Penk Chris; Stanford Erica; McDowall James; Radhakrishnan PriyancaCHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you very much Mr Chair. I'm sure you won't regret it. I'm hoping the Minister will though—no. It's a good face question—excuse me a good-faith question even. It could be a good face question too but viewers of Parliament TV might disagree.Anyway—so my question relates to clause 10 inserting new section 383A Publication of names and information in respect of immigration offences". So my question is reasonably straightforward I think but an important one nevertheless. So this is talking about how the chief executive in order to promote the objects of the Act or to do the things that we want this legislation to do or that the Government wants it to do can publish the information specified elsewhere which I'll get to in relation to an employer who has been convicted of an offence against the Act or issued with an infringement notice. So I suppose there's an element—and the policy intent—of saying: well if someone's done something wrong that infringes the Act then it's fair that the whole world should know about them: their name; their trading name if different; and so forth. My question to the Minister is whether this is still something that can take place if there's been a conviction under the Act but if that's being appealed. So if there's an appeal in front of the courts where a person might say "Well actually you know I've got a good reason to appeal. I'm saying that I shouldn't have been convicted." can that person's name be publicised as though they had—or indeed recognising that they had at that point—been convicted? Of course once you publish something the whole world knows and it's very hard to get that toothpaste back in the tube those worms back in the can and other reverse clichés like that. So that's just my straightforward question and indeed my only one pending the Minister's answer of course.ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): I want to give the Minister some time to just make some notes and answer the questions. I notice that there's nothing—this is a different point—in the supporting commentary of this bill around getting Immigration New Zealand to commit to processing a variation of conditions changes more quickly to help reduce migrant exploitation. And I'm wondering if the Minister would consider a change in the supporting commentary that would state that Immigration New Zealand would commit to fast processing of variation of conditions to help reduce migrant exploitation. Because that's one of the key drivers of getting migrants out of exploitation; it's actually to get the conditions of their visa changed really quickly so that they can move out of the situation where they're being exploited and on to another employer. Nothing in the supporting commentary of this bill commits to that and I'm wondering if we were to do a quick Supplementary Order Paper whether or not the Minister would support putting something in the supporting commentary to state that Immigration New Zealand should commit to quick processing of those variation of conditions.Dr JAMES McDOWALL (ACT): Thank you Mr Chair. Just going back to the question that I did just before the dinner break which was answered just after around the adverse actions. My question was just around "versus just actions" whether that was open to interpretation. Now the Minister has addressed that and has spoken about MEV—so migrant exploitation visa—saying that the MEV may be offered or the information won't be used to prejudice the migrant. But to establish a dialogue and say to them "OK here's an option for you. Have you considered this?"—but therein is another problem because how do we ensure that that will happen? You know is there scope does the Minister think to include something in the bill here? Whether it's another Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) to ensure that that happens to ensure that the migrant is protected and not prejudiced perhaps an amnesty period of some sort or just a commitment to go down that MEV pathway because some immigration officers do get a bit gung ho—and all we have to do is look at the IPT the Immigration and Protection Tribunal and the sheer number of decisions that get overturned; I believe it's close to half. And the reason is that Immigration instructions have not been correctly interpreted or followed by immigration officers. So there are certainly still issues here. I would also want to inquire into the longer term. When a migrant goes to renew their work visa or get a different work visa can that information be used then? How can we be sure that it won't be used then and that they won't get pinged under this regime based on history? You know the SOP says that they can't be negatively affected. But is she absolutely confident that they won't be in subsequent applications?Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Associate Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): So to that last point around how we ensure that the migrant worker is protected and that information that is released inadvertently that might otherwise prejudice subsequent visa applications of the migrant worker that is exactly why there's a Supplementary Order Paper to strengthen the primary legislation. So the other way that we could have done that is through Immigration instructions. But my sense was that that wouldn't provide strong enough or robust enough provisions and that's why we're changing the legislation to reflect that. That is pretty much as strong as you can go in terms of protecting the migrant from my point of view.In terms of low-level breaches again this is a question that's come up repeatedly and I feel I have addressed it on multiple occasions: a low-level breach is still a breach. Who determines what is minor? Who determines—the whole point as I've said again ad nauseum in the House is that the point of this bill is to address low-level offending. So then being flexible around that very low-level offending has the potential to lead to the problem that we're trying to fix which is that low-level offending often turns into severe offending and we only have tools to address that currently. So we're trying to take it back.In terms of variations of conditions I agree that there are many ways in which we need to address migrant worker exploitation—again a point that I've made a number of times tonight. But what I will say is that we have undertaken a suite of measures that sits technically outside of the scope of this bill. But I will say that the Migrant Exploitation Protection Work Visa is one way in which we can help migrant workers who've been exploited to get out of that situation."