

We were once a proud nation, were we not? We were once a proud nation where on the international stage people admired New Zealand because we took an independent stance. When the Americans said that they wanted nuclear ships to come into this country, did we acquiesce to the Americans then? No, we took an independent stance. The commencement date in clause 2 of this legislation is the date of the day of shame for this country. It is the day that our independence as a once-proud nation finishes. [Interruption] David Bennett does not care. He does not care that New Zealand has been seen to acquiesce, on the world stage, to an American corporation to change our domestic labour law, without any New Zealanders being able to come and make a submission to say what they think about this law change.

What do New Zealanders think about this law change? That Government will never know. That Government will never know, and it does not care; it does not want to find out, because it is rushing this legislation through. The commencement date in this clause is a day of shame for this country. It was brought about by John Key because he, in one fell swoop, is ruining the reputation of this country as having an independent voice and as being proud in saying on the international stage that New Zealand does have its own view. New Zealand does not buckle to international pressure, except for now. Now it is clear to the world that New Zealand does buckle to international pressure, and this is an issue of our sovereignty.

I am a Matamata girl. In fact, to be fair, I am a Walton girl, but what is 10 kilometres between friends? There is no one in this Chamber who is more determined than me to see The Hobbit shot in the locality where I was brought up. There is no one who is more proud of my town’s involvement in that film. But in that same location in Matamata there is another industry that would quite like $33 million at the drop of a hat—the racing industry—and it will come knocking on John Key’s door to ask where its $33 million is. Racing is another industry that is of incredible importance to Matamata, the Waikato, and the surrounding area. Members opposite know that they will have the tourism industry and the racing industry lining up next, and why should they not? There are easily as many jobs at risk in the racing industry, which is going down the tubes as we speak because of the Government’s approach of not having any economic development.

I speak kind of in support of Trevor Mallard’s amendment. He has proposed that this legislation expire on 8 November, but I would like to propose another date. I think that the first Tuesday in November would be a very fine day—Melbourne Cup day—for this legislation to expire. Why not have this legislation expire on Melbourne Cup day so that the racing industry could then have its turn? The racing industry could immediately knock on the door and say: “Mr Key, where is our $33 million? We’ve got lots of jobs. We’ve got an industry that is of vital importance to New Zealand. Why don’t we get the same treatment that has just been handed out on a plate to an American corporation?”.

Will that $33 million stay in New Zealand? Will it be in New Zealanders’ pockets? We know that $33 million is coming out of New Zealanders’ pockets—that it is coming out of taxpayers’ pockets—but where will it go? Will it go into the bottom line of Warner Bros? Where are the Warner Bros shareholders? Are they in New Zealand? Will any New Zealanders make any money out of the $33 million that is to be given away to Warner Bros? David Bennett says no. He says that no New Zealanders will make any money out of it. If that money went into the racing industry instead, then we could see New Zealanders benefit through local jobs that are not just for two films but will go on and on as sustainable employment into the future. I think the commencement date for this legislation is pretty interesting because it will be a day of shame for New Zealand.

The Green Party will be supporting the amendment, new clause 2A, which inserts an expiry date for this legislation. I think that is very wise. There is no doubt that passing legislation like this, which will change the employment conditions for what could be hundreds, perhaps even thousands, of workers who may engage in the film-making and video game - making industry over the next decades requires a great deal more public concern and scrutiny than one day of investigation. Frankly, it is a constitutional outrage that this legislation is going through at all, and that the Government has involved itself in dirty commercial and political deals by selling out the people who are actually very vulnerable workers.

I am very pleased to see that an expiry date has been proposed. We will be supporting that because the country needs to scrutinise this issue. The Government is trying to push this legislation through under urgency because it is riding a political wave at the moment, but once that deal is unpicked the country will see just how dirty it is and just what the consequences will be.

It is interesting to note that on Back Benches the other night we were talking about this issue and the ACT Party said that it was very interested in seeing whether this kind of amendment, which would mean that employees could be classed as contractors and therefore lose a significant amount of their employment conditions, should be extended to all workers. That is what Hilary Calvert said. She would like to see the legislation potentially extended to all workers. That is the classic extremism of that party; we would not expect anything less. But there is that ideology sitting inside the Government at the moment that has the political power to interfere with workers’ conditions in a great hurry, and at the behest of others.

