Screen Industry Workers Bill

Members, we come now to our final debate, which is on clauses 1 and 2, the title and commencement.

If we have completed the coda, now we are at the epilogue, and like a good epilogue, it’s not too long. So the question really is: should we be calling this Act the “Screen Industry Workers Act 2020”? Well, of course we can’t, because now we’re in 2022. But the fundamental question is: can we call it the “Screen Industry Workers Act” when, possibly because of this very Act, there will be no one left in the screen industry to be working, and are we creating something erroneous? So I’m not going to suggest alternatives to the Minister, but I have a serious concern that because of what he is bringing about here, there will be no one in the screen industry to work or to act. So it’d be interesting to know how he’s going to juggle that or allow a little bit of flexibility.

As I touched on in the coda on Part 5, this is a fast-moving industry. I understand that there’s been a bit of debate about when this should come into force, but it is a question of why we’re now waiting three months. I’m sure there are some who are thinking it should take much, much longer; there are some who would argue it should just happen tomorrow. I notice, of course, once we get Royal assent, once that Act—all puns intended; is “act” in the legal and screen industry a pun? It probably is. The regulation powers come into effect after Royal assent, which makes sense; they’re planning. But why is the Minister waiting three months? As I say, there’s a debating point there. But my fundamental question is: how can he title this bill the “Screen Industry Workers Act” when, in fact, I would argue fewer people will actually be acting as workers in the screen industry?

People who have been tuning in to this debate will probably come to the conclusion that we on this side of the Chamber don’t support this bill. And we don’t support this bill, fundamentally, because it is taking a situation that’s working pretty well, an industry that’s working well—it’s creating jobs, making films, entertaining New Zealanders and people all around the world. It’s been an industry that’s started the careers of many famous New Zealanders who are now on the world stage. It’s provided opportunities for people to have fun and do work that they love. You know, the world’s never perfect, but the industry is going pretty well. And this Government seems, right now, to be mad keen to introduce a whole new regulatory regime in respect to the hiring of people, and a very thick bill with many changes to it.

It’s now supposed to come in three months after it gets its Royal assent—most of the provisions of the bill—and I’ve asked the Minister a number of times and he has dodged and dived and not answered this question: has he received correspondence from people in the sector pleading with him to delay the introduction of this bill further? Because they are conscious of the times being tough, that they are just scrambling out of the pit that COVID has created for their industry; they’re just getting themselves back on their feet. They’ve been through the wringer and they’re tired, they’re exhausted, and they’re stressed. They just want to get back to normality for a while so that they can get on with the things that they love, and this Government is imposing a complicated new set of procedures—costly, complicated, a pain in the neck—that will go on for a long time and distract them at a time when they need to be focused on getting the situation back in control.

So my suggestion would be that he heeds the calls from within the industry, which he hasn’t yet acknowledged, and give it a good year’s delay. If he insists upon passing this bill—we don’t think he should; I think he should take a lesson from his friend and colleague the Hon David Parker and do a big U-turn. We would support him in doing that, right here, right now; and saying, “Well, actually, I’ve changed my mind. I think this bill is a stinker and I’m not going to pass it.” That would be a good thing to do and we’d support him in that. But if he’s not going to do that, we would encourage him to delay the commencement date a year, because it’s going to be a flop. There’s no doubt about it. Delay it a year and then give people a little bit more time to get back on track post-COVID. If he did that, it would be one small indication that he could show the people that he understands the pressure that they’ve been under. So why not? We’ve had one today. Why don’t we have another one?

Briefly, in response to the previous member, Paul Goldsmith, I’d just say that not everyone has the same irrational, bent-out-of-shape hatred of unions and collective bargaining that that member and his colleagues do, let alone the very people who make up the sector. As we’ve covered across the course of this debate, this bill has arisen out of a joint good-faith tripartite process in which the companies who produce screen productions sat down with the unions and the guilds, came together, and found some solutions that they’re all happy with, and that’s the legislation we have here before us. The title reflects that. I believe that stable employment relationships will be an important part of the sector prospering and growing in the future, and most people across the sector believe that. In recognition of the fact that there is some work to be done in order to get processes set up for the legislation to move forward with bargaining, we have extended the commencement to three months, which I think is a reasonable balance to strike.

The question is that clause 1 stand part.

The question is that the Minister’s amendment to clause 2 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 234 be agreed to.

The question is that clause 2 as amended stand part.