Simpson Scott; O'Connor GregHon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Mr Speaker thank you very much. As indicated this is part of an interrupted debate and it's been well interrupted. I think this is about the third time that this House has tried to complete the second reading of this Worker Protection (Migrant and Other Employees) Bill. I didn't sit on the Education and Workforce Committee which considered the bill but I think it's important to remind people who may be listening to this debate that has been interrupted and who may have missed some of the earlier contributions from other members that this piece of legislation is a response by the current Labour Government to a review that they undertook back in 2020 looking at migrant exploitation.Migrant exploitation is never acceptable and it's a matter that I think would be agreed by every member of the House—that the problems that confront migrant exploitation are real they are present and they are serious—but this is a piece of legislation that attempts to bring a desktop solution to this very real and serious problem. At first reading we in the National Party supported the legislation. We did so so that people and members of the public—stakeholders immigration consultants and businesses—could participate in a select committee process but we had reservations at the time the bill was introduced and I am sorry to say that our concerns at the first reading have not been sufficiently considered to give us cause to continue supporting this bill at second reading. We don't think that the responses that the current Labour Government have brought to this Chamber by way of this bill are appropriate and we think that they are actually going to create more problems than they solve. As I said the Government is attempting in this piece of legislation to effectively bring a desktop solution to this problem.I want to just go through the headline points of what this piece of legislation is seeking to do. Firstly it's going to empower desk-based officers to request employment documents to ensure that companies who hire migrants are complying with the law. There's the first problem. The first problem is that this will be a process of infringements and requests that will be originated and given effect to by people sitting at a desk in front of a screen a long way from the actual businesses that are concerned. It won't be a matter of engaging with those businesses in any meaningful way; it'll simply be a request—probably a digital request through an email or another digital communication—insisting that they comply by providing forms documents papers and materials to the immigration personnel. The second part of this piece of legislation will allow labour inspectors and immigration officers to issue fines for non-compliance with those requests that are made of businesses by the desk-bound official. Then thirdly this legislation establishes two other infringement offences under the Immigration Act and Employment Relations Act.If this was a Government that was serious about cracking down on migrant exploitation surely the better thing to do would be to go after the perpetrators of migrant exploitation go after the serious offenders because in many cases—many cases—businesses just want to do the right thing. Immigration and migration law is complicated it's detailed and it requires a careful attention to form filling and to getting the right documents and all those sorts of things. Most businesses actually do want to comply. The fact that some of them get it wrong is not necessarily any indication of a complicit or illegal migrant exploitation; it is simply that the area is confusing and it's complicated. So to approach this area with infringement fines and then no appeal rights—absolute discretion by desktop officials working in a cubical somewhere in Wellington probably—we think is inappropriate and so therefore we are not going to support this legislation at the second reading. We think it's the wrong approach being taken by the Government to a very serious problem.DEPUTY SPEAKER: Angie Warren-Clark—five minutes.