Screen Industry Workers Bill

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s with great enthusiasm that I rise to express the Green Party’s support for the Screen Industry Workers Bill this afternoon. I think, like most New Zealanders, I love a good story and I love a good film and a good show. Some of the films that have come out of this country, and the TV shows, have changed my outlook on the world; they’ve deeply affected and moved me, and connected me to other people in ways that I hadn’t had access to before. And, at times, they’ve just made me laugh when, you know, that was not something I thought was possible at that point in time. I really have so much admiration for all of the talented performers and writers and technicians and other artists who have enriched my life in these ways.

Films to me have always seemed—particularly films, but TV as well—quite glamorous. But then when I talk to people working in the industry—or those who have now left because they couldn’t find a way to be a decent parent and work the really, really long hours, or be confident that they could contribute to the family budget in a way that was manageable, or, actually, even be able to manage their own safety when they didn’t feel there was an avenue to address safety concerns—the glamour was lost. And that’s been the reality for a really long time in this country, that our artists and our technicians and these people who enrich our lives have often just been put in really precarious situations. The average income in the film industry, the Minister said in his opening speech, is around $40,000 a year, which doesn’t quite match the image I think most of us have in this country of what it might mean to work in the film industry. And it’s really clear that a lot of people who have stayed in there have stayed because they are driven as artists to contribute and to tell those stories. I think it’s incumbent on us as a country to look after those people and to make sure that they, in turn for what they give to us, are able to have decent lives, to feel safe in their workplaces, and to be paid fairly for the work that they do.

This piece of legislation is a really important step to enable that to happen. It overturns the “Hobbit law” to restore basic protections and rights to people in the screen industry. And it reflects the outcome of the Government-created Film Industry Working Group, which brought together unions and the film and television sector and Business New Zealand, who sat down together and worked out how to be able to better support decent conditions for people in the screen industry, as well as secure the place of the industry in our country. By sitting down together, they managed to do that. That is a credit to this Government saying that this was important, that the conditions of those workers was an important discussion to happen, and a fundamental belief that by those parties sitting down together, they could work something out.

This is in stark, stark contrast to the previous Government, who sold out all of those people in this country. Those artists who we admire—who had been attempting for years, from around 2009, to try and get standard contracts in the industry to be able to protect people in the workplace—had been met with absolute resistance from the film industry. In one production where there’d been a request for a discussion about having a standard contract for people, the producer had come back and threatened to recast the entire show, even just in response to the request to have that conversation—those were the people, that was the action, that the National Party came in behind and supported. They supported the tiny, privileged few over the wellbeing of our artists who enrich our lives so much.

This piece of legislation, what it does is, what that working group worked out together, is—it doesn’t go as far as, say, the Green Party’s policy would have wanted, which would have been to ensure full employment rights for everybody who is, we would argue, in a position of being employees in reality, or, even, the right to strike or the right to industrial action. But we’re very happy to support a solution that has been worked out through the unions and the film industry and Business New Zealand, which is what this does.

We really think that, like fair pay agreements, this is the way forward for us in this country to be able to ensure everyone benefits from increased productivity and wellbeing in our country. So the details of it are that—while it doesn’t make people employees, it keeps them as contractors—it enables them to collectively bargain. There’s also the option for there to be improvements to that standard that may be set across an industry at an enterprise level or within individual contracts, which seemed last night, listening to the National speeches, was not something that was understood. And it requires workers to have written contracts containing the notice period for terminating the contract and any associated payment that may be made to the worker and a process for responding to complaints of bullying and discrimination and harassment. I really do think—when we have been hearing the stories and have recently seen the conviction of Harvey Weinstein in the US—it’s really important to reflect, and I would ask the National Party to think on the fact that they’re voting against legislation to enable a process of responding to complaints of bullying, discrimination, and harassment.

I’ve sat in meetings with women in our film and screen industries and have heard the stories and the concerns within our own industry here, and they’ve come together as women across the industry to put some amazing things in place. This is our chance to get behind them and make sure that we have legislation that backs them up to be able to protect them. As we saw with Harvey Weinstein, as in the same stories that happen here, the threat of being blacklisted has a silencing effect and puts people at risk, and that requires strong protections to be able to balance that threat. That is a key part of what this legislation does, and it is critically important for the women in those industries but also for us as a country if we’re going to be consistent in all or any of our conversations around wanting to address sexual harassment in particular.

