Ball DarrochDARROCH BALL (NZ First): Thank you Madam Chair. I note that the National Party members haven't been standing up to take calls and I'm pretty certain I know why. It's because last night we had a few calls from the National Party and their arguments against the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) that's been put forward by the Minister are so flawed and have got so many holes through them you may as well call them Swiss cheese. I know that the Minister stood up and made some very good points against the National Party arguments and we haven't heard from them since. I think actually Alastair Scott took a call and he let a few things slip that perhaps he shouldn't have. He made it clear that there was a new scale of measurement of how successful a policy is for the National Party and it was whether it was hard medium or soft—that's exactly what he said. He said that the Minister is being soft with this legislation. If that's now the new measurement for the National Party in the policies that they're going to try and bring forward over the next three six nine or longer years I think they're going to be there for a very very long time—and will make their time in Opposition a very hard and tough and long one. The opposition to one of the fundamental parts of this SOP 6 which the Minister is putting forward I think shows just how far south the National Party has gone since the election. Basically in fundamental terms this National Party is standing up and arguing for more bureaucracy for small businesses. They're arguing for—The CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Excuse me member. Could we come back to the bill please. DARROCH BALL: So I'm talking about the part of the SOP in regard to the drug testing Madam Chair. So what this National Party is doing when they are arguing against that part is arguing for more bureaucracy for small businesses. They are arguing for more red tape more enforcement of regulations and more costs for small businesses. In fact the mandatory nature of the drug tests that the National Party wants reminds me of the nanny State that they so much and so often complain about. The bill itself actually already states that where necessary those drug tests will already occur—where necessary—and they will achieve the safety objectives. So with the inclusion of this SOP if the drug tests are being conducted where necessary where they will occur and if safety objectives will be achieved why on earth would the National Party want to increase the obligations and increase the bureaucracy and the red tape and the costs for small businesses? That's why I say that the National Party have lost their way and moved south since the election. Matt Doocey: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I think that where I come from going south is something to be applauded. DARROCH BALL: Yeah all right—sit down. The CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): That's not a point of order. DARROCH BALL: In general terms what we've heard from the National Party—and what we will hear continually through these calls that they will take—is just a bunch of scaremongering. What they're actually implying and what they implied last night with their calls is that we're going to have a bunch of drunken sailors and drugged-up sailors—the likes of Captain Jack Sparrow—across our waterways and that's absolutely not true. The extent of their scaremongering can be simply explained only if they read the actual SOP that the Minister is putting forward. If they look at the amendments to clause 6 the SOP's explanatory note states that The amendment of clause 6 replaces proposed new Part 4B with a scheme that no longer imposes … new obligations on an operator but continues to provide for … In particular— … The operator is still identified as a person who is required by the Act and the maritime rules to establish a safety management system:". That already is applied. It also states "In particular— … safety-sensitive activities and testable drugs are both prescribed by maritime rules:". It already exists. There is no need for more bureaucracy red tape and costs for the small businesses. I'd actually just like to mention clause 40ZB. It lays out what happens if a worker refuses to consent or the test result is not negative. It states that "If a worker refuses to consent to Director testing or is tested and returns a result other than a negative result the Director must notify the operator for whom the worker carries out work of the fact as soon as practicable. … the operator must prohibit the worker from performing safety-sensitive activities until the operator reasonably believes that the worker is able to safely perform those activities." My point is this. The bill in its original form when it was put forward by the National Government last term imposed unnecessary bureaucracy unnecessary costs and additional obligations on small businesses and the keyword is "unnecessary". What this SOP—which New Zealand First will be supporting—does is it takes all of that away because it is not necessary. Those provisions are already there in legislation and it accommodates for that. The only argument—the only basis of any argument—that the National Party has against supporting this SOP is scaremongering and if they only read the SOP and if they only read the provisions within it they would see that there is no need to continue with the bill in its current form. We need to be able to ensure that safety is maintained and that the operators are still held to account and will have the ability to be able to ensure that the people who are employed under them and in their organisations will be able to be drug tested which they are under the SOP. That's why New Zealand First will be supporting it. Thank you."