Screen Industry Workers Bill

I present a legislative statement on the Screen Industry Workers Bill.

That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and may be found on the Parliament website.

💬 Hon MICHAEL WOOD: I move, That the Screen Industry Workers Bill be now read a second time.

I’m very pleased to bring this bill back to the House about two years since the select committee concluded its considerations of the original piece of legislation. That time, of course, has been somewhat extended by the exigencies of COVID-19 and various disruptions to the proceedings of the House, and the energies of officials. But I am pleased to bring the bill back today and also to report that the additional time has enabled us to make further refinements to the bill, to ensure that it can be as effectively implemented as possible. I note that I will be the third Minister to oversee this bill, and in particular I do want to acknowledge the Hon Iain Lees-Galloway, who was the Minister who introduced this piece of legislation to the House and set up the work of the Film Industry Working Group, who designed the principles that sit in behind this piece of legislation. I also wish to thank the select committee from the previous Parliament who considered this bill. They heard, I think, about 200 submissions and I think it produced a very useful report back for the House to consider at this time.

Finally, in terms of recognition and thanks, I do wish to thank and acknowledge members of the Film Industry Working Group, who sat back in 2018 to design a new structure after what had been a very divisive period in the sector. So if I can thank all the groups that participated in the process, including Business New Zealand, the Directors and Editors Guild of Aotearoa New Zealand, Equity New Zealand, Film in Auckland, and the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions (CTU), the New Zealand Writers Guild, Ngā Aho Whakaari, Regional Film Offices in NZ, the Screen Industry Guild of Aotearoa New Zealand, the Screen Production and Development Association, the Stunt Guild, and Weta Digital.

New Zealand’s screen sector is one that we can be really proud of. It’s one that has grown significantly over recent decades, which is a significant contributor to jobs and economic development, and which also helps to present New Zealand to the world. It’s a sector that we all want to see succeed, and successive Governments in different ways have provided support to ensure that happens. But in my view and the view of the Government, there is one real blot on the sector in recent years—not one of the sector’s making but one of the previous Government’s making. That was the changes made in 2010 by the Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Act, sometimes commonly referred to as the “Hobbit law”, but I don’t want to besmirch the reputation of hobbits by associating them with that in my speech.

That piece of legislation was rammed through the House by the previous Government in urgency. I note some considerable irony, at the moment, in that I’ve just had a number of months in which accusations that the Government’s fair pay agreement programme, which supports greater collective bargaining, somehow breaches International Labour Organization (ILO) rights—something that the ILO categorically did not agree with when it heard that complaint. Yet here we have a piece of legislation put in place by the previous Government which, through urgency, removed the fundamental rights of workers in the screen sector to be able to collectively bargain.

That piece of legislation explicitly targeted this group of workers and removed their ability to be considered employees under the Act. Furthermore, it removed their ability to seek relief through the Employment Relations Authority or the courts to test the status of their employment. That was a Draconian and unjustified piece of legislation that was divisive, and it is most certainly a matter of concern to the International Labour Organization, who have consistently raised their concerns about that with me and with New Zealand’s officials over the years. That’s a bit of a history and a bit about why we’re here.

So what did our Government do when it came into office and picked up this issue? The approach that our Government took under the Hon Iain Lees-Galloway was to try and work constructively with the range of different interests in the sector to positively overcome the problem, through a good process, good relationships, and a focus on fundamentally solving the problem. That was the genesis of the 2018 Film Industry Working Group that was established in the previous term of our Government. It, basically, was set up under two core principles. The first was: how can we find a way within the system to enable collective bargaining to occur in a way that is consistent with the rights of workers in virtually any other sector, while, at the same time, ensuring that production companies had the level of certainty that they felt they needed, to be able to pursue their projects? That Film Industry Working Group was set up to have a very collaborative and inclusive process. I understand the discussions were often robust but they were always very, very respectful.