I also, just again, touch on the fact that this is overturning the “Hobbit law”. When I was thinking about this speech and I put something in a search, it came up with the Urban Dictionary and the definition of “Hobbit law”, which I thought I might share, which is: “Law that is introduced as a knee jerk reaction, usually to erode the rights … of people at work.” That is on record. That is in the international Urban Dictionary as a result of the National Party’s approach to industrial relations in this country.

It is really shameful, but what is more shameful was the impact on our artists, and in my final moments I want to just to give a huge shout-out to Equity New Zealand, in particular, and Helen Kelly from the Council of Trade Unions, who stood up against lies and power and manipulation and stood by the people in their industry and an absolute commitment to their right to dignity and safety at work.

Well, that contribution should give you some indication not to believe everything you see on the internet, especially from Urban Dictionary, because today is, in fact, a sad day for our screen industry. It’s also a sad day for good policy-making in New Zealand. I recall, actually, living in the US—I was a graduate student just outside of Cambridge in Massachusetts in 2010, when this law was passed, and I remember watching the US media’s reaction to this law. They were praising it—they were praising it for good policy reasons. Today is a sad day for this industry, but also for good policy-making in New Zealand.

Why are we here? Why are we actually considering this bill? Well, it’s very simple. This is union payback. There’s no other way to find it—

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: I’ll just advise the member you’ve just got to be careful.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. This is nothing but appeasement to the unions, because after years of back-scratching, now it’s time for them to deliver.

Our film industry is going to be harmed by this law. This law, in fact, will cost job opportunities, and let me outline for you some of those. The point of the “Hobbit law” was to create the conditions whereby these international companies, who could go anywhere in the world, felt that there was an incentive to come to New Zealand. With this law, what you’re going to see is increased costs for these companies. You’re going to see increased compliance costs. You’re going to see greater costs for actually manufacturing and building these film productions. So what you’re going to see is fewer of these overseas companies—the very companies that we want to come here and produce films like The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings and other great success stories that we’re all proud about. What we’re going to see, in fact, is a diminishing of this industry, with fewer job opportunities, fewer high-income job opportunities for our New Zealanders, and a reduction in incomes as a result.

So that is where we come from in the National Party—is saying this law was a good policy. You don’t have to take our word for it. The Government’s own advice said the same thing. So here we are about to toss out a policy that was good, and that is why this is a bad day for policy making in this country.

Now, the other thing I want to raise is that the provisions in this bill give explicit conditions where there are collective bargaining rights at the sector level. Now, what does that mean? What it means is what we call fair pay agreements. To the average person out there, fair pay doesn’t necessarily mean fair pay. In fact, in many ways it doesn’t. Let me describe for you how fair pay works. If there are companies that are operating in Auckland and companies that are operating in Gore, and there is an agreement established whereby a certain screen worker in Gore and in Auckland must be paid the same rate, now, what we’re going to see—of course, the cost of living in Gore is different to the cost of living in Auckland, so my colleague, Hamish Walker, the MP for that area, tells me. So what we’re, in fact, going to see is the screen workers in Gore paid far more than they actually need to—

💬 Hon Member: “Gorr”.

“Gorr”—well, whatever. I’m a proud Aucklander. OK. What we’re going to see is, in fact, higher costs for that company down in Gore, and as a result, this company is probably going to chuck in the towel and actually not come to New Zealand.

Again, don’t take my word for it. Take the word of the independent research conducted by the New Zealand Initiative, which states very, very clearly the negative effects of these fair pay agreements on New Zealand businesses, workers, productivity, jobs, and incomes. So there is no evidence that these fair pay agreements actually lead to positive outcomes. It is, in fact, poor policy-making that we are seeing and witnessing today from this Government, that they are overturning this “Hobbit law” in the namesake of ideology.

Now, let me come to what National believes. National believes that these kind of employment relationships should, in fact, be at the firm level, between the company and the workers themselves. We want a flexible environment where these people and organisations can come together and establish a relationship that is beneficial for both parties, not for the whole sector. We believe in creating a competitive and vibrant film industry. That is why we put the “Hobbit law” in place back in 2010, and that is why it has consistently thrived since then, right up until 2020. These individual agreements we believe in, not collective agreements.

You know, there was a speaker there that talked about bullying and harassment. Of course we want to see improvements in that area, but this law is not it. So let us chuck this law out in select committee—we’ll do whatever we can—and actually go back to good policy-making in New Zealand, because this is, in fact, a sad moment for the industry, it’s a sad moment for good policy-making in New Zealand, and National opposes this bill. Thank you.

This is a split call.

