Yes, full of it to say the least Thought we may have seen you at Billy Bragg at the Auckland Town hall Friday night. Good to see the Labour Party and Greens represent though. You missed a good one all the same.
Kia Kaha Darien.

http://werewolf.co.nz/2012/10/dealing-with-mistah-hollywood/

There is an argument to support it,

Actually, there isn’t.

The argument of course being that the film industry is very project based, and desires flexibility of workforce.

That’s probably true of a lot of the positions but not all of them. The problems occurred when employers started treating permanent positions as contracting positions. The courts looked with disfavour on this and found in favour of the employees. The NACT bill ran roughshod over those court rulings but only for making films.

In other words, they bent over backwards to give WBros and PJ the favours that they demanded to make films here.

Previous government lauded Jackson for his contributions?

So? Doesn’t make the actions of this government any better.

Like those films were ever going to be made anywhere else but NZ.
Some people go easy, some people make a stand and fight.
Good on the lovely Robin Malcom and the lovlier Helen Kelly for having more balls than the weak chinned wonders marching you mention.

If I hadn’t, in protest, vowed to never watch a Jackson movie again, I’d have watched a bootleg with no qualms about denying wb and jacko their 30 pieces of silver.

Maybe it was never a real threat for them to move production, but it’s a very big bluff to call.

There are plenty of circumstances where films have been made in places for these reasons – Cold Mountain is a good example, that was filmed in Romania rather than the US.

I am aware of the bill and it’s function thanks Tim G. There is an argument to support it, which should have been fleshed out and discussed more (rushed bills almost always turn into farces). The argument of course being that the film industry is very project based, and desires flexibility of workforce.

I also understand the argument against it, but choose to think that if film/TV is produced in NZ then there is more chance for our artistic production types to work in this sector.

I also think that there are benefits quantifiable and intangible to having more films made here. Previous government lauded Jackson for his contributions?

http://www.beehive.govt.nz/node/13611

I’m reading , just ignoring the idiots that seem to love the Labour Blog because they can’t manage to convince their overlord Nactional to be courageous enough to have their own. Oh that’s right, they pay their contractor over at bitter, spiteful, divisive, racist, Kiwibog.
However, thank you for your insightful contribution.

http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/PB/Legislation/Bills/BillsDigests/4/b/6/49PLLawBD18091-Employment-Relations-Film-Production-Work-Amendment.htm

Hopefully you’ll then go and seek out some more high level commentary instead of playing concern troll on this blog.

And Al1en, s.o.b. is too kind for that *spits*.

Indiana, it is a travesty that no-one has called your odious rubbish yet. You said:

“What labour law reforms were conducted when Labour was last in power to change this?”

and, because you got away with it the first time:

“Labour were happy to keep with the status quo during their term of government too and that was in the boom days!”

It was called the Employment Relations Act. Amongst its many reforms intended to build productive employment relationships and enhance the bargaining position of all employees (unionised and otherwise) was an attachment to the definition of employee (as against a contractor) which requires that the Courts, when asked to decide whether a person is an employee or a contractor, must determine the real nature of the relationship between the parties. In doing this, the Courts are required to consider all relevant matters, including the parties’ intentions. In other words, it has to look further than any statement describing the parties’ relationship, which including a written contract (because many contracts seek to define employees as contractors to remove them from the ambit of the ERA).

This is the exact same provision (section 6(1)) in the ERA that the nats hooked into to screw over people involved in film production and to limit their rights.

Try to get better informed before you go blasting off misinformation, because it makes you (sound like) an ignoramus.