There were four key principles that the group agreed upon early on: that all parties in the sector need to act in good faith and not mislead or deceive each other; that there should be protection from bullying, discrimination, and harassment in the sector—and we have seen real examples of that illustrated over the years—that the engagement of workers in the sector must be fair and reasonable, and particularly that must apply if and when contracts are terminated; and that there should be fair rates of pay and conditions that can be determined via collective bargaining as well. What is most impressive about this process is that—and I read out the members of the group before, which ranged from Business New Zealand, the CTU, the producers, the unions, and the guilds—not only did they constructively work through these issues together but they unanimously recommended back to the Government a way through that would restore collective bargaining rights to workers in the sector. That is why I take my hat off to that group—because they demonstrated what a high-quality tripartite process can be, where employers, unions, and the Government sit down in good faith and solve problems in a way that is consistent with everyone’s rights and everyone’s aspirations. In this case, they did it, and I think that’s excellent.

The legislation that’s before us provides for workers’ terms and conditions to be covered by occupational-level collective bargaining, by enterprise-level collective bargaining, and by individual agreements. There will still be capacity within the system for individual agreements to be reached, provided they do not fall below the levels that are established by occupational-level collective bargaining or enterprise-level collective bargaining respectfully. Effectively, within the legislation, there is something of a grand bargain in which workers will end up retaining the contractor status which is in the current framework, but collective bargaining will be enabled to ensure that those workers can have a real voice, and to ensure that there can be fair pay and conditions and redress built into the system, and that is what has been recommended to us.

As I said, those recommendations were made in late 2018—so some time ago now—and a subgroup of the Film Industry Working Group have continued to work with officials from the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment to develop the legislation as it’s gone through drafting, to deal with a range of smaller issues that have emerged as the legislation has been considered further, and I really, really want to thank them for that work.

The Government has primarily picked up on all of the recommendations in a slightly narrower way, so the bill will apply, in particular, to productions that have an international component to them. The select committee has reported back a very good report back and does have a range of improvements to the bill, including stronger protections around freedom of association, which are more closely aligned with the Employment Relations Act; stronger provisions around workers getting advice on their contracts and working them through in good faith; and some clarification around where it is appropriate and where it is not appropriate for bargaining fees to apply in respect of collective bargaining that occurs under the Act.

I do also signal to the House that when the bill comes through the committee stage, I will be bringing forward a Supplementary Order Paper that will mainly deal with a range of small changes to the bill to ensure its workability, and these reflect a range of issues and discussions that have occurred with the Film Industry Working Group subgroup over the past year or two. One more substantive change that I will be proposing at that point is that the commencement period will be extended from one month to three months, and that is simply to give all the parties involved a little bit more time to set themselves up for what will be quite a different formal way of working together and establishing employment terms and conditions.

We’ve heard from the Opposition previously that they won’t be supporting this piece of legislation, and I think that’s a shame. This bill is, as I say, a bargain between the producers and the workers working together to try and get a collaborative system in place that moves us on from that very, very divisive period we had previously where fundamental rights were stripped away from workers. It is absolutely supported by the screen industry itself, who have been engaged in this process in the same way that it is supported by unions and guilds who are involved. It preserves flexibility but it ensures that workers have the right to have their voice heard as well.

This is a great piece of legislation. It is consistent with our Government’s ambition to have workplaces that are fair, safe, and productive, and it is the tripartite process at its best. I commend the bill to the House.

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. As the Minister indicated, we won’t be supporting this bill, the Screen Industry Workers Bill, which has had a very long gestation by this Government. It was introduced by a fellow called Iain Lees-Galloway. I don’t know if people remember him. I think he was from Palmerston North. He introduced this way back in March 2020. But just going back before that, Jacinda Ardern—and, before her, Andrew Little—campaigned through 2017 that they were going to repeal the “Hobbit law”. It was going to be an urgent matter and it was going to be something that was going to be dealt with by a Labour Government in the first hundred days. They were going to bring in collective bargaining and strengthen the unions, and this was very much part of the deal to support the unions and increase union activity in New Zealand. That was going to happen within the first hundred days.

