Screen Industry Workers Bill

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of ACT in opposition to the Screen Industry Workers Bill. Unfortunately, I wasn’t there when the bill was introduced and went through the select committee process, but I do remember the debate that occurred around 2010, when the amendments were introduced. The change to the Employment Relations Act where the test for employee status for people doing film production work no longer applied to people doing film production work. Instead, unless employed under a written employment agreement, film production workers are contractors and cannot challenge their employment status in the courts.

I remember thinking back then that this industry runs on deadlines and time frames; surely the workforce had to be flexible. The Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) report to Government in 2019 stated, “These amendments were controversial and polarising. Production companies and others in the film industry saw the changes as important to protect New Zealand’s ability to attract and retain international film production work. Many, including unions and academics, saw the change as a removal of fundament employment rights.”—unions and academics. It’s not a coincidence with this bill that 30 percent of the Labour Party are ex-unionists, so not too sure about the academic side of it.

What I do know: to get stuff done; to increase productivity; to be able to pay staff well; to be a thriving, exciting business, industry, and community, there must flexibility in the workforce, trust between all parties, and the understanding of a common goal.

The MBIE report also states that, “The inability to bargain collectively may contribute to poor outcomes for some workers in the industry. In the screen industry, workers tend to be engaged on a project basis. They experience peaks and troughs in their work and tend to work multiple jobs a year.” The “peaks and troughs”—that means the employers and the companies also go through these peaks and troughs, and they need a workforce that rolls with the same punches that they are going through, and also a workforce that accepts that the career path that they have chosen is not a 9 to 5, Monday to Friday, like a union leader or an academic.

The Film Industry Working Group has suggested four principles apply to all screen production work: (1) parties must act in good faith in their dealings with each other; (2) contractors doing screen production work must be protected from bullying, harassment of any kind, and discrimination; (3) people who engage contractors must act fairly and reasonably when terminating contracts; (4) contractors doing screen production work must receive a fair rate of pay in relation to their skills and the scale of production. On the face of it, all these principles seem fairly reasonable, but any employer who has had anything to do with the personal grievance process would be shaking their heads.

I spoke, last weekend, to the owner of a plastering and painting business. They employed a 34-year-old painter. In good faith, they had a formal contract, a high rate of pay, and a company van. It turned out, after a few months, he wasn’t up to the job. Of the 110 days he was employed, he was absent for 30. Sometimes he called in sick; most of the time he didn’t. He just didn’t turn up. After the required warnings were given, he was asked to leave. Seemed to be a great example of acting fair and reasonably when terminating a contract—sure enough, personal grievance. The employer overlooked the offer of a support person on the final warning; $12,000 later, legal fees for the business, and the employee set free to do the same to the next employer, who just wants to make a living, pay good, hard-working staff.

Labour and the Greens really don’t understand how difficult running a business is these days. The disdain for business owners is evident every day. I really think it shows you just what they would be like if they ever did take the plunge away from secure Government jobs—where your only worry is how much your KiwiSaver is increasing—and actually attempted to run a business.

The redressing the imbalance of power rhetoric in this bill is just not true and hasn’t been for many years. Unfortunately, this attitude is at the expense of greater productivity—a dirty word, I know—which means better pay and conditions for the employees.

There are other familiar statements in this bill like, “The Film Industry Working Group has recommended that industrial action not be allowed.” I’m really surprised that “race to the bottom” isn’t embedded in there somewhere.

Having listened to Minister Wood many times now trying to justify the need for fair pay agreements while acknowledging that not all industries and businesses need them, and that, actually, conditions have improved for employees since the introduction of employment contracts in 1991—especially pay and holidays. It must make people wonder what the motivation for this bill is. Then you remember “unions and academics”.

There are things in the bill that require explanations—for me, anyway—such as the statement from the select committee report which says, “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; for example, if the individual worked for a company that was contracted by the other person.” I don’t quite get it; it just seems unfair to me. Is it like hiring a builder to build your house? Builder gets a concrete truck to concrete the driveway, and it’s delivered to the wrong place; does that mean it’s my fault or my responsibility? I’m not sure, but I’m sure that will be addressed in the committee of the whole House stage.

ACT believes that most employers are good people who just want to run a profitable, productive business. We believe that most employees just want to work hard for the pay they receive. We think the best way to do that is for Government to leave them alone and treat them like adults, not children who need babysitting, in all aspects of their employment. ACT cannot support this bill.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to take a call on this Screen Industry Workers Bill. I want to say that the reason that we are here today is because of a shameful chapter in workers’ rights in New Zealand where the previous National Government removed the workers’ rights of an entire industry—an entire industry. Let’s go back to how we got here today.

In 2005, Bryson v Three Foot Six Ltd, a decision of a court in New Zealand, emphasised the real nature test, which determines whether a person is an employee or a contractor. Then, following that, after that was settled law and consistent with all other decisions, film workers decided to have the audacity to use their fundamental right of freedom of association to collectively bargain.

