Wood MichaelMICHAEL WOOD (Labour—Mt Roskill): Thank you Madam Chair. I have a dicky knee at the moment. I'm sort of hobbling about like an old sailor actually but even I'm quicker to my feet than the Opposition who seem to have nothing to say about this bill today and it's a shame because there are some important provisions in here.I want to commend the contributions made by a number of colleagues in this session in respect of the random drug and alcohol testing provisions of Supplementary Order Paper 4 filed by the Minister the Hon Julie Anne Genter and just to really reaffirm that what we have in this bill with the addition of the Supplementary Order Paper is a very very robust regime but one that is actually proportionate to the issue that we have. I think it has been commented on possibly that at the select committee there was really very scarce evidence that there was a significant systemic issue here that requires the implementation of drug and alcohol management plans across a whole sector of the economy. If you are going to implement them here on the basis of no evidence where else might you implement them as well?But really I want to comment actually on some of the changes that came through in the select committee process. The Supplementary Order Paper is very good but there is so much good stuff that came out of the select committee that I think it warrants a little bit of time on the floor of the committee as well.Todd Muller: Great committee.MICHAEL WOOD: Actually—and you should be proud of this one Mr Muller because it was a bill that was worked through at select committee pretty collaboratively by members all around the House but I'd invite you to stand up take a call and take some ownership of the good work that your party did on this as well. It might be the only bit of legislation that your party contributes to passing over the next three years so own it—so own it sir.I want to speak to a couple of particular provisions that came out of select committee—a couple of the changes that were made there that I think are actually very good but it is appropriate to draw the attention of the committee to them. The first one relates to the reimbursement for a second director test. Let me just draw people's attention to the relevant clauses here. We are talking about sections 40ZC(4)(g) and 40ZE of the principal Act. These relate to the fact that—again reaffirming—the director under the bill and under the Supplementary Order Paper does have the power and the authority to require random drug and alcohol testing where he or she believes that there is a good reason for doing that. That's really important: a good reason; not just lumping it on a whole sector because we in this House say they should but where there's a good reason.But here's the thing. That has potentially huge impacts on the worker concerned because we know that in the legislation if that worker fails that test or if they refuse to undertake that test their job is potentially on the line. It's perfectly reasonable and simply just a matter of natural justice that a worker having gone through a test might want to have a second test taken to ensure that the test is accurate and that they're not potentially going to lose their position or face other sanctions on the basis of a faulty test—and they do happen from time to time. So I think that all of us in this committee would agree that it is only fair and reasonable that a worker in that situation does have the opportunity to request a second test. Indeed that provision is in the bill—that's all agreed.But the odious thing that was in the original bill in section 40ZE(2) and I will read this out—this in the original bill: If the worker requests a second test—(a) the Director must carry out a second test;"—fair enough—"and (b) the worker must reimburse the Director for the direct costs incurred in carrying out the second test." So the poor worker who was simply trying to ensure that their legitimate rights to natural justice were upheld by legitimately requesting a second test that is allowed under the terms of the bill would have to cough up for that. That seems to me to be totally unreasonable and totally at odds with what we would expect in other sectors where we go through this kind of testing regime. I think it was very sensible and very reasonable of the select committee which had a good look at that and struck those words out.Under replacement section 40ZA we do have the ability for the second test to be requested and to be adhered to but no longer do we have that odious provision that would then require that worker to actually have to pay for something as basic as having the second test occurring. So I really want to commend to the committee that change which came through the select committee process and it was an example of the process working really really well.There are just so many good points that came through from the select committee and I'd like to speak to some of them a little bit later on but for now I'll give someone else an opportunity to speak to this very very good bill. Thank you Madam Chair."