Eagle PaulPAUL EAGLE (Labour—Rongotai): Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker—I was going to call you Madam Chair there for a minute. It's a real honour to take a call and to really build on the short speech by the Green member Chlöe Swarbrick. I want to just start by acknowledging the member who put this bill forward Alastair Scott and he's here in the House and just say that the coalition Government is opposed to it—I want to be upfront with that. When I first looked at it I thought it was a tad mischievous—that's the word I've found. It tries to play into that narrative of the Government being soft on crime but I think it gets a big F or Fail. I just want to say why.Three points: one is that the Government won't address drug harm in a piecemeal way. We've just had a big session around a certain drug and so we're not committed certainly to addressing it in a piecemeal way. The second point—and I'll elaborate on this—is the impacts on Kiwis and there are many. The third point is just the viability. Look this isn't a bill worthy of the time and the money required and all the extra effort not only to pass it but then to implement it. So those are the three reasons why and if I have time I'll finish off talking about what the previous Government really didn't do and that's why we are standing here today this evening talking about this.I go back to that first point—I said that we didn't want to approach this in a piecemeal way. We do take drug harm very seriously. We've heard from some good speakers on the previous bill. We have committed to comprehensively responding to the Law Commission's report Controlling and Regulating Drugs: A Review of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 and replacing it. So we have said that. We've also said that driving while under the influence of drugs is not solely a driving offence endangering the lives of themselves and others; it is often also symptomatic of wider issues including mental health and social influences. I think there's lots of ways that we can address this far more comprehensively and I'll move on from that.The impacts on Kiwis—in terms of the oral tests currently marketed those that would be employed by this bill are expensive and unreliable. I'm happy to be challenged on that but I've certainly talked to police. I've talked to others who carry this out and those are the two words that I picked out from those conversations. Worse than that—and unfortunately the previous Government the current Opposition have done their finest at discrediting police senior staff I must say—false positives would lead to mistrust and I don't want our police service further eroded by a bill an operation a way of working that would continue to tarnish their reputation. We do support roadside drug testing where the testing technology is fit for purpose. I want to say that—Hon Member: Can you hurry up?PAUL EAGLE: —issues—Andrew Bayly: We're waiting for something to be of relevance.PAUL EAGLE: Keep calm. I've given you some really good issues there. Here is it: oral fluid roadside drug testing is likely to be a worthy investment so you get a tick although not one that warrants such a great expense where—dare I use that word again—reliability is questionable and a significant improvement is not seen over the current free testing method. What do you say to that? So until an alternative is available this is not a bill worthy of the time and money required to pass and implement it.