Red Alert

Dear Sir Peter and Fran

Posted by on February 26th, 2013

“Thank you for your email of 4 October 2010 raising issues of actors work permits and possible amendments to the Commerce Act 1986 and the Employment Relations Act 2000 (ERA).

Having considered the possibility of amendments to the ERA or Commerce Act carefully, our view, following extensive consultation with the Crown Law Office, is that, for the reasons set out below, it would not be appropriate to recommend such amendments.

“…….In our view, the relevant legislative provisions provide sufficient clarity such that no legislative amendments are required.”

Hon Gerry Brownlee

Hon Christopher Finlayson

This was the government’s position in mid-October 2010.  But by the end of the month, they had caved into demands to change our employment legislation to exclude film and video workers from their right to challenge the status of their employment.

The government released more information on this sorry saga today after being told they had to by the Ombudsman. It makes for fascinating reading.  Put to one side the florid and over the top language about the union and the MEAA union leader, Simon Whipp that has attracted some media comment.

Read the documents and see for yourself the hand New Zealanders were dealt by a weak government, not prepared to stand up for all of us.

11 Responses to “Dear Sir Peter and Fran”

  1. jennifer says:

    Looks like the ‘master deal maker’ Key was played for a chump by the Hollywood boys. Bit like he’s being played for a chump by the Casino boys today. I guess he thought he could wedge the politics on both, pitching you guys as ‘anti-jobs’ and ‘anti-progress’ but it’s really just cover for his own fundamental weakness and ineptitude, and lack of any honest values. The archetypal ‘hollow man’.

  2. Nick K says:

    Put to one side the florid and over the top language about the union and the MEAA union leader, Simon Whipp that has attracted some media comment.

    Yes. We can completely ignore the actions of the protectionist unions and that horrible man Whipp. It is utterly irrelevant.

  3. Darien Fenton says:

    @Nick K : I didn’t say ignore it. I said put it aside while you read the rest of the documents. Did you bother?

  4. Dorothy says:

    it’d be good to see how many permanent jobs for Kiwis could have been created in NZ for the amount of money that was used to bribe Warners.

  5. phillip ure says:

    c’mon..!..nick k..

    ..jackson played the govt/nz taxpayers like a violin..

    ..histrionic over-acting and all..

    ..those demonstrating film people should be feeling a little sick/used now..given any ‘problems’ were already sorted by the time of their ‘march’..

    ..they really were the bit-players in that

    ..btw..are you still the secretary for act..? wouldn’t have much to occupy yr days with that one..would you..?

    (are you the one tasked with sitting under banks’ seat..and prodding him out of his nana-naps..?..)

    ..and yr thoughts on trougher-hide coming clean about act-ites ‘hating’ maori/the poor/unions..?

    phillip ure..

  6. SPC says:

    There is some risk that the Americans will now think we will roll over in the TPP talks and thus negotiate accordingly. It will be very hard to withdraw from commitments National might make in such a Treaty. And National will make them just to have the achievement of having a Treaty – despite it being one in their interest and not ours.

  7. Ianmac says:

    ““…….In our view, the relevant legislative provisions provide sufficient clarity such that no legislative amendments are required.”
    Hon Gerry Brownlee
    Hon Christopher Finlayson.”

    They said that that letter was never sent. However it does represent the beliefs of those in power at the time. Who over-ruled them I wonder? Why did Simon Power really leave?
    And who over-ruled Parata over Wanganui Collegiate?

  8. Arkonaut says:

    Darien, why did you say that we should put aside Simon Whipp’s involvement? Why don’t you defend what he did? Do you accept that his actions brought about the instability? If not in which way did Whipp’s actions help the position of NZ film workers? If his actions were so laudable why did Helen Kelly take over for Whipp never to be seen again, and why has Kelly never defended Whipp?

  9. the pigman says:

    Arkonaut, if you’ve read the disclosure (suspect) you’d see that *spit* was most concerned that the government move to close what he called the “Bryson Loophole” against:

    a) the fact that it was not a loophole at all, but a provision new to the ERA that required the Court to look beyond how a contract described a working relationship to determine whether workers were employees; and

    b) the fact that the Crown’s legal advice was that this really wasn’t necessary for assessing the position of MEAA to negotiate a collective agreement on behalf of actors employed.

    Casting Whipp as some kind of pariah in this whole process is a standard tory tactic that relies on referencing some “union boss bully” archetype (how dare they stand up for the rights of employees against bosses?) without basis in fact. It is regrettable that Darien entered the conversation on your terms, though.

  10. Arkonaut says:

    Hullo there pigman, if Simon Whipp’s actions were so laudable why won’t Darien defend him?

  11. bbfloyd says:

    @arkonaut… Why would there be a need to defend what amounts to perfectly reasonable statements? The ones who are being defended are the jackals that worked hand in glove with an outside agency to undermine our sovereign rights as an independent country…And those defending them, using smear, and duplicity(only possible because of their near total monopoly on our radio, and tv networks)..

    @phil ure… Can see where you’re coming from, but I am of the mind that johnny sparkles was co-ordinating with Jackson rather intimately over this issue… Jackson himself looks to be just another pawn in warner bros strategy… albeit a willing one…

    And for the record… I don’t beleive for a second that “the hobbit” was ever going to be relocated if the labour laws hadn’t been undermined…that particular fiction stinks of collusion between sparkles bosses, and the studios…(certainly gave the sparkly one the perfect excuse to attack his own countrymen/women)

    Warner got their cash injection, and the raiding party got to screw the workers…A win win for the bad guys….and Jackson showed just how “patriotic” he really is when push came to shove..

    The one thing that eludes me is, what is the payoff for Johnny? It defies belief that johnny sparkles would engage in this sort of thuggery unless he had been bought off…He’s never done anything in his life, unless there was reward in it for him….

    Any suggestions?