I am very concerned about the consequences of this legislation for vulnerable workers, and particularly for Māori workers. I would like to hear more about why the Māori Party has decided to support this legislation in particular. Let us just think about the kinds of young people whom we are talking about here—young people who want to get involved in the film industry. We can look at how well our Māori film makers have been doing. We can look at Boy, for example, which is excellent in that not only was it a New Zealand story but it involved young Māori New Zealanders and their own story, and the film led them to this idea that they could participate in the film industry just like anyone else. It was enormously empowering to see a film like that made about young Māori men in particular, and the opportunities that the film gave them, both in the industry and in the expression of their lives.

Because of the nature of the industry, those young people will generally have to operate as contractors. A young person getting into this business, particularly a young Māori person, will have to operate under that contractual arrangement. They are very vulnerable workers by their very nature, particularly young Māori men, who, we know, tend to be done over in terms of the education system, so they will not necessarily have all the skills or information that they need to negotiate as a contractor for the kinds of conditions that would make sure that they are OK. If they are then treated like employees by the company, and they do not realise that this is happening because they are not aware of their full employment rights, then this legislation means that they will be stripped of things like holiday pay and sick leave. They will be stripped of the capacity to be treated like employees, and when they are being treated like employees they will not have the bargaining power nor the knowledge and information that they need to negotiate their contracts to make sure those things are covered. It will be these young Māori workers, and particularly our Māori men, who will be suffering from this.

Young Māori employees involved in this industry at various levels will be the ones in the future—and not very many years away—who will be affected very badly by this. So why is the Māori Party allowing the Government that it is part of to pass legislation under urgency when no Māori lawyers, no Māori employment lawyers, no Māori communities, no Māori iwi or hapū, no Māori actors, no Māori—nobody—have had a chance to look at this legislation and say “This is how it will affect us.”? Young ones who are out there in the industry should be able to look at this legislation and say how it would affect them, how it would injure them, and maybe how it would benefit them. There is no scrutiny of the effect of this legislation on the workers who will be the most affected.

I am happy to take a brief call on the amendment to clause 2 to insert new clause 2A into the Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill, in which my colleague Trevor Mallard proposes to set an expiry day for this outrageous Warner Bros bill that would amend the Employment Relations Act. However, I will pick up on a comment made by Mr Mallard.

Mr Mallard suggested that 8 November would be an auspicious day on which this bill could expire—a day on which people could celebrate. He rejected the idea of 5 November, and so on. I do not think that 8 November is an appropriate day to celebrate. In fact, it is a very bad day for us in the Labour Party, because 2 years ago on 8 November the National Party won the election. That is certainly not a day that we want to celebrate on this side of the Chamber.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: This could be a rebalancing.

Perhaps this could be a rebalancing. It was the day that I was elected, however, so I guess we can certainly celebrate that on this side of the Chamber. There are probably more auspicious dates than 8 November for us to set for the expiry of this legislation.

There are very good reasons for this law to expire and be off the statute book as fast as possible. In fact, the New Zealand Herald editorial today points out how crazy the Government is to go ahead and rush this legislation through, at the behest of Warner Bros. I am a little confused about why we are doing this under urgency. The Government seems to be trying to have it both ways. On the one hand it says Warner Bros did not want this legislation, and on the other it throws Parliament into urgency to push it through because without it we would not have The Hobbit. So which is it? Is it that Warner Bros does not want it, or is it that Warner Bros would take The Hobbit away without it? I am still waiting to hear. The Government cannot seem to make up its mind as to whether Warner Bros actually wanted this legislation.

I think the New Zealand Herald hit the nail on the head when it said: “Warner Bros simply seized the chance to apply pressure on unrelated issues.” That is from the New Zealand Herald’s editorial, and it hit the nail on the head. Warner Bros saw the Government coming. It saw the Government coming when John Key sent the VIP cars out to the airport to pick them up and whisk them away to Premier House for a high-level summit. Suddenly the price went up. Warner Bros realised it could demand whatever it wanted for The Hobbit to stay in New Zealand, and the Government would acquiesce because it was so desperate. John Key was so desperate not to lose the photo opportunity of standing next to The Hobbit.

We know that that is what this Government is all about: how many photos John Key can smile and wave in. The Government will oppose the sunset clause that Trevor Mallard has proposed for this legislation, because it does not want to do anything that would risk losing John Key’s photo opportunities. Ultimately that is what this whole Government is geared towards: more photo opportunities for the Prime Minister. There is no substance to its programme. There is no plan to deliver on all the promises it made at the last election—no plan, at all. It is all about photo opportunities. That is why it is so keen to keep The Hobbit in New Zealand.