Now, that was seen as too much of a risk to this country, that it would be found to be unattractive to filming for overseas film companies. What did the National Government do then? Did they stand up for New Zealand workers? Absolutely not. They did not. They removed the workers’ rights from the film industry with no select committee process, under urgency; an absolutely shameful chapter New Zealand’s history. So I am proud to stand here today to reverse the damage that that previous Government did to this group of New Zealand workers. This bill brings back minimum standards to the film industry. This bill brings back the right to collectively bargain, and I am proud to be part of a Government that is bringing back fundamental rights unfairly taken away from New Zealand workers.

The next call is a split call. I call on Simon Watts—five minutes.

Well, thank you very much, Madam Speaker. It was very difficult to listen to the last speaker, Camilla Belich, of what can only be described as virtue seeking in regards to the reality of what role we did when we were in Government, which is ensuring that those people who wanted to work could work.

In regards to this bill, National will be opposing this bill. There’s a couple of reasons why for that. But I want to start with something reasonably relevant, and that is in regards to the elements that we do support within this aspect of the bill. These are the provisions to improve protection for workers against bullying and harassment, freedom of association protections, and setting clear standards for employment contracts. We do support those elements.

However, it is clear that this legislation will drive less flexibility, in terms of our labour markets, and will also, in part, strengthen the element and the power that the unions have. That is absolutely an issue for businesses across this country, businesses across this country which are working, day in, day out, to try and be productive and efficient under a huge burden of cost and regulation by a Labour Government that do not understand business—they would struggle to spell the word. That is the challenge that we have and the reality out there, as we go round our communities in rural and provincial New Zealand in particular.

This Government are out of touch. They do not understand what it means to run a business. They do not understand what it means in order to pay the bills. They do not understand around the issues in regards to protection around the worker elements, in regards to dealing with the bullying and harassment that this element will cover. They are simply virtue seeking in terms of supporting the elements around the unionisation of this labour force. While important in regards to the overall context of supporting businesses, we need to ensure that, first and foremost, we are supporting our business owners across this community and across this country to do what they need to do appropriately.

So this bill is another example of more legislation and more regulation by a Government that seems to just like to ram through this type of stuff, time and time again. The additional burden, in which this will create additional cost and additional aspects in regards to this, means only simply one thing for those businesses: more headache, more stress, when they should be focusing on how to make our country more productive and increase the economic growth.

I think the reality of these amendments, in terms of the film industry, which I think is important to recognise is, and has been, and continues to be—less so, probably, in the last three years or so—a hugely successful sector across our country, and an industry which brings into this country billions of dollars in revenue and creates tens of thousands of jobs. So the legislation that was put in place was to make sure that we are globally competitive in regards to this sector. It is a different sector in the way in which it operates, because of the use of differing staffing models etc.

But the reality is, New Zealand is an absolutely excellent place for the film industry to make films, to create that type of entertainment, and New Zealand should be a gateway and a destination for these companies to be able to operate here. The challenge on the table, once again, is this Government, who think they know better than all New Zealanders—and that’s been coming through clearly, in terms of where their narrative is at the moment—is that this type of legislation is going to make New Zealand less attractive in terms of a destination for this type of growth and industry. That will hit those provinces and those regions across this country probably harder than anywhere else. And that is a great shame in regards to this.

But, as we know, no matter what we say, this Government won’t listen. They’ll ram this through, as they do, because they know best—they know better than—

💬 Shanan Halbert: North Shore’s a sunny place.

—hard-working Kiwis across this country. And I can hear the colleague from Northcote over there blurting out something but lacking detail, as usual. But it is pretty clear that National will be opposing this bill, and that’s all we’ve got to say today.

I wanted to speak on this bill because I have been an employment lawyer for 30 years, and because I was working as a barrister, I got people who were on contracts rather than employment come into my office, and what I saw was quite worrying. I saw a lot of exploitation. I saw people who were dismissed because they had had the audacity to date somebody that the boss didn’t agree that they should date. I saw all sorts of situations where work was so precarious that it was undermining the confidence of the people involved and undermining the wellbeing of their families.

So what I see here is a collaborative effort between the industry and the people involved, and I see the basics coming into play: fair treatment, good faith. These are things that we stand for in the Labour Party and that we stand for as a country, and I see their making a real difference to why we will go forward in the way we will.

My daughter did a film degree. She’s not working in the industry, because who would—who would? She’s a talented, bright, clever woman and she won’t work in this industry until we change it for the better, and this bill will do this. I commend this bill to the House.

I don’t want to strictly bring family into the House; I’m just going to go general, but I can tell you now that with this bill, fewer family members are going to be working in the screen and film industry, because no one’s going to bring their productions here. In fact, you’re going to see more productions leave. If I could slightly personalise, I too have family who are interested in this space. They don’t work here. They live overseas, and one of the reasons is that there are opportunities overseas. Unfortunately, this bill by the Labour Government is not about the basics of employment, because it’s all about the unions—it’s all about the unions. It’s fulfilling, effectively, a promise, I would suggest, to the unions.