Of course, the first hundred days came and went and this bill never appeared. But, eventually, in 2020, in the dying days of the first Government, Iain Lees-Galloway introduced the bill in March, and then he was in a mad hurry and shortened the select committee time, rushed it through so we didn’t get the normal time for submissions, and then they seem to have forgotten about it until today. So after two years in the freezer and five years since it was going to be introduced quickly, we see the second reading of this bill. I suppose in film terms, it’s not as long as the sequels between the Top Gun sequels, but it still nevertheless is strange to figure out what the timing is of the reintroduction of this bill.

The sad reality is that it comes at a very difficult time for the industry and indicates, frankly, once again, this Government’s tin ear when it comes to the needs of businesses that are struggling to survive in very difficult business conditions and in the global context. If you think of what the screen industry are having to deal with at the moment, they’re dealing with a review of the screen grants process at the moment, which is a very important issue for the sector. They are also dealing with the big TVNZ - Radio New Zealand merger, and what on earth that means for the broader sector is an open question. It’s, I suppose, one of the problems that nobody sees, that the Government is trying to fix at huge expense—$300 million - odd going into that—that nobody seems to want, but they’re doing it anyway. But it’s still creating a lot of issues for the sector.

Then, on top of those two significant issues, the industry, of course, is dealing with COVID, which continues to create real problems. Our lockdowns meant that the country lost the Amazon Lord of the Rings material, which was a tragedy for the country. Even now, many productions are struggling—just like every other business—with a lot of people being sick, and that’s just making life difficult.

So at a difficult time for the industry, what this Government is proposing is a very substantial reform of how the employment relations are dealt with, and introducing collective bargaining. If you just think for a moment: they’ve never had collective bargaining in the sector up until the introduction of this bill. They haven’t had it. It’s all been contractors, people doing things their way. A lot of people would argue that the system works pretty well and there’s not a burning platform out there that requires it—the sector is on its knees and it needs transformational change. No, this is an ideological decision by the Government. They want to strengthen unions and they want to introduce collective bargaining to this industry.

If you think of it from the point of view of people trying to put together films, then that requires, presumably, negotiations with a wide variety of groups within it, whether it’s the—it could be the actors, but, of course, then there’s the people involved in the various elements of it: the writers, the stunt people, the people who do the catering. Who knows—all the various people involved in the production of movies, which is a very complicated area. So you’d be putting a lot of pressure on the employer groups.

The Screen Production and Development Association of New Zealand is one of them who are not wildly enthusiastic about this bill at all. The Minister seems to think everybody is delighted at the prospect of this. It just may be that the sector looks at the Government that is brutal and can be vindictive towards people that argue with it and don’t agree with what they do, and they decide probably just to keep their head down and lump it. But this is not something that is particularly widely appreciated in those areas outside the union strongholds within the sector.

What we’re seeing is the introduction of a system which is, frankly, going to create more trouble and dislocation, a lot of extra work and anxiety, and certainly a lot of extra costs to the whole sector at a time when it’s least welcome, given all the other pressures that they have.

Now, when it comes to the arguments put forward for it, yes, there was a bill that was brought in under a deal back in 2010 to ensure that a set of movies were passed, and that’s why it was called the “Hobbit law”. Is it a perfect piece of legislation? Are there issues that could be dealt with around ensuring or improving protections for workers against harassment, and freedom of association and clear standards for employment contracts? Yep, yep. We could be persuaded for that, and absolutely happy to look at some of those issues.

Where we diverge from this Government, though, is their desire to impose collective bargaining across the various parts of the sector at an occupational level—setting a benchmark at an occupational level, and then only allowing enterprise-level bargaining to go on top of that. So that really means that right across the whole sector you, will have the same terms and conditions if the collective bargaining proceeds, regardless of the size, the scope, or the situation of the particular production. That reduces flexibility, makes the whole system more rigid and, fundamentally, at a difficult time for the sector, imposes a lot of extra costs on to them.

This is a Government, I suppose, that, in the broadest sense of the word, doesn’t seem to accept that Government-imposed regulations that add costs into the sector fundamentally do one of two things. They either, in the internationally competitive sectors, such as this, fundamentally make us less competitive, or, in industries which are discretionary, like hospitality and cafes—if you add those costs on, they either get passed on to the consumer or, if they can’t be passed on to the consumer, because people don’t have to go and enjoy hospitality or even necessarily watch films, then that puts real pressure on the survivability of the business.

