Simpson ScottHon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you Madam Speaker. Again for a second time today we have heard warm soothing words from the Minister who's just resumed her seat that don't actually address the issue at hand. It's so disappointing because for people who are watching at home or may be listening we're discussing the third reading the final parliamentary legislative stage of the Worker Protection (Migrant and Other Employees) Bill. Now the name suggests action. It suggests that repairs and process and activity is going to occur. And what we find when we read the detail of the legislation is that actually again it is just a minor tweaking tinkering piece of legislation that actually does very little and arguably potentially will make matters worse for the vast majority of good employers who actually do want to comply with the law comply with the rules around migrant employees and do the right thing. There's no mistake that actually New Zealand of course does have a problem with migrant exploitation and migrant exploitation has absolutely no place at all within the New Zealand employment arena.But that said rules and regulations have to be clear. They have to be understandable they have to be effective and they have to actually do what they are intended to do. So this piece of legislation just tinkers around the edge and it doesn't really address the primary issue. It has the potential to go after some very low level offending. Potentially some of that low level offending will be absolutely unintentional. It will not be because of an intended attempt to be in breach of the law or the rules around migrant employment but it will be because the employer actually acting in good faith doesn't understand what the rules and the legislation actually already says. So what are the main provisions of this piece of legislation? Well they cause concern and I'll come to that a little bit further on in my address. But the main provisions are about empowering immigration desk officers—now this is important; desk officers—to request employment documents to ensure companies who hire migrants are complying with the law. So this is not a front-line official representing the Government in the State with all its powers and authority physically visiting an employer or a place of work. This is about somebody sitting in a cubicle in a Government department office probably in Wellington or somewhere else literally randomly doing a desktop investigation and analysis and then demanding—demanding—of an employer for no necessarily good cause but no reasonable cause. And I'll come to that too in a minute—potentially a fishing exercise. Now as I say that has the potential to catch some fish but they're not going to be the main perpetrators. They're not going to be the organisations the people or the businesses that are really involved in major and serious migrant exploitation. So it creates this legislation a new range of infringement offences. And at the committee of the whole House I can remember raising some questions with the Minister and with her officials about the effectiveness and the validity and the efficacy of an infringement regime. Most of those questions remained utterly unanswered in a way that provided any meaningful insight into the effectiveness of this legislation. So one of the major concerns we have on this side of the House with this piece of legislation is about the ability for the immigration desk investigating officer to—there's no requirement for them to have reasonable cause before they start asking for information and requesting documents from employers. Now there's a very basic principle I guess now that underpins so much of our law—that there must be reasonable cause. For those that have studied law or legal practitioners they will understand the concept of reasonable cause and without that reasonable cause there is an enormous potential for administrative abuse of the rules and the regulations because there's no mechanism in this piece of legislation that explains how the desk officer is going to decide who gets a request for documentation and who doesn't. It's going to be very random. It's going to be a fishing exercise. There won't necessarily be anything other than I don't know just an I just didn't like the name of that company." or "I got out of bed on the wrong side this morning." or something like that. There's no basis upon which the investigation will be based. Now that's fundamentally I think a poor piece of process. It runs contrary to the very foundations of our legal system and I think it's dangerous. But what's worse is that once a desktop investigation has been initiated by somebody sitting in an office cubicle probably somewhere in Wellington or Auckland there's no right of appeal or ability for the employer to actually go back and say "Well why have you done that?" You know "What's the story?" Again basic principles of our legal system are not being adhered to in this piece of legislation. On the face of it it seems relatively sensible but when you delve into the details there are some very big issues here that relate to the role of the State the role of public servants and the role of what they can and can't do. Yes we have a problem with migrant exploitation—nobody denies that—but shouldn't we be as a Parliament and as a legislature a little bit more nimble than simply going after organisations that may have made an honest mistake? I want to know where are the people who are very massively exploiting migrants? And there are a number of them.What was interesting was that in 2020 Kantar did some research for this very Government and that review showed that in fact most employers want to do the right thing. I think that you probably didn't need any research to find that out but the research confirmed that because most employers are good employers—most employers do want to do the right thing. But the research found that not only do they want to do the right thing but they struggle to simply understand immigration law which has been the subject of multiple changes multiple different interpretations over a number of years. Now that's occurred under Governments of whichever stripe but the fact is that in the area of immigration and employment of migrants the law has been very much a moving feast over a long period of time. And it's little wonder that some employers notwithstanding that they want to do the right thing may make an honest mistake and may get it wrong. So should they be then penalised by a random process of a desktop investigation and an infringement regime that provides no need for reasonable cause and then no appeal rights? I think this is fundamentally wrong and it leads me and my National Party colleagues to have cause to oppose this legislation not because we don't think that migrant exploitation is something that should not be pursued vigorously in our legislation and our regulations—of course it should be—but this piece of legislation just tinkers around the edge and it's become a hallmark of the current Labour Government that they talk a big game; provide warm soothing words; but actually do very little. Again it's another example of non-delivery not matching the expectation that the piece of legislation the name on the tin has; it just doesn't do the job. But worse than that not only does it not do the job but it creates some real questions about fundamental basics of our legal system the ability to have reasonable cause before an investigation is opened and then a lack of appeal rights. These are issues that caused me and my colleagues a high level of concern and that's why we are opposing this piece of legislation at its third reading."