Look, as this bill passes—sorry. We’re only at second reading, but once we get through third reading—

💬 Hon David Bennett: It’s not a promise; it’s payback.

I can’t strictly suggest that across the House, Mr Bennett. But it’s a promise to the union, and all we’re going to end up with is a whole lot of happy unionists, because they’ll be running around earning their little pay cheques on behalf of Kiwis who are no longer able to work within the screen industry.

Things are already tough in this space. Need I remind the other side of the House that we lost the contract with Amazon to do the latest Lord of the Rings series? Now, there’s a whole lot of reasons for that—there’s a whole lot of reasons for that and, let’s be really clear, that was before, of course, this legislation. But this legislation would make it even more certain that they would have gone quicker and it would make it even more difficult. One of the reasons these big screen industries leave is because things are just far, far too difficult in New Zealand.

The other side laugh because, of course, they don’t really know anything about this, because none of them, really, have run any businesses or anything. Most of them have been union hacks, and that’s fine. They’re welcome to own that. But none of them have actually run screen productions, and, to be fair, I haven’t either. I can see my colleague here Melissa Lee, who’s actually got tons of experience.

So, fundamentally, all this is doing is allowing the unions to go in and will negotiate massive substantial expensive contracts. They’ll feel virtuous. They’ll think they’ve done a great job. But the downside will be that we will not have a functioning screen industry.

Now, let’s also be clear: the corollary is also true. We don’t want a situation where particularly large screen production houses screw over New Zealanders. Let’s be really clear about that. This is not about a race to the bottom, and that’s a real challenge. We had that debate when we passed what we know as the “Hobbit laws”. I recall, actually, at the time, the Labour—they weren’t the Government then, thank God!—Party railing against the “Hobbit laws”. But wasn’t it funny to see them all on the red carpet at the premieres and so forth? There’s a word for that, which I’m not allowed to use in the House.

So, fundamentally, giving so much power to the unions is going to make things incredibly expensive and it’s not going to proceed. We’re not going to see a thriving film or screen industry. But, again, let’s be really clear for the record and have it on Hansard—it always helps—National is not supportive of a race to the bottom where our people in the screen and film industry are—you know, to use the parlance—screwed over by the screen industries. But there is a happy balance. I would argue that the status quo is in that space.

But it’s still tough, and that’s where I want to return to—it’s still tough. OK? We don’t have as many screen productions here. Let’s be clear, and the other side should be aware of this, it’s barely got to do with the wages. OK, that’s a factor. Of course we want to pay these people more. But it might—they’ve gone quiet all of a sudden; very dramatic—also behove the Government to reflect on its continuing rules—mandates, actually—which are screwing over the industry. If they went and talked to the Amazon executives and others, part of the reason they couldn’t get enough employees is they weren’t allowing people into the country, for God’s sake! All the rules around their masks and all their supposed science around COVID—all of that—and this is, again, the final irony: while they’re tinkering around for their union mates, they’re ignoring all the other factors which are slowing down our screen industry.

Again, one of them—and I’m just going to put the plea out there again—is to open the borders properly. I use that word “properly” because they’ve strictly opened the borders, but, as my colleague Erica Stanford pointed out, basically, no one’s been allowed in, regardless. The screen industries require hundreds and thousands of workers. It doesn’t matter if they’re directly in the screen industry, right through to security, they’re not allowed in. And yet here we are again, the Government tinkering on a bill for their union mates.

So look, obviously, National opposes it. I think, sadly, we’re going to see even fewer productions in this country, and—where I started—for all those parents and family members and those on the left who decry that their children and friends can’t get jobs, well, in the coming weeks and months, they’re going to be explaining to them more and more how the Labour Party has screwed them over and why their kids are still not getting jobs, as they then say farewell to their children as they head overseas to Australia and Canada and other countries to get the jobs that they want. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a real privilege to stand and take a call on behalf of workers, because workers are on film sets and on TV sets. So why are we here? We’re here to restore collective bargaining rights to film production workers and right the wrongs of this “Hobbit law” we’ve heard about. I find it ironic. The Shire is meant to be the small, beautiful, idyllic, and fruitful land, and it’s meant to be a place for happy hobbits. Well, that did nothing for film production workers to ensure dignified work. Eighty-five percent of them are contractors. That’s the nature of the job, and that’s great, but that does not mean that they lose their right to collective bargaining.

I want to acknowledge the Film Industry Working Group, but they’re creators and so it’s not surprising that they’ve been able to collaborate and come up with something that will work. It is not about a title; it’s about a relationship. I support this bill and commend it to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. In 2010, in a move that was seen as unjust and anti-worker and was widely met with fierce opposition from the workers, the Employment Relations Act 2000 was amended to remove film production workers from its definition of an employee. That only happened under the National Party because they are always anti-worker. In doing so, they have taken the right of the workers to get paid minimum wage and the right to bargain collectively. This meant that this group of workers could not challenge their employment status in courts.

This bill creates a regime for contractors in the screen industry. It rights the wrongs. It’s a good day; it’s a good bill. I commend it to the House.