Everywhere you look, this Government, every week, every month passes new extra costs on to businesses, particularly small businesses. It’s longer sick leave, it’s the fair pay agreements—they’re the latest ones. Extra public holidays—doesn’t matter. Look, handing out stuff is what this Government does. Lots of people like to receive extra things, but, ultimately, as a country, we either are internationally competitive or we’re not. Partly that is reflected on the skill and the talent of those producing goods. The good news on that score in this industry is that New Zealand, of course, has an extremely talented variety of all sorts of people involved in the sector, some of whom are genuinely world class and make our country proud. So that’s great. But there’s also plenty who are just struggling to get by in a difficult world, and the cost structure matters. It does matter. So what’s been introduced here will, over time, add to the cost structure and certainly make it less flexible if collective bargaining goes ahead. On that basis, we are opposed to this legislation.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. All people in New Zealand deserve good jobs, decent working conditions, and fair remuneration for the work that they do. And what this bill does—the Screen Industry Workers Bill—is it helps to ensure that our workers in the screen industry are receiving similarly.

Now, the Minister spoke already of a block that hindered the industry or hampered the industry over the last decade, and this bill deals with that block. This bill is addressing the injustice that over the last decade—more than a decade, in fact—film industry production workers have been prevented from testing their employment status and gaining access to some pretty fundamental employment protection. Now, the Minister spoke about the divisive issues and these changes—they started in 2010.

Now, I do like the previous speaker, Mr Goldsmith, but it feels like we have been at different meetings listening to the submitters. So what I would like to do is I would like to bring the voice of our submitters to this debate. So what we heard from one submitter is the following: “The fact that there is no enforceable basic contract which guarantees minimum terms and conditions is a disgrace. These are standard overseas. Indeed, offshore producers are astounded when they ask for a standard contract and discover there isn’t one. It makes us look like inefficient amateurs who don’t value our performers.” There was also a submitter who referred to industry practices as a “race to the bottom” and referred to New Zealand as a “bargain basement destination”. Several submitters also told us that what was, in fact, the going bottom rate 20 years ago is now the going top rate. Now, that is a disgrace. One submitter said that the current legislation says that New Zealand workers are cheap and expendable, and she supports the bill, as our screen industry workers should not be regarded as the wetbacks of the South Pacific.

Now, the Minister already mentioned this but, back in 2010, when I was a law student, the right to bargain collectively for an agreement—which is an internationally recognised right—was taken away under urgency, removed from film production workers by the then National Government, without even hearing one single submission. And so, from that time on, the workers in that film industry were deemed to be contractors and they were unable to bargain collectively. Now this bill restores that right. As we heard from the Minister, the Film Industry Working Group that was brought together in 2010 did some really high-quality tripartite work, as the Minister referred to. They, basically, came up with a model that allows collective bargaining in the screen industry, and that’s what this bill does: it implements that working group’s changes.

Now, it’s the industry itself—the Film Industry Working Group itself—that didn’t just manage to design a new model; they unanimously recommended that the Government adopt it. What their model does is it represents their shared vision for a thriving industry and that recommended model is the basis for this particular bill.

Now, I heard some members on the other side talk about or mention the unions. There is actually a real big danger to the industry if the National Party doesn’t agree to this bill, because the work done by the Film Industry Working Group secures the future of New Zealand’s film industry. It gives the production companies certainty about the employment legislation and the employment relations in the film industry. It is really important to actually acknowledge that, because trying to disrupt this process just because of politicking is actually really utterly shameful and a disgrace to New Zealand, and to the industry as well.

So this bill, as I already said, restores an internationally recognised right to workers in the New Zealand film industry. It will provide certainty for the sector; ensures an enduring and well-supported workplace relations framework in the New Zealand screen industry. The workers will have the right to bargain collectively, they will have access to their fundamental employment rights but, at the same time, the industry is still able to have the certainty they need to make sure that films can be made successfully in New Zealand. It was agreed by all parties who spent their time in the Film Industry Working Group. And, again, for the National Party to disagree with this bill means that they are the only party in this whole House that is not agreeing to this legislation. So therefore I commend it to the House. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Well, thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I had to go and refresh my memory about the introduction of this bill because it happened so long ago. It was back in March 2020, back in the last Parliament.