What a load of rubbish he just talked about just then—absolutely no idea about what the industry are thinking, what they are saying. If he had any clue about what exactly the film industry wanted, then all he would need to do is tune in to some of the narrative, some of the conversations that are going on. And here’s one that’s gone on: Robyn Malcolm, a proud New Zealand actress, she was the one that actually sent a message through to Radio New Zealand saying that at the time when the news was put out there that we were going to be doing this, she was delighted the law would be repealed; she cried in the airport. Here’s a quote from her: “It was a hellish time for all of us and I’m so happy that our new Government has seen to right this wrong straight off the bat.” She described the National Government’s decision to change the labour laws for a Hollywood production company as “nothing short of embarrassing”. She said the only protection that actors have is their ability to collectively bargain.

This is a very unusual, inconsistent, and potentially very exploitative industry, and the previous speaker knows nothing about it. So I would encourage him to actually go and have a conversation with some of the people that are working in the screen production industry, because what this is is absolutely a protection of their rights, their ability to collectively bargain, to make sure that, actually, we do have fair systems and fair agreements when it comes to our screen industry. So I absolutely commend this to the House, and it will pass. Kia ora.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Thank you for the opportunity to take a short call on the Screen Industry Workers Bill, which the National Party is opposing. This bill is repealing a law which has stood the test of time, which has made a difference to our economy, which has brought to New Zealand industry and jobs which we would not have had in our film industry if the “Hobbit law” had not been put in place in 2010. This bill represents a broken promise by the Labour - “Winston First” - Greens Government. They promised that in the first hundred days—

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: Use full names.

Sorry, the New Zealand First—yeah, that’s correct. They’re in coalition, but not the other one; they’re in confidence and supply. Just thought I’d clarify that as well. They said they would deliver this within the first hundred days, but it took two and a half years of a working group—one of their two-hundred-and-something working groups—to even bring this bill before this Parliament.

💬 Dan Bidois: What an incompetent Government.

Two and a half years—what an incompetent Government; exactly, Mr Bidois—to get a hopeless Government to bring one of their promises here before this this Parliament. And now they’re hoping to ram it through before this Parliament rises for the election later this year.

This bill is going to be a dampener on the film industry in New Zealand. It is going to increase costs and lead to fewer films being produced here in New Zealand—fewer jobs, fewer opportunities for New Zealanders. This bill will empower the unions as they seek to take collective action against the film industry.

Yes, I note in this bill, they won’t be able to take collective action during the time that the collective bargaining is happening, but just you wait, mark my words, collective action, more strikes, are coming to New Zealand and are just around the corner. We will not support this bill.

This bill does three things. It is a requirement for workers to have written contracts which will contain mandatory terms and conditions about termination, protection from bullying, discrimination, and harassment. Second, it sets up a framework in which collective contracts can be negotiated setting minimum terms for contractors. And third, it has a disputes resolution process. It’s a good bill. I don’t want to hold it up any longer. I commend it to the House.

I want to take this opportunity to put on the record how much Wellington values our film industry. It is a really important industry that creates hundreds, if not thousands, of jobs and significant economic opportunity in this city, not only for those who are working on these incredible Weta productions and making the props and doing the incredible digital work but for the constellation of businesses around them—everyone from the people doing the drycleaning to providing the catering to doing the houses—and Wellington would be much poorer without our incredible film industry and the creative, talented people who support it.

I also want to put on the record the value of contracting arrangements. It is a tendency in this House, on the other side, from time to time, to make out that anyone who is a contractor is somehow in a poorer position than someone who is an employee. I would suggest to those who hold that view that they go and talk to people who choose to contract because of the flexibility it gives them. The contractors I’ve spoken to, many in the film industry, are very happy with the employment arrangements they have. They note that their industry is quite particular in the way that it operates and that that flexibility has been useful not only to them but to their colleagues and the way that our New Zealand film industry has been able to adapt and innovate. I believe that valuing that role of contracting is important across our economy. Yes, many jobs are absolute employee-employer relationships, and I stand for protecting the rights within those relationships, but we must acknowledge the spectrum and the fact that many want to be contractors.

So the real question for this bill is—we know that Labour made a big promise. They said they’d remove the “Hobbit bill”. Well, actually, the core part in the “Hobbit bill” was a carve-out for film industry employees. They’re not going to tell the unions this, but the carve-out is still there. So the real question is: is this bill anything more than a sop to the unions, who they’ve disappointed on so many fronts? And I’d suggest to you that where a change is simply a Government trying to deliver on an election promise that was flawed to begin with, it’s probably a change not worth making. Thank you.

It’s hard to know whether they’re deliberately or wilfully or haplessly ignorant over on that side of the House.

