Stanford Erica; Simpson Scott; McDowall James; Radhakrishnan PriyancaERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Can the Minister in that case confirm that replacement section 359A(1)(a) inserted by clause 7—which is the infringement notice that can be given if a person is not entitled to work for that employer—can definitely be triggered by other clauses and in the bill and under what circumstances? So can she give us an example of how that would be triggered in that case?Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you very much Mr Chair. I'd like to raise a different matter. I didn't sit on the Education and Workforce Committee so I'm presuming that this matter that I'm to raise was traversed in select committee and some kind of satisfactory situation evolved from that. I'm particularly referring to replacement section 365B inserted by clause 9 and this is in relation to how infringement notices may be served. Now I know from previous pieces of litigation when an infringement regime has been imposed normally officials advise that oh they're very difficult to administer" that "the servicing of infringement notices is hard it's difficult—you can't find the people; you can't identify them. You don't know where they live; they haven't got an accurate email address all those sorts of things". But here in this legislation apparently miraculously it's going to be OK. So I'm keen to know from the Minister in the chair in relation to section 365B(2)(b) that "leaving it for [a] person at the person's last known place of residence with another person who appears to be of or over the age of 14 years"—now that just strikes me as being ludicrous absolutely ludicrous and completely beyond the realms of plausibility. But it gets worse because section 365B(2)(c) says "leaving it for the person at the person's place of business or work"—with another person again. So someone just comes into a workplace—say the parliamentary precinct—leaves it with the security guy and says "Please pass this to oh I don't know Michael Wood the previous Minister of Transport—he used to be in that job we don't know that he's here anymore. He's gone away and done something else completely different". Who's going to do it?—actually you probably have to deliver it to him 12 times before it might get through. So I'm interested to know about that clause.And then here it goes on again: section 365(2)(d) says "sending it to the person by prepaid post addressed to the person's last known place of residence or place of business or work". This is just a lottery. Postal services are notoriously slow and ineffective. We're not dealing these days with a snail mail regime that is in any way purposeful. But it just strikes me that to be leaving the provision of infringement notices being served to this kind of random pot-luck status is just asking for trouble. So I'm keen to know what the Minister has to say on those matters please.Dr JAMES McDOWALL (ACT): Madam Chair? Mr Chair.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Dr James McDowall.Dr JAMES McDOWALL: Apologies Mr Chair for misgendering you just then. So just to follow up on the previous discussion between my colleague Erica Stanford and the Minister—just to seek some further clarity there. So the Supplementary Order Paper 360 states that—in the wording as we've canvassed it "unless the worker's visa allows them to work only for that particular employer". So is the Minister saying then effectively that if an employer hires migrant employees unlawfully and say those employees have an Accredited Employer Work Visa for a different employer and they haven't done variation of conditions etc.—does this wording mean that in theory Immigration New Zealand can't access the documentation for those employees? Because that would seem rather strange and counter-intuitive.Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Associate Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): I will clarify for both members' benefit what this particular section is aiming to do. In the example that was provided around McDonald's—basically what this bill is aiming to do is to ensure that we have the tools to be able to nip lowerlevel offending in the bud because currently all that immigration officers have is prosecution which is a very high threshold; it's severe offending. We have evidence that shows that nipping lower-level offending in the bud prevents it then potentially from becoming severe offending and so largely this is what this bill aims to do to ensure that we have the tools to be able to do this.So in this case if for example—the example that Erica Stanford provided—McDonald's is hiring a migrant worker they're meant to have under the law currently documents showing the contractual obligations there then what this means is that deskbased immigration officers would have the powers to then ask the employer to show them the specific documentation for the specific migrants that they are hiring to make sure that they are compliant with the law. That's pretty much what it does. If for example they then have reason to suspect that there's potential other exploitation going on that isn't captured in the changes made to this bill then there are other powers within legislation for them to be able to search for example. So the section 277 power is a search power which would allow immigration officers to actually go into the premises and figure out what's going on in terms of compliance or non-compliance. So to both members' questions that's the aim of this section. In terms of the serving of infringement notices I mean officers won't be able to magic up specific ways to ensure that infringement notices are served and so the list here that the member read out has different ways in which you know officers who are serving or issuing that notice can try and get the infringement notice to the person it's being issued to."