There are always two sides to any story, the left and the right (unions and employers), those directly affected, those who the issue will have no effect, those who care, those who don't - and those in NZ and those outside.

Not so long ago, the rest of the country guffawed at Wellington planning to rename itself Wellywood.
Now the whole country seems to have taken leave of its senses, demanding we rename New Zealand "Hobbiton" and elevate the Gnome of the Wairarapa, Sir Peter Jackson, to be our Lord and Master. Have we no sense of shame, or of the ridiculous?
On Monday, Samuel Parnell, the father of the eight-hour day, would have turned in his grave at the way the day set aside in his memory was desecrated. Up and down the land, crowds marched and rallied to pledge to be servile to a Hollywood movie conglomerate.
The story has not escaped other news sources (ITN for example) - so globally the people of NZ are seen as Kowtowing to 'save' the production of a movie; The Guardian used the headline 'Picking up the Bilbo'
Key is quoted as saying yesterday
"We will be moving to ensure that New Zealand law in this area is settled to give producers like Warner Bros the confidence they need to produce their movies in New Zealand,"So they require 'confidence', not money?
So why the change from his earlier stance?
“We'll have to make an assessment about whether we think a clarification in the law would assist economically. If we do, then we might make some changes,”So from a might to changing law in 24 hours. And as John Armstrong pointed out today
What kind of a country, however, sells its democratic soul for 30 pieces of silver?
The answer is a small one. And one where the economy shows little sign of recovery in the short term.
As I said before there are lots of sides to every story - lets examine those -
- So the actors wanted more money? Well they actually wanted the same powers as every other worker, the opportunity to seek a collective agreement in terms of wages and contract conditions - nearly every other group in the country has this, be they doctors, nurses, teachers and policemen. The actors wanted the same deal and were vilified as 'corrupt' and 'uncaring'. So an overseas film company can dictate what rights employees in a sovereign nation - so if a New Zealand company want to runs their business in a uniquely 'Kiwi' way, they'd be encouraged to do so and the laws of that country changed to meet their needs?
- The film was already a done deal? Well actually no; MGM is broke, the original director walked away and the project is well behind schedule.
- It isn't about money? Warner's have stated that the budget was US$500 million; now two years ago that would = NZ$1 billion; with exchange rate movements that figure is nearer NZ$1.5 billion - New Zealand is no longer a cheap option (although our pay rates are far less). One bonus California has over NZ is the ability to use non-union labour, a great way of keeping costs down, and if you can achieve the same in New Zealand....
- But the tourists won't come to New Zealand! Prove it - tourists came in their droves before The Lord of the Rings trilogy was filmed here and they will continue to come freely long after. Some come for scenery, some for adventure, many to see ex-pat family.
- Everyone wants the movie here? Well not me if it means workers lose their rights!
No comments:
Post a Comment