Today we learn that the government caved into another demand from Sir Peter Jackson and Warner Bros which involved bending immigration rules in their favour.
In 2010, Peter Jackson told Government Ministers that Warners were worried about our employment law, because the distinction between “contractors” and “employees” established five years earlier in the Bryson case required employers to treat him as an employee.
Bryson was not an actor, yet we changed the law because Warners said so and in doing so, removed rights for a whole category of workers.
Turns out, it was just one of their demands.
Official Information finally released, shows that the government was only too happy to fall into line with other concerns, such as the alleged visa “blockages” for overseas performers.
And hey presto : changes have been made. And they don’t only apply to actors – they apply to everyone working in the industry.
I seem to recall John Key saying this was about New Zealand jobs.
But secret deals in immigration processes like this completely undermine our immigration systems and are unfair to Kiwi workers.
The integrity of our immigration system stands or falls on transparency, but this latest revelation adds to a trend of giving privileges to the better off and a willingness to bend the rules when money is involved.
Update: You can view the OIA request here.
Official Information finally released, shows that the government was only too happy to fall into line with other concerns, such as the alleged visa “blockages” for overseas performers.
What visa blockages? I recall no overseas performers at the time of the LOTR production – or subsequent to that time – having been blocked from entering NZ. A smokescreen? Of course it was. Just another example of the Haves looking after one another at the expense of the Have-Nots which, in its entirety, is the rest of us. The whole Hobbit wrangle was a set-up from the start and many of us knew it.
Shame on Peter Jackson for being an integral part of it.
I am appalled at the actions of this Government, The public really seem to be utterly enthralled by Key and Co. And yet they committ outrageous acts like this. Will the general public wake up and realise that these people Do Not have their best interests at heart.
Whats wrong with it as the article below states alot of Kiwis dont want jobs and Labour dont like call centres or manufacturing coming back from Australia lets see if you dislike farming to?
http://www.stuff.co.nz/southland-times/news/6814631/Immigrants-top-pick-for-farm-work
And the issue is?? If we want a film industry we need to make NZ a place they can do business. I think it’s fair to say it was about NZ jobs or perhaps you would be happy for major blockbusters to move overseas?
NZ needs innovation, innovators and more business more growth if we are to prosper. The Government is right to move its power and resources in behind these businesses to help achieve this.
@Simon – New Zealand is a place they can do business. But what’s the point if we have to import all of the workers, or are we just creating wealth for other countries and not our own?
@Tamaki – let’s just put everything up for grabs then shall we?
@Jason go ask the Filipino Farmworkers Assn what it’s like working on a farm and the exploitation that’s been occurring. I note the academic didn’t ask any farm workers about their experiences. And please don’t misrepresent our position on jobs coming back to NZ. You know it’s because we are a low wage country ….
NZ film productions overwhelmingly employ New Zealanders. Overseas imports are only used to increase the film’s chances of success / marketability. Importing workers is vastly more expensive than employing locals, and it is not done lightly. The Hobbit rightly should be able to make the decision whether or not to bring outsiders in, rather than the actors union, or any other union. The govt got this right. This from a proudly independent film contractor.
@ John
From your perspective you may consider the govt. got it right. Not surprised because such dealings are no doubt in the interest of film contractors – independent or otherwise. But from the perspective of many other people the government was underhand, deceitful and wrong. You may not consider changing the law at the whim of a foreign entity (and with the help of some in the local film industry by way of spreading mischievously incorrect information) as important. I sure as hell do, and so do a great many of my fellow country-men and women.
Oh, and see my comment April 27 @ 3:50pm.
I’ve never heard of an off-shore performer being blocked from entering and working in this country.
‘I’ve never heard of an off-shore performer being blocked from entering and working in this country.’
Then why not remove the right of the union to object? Just another bureaucratic obstacle and uncertainty to get in the way of getting on with it.
Surely the govt was trying to clarify a muddled situation that was getting in the way of a highly visible and lucrative endeavour that would benefit the country. Doing their job. And I don’t think it was underhand. It was debated in Parliament. And surely PJ has an expectation of being consulted as an interested party. Did Helen Kelly or AE discuss the matter with govt? Should we know the contents of such conversations? I think you are predisposed to a negative view of whatever this govt does.
Did Helen Kelly or AE discuss the matter with govt?
This govt. agreeing to have an open, honest discussion with the democratically elected representatives of working people? You’ve got to be joking. It would never have been on a level playing field and Helen Kelly and the AE would have known it.
You bet I’m predisposed to a negative view on most things this govt. does. Recent revelations concerning the ACC debacle, the Crafar Farm debacle, the Selling of Assets debacle, the Sky City debacle and latterly the John Banks/ Sky City/Dotcom alleged electoral fraud debacle will give many people food for serious thought about the lack of transparent and honest governance we are experiencing in this country. That you apparently don’t regard their behaviour in this matter as underhand and lacking in integrity is regrettable but not surprising.
British and u.s actors unions have long had the power of veto.
For example, many theater productions have lost key players when crossing the Atlantic in order to boost local participation, or to take lead roles in feature film adaptations.
Whatever spin the government wants us to believe, the sir pj s.o.b/warners deal was nothing but selling out kiwis.
The films were in danger of not being made in NZ
The films were in danger of not being made in NZ.
Do you not mean: The films were never in danger of not being made in NZ? That of course was correct.
“secret deals in immigration processes like this completely undermine our immigration systems and are unfair to Kiwi workers.”
But it seems like actors have had a process that is different from everyone else’s. If I’m (for example) a sports player or a referee or an installer of specialised machinery I’m not subject to a union veto. For actors, it looks like there’s 6 different unions/associations with veto rights.
Actors Equity’s committee has dipsticks on it like Tandi Wright, Robyn Malcom and Jennifer Ward-Lealand. They can’t possibly be qualified/competent to make a decision that involves knowledge of labour market statistics, economic conditions and business.
Those “dipsticks who could not possibly be qualified to comment” are the leaders in their profession. If not they, tell me who is qualified to comment on their profession?
P.S. nice use of the word ‘dipstick’ – it did give me a chuckle.
Well if Bea considers some of our most prominent actresses and performers as dipsticks, then what does that make Bea?
Tim – labour market analysts, economists, business analysts…left-brain people in other words.
Acting isn’t an academic pursuit – it’s more about being impulsive. Exemplified by the “we didn’t know this would happen, we just want everyone to be happy” comments from them during the hobbit fracas, along with the impromptu tears for the camera from the other one with the bad fringe.
I’d also note that those ones noted above who are on a committee with the power to veto the employment of overseas actors are also the ones who seem to be getting the most jobs for themselves – perhaps a conflict of interest.
Sorry Bea – I forgot for a moment that you come from a political lineage where everything is for sale and knowledge and expertise is nothing more than a commodity.
Starting with your expert knowledge that the acting community are dipsticks, what are their jobs worth?