SpeechDr JAMES McDOWALL (ACT): Thank you Madam Speaker. At the first reading ACT supported the Worker Protection (Migrant and Other Employees) Bill to select committee to see whether our concerns would be sufficiently addressed and the bill's unintended or otherwise kind of obvious consequences fixed and to hear from a wide range of stakeholders—although the total submission list wasn't particularly sizable in this case. We specifically said migrants deserve a voice and an opportunity to help craft a law that directly affects them and the select committee is an opportunity for this to take place. Now that this bill has been through the select committee process ACT is not satisfied that meaningful improvements have been made and the risks that we identified in the first reading have not been substantially addressed and we will therefore no longer be supporting this bill.Since the first reading of this bill there has been a good number of changes to the Government's immigration policy and instructions with new pathways opening up and a seeming abandonment of the great reset which is well overdue. There have also been more cases in the media spotlight recently—or should I say a flashlight at five o'clock in the morning?—and more reports of nefarious unlicensed immigration advisers charging extortionate amounts of money for things like recovery visas and Accredited Employer Work Visas which is a perfectly foreseeable consequence of migrants having to get a job offer and their visa tied to their employer among other factors.If the accreditation system worked as intended then a bill of this nature would not be required. It would be unnecessary. And while it is true that some people will always try to break immigration rules that is a minority and this legislation is akin to breaking a walnut with a sledgehammer given the powers it grants immigration officers. Employers go through an accreditation process which has been well canvassed here this evening and again when they reapply though I note the Government has of course extended the accreditation period for businesses which is a good thing but if that causes a problem and opens up the potential for exploitation then that's a policy design issue. Some of our earlier concerns that I raised in the first reading: granting immigration officials and labour inspectors the power to request documentation from businesses on pretty marginal grounds without reasonable cause is very problematic; further the 10-day requirement for producing that documentation is unreasonable in the context of natural justice. These broad powers could result in officials overly targeting actually compliant businesses rather than focusing on the problematic ones. This bill unduly extends the power of the State in interfering with businesses—employers—and it almost assumes that businesses are all guilty. And that is a highly disruptive place to start from.Additionally I have a concern with the lack of focus and clarity in this bill. As it stands it could unfairly impact migrant workers themselves. I raised concerns about the consequences for migrants if they report their employers in the first reading. They could find themselves in a world of trouble. They could wind up being served a DLN a deportation liability notice. If the goal of this bill is to hold unscrupulous employers accountable by imposing these fines for every unlawfully hired employee breaching rules that could be a positive outcome. However the potential repercussions for affected workers must also be considered. How will this infringement regime which targets the lower end of migrant exploitation protect migrant workers and encourage whistleblowing? I'll also emphasise the question I made in the first reading because I think it's still very relevant which is whether migrants can trust the decision-making ability of Immigration New Zealand (INZ) given that nearly half of the appeals to the Immigration and Protection Tribunal are successful indicating INZ often makes mistakes—and they'll admit that themselves—in examining cases. This raises concerns about the reliability and accuracy of their decisions and is certainly not a positive reflection on INZ. Can an agency with such a track record be trusted to use the powers in this bill fairly or will it become an enormous fishing expedition that makes life hell for business owners? To address exploitation ACT has long held the view that the Government should allow migrants the freedom to change jobs easily—if their employment situation becomes untenable—by way of removing the tying of visas to a single employer and job type. We would have also liked to have seen more specific protections for migrants to make it clear that this is not about punishing them. It is important to offer a bridge to a safety net that encourages whistleblowing and supports migrant workers. So fundamentally Government policy itself makes exploitation worse and we would have liked to have supported this bill or efforts to improve or decrease migrant exploitation. But ultimately this bill needs a balance but all we have frankly is Government hypocrisy at its finest. Thank you Madam Speaker.