Genter Julie AnneJULIE ANNE GENTER (Green): Well that was an amazing quote from National Party member and backbencher Alastair Scott: So what? So what if there is no evidence?". I think that pretty much summarises the entire National Party's approach to governing. It does not care about evidence. It is totally driven by what benefits its constituents. In this case it is very clear to see what the link is: National is basically generating business for the companies that are doing random drug- and alcohol-testing. That is what this is about.We heard comprehensively at the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee from a wide range of stakeholders and submitters an excellent case for why the random drug- and alcohol-testing regime that it was proposing was not necessary was not going to be helpful and was not actually going to improve the safety and well-being of people in the maritime sector in part because they already have an approach within the maritime sector. If you actually wanted to make a difference in terms of ensuring there was not impairment out on the seas it would apply to recreational boaties not the commercial sector which already has its own approach. We heard comprehensive evidence and I would welcome people watching at home—I am pretty sure that the submission from the Council of Trade Unions would be public. It was excellent it was very well substantiated it was to a much higher standard than anything we heard from the Ministry of Transport officials who were shockingly—shockingly—unable to answer our questions in the select committee.The actual financial impact of the random drug-and alcohol-testing regime that is being put forward in this bill was not included in the regulatory impact statement. When we asked the officials to try to quantify the impact they were unable to do so. But we did hear from the Rail and Maritime Transport Union the Council of Trade Unions the New Zealand Maritime Transport Association and a number of tourism operators that the new requirement for random drug-testing was not necessary or the best way to ensure safety and reduce the risk of impairment in the commercial maritime sector. So the Green Party is going to oppose this bill.Initially we thought that elements of the bill were strongly aligned with Green Party policy and enable the Government to request more compensation if there is a maritime oil spill. We still agree with that but the rest of the bill—the substantive part of the bill—is about the random drug-testing of staff which is not substantiated by any evidence. The member Alastair Scott himself told us that National does not care if there is no evidence; it will just do it anyway.This bill enables flagged foreign vessels to run services to the Chatham Islands even though the only affected party that showed up and submitted to the select committee told us that they opposed this particular change in the legislation. The officials were unable to tell us why the change was proposed. There was a comprehensive argument set out as to why it was not a helpful change. Frankly one thing I can say is that we have got to change this Government because these people are asleep at the wheel. God knows what they are on about but the officials were unable to provide any logical coherent argument in favour of the majority of the substantive changes in this bill and the Green Party is therefore going to oppose it."