I want to see The Hobbit stay in New Zealand. I am glad The Hobbit is staying in New Zealand. But I do not think we should give up our sovereignty in order to have The Hobbit stay in New Zealand. I do not think we should become the Warner Bros colony that John Key wants to turn this country into, as this fantastic diagrammatic representation that arrived overnight via email suggests. I think the Government should have had a bit more backbone than that. I actually think the Government should have gone into bat for New Zealanders. It should have shown that it has some principles, rather than simply giving Warner Bros whatever it asked for. Apparently, if we listen to what the Government is saying, we find that it gave Warner Bros stuff that it did not ask for. The Government cannot make up its mind whether Warner Bros asked for this legislation. It says Warner Bros did not ask for it, but it thinks it is really important, so it will push it through under urgency in a single day. What a load of rubbish that is. It is one or the other: either Warner Bros did not want it, or it did. The Government cannot make up its mind on that, so the New Zealand Herald editorial got it right.

The other reason why this bill should have a sunset clause in it is very, very relevant, I think. The New Zealand Herald editorial got it right when it said “the granting of exemptions such as this almost invariably equates to bad law-making.” It went on to argue: “It is foolish to go down the slippery slope of offering ever-greater subsidies to attract industry or investment. That race always ends in tears.”

I move, That the question be now put.

It is a pleasure to take a call on new clause 2A. I share with my colleague Chris Hipkins some conflicted views about 8 November. It is obviously the date on which the National Government won the election, and, although democracy had its say then, I think that many New Zealanders who voted for the National Party are now regretting that. They are regretting that on 8 November—the day that we would have this bill expire—they voted for a Government that would come into office promising to do all kinds of things, but that would then go back on those promises. We have had the example of raising GST. But those New Zealanders who voted for the National Party on 8 November 2008 would not have thought that in doing so they would be contributing to giving away part of New Zealand sovereignty. They have contributed to putting forward a bill and supporting legislation in this Parliament that is apparently—although Gerry Brownlee is not sure—about acquiescing to the demands of a corporation in America in the form of Warner Bros, and about saying we will change our law and do whatever it takes, no matter what it is, to do what that corporation wants.

The expiry date of this legislation on 8 November, as proposed by Trevor Mallard, is clearly something that the editorial writer of the New Zealand Herald would support. But perhaps what is even more interesting than that to me are the letters to the editor that sit beside the editorial in this morning’s New Zealand Herald, from everyday New Zealanders, which look at what the National Government has done and ask what it is about. I will read the very end of the first letter: “The Government has made it clear that our sovereignty and democracy are there for the highest bidder. Either that, or this was just a ruse to rush through further attacks on the few remaining rights of working people.”

That is the question. That is the question that needs to be answered in this Chamber. On this side of the Chamber it sure looks as if there has been some rampant opportunism from the National Government—rampant opportunism from the National Government. Having created a crisis because of Gerry Brownlee’s inaction as Minister for Economic Development in not keeping the relationship with Warner Bros going, the National Government has had crisis management ensue. The Government has then broken out into opportunism and said: “Here’s another chance to attack workers in New Zealand. We’re doing it already with the 90-day bill, and we’re doing it already with restricting union access; here’s another opportunity.”

💬 Hon Tau Henare: What’s that got to do with what we’re supposed to be talking about, Mr Chair?

We want this bill, I say to Mr Henare, to expire on 8 November, under new clause 2A, because we believe that the bill is bad law. The New Zealand Herald editorial is exactly right: these kinds of deals lead to bad law; this is that bad law. The Government has come to this Chamber unsure about why it is putting up this bill. It is either because Warner Bros forced its hand, or because some huge, dramatic problem in the film industry and the video game making industry needed to be solved.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: Don’t constrain yourself. You’ve limited understanding of these matters.

I am sorry; what did Mr Brownlee say—my “limited understanding of these matters”? If Mr Brownlee had any Wellington MPs in his caucus who were paying attention, they would know that over the last 2 years there have been huge concerns about whether The Hobbit would be made, at all, as a movie because of the problems going on in Warner Bros and the problems going on in MGM. Those problems happened; Mr Brownlee did nothing to find out. He did not go to visit the studios, and he did not even try to get out there to see whether New Zealand’s film industry needed a little bit of assistance from the Minister for Economic Development. Whatever some people might say about my colleague Trevor Mallard—and they do say a lot—he worked hard on those relationships when he was the Minister for Economic Development. He made sure that New Zealand actually was there.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: 120 movies.