Just listening to the member who has resumed her seat, Marja Lubeck, I did a quick look at her Wikipedia page and it lists her profession as “trade unionist”. That actually sums it up completely. Not a politician, not a member of Parliament, not a servant of the people; her profession is listed on Wikipedia as trade unionist. The Minister speaking earlier on in this bill: he’s a unionist as well. He came from the old FinSec union. And that actually belies the linkage between the parliamentary Labour Party and the trade union movement. Those linkages are historic, they are political, and, in many cases, they are financial as well.

So what we have here is what we thought was originally a piece of legislation that was going to be rushed through in the dying stages of the last Parliament, on a promise that the Labour Party made in 2017 to their union mates that they would introduce this legislation and have it passed within the first 100 days of their administration. Well, here we are nearly 5½ years into this failed Labour Government and they are only now bringing back this legislation from select committee for a second reading. So what went wrong? Well, fundamentally, the legislation is flawed. It’s wrong, it’s conceptually inadequate, and it removes freedoms. It removes flexibility. It removes the ability of employers and employees to freely negotiate terms and conditions of employment in a way that Labour Party politicians and trade unionists find objectionable. Well, on this side of the House, we stand for freedom. We stand for the ability to have flexible labour laws, for laws that enable businesses and employees to work together, to grow businesses, to create strong jobs, and to create opportunity for a growing economy. But, on that side of the House, they take the reverse view. They like big Government, they like centralised control, they like strict union discipline, and Dr Gaurav Sharma has just today revealed the intensity of the strict union discipline that is applied within the Labour Party’s parliamentary caucus—and so it is within the trade union movement.

This is a party that likes to control people. They like not to give people individual rights. They are scared and fearful of people making decisions for themselves. What they want is union control. And, actually, this piece of legislation is all about a relationship that is historic, and political, and, at times, financial with the parliamentary Labour Party and the trade union movement. This piece of legislation does nothing to encourage the brilliant and bright opportunities that exist for New Zealand filmmakers—and the people who work for them and with them—to create great movies, a great industry, and great opportunities for us as a nation and to grow our economy. This is a bill that will stifle that.

The previous speaker quoted from two unnamed submitters. Well, we had 207 submissions to the select committee back in 2020. Only 30 of them were heard in person, but my recollection of those was that they were just a steady stream of union members—one after another—who gave remarkably similar testimony to the select committee. In fact, if I was a teacher and they were my pupils, I would have accused them of plagiarism because the words were the same. One would have thought that they had been provided with a cookie cutter template submission word script to use; talking points to use.

For the then chair of the select committee—I’m not sure that she’s still the chair of the select committee—to then cite those as some kind of justification for this piece of retrograde legislation that removes people’s freedoms, that removes flexibility from the workforce, and removes ability for us to grow an economy; that’s a disgraceful use of selective submissions from the trade union movement by that member. As I said, we’ve had an insight just today as to how strict and controlling that mentality can be within an organisation that doesn’t like people being individuals.

On that Government’s side, they like to put everybody into groups, into units, into groupings of human beings—they don’t see them as individuals. They don’t trust individuals. And that’s, of course, basic socialist dogma—not to trust individuals. They don’t like that. So at select committee, this legislation was considered, and the select committee made a number of changes, but one of the changes was a further insight. And just remember—for people who are watching and listening at home—that at select committee, the Labour Party Government has an absolute majority in the select committee, as they do within this Parliament currently, but not for much longer. One of the things that was changed at select committee was the meaning of “screen production worker”. I want to quote from the select committee’s report, where the majority—the Labour Party majority—on the select committee came to the view, and it says in the report, “We consider that the intention of the bill is to treat an individual as working for another person even if the individual is providing their services through a third party.” Now, let me say that again, because it takes some getting your head around to understand that: “We consider that the intention of the bill is to treat an individual as working for another person even if the individual is providing their services through a third party.”

