Woodhouse MichaelHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Well I'm not sure about the previous member but I haven't been asking anybody for their urine for a long time. I must say I've never seen Labour members in my 13 years in this House work so hard to oppose a bill they actually like. Dr Liz Craig looked like she was chewing a wasp and I think we're seeing a pattern emerging here where the whip's sitting there smirking away because he knows Labour have been told—the backbenchers the foot soldiers of this arrogant Government have been told—to oppose every single good idea if it doesn't come from them and especially if it came from the National Party. We saw that in the Finance and Expenditure Committee this morning Dr Webb—I don't think he should be smirking for long. Dr Craig tried to explain that this wasn't good from a health and safety at work perspective. Well I was the Minister that pushed finally that piece of legislation through in 2015 against significant opposition. But it was a damn good thing that we reformed our health and safety at work. For Dr Craig to say that this isn't necessary I think is quite wrong. Every employer is required to take practicable steps to ensure that their staff and their customers and other stakeholders in their PCBU are safe at work. One practicable step that this House can take is to make sure that the means of getting around a workplace drug test is removed. It is a narrow bill but it is a problem. The sponsor of the bill my good friend Mr Doocey is saying that by the best estimates from the drug-testing organisations several hundred of these could be being used a year around the country using technologies that are not yet advanced enough to detect the fact that they are synthetic urine. So the members opposite are saying Oh well there's no problem to solve." There is a problem and the existing techniques for most of the drug-testing agencies are not picking it up.I have to say that Golriz Ghahraman—and I am a list MP so I'm allowed to say this—clearly has never met a constituent in her life. Mr Doocey explained very clearly that somehow—what did she say? She said something like "It shouldn't be what's important to National." Well it's not so much what's important to National; it's what's important to the people that come through the office of our constituency offices. It's very important to this employer; it's very important to other employers who have a responsibility to keep their stakeholders safe and who may be having their urine tests for safety—random or if there has been a near miss or an injury in the workplace—usurped by this surreptitious product. That's all it does.The members who spoke from Labour should be ashamed that they cannot as members of the Health Committee see what good this can do. Actually I think they do know what good this can do and I'm interested in which Minister shut them down on it—probably Michael Wood the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety. Heaven knows why. I can't imagine Mr Little actually opposing this because he's a sensible fellow. But somebody over there told Labour members to talk against a good idea just because it's a National bill and that's a crying shame."