Simpson Scott; Stanford Erica; Radhakrishnan PriyancaHon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Well I beg to differ—it's not. And we've had cases of legislation come to this House where infringement regimes have been literally tossed out because they are not able to fulfil this kind of nonsense that is being proposed in this legislation. So let's assume for a moment that someone has left a notice at a person's last known place of address with a person who appears to be over the age of 14 or maybe they've left it at the person's place of business or work with another person unknown unspecified or perhaps it's been sent by a pre-paid post address to the person's last known place of residence or place of business or work and none of those have been able to achieve the successful outcome required. Replacement section 365B(3) inserted by clause 9 creates a presumption of service just a presumption that the infringement notice has been served; and it says in section 365B(3)(b): a notice sent to a valid electronic address is to be treated as having been served at the time the electronic communication first entered an information system that is outside the control of the Department." Well that's just drafting gobbledegook—drafting gobbledegook.What is and who determines a "valid electronic address"? How can that be determined? Who decides and how would you know? How on earth would you know whether it was a valid electronic address or not? So I simply reject the notion that this is standard drafting procedure—it's not. It hasn't been applied in previous legislation—I can remember bringing to this House a piece of legislation that would have modestly increased the fines for littering and the Government threw it out said "Oh no no you can't have infringement notices they don't work. You can't serve them nobody knows how to contact the people and you can't identify them." Why should this piece of legislation magically cure all those questions?ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): I'll go back to my question around the powers of Immigration New Zealand to already ask for the documentation that's been referred to in this bill. So at the moment post-accreditation checks are being undertaken and exactly these documentations are being requested: wage records and contracts. So employment records are already being asked for. And if a business is to be re-accredited every year they could be asked for their information. So my question remains to the Minister: does Immigration New Zealand already have the power to ask for wage records and contracts like they're asking for right now in the post-accreditation check process?Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Associate Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): There will be some employers many perhaps who will go through the accreditation process to be able to employ a migrant worker and for them what the member is saying is true but there will be others who don't for whom these particular powers will be new powers that allow immigration officers to require or to check compliance with the law.To Scott Simpson's repeated points around the methods of serving infringement notices I'll say a couple of things. One is that there are different options and the person who's serving the notice will obviously pick the option that they think is most reliant in their bid to get the notice served. The second thing that I will say is that things need to be looked at in context. With this particular bill the people that Immigration are contacting will be from companies that already have interaction with the immigration system so it is quite likely that they will already hold the information that's required to be able to serve the infringement notice in a way that is reliable. And then clearly they will pick the most reliable method. Those are the points that I will make to the members."