Well, that’s the kind of mind-set that this Labour Party Government considers “individuals”. They want the employer not to have any individual relationship with the employee. They want the flexibility of negotiating terms, conditions, and arrangements to be made by third parties who actually may not be privy to the commercial workings and understandings of both the employee and the employer. They don’t like that.

They want to categorise everyone as a worker who is a unit of production, and that’s not the view that we see on this side of the House. We have far greater respect for individuals and their ability to negotiate their own terms and conditions on the basis that they are intelligent, smart, capable, clever, professional people with skill sets that are sought after by employers—and in this case, filmmakers. On the Labour Party side, they don’t see it like that at all. They want the union to be controlling it; they want the employees to be members of that union.

So, on this side of the House, we see that this piece of legislation’s second reading—and as my friend and colleague Paul Goldsmith has made very clear, we will of course oppose this legislation. But after three years of mucking around and waiting, it seems that the union movement is having to wait a long time for the original 2017 commitment to pass this legislation in 100 days—5½ years into their term, they are now just getting around to a second reading.

So we on this side of the House don’t support the legislation. We think it’s backwards. We think it’s a step back to the 1970s. We think it’s Napoleonic in terms of its approach, and the Minister represents everything about that kind of description in terms of his speaking to the bill at second reading. He has a Napoleonic approach to freedom of negotiation between people who want to work and sell their skill set to a willing buyer in terms of a production company, a movie production company that may want to use their services and pay appropriately for them.

So this Screen Industry Workers Bill, we think, is a retrograde step. We don’t support it. We won’t support it. And given an opportunity, if we have the privilege of sitting on the Government side of the benches in 15 short months’ time, this is a piece of legislation that we will almost certainly look to put right in the fullness of time.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise and take a call on this bill. It is no surprise—I guess, for us on this side of the House—that members opposite are in opposition, because it seems that any time that this Government does anything to help employees get ahead in the workplace, they say, “No. We’re not having that. No power to employees. We’re not interested in looking after employees. Full stop. Not interested. Not interested.”

As of 2018, there are 15,000 people doing screen production and post-production work in this industry. Of those workers, 85 percent—12,800—were hired contractors. They were often employed on a “take it or leave it” basis: “This is what we’re offering you. Take it or leave it. Whether it’s worth your while or not.” If you’re desperate for work, you’ll take it. There’s been no ability for them to have standard contracts.

Regardless of whether someone is union member, what does it matter? They are still a human being and an employee that needs to make a living in order to live a good life. That is what this bill is about; it is about looking after employees, ensuring that people have the ability to have access to standard contracts, and are looked after in their workplace. I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. This is the first time today that I’m quite stoked to get to stand up and speak to this bill. It’s fantastic to see it back after two years of COVID delay. I know that a lot of our people working in the screen industry have been eagerly awaiting this day, because this is a real step forward for them.

I want to acknowledge, too, the whakapapa of this is a result of an 18-month process of negotiation and collaboration of industry stakeholders within the Film Industry Working Group. At the end of that process, all of the guilds and production companies, and representatives, and Business New Zealand were able to come up with unanimous recommendations for fairer working conditions and collective bargaining for the contractors within our screen industry—because they’re not employees and they don’t get access to those rights that so many of us rely on in this country.

I do, too, recognise the importance of this and just want to—that there’s been a lot of work done in select committee. I wasn’t lucky enough to be able to sit in on the select committee last term when considering this bill, but I’ve read some of the submissions and been through the quite extensive report. There’s a lot of work that was clearly done in committee in response to the submissions to strengthen this bill. I would like to just speak to a few of those.

But before I get into that, I do have to respond to the comments by a previous National speaker talking about “standing for freedom” and the “flexibility for business”. The idea of freedom, for me, doesn’t equate with the reality that we’ve had in this industry of entire casts being fired for approaching the producer to try and negotiate collective conditions. That’s what happened under the “Hobbit law”: an entire cast, wanting just to talk about the possibility of being able to get some collective conditions, were fired. The production decided to start again.

