Stanford Erica; Radhakrishnan PriyancaERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Thank you Mr Chair. This is going to sound like a weird patsy but I was hoping to get the Minister to explain again her Supplementary Order Paper. I know that she did it at the beginning but I was just hoping she could do it again. Not so much around the new subsection (6) but the other part changing may work" with "may only work". Could the Minister just go over that again?Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Associate Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Sure. So I'm very happy to do that. As the member mentioned this Supplementary Order Paper makes two minor changes both to do with the scope. So the first change that I believe the member is asking about narrows the scope of the document production power. So initially the way that the wording was was such that it could have accidentally inadvertently captured employees who were for example on an open work visa and not specifically linked to the employer who's supporting their visa. The change narrows that so that the document production powers would only apply to the employer that is supporting or named to be supporting that particular migrant worker.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Just for members while questions and answers are short I'll try and stick with one member and then move on to another rather than flit around the House.ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Thank you Mr Chair. Thanks for that explanation and that's what I thought the Minister would say so I'm on the right track. I've got an issue with that Supplementary Order Paper in relation to the employment infringement offences. So under replacement section 359A(1) inserted by clause 7 "An employer must not" and they've got (a) (b) and (c); (b) is if you work in an inconsistent manner with your visa so you work an extra shift when you shouldn't for example; (c) is around not complying with the documentation request; and (a) is problematic now because (a) says "allow a person who is not entitled under this Act to work in the employer's service to do that work". Now that potential breach will never be able to be found out because the desk-based officer is only allowed to ask for documentation between an employer and an employee who must only work for them. So I was expecting that if a desk-based officer found out that—I'll give you an example: the employer is McDonald's. The employee their documentation—Hon Scott Simpson: Good company.ERICA STANFORD: They were in tonight that's why I mentioned them. Their employee his or her employment conditions say "May only work for KFC" but is working for McDonald's. Now that would be a breach of section 359A(1). However with this change the desk-based officer would only be able to ask for documentation between McDonald's and a person whose visa said "You must only work for McDonald's". So the KFC worker who's working for McDonald's—in breach of his visa—and McDonald's may know that; "Hey we've got a KFC worker working for us great." Will never be picked up. So my question is around section 359A(1)(a): when would that be triggered? Because it kind of looks like it would never be triggered. So I will just give the Minister some time there. And it looks like this was actually always the intention because I note in the original bill it actually said in new section 275A(5)(b) inserted by clause 4 "they must work for that employer". We changed it. It looks like it's been changed in committee to "may" now being changed to "may only". So it looks like we're going back to what the original intent was. But my question is around when will new section 359A(1) be triggered if a desk-based officer can't ask for those employment documents?While we just give the Minister some time because I'd like to go back to an answer she just gave to my first question before the break around the publication—the chief executive "may" publish names and information. Now the Minister has just explained that the chief executive may—he may do it if he wants to he or she. But my question was around what is the framework what is the guidelines for that chief executive to do it or not to do it? We are leaving it completely up to their decision whether or not they publish but my question is why is there no framework or guidelines? Surely it would be around I guess seriousness and if it is around seriousness why is that not included in the bill?Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Associate Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): As I've said before in the House I feel I have explained the question around "may" in new section 383A inserted by clause 10 but I will say it again. Two things to that two points that I'd like to make; firstly the one that I've already made which is that it gives the chief executive a level of discretion. So it is quite clear in the Act that the person who is named must either have been convicted or have been issued an infringement offence. So it's not leaving it completely up to the discretion of the chief executive at all. It is defined in what cases people can be named on the stand-down list but it does allow the chief executive to go through it on a case by case basis in case there's some reason why a person shouldn't be named. The second point that I'll make is that it is a term that aligns with the term that is used in the Employment Relations Act as well. The second question that the member asked which was around the power—the "may only" bit that the member mentioned. That is correct. But this bill doesn't aim to solve all problems. There are other pieces of legislation and other parts of the legislation that will deal with the problem that the member mentioned. So section 277 for example would already be able to achieve that aim."