Screen Industry Workers Bill

Members, we come now to Part 5, which is the debate on clauses 66 to 79, “Miscellaneous provisions and amendments to other Acts”. The question is that Part 5 stand part.

Mr Bishop earlier in the debate—somewhat not unfairly or rudely—referred to the Department of Internal Affairs (DIA) as being the department that sort of collects up ephemeral things that don’t fit in anywhere else, and we’re perhaps on to the DIA part of the legislation with Part 5, which includes a range of miscellaneous provisions. Probably the key thing for members of the committee to be aware of are the provisions relating to the registrar of screen industry organisations and the provisions relating to workplace access. There are some, for the most part, relatively minor changes proposed by the select committee in the Supplementary Order Paper I have tabled here. Probably the most significant one from the select committee relates to some changes to the access provision. The provisions in respect of union access do enable access to be denied if there is going to be disruption to screen production activities. There’s now, effectively, an adjunct to that which, basically, says that the parties will first try and see if you can arrange a way of there being access without that causing that level of disruption before you refuse access entirely. So it’s just, effectively, pointing the parties to having a conversation to see if that can be worked around. Other than that, I look forward to discussion and any questions that members have on this part.

I’m just curious about new clause 65B, where a society is entitled to be registered, and an incorporated society—there are two parts to the negotiations. There’s the worker organisation, and what’s called the engager organisation—you might think of, if a film is being done, the producer of the film or the people organising the film.

Now, new clause 65B says that an incorporated society, to be registered, is either a worker or an engager. So if we’re thinking of it in terms of the engager—so not the union, but maybe the people putting together a film—the requirement is that “(2)(a) the object or an object of the society is to promote its members’ collective work interests;”. I’m not quite sure what that would mean in terms of an engagers’ organisation, to promote—the “object of the society is to promote its members’ collective work interests”. I would have thought, you know, most of the engager organisations would be focused on strengthening the industry, dealing with the Government of the day, and international advertising—making things work. But the “members’ collective work interests”—I’m just not quite sure what that exactly means and how that necessarily applies to the engager side of it.

And then, when we get to new clause 65G, are we talking the functions of the chief executive that’s still back at the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment? It’s not the Department of Internal Affairs chief executive, I presume. We’re all getting a bit confused about that now.

Then, in relation to access, in clause 67—that the representatives of the worker organisations are entitled to go on to the film set at any time that they like, provided that it minimises disruption to the screen activity, protects commercial sensitivity, manages health and safety risks, and maintains security—I just wonder if Minister Wood had in mind any other elements of a film production that it might not be appropriate for the union rep to turn up at, at the critical time, which aren’t covered by any of these descriptions. I just want to ensure that the Minister is sure that he’s covered all the potential situations that wouldn’t be appropriate. In terms of insisting that a union representative can come on at any moment and, presumably, want to talk to workers, has he given much thought to that? I just want to make sure that clause 68(2) covers all the appropriate things that would, you know, potentially create problems for people who are just trying to get on with their work.

I sort of feel, in the parlance of films, that this is the coda. So three questions—firstly, jumping to Part 5, is this legislation bringing about unnecessary bureaucracy, in so far as people already work through a process through the Incorporated Societies Act to become incorporated or not? It feels, to me, that we’re adding a further burden here, understandably to make them—whether they’re a worker or an organisation or an engager, it is a question of whether it’s just more bureaucracy. As I say, either you’re incorporated or not, and there feels, to me, in the first point, to be a little bit of repetitiveness.

Secondly, and we have traversed this, along with Chris Bishop, new clause 65G is referring to a chief executive, which ipso facto we no longer really know unless we go to the legislation website, which I would have thought was meant to be a fairly static website. The legislation is passed; it’s sort of immutable. But now we’re being told it can change.

💬 Chris Penk: Good word—good word.

Yeah, I thought “immutable” was another good word, along with “coda”. Who knows what else will come! And, thirdly, jumping to new clause 75A, the review of the Act, the Minister will know that moviemaking is a fast-moving sector, and yet he’s chosen—I think it’s five, but I’ll pop my glasses on; yes, it is five—five years. Should it be fewer? This is quite generally a fast-moving situation. I know I keep coming back to what we’ve seen with Amazon leaving, amongst others. Do we really want to wait five whole years to come back to this? Is it more prudent—or, rather, did he seek any advice on whether we return to this within a year, or perhaps three years?

So three aspects there. As I say, are we, through new clause 65A, adding extra complexity to societies which are already incorporated? Secondly, just to draw his attention, as I’m sure he’s aware, to new clause 65G, where we’re referring to a chief executive of a department that can, arguably, change outside the legislation. And did he, under new clause 75A and beyond, consider fewer years around the anniversary of commencement?

I’m happy to answer a few of the questions that have been asked there. I think the question asked by Mr Goldsmith in respect of new clause 65B and the question asked by Mr O’Connor in respect of new clause 65A come together somewhat, and I think I can provide some clarification here. So an engager organisation is an individual employer themselves. An engager organisation is an organisation like, for example, in this sector, Screen Production and Development Association, which represents the sector or represents a number of individual organisations in the sector. So what we’re really talking about here is a kind of organisation that can engage in occupational-level collective bargaining, where it’s not an individual employer; you need a body who will represent you—a bit like you might think of an employer association in other sectors. So it is necessary that that organisation is incorporated so that it has a legal form and conforms to the responsibilities of the legislation. It is necessary that it represents the collective interests of that sector, so that it has responsibilities back to the organisations that it’s going to be representing at the bargaining table as occupational-level contracts are negotiated. It is a very similar structure, although it came before in terms of the policy design and drafting, as with fair pay agreements, which the House is currently considering as well.

In terms of access, under clause 68(2), to the best of my knowledge and my judgment, I think that the provisions there are pretty comprehensive and cover likely scenarios where there might be an issue to be considered about the appropriateness of access. I do note that, at the select committee process, there were no concerns or issues raised with that access or provisions. You would have expected that companies, producers, if they had thought additional things should be added, might have suggested so at that stage, but they did not. Coming to new clause 75A, as raised by Mr O’Connor—the review after five years—I do believe that is an appropriate juncture. It gives time for a new piece of legislation like this to settle in, for people to get used to it, to really assess how well it may or may not be working. Of course, not every piece of legislation that comes to this House has an inbuilt review mechanism. It’s, effectively, an optional extra that we have decided should be built in, given that this is a new and novel regime. My judgment is that five years is about the right level of time to conduct that.

Before I go into voting, could those members take their House boxes down from their desks. Thanks.

The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Part—[Interruption]—there will be silence while I am taking the vote.

The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Part 5 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 234 be agreed to.

The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Schedule 1 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 234 be agreed to.

The question is that Schedule 1 as amended stand part.

The question is that the Minister’s amendment inserting new Schedule 1A set out on Supplementary Order Paper 234 be agreed to.

The question is that Schedule 2 stand part.

The question is that the Minister’s amendment deleting Schedule 3 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 234 be agreed to.

The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Schedule 4 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 234 be agreed to.