Leary Ingrid; Rurawhe AdrianINGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): On 28 April this year I attended a ceremony to mark International Workers' Memorial Day in my electorate in Dunedin in Taieri. We put 56 crosses up and each of those crosses represented somebody's mother father son daughter—a worker who went to work at the beginning of a shift and didn't come home at the end of that shift. That was a really emotional ceremony and it shows that work safety is an issue. Actually the most dangerous industries that we have are the farming industries construction sites logging and so on. I want to tautoko the unions and my hero the late Helen Kelly for the work that she's done in this space. So I do have some sympathy for the intention of the bill and some sympathy for the member who has proposed it.However the logic simply doesn't add up. It makes a huge leap from correlation to cause and that is similar to what we saw earlier in the Crimes (Robbery) Amendment Bill. The bill simply doesn't solve the problem that it seeks to address and that is workplace safety. The bill seeks to heavily restrict access to synthetic urine to make workplaces safer. To go through the logic if we look at the intention the policy statement is that Drug testing in the workplace is used to keep people safe and prevent accidents and deaths." That policy statement says that employers are concerned. That's a little bit of a red flag for me because if this was a real issue I believe employees would be concerned as well. They are the ones who stand to lose if their fellow employees are impaired.The logical framework links unsafe work; employers' concerns about synthetic urine; risks of accident and death; the sale of synthetic urine; and the prohibition of importation supply and acquisition. And that's a very seductive story. Yes these things are all correlated but it makes huge assumptions. There is a serious problem with workplace safety but it doesn't necessarily mean that that comes from drugs. There is no evidence of that. Cheating does occur but the evidence shows that this cheating is what my colleagues on this side of the House have alluded to which is more the case of somebody using somebody else's urine rather than buying synthetic urine which I would wager is possibly more expensive and not as common. So the third assumption is that banning synthetic urine will make workplaces safe and that is flawed as well because banning synthetic urine won't magically solve the problem.Another issue with this bill is that it does create a strict liability offence. So the intention is assumed which means that the causality in my view needs to be shown even more than it does in a normal case. And here we have correlation but no causality is shown. If we look at UK best practice there's a holistic approach around workplace testing. The approach is to consult with employees. There needs to be an assessment of safety-critical work that needs to be identified policies developed people would be tested and there would be support for those with a problem. The issue here is the safety-critical work element. As has been said by my colleagues on this side of the House the impairment is what is missing from this bill. The problem is the impairment. It is the impairment caused for whatever reason be it drugs be it tiredness or something else it is simply missing from this bill. So logically not all employees who have ingested drugs are impaired which again speaks to the intent of the bill and not all impaired people or even a significant amount will be rendered safe by this bill.If I can just speak more broadly about the element of support for those people who may have ingested drugs and that is that we see drugs as a health issue. Rather than pushing drugs underground or having employees turn to other drugs to avoid drug testing or perhaps try other means of avoiding tests we really want to see harm reduction and we want to see that harm reduction and people being supported not to ingest drugs in the first place is going to do a much better job of making our workplaces safer.So in summary this bill is about workplace safety but not about drugs generally. Impairment is important and it's missing. It doesn't even mention the correlation between impairment and the non-safety and it fails to address the very issue that it seeks out to support. I cannot support this bill.DEPUTY SPEAKER: Matt Doocey five minutes in reply."