Lee Melissa; Stanford Erica; Simpson ScottMELISSA LEE (National): Thank you Mr Chair. I just want to ask the Associate Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety in relation to the power to access employment documents—and earlier she had actually answered in relation to my colleague Erica Stanford in relation to the way that the immigration officers work that they don't work on hunches and these are new powers that the immigration officers could ask for documentation related to employment of migrant workers. If they are to require this documentation at random I'd like to know how they are selected at random. Some of them they might have infringed a rule and there might have been a report or some sort of a complaint—I can understand that happening. But if they're doing it in a random manner as in I think it was the first reading when we were talking about potentially—fishing expedition" was one of the terms that was used. If that is the case is there a profile being established on the bad actors in this field and are they ethnically linked? Are they doing ethnic profiling for this? Who are the supposed bad actors in this case? I'd like to know how the Minister is going to determine why some people will require these documents to be produced and not everyone or others.ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): I want to just probe further into the Minister's last answer when she agreed that employers who had been accredited under the Accredited Employer Work Visa scheme already can be asked for these documents and are currently actually being asked for them in the post-accreditation process. Then she said "Well there will be other businesses who don't have to get accredited who this will apply to." So my question is: which businesses are those and how many of them are there? Because I'm trying to understand what type of business would have a migrant worker tied to their employment who would not be required to be—what's the word?—accredited. So the Minister clearly stated that she agreed with me that if you are an accredited business you can already be asked for this information but she said that there are other businesses who don't need to be accredited who might have migrant workers tied to their business which this bill would apply to. So my question is: which businesses under what visa scheme would not need to be accredited and how many of them are there? Because my understanding is that pretty much all businesses need to be accredited these days if they are going to have someone tied to their employ. So that's a question for the Minister.This is something that I brought up at first and second reading because I was concerned about the over-regulation of these businesses. They can already be asked for this information at accreditation post-accreditation and in some cases every single year because they are required to be accredited every year like if you are a franchise or in a triangular employment relationship you can be asked every single year. So the Minister has agreed that yes they can already be asked for that information. So why the need in this bill to lay out the fact that this can happen if it's already able to happen as the Minister has just agreed to?Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Well we now come to the other end of the infringement notice exercise which is the revocation of an infringement notice. It's interesting that the serving of an infringement notice goes into some detail about how it should be communicated; I've raised questions about the inadequacy of that.But when it comes to the revocation of an infringement notice it merely says in replacement section 235D(2) inserted by clause 21 that "The Labour Inspector must take reasonable steps to ensure that the person to whom the notice was issued is made aware of the … revocation notice." Now there's no explanation as to whether that needs to be delivered to a former place of work by a person who might or might not be 14 or older or it may be someone who used to live at the same address as the person who might have been there before or it was to some electronic address whether it's a TikTok or an email or a Facebook or something of that nature. So I'm keen to know from the Minister why there is quite extensive drafting relating to the issuing and serving of an infringement notice but when it comes to the revocation of an infringement notice it merely says that the inspector "must take reasonable steps to ensure". Surely there is a disparaging difference in status and requirements in that area."