Like, where is the understanding of freedom in that? That is just an unmitigated abuse of power, and that has been the norm, or at least, if not the norm—I think that might be a bit of an exaggeration—but has been happening in the screen industry. My partner worked in the screen industry for a while; 16-hour days as a norm. It’s a very, very, often hierarchical industry, where people start on the shop floor and have to work really, really hard on tight budgets and do whatever is required. And that means that health and safety and the wellbeing of that person, and their ability to be a member of their family, is often compromised.

We’ve seen the wages of our actors, in terms of relation to other wages in the country—as well as internationally—go backwards over the last 15 to 20 years. These are artists who contribute a huge amount to our country, whether they’re in front of the screen or behind it. They have, on a regular basis, still been exploited in this country. The “Hobbit law”, which I think is in the Urban Dictionary defined as a “Law that is introduced as a knee jerk reaction, usually to erode the rights […] of people at work.” That’s the National Party’s definition of freedom. That is what they are standing up for in this House. That is not my definition of freedom.

My definition of freedom is for people to have the opportunity to have decent conditions, and that requires an ability to bargain collectively for many people. Some rare people will be able to do it for themselves, but that’s usually because they’ve got quite a few things behind them to get to that point, and it is not the norm.

So to get into some of the detail of this bill, which I think is really interesting, and some of the changes that have been made, is—it does clarify the position on a prohibition on industrial action during collective bargaining. And that is one of the points where the Green Party differs in terms of the outcome of this. The right to strike, for us, is a fundamental right that we do not want to see traded away through negotiations or through legislation. On a more positive side, we’ve seen through submissions coverage of this bill being extended to computer-generated games for educational training and advertising purposes, through the submissions of people requesting that cover, which I think is brilliant.

From the submissions, some of those stories of manipulation and misuse of power came through, because there has been a strengthening in the bill of protections against the use of undue influence. There’s been the addition of situations of somebody trying to prevent people representing workers or trying to get somebody to terminate any work because of that individual’s status as a member or non-member of a worker association. So, clearly, that is a very real dynamic where people have lost their opportunities to be working, and we know blacklisting is a very active practice in our screen industries that really does need to be stamped out. And this is more protection to try and change that culture, even though listening to the previous National member the Hon Scott Simpson rail against unions as if they’re the devil’s spawn as opposed to the collective voice of workers just surprises me. He might support terminating people’s work on the basis of their union membership because he doesn’t seem to understand what a union is. However, this provides protection against that, which I think is great.

It clarifies the duty of good faith. And I note that this is more limited than the duties within the Employment Relations Act, and that is the result of that bargained situation—which is clear that these are not just demands from one party, in the workers in the screen industry; it is about trying to meet the needs for everybody. There’s also carve-outs around some of this in terms of volunteers, and recognising that our film industry—in particular short films—and part of the industry relies on people volunteering in films and that that is built into the industry. And this bill is not undermining that, because it’s a recognition of the reality that people are working with. It’s also providing more clarity around where there’s a collective in place, individual contracts, while they’re allowed, cannot offer conditions less favourable.

It also strengthens provisions against retaliatory termination, to provide protection for workers who exercise any power, right, authority, or remedy under any enactment, not just this one. I really speak to the absolute importance of that in terms of providing some surety around and strengthening of our health and safety provisions, as well as noting that that includes providing information in relation to a complaint about bullying, discrimination, or harassment, because that is a known dynamic where people are blacklisted for reporting on the behaviour of people more powerful than them.

The committee did just consider putting in specific processes for raising complaints around bullying, discrimination, or harassment, but were advised that further policy work would be required to determine how a single process fixed in legislation could apply. Now that we are kind of two years on from the select committee, I do wonder if there’s been an opportunity for that work to have been done and whether we might see a Supplementary Order Paper in that space. Because we know that as a country—and a shout-out to Deborah Russell, who’s in the House, and her fantastic bill that’s around at the moment around extending the time to be able to make a sexual harassment complaint—that there are huge barriers in terms of being able to report and get an adequate response around bullying and harassment, and industry-specific responses are important. So thank you, Mr Speaker.

Members, this debate is interrupted and is set down for resumption next sitting day. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, 23 August 2022. Mauri ora ki a tātou.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 5 p.m.