Pallett SarahSARAH PALLETT (Labour—Ilam): Thank you so much Mr Speaker. I rise to speak this evening on the Synthetic Urine (Prohibition on Importation Supply and Acquisition to Pass a Workplace Drug Test) Bill. I'd just like to start by thanking Mr Doocey for introducing me to some information and images that I can never unsee or unknow! I'd like to also apologise to my IST department for the use of my computer in accessing the information that I can now never unsee or unknow. I now know all about products like Monkey Whizz which is available in dehydrated and hydrated forms and I've also been introduced to the ScreenyWeeny which is available in multiple different colours.But really this is a serious issue although I jest because what we're looking at is a bill which seeks to restrict access to synthetic urine and working on the assumption that (1) we have a significant problem with cheating workplace urine tests and (2) the second assumption is that cheats cheat with synthetic urine and therefore that banning synthetic urine will make workplaces safer. There's a couple of issues that I have with that because I actually see that the key problem is actually impairment at work. I think what we're all trying to achieve is a safe workplace and a safe workplace is going to be achieved by identifying impairment rather than using testing which is significantly flawed and experts do agree in many situations that they are significantly flawed in detecting drugs at a level which cause impairment. And actually impairment's the issue.So I would argue that we all know that the more safety sensitive the workplace the higher the risk of impairment causing increased accidents. So it is really really important. So moving to my point that identifying impairment isn't necessarily achieved well by urine testing I'd just give the example that I for example could trigger a positive result by taking a couple of Panadeine for a headache. And Panadeine as we're aware contains codeine in small doses and used to be available over the counter. I could even have a large slice of poppy seed cake which is slightly ridiculous because although I might feel bloated I wouldn't necessarily be impaired.And we are looking at a genuine problem. We do have concerns around the drug testing positive of the occasional cannabis user who will still be showing a positive result three to four days after actually using cannabis which whilst we would never support the use of cannabis before going into a workplace you can't argue that they're going to be impaired at that point. So for me banning synthetic urine won't solve the problem. The problem is actually easily gamed if you like by the user by for example just using urine from a producer and I actually am surrounded by I hope suppliers of healthy urine. It's really not hard to find and unfortunately the banning of synthetic urine won't stop the problems.So what we're looking at here is a core problem that we need to identify impairment at work. This bill doesn't do that. Over this side of the House we find ourselves feeling that this bill doesn't solve what actually isn't a really significant problem and it doesn't address what is a problem. So I'm sorry to say that although I really fully support the intent of making workplaces safer and the intent to remove drugs from our workplaces I don't feel that this bill would achieve that and so I can't commend it to the House.