Ten years ago, when the National Party introduced legislation and rammed all three stages through the House under urgency in a single day, that was a dark night for our country, with that “Hobbit law”. There was no consultation of the affected workers, no select committee—a complete abrogation of the democratic process. Film workers lost their ability to challenge their status to bargain collectively or to challenge unfair dismissals and other rights. And yet Nicola Willis gets up and talks about the importance of contracting.

Well, here’s, quickly, what this bill does, which is value contracting. Contractors doing screen production work must have written contracts with mandatory terms about contract termination and protection from bullying, discrimination, and harassment, a new duty of good faith to require parties to a contract not to mislead or deceive one another—can’t argue with that. Contractors doing screen production work will be able to bargain collectively in a tiered dispute resolution system, enabling them to resolve issues that may arise.

That’s what this bill does. It’s actually valuing contracting. It’s ideological opposition over there, it’s bad faith, and it’s sour grapes, because 10 years after their dreadful law passed, we’re undoing it. I dedicate this to the spirit of Helen Kelly, and absolutely commend it to the House.

I move, That the Screen Industry Workers Bill be reported to the House by 2 June 2020 and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions), during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, and outside the Wellington area, despite Standing Orders 191, 193 and 194(1)(b) and (c).

I just want to make some brief comments about why the Government is seeking a slightly shortened select committee process on this bill. This bill represents certainty for the screen industry, and that is something which has come through very loudly from the industry—that they want this issue settled, they want it settled quickly, and they want to know that they have got certainty to invest into the future. That is why the Government believes that it is important that we progress this legislation as quickly as we can. We know that the New Zealand screen industry is highly dependent on foreign production companies making investments in the creation of film, television, and games here in New Zealand, and that certainty is important for securing that future investment.

The second point I would make is that the overwhelming majority of the people who are affected by this bill who will wish to make contributions at the select committee have been involved in the development of this legislation. This legislation is the result of a tripartite working group. It involved the Government, the producers, the guilds, and the unions representing everybody involved in this industry, and there is a high degree of consensus. This is a result of a consensus view that was reached by that group.

Now, it is important that we have a select committee process to make sure that the drafting is accurate, that it reflects the view that was reached by that group, but the people who have the greatest interest in this, who are vested in this, who will, I have no doubt, come and make submissions at the select committee, have been involved in this process almost from the day this Government was formed. I remember the first meeting occurring in my office. There were still boxes in the corridor because we hadn’t finished moving in. So this is a bill which is the result of two years of work where everybody has been highly engaged.

I make one final point, and that is that I understand from the contributions on the substance of the bill that the Opposition intend to vote against this motion. This motion sends this bill to select committee. That never happened with the legislation that this bill repeals. That legislation was passed in one day under urgency with no consultation of the sector. This bill has been consulted on thoroughly. It is the result of a collaborative process, and we are going to select committee because that is the right thing to do. But it is important that we progress this legislation in a timely fashion and I think we have the balance right.

Just before I call the next speaker and put the question on whether the motion is agreed to, I just want to make sure the Minister’s aware we have actually already voted on sending it to a select committee; this on the timing—

💬 Hon Iain Lees-Galloway: Yes.

OK.

Look, thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker; I appreciate the opportunity to take a very brief call on this matter that the Minister is raising. The Minister, in his comments regarding the select committee timing and pointing back to the legislation that was enacted by the last National Government in 2010, neglected, of course, to point out that the circumstances of that legislation were significantly and completely different to that that exists today. This was legislation that the Government promised would be in place within its first 100 days of taking on the Treasury benches. And of course, that’s a failed promise, another lack of delivery. And now for the Minister to somehow imply that a truncated and shortened select committee process should occur simply because the working group has already done some work on this is a slap in the face to parliamentary democracy. It sounds now like the Minister is saying that just because the Government sets up a working group, they can somehow make shorter the constitutional process that we have developed over decades in this Parliament that involves select committee scrutiny.

We will be opposing this legislation as it progresses through the House, but we will also be taking advantage of the opportunity that is availed for the Opposition through select committee proceedings to hear from people who are going to be actually disadvantaged by this legislation—people who are not going to have an opportunity to negotiate terms and conditions on an individual basis to suit them and their employer and to make the most of their creative skills in an area that New Zealand has become internationally famous for.

So we think that this motion to have a truncated select committee process and an earlier than usual report-back date is not a very good use of parliamentary process. We absolutely reject the notion that simply because one of the Government’s literally hundreds of working groups has done some work, that somehow Parliament should be bypassed and that due process in this place should be somehow diminished. So we don’t support the motion.