Menéndez March Ricardo; van Velden BrookeRICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Thank you Madam Chair. I appreciate the guidance around how this debate will be carried particularly the ability to analyse it more broadly due to there not being a select committee stage.I want to pick up on the previous speaker Camilla Belich's comments regarding the interactions with the immigration system. I also wanted to get a sense of whether there has been any exploration of the interactions with the migrant exploitation protection visa. So for example currently if somebody has been abused or has received comments in relation to their hair or their weight or has faced harassment in workplaces where 90-day trials don't apply the employer wouldn't be able just to get rid of that worker to avoid having to go through a process where that worker raises those harassment issues. I'm just wondering then after this bill whether the use of the 90-day trials to get rid of workers where instances of harassment or exploitation would have occurred could still trigger eligibility for the migrant exploitation protection visa.Stuart Smith: Point of order. We are debating clause 1. I haven't really heard anything relating to clause 1 in the member's speech so far.CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Thank you. In the opening remarks I made I did make comment that the debate on clause 1 may be more broadly about the bill given the lack of select committee process.RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: I appreciate that Madam Chair. Why I'm taking the opportunity to bring that up here is because it's important to unpack the level of advice and consideration that would have been given in relation to this bill. And I think the title clause is where it's most appropriate to raise this because ultimately there will be interactions with other parts of the system as a result of this bill and otherwise it's kind of hard to point it out elsewhere. So the question I had was: has the Minister received or sought any advice regarding how these changes interact with the migrant exploitation protection visa?I also wanted to get a sense of for example whether there had been any advice sought on the impact of wage scarring—whether 90-day trials would have contributed to wage scarring as a result of people entering below the poverty-level benefits and then that potentially impacting the wages that people then receive after to try to get out of the poverty-level benefit. Because ultimately—and why I think this is important to unpack at this point—the Minister in her previous contributions in the debate talked about how this bill would help increase productivity and would benefit the economy but we know that wage scarring is one of those things that can contribute to lower productivity and can contribute to a low-wage economy. So I'm just keen to understand whether she sought any advice in relation to that.Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Thank you Madam Chair. I thought I'd take an early call to make sure that we are brought back to the specific bill. Both the member Camilla Belich and Ricardo Menéndez March raised issues about migrant workers and the accredited employer work visa. I can let both members know that immigration instructions set out the accredited employer work visas not the Employment Relations Act. So there is no change to that specific area of law or regulation because that's not actually in the Employment Relations Act and we should come back to the bill. The issue is outside of my portfolio powers and therefore outside of this bill.