One hundred and twenty movies were made; 120 feature-length movies were made under the Labour Government’s watch, because we worked hard on building those relationships. We made sure that there were people in the Hollywood film industry who knew that New Zealand was committed to that. In the last 2 years in Wellington, when most Wellingtonians who had any connection with the film industry were aware of the problems at the Hollywood end, Gerry Brownlee did nothing.

This bill should expire on 8 November, because the writers of the letters to the editor in the New Zealand Herald—bar one of them—are correct. They are correct in saying that it seems that New Zealand is just prepared to sell itself off to the highest bidder. We know on this side of the Chamber that the New Zealand Herald is not always known as a harbinger of radical left-wing thought, but here it is—

I move, That the question be now put.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): I will take one more and hope we get something new. I say to members that this is a narrow part of the bill. It is about 8 November being the expiry date.

I rise again to speak on the amendment to create new clause 2A. I think it is a very good idea. Some might say that it is a little mickey mouse to have a provision that would see the Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Act expire so soon, but I think it is very appropriate given the nature of this legislation. The legislation itself reflects the mickey mouse approach of this Government to dealing with this dispute.

This dispute involved a particular set of circumstances around trying to improve conditions for the people who work in our film industry. It is not unreasonable for them to try to do that. We all wanted The Hobbit to be filmed here but, as others have said, the real issues were well signalled. Those issues were things like the need for greater support for the film industry. Sir Peter Jackson signalled those issues much earlier this year; Gerry Brownlee and others could have done something about them at the time. As for the actual dispute, the Minister of Labour was missing in action. Nothing was done to try to help work through the issues with the parties. Instead we end up with a mickey mouse solution, which includes this mickey mouse law that we are dealing with today. It is entirely appropriate that Labour has put up an amendment that would see this law expire very, very soon.

Labour members are not the only ones who see this legislation as somewhat mickey mouse. I draw the Committee’s attention to the cartoon in today’s New Zealand Herald, “Emmerson’s View”. It is very appropriate. It shows the Prime Minister going on about Warner Bros playing tough but saying that luckily he was cut from the same cloth. He looked them in the eye, stared them down, and then gave them exactly what they wanted. Interestingly, “Mr Mickey Mouse”, our Prime Minister, then says: “But they did say there’s a studio door in Burbank with my name on it …”. That is how one commentator sees our Prime Minister.

Emmerson is not alone in seeing this as a mickey mouse solution. There are very interesting letters to the editor in today’s New Zealand Herald. My colleague Grant Robertson noted one, and I will read out another: “So Warner Bros are now a consultant on our labour laws.” That is pretty mickey mouse, is it not? “Next, will McDonald’s be telling us to have all our police wear guns?”. People see that this is a mickey mouse solution. This Government is putting up mickey mouse legislation, and for that reason the Committee should support our amendment to have the Act expire on the close of 8 November 2010.

The legislation is mickey mouse because, first, it does not deal with the actual issue, which was around independent contractors working together, collectively, to try to improve their conditions. This legislation deals with a matter that is already sorted in law—that is, the status of independent contractors. I tell the Minister that there is settled law on the matter. What is wrong with the decision in the Bryson case? It is very clear. Have there been problems since 2005, when the decision was made on the Bryson case? Has the film industry suddenly experienced the problem of people becoming employees when they were independent contractors, or becoming independent contractors when they were employees? I think not, and that is not the nature of the dispute we have been dealing with recently. What problem is this legislation dealing with? This legislation is not dealing with the matter that needed to be dealt with—if there was one.

It is worrying to this side of the Committee that this mickey mouse legislation has potential to be used in a way that will disadvantage others.

💬 Hon Steve Chadwick: It’s just the start.

My colleague Steve Chadwick is absolutely right. It is just the start. This Government, as we have seen, tends to push through legislation that has pretty bad consequences, and then extends the legislation. Members can just look at the 90-day trial period legislation. It was supposedly to cover small workplaces; now we see it pushed through to cover all workplaces.

This legislation for the film industry is unnecessary, and we are worried about some of the consequences. It covers not only those people who work as actors, voice-over actors, stand-ins, body doubles, stunt performers, extras, singers, musicians, dancers, and entertainers, but also any other person engaged in film production work in any other capacity, such as cleaners, clerical workers, and so on.

I move, That the question be now put.