Wednesday, 30 July 2025

Motions

Workplace drug testing

David ETTERSHANK (Western Metropolitan) (15:46): I move:

That this house notes that:

(1) the current workplace drug-testing regime discriminates against people who take prescribed medications, including medicinal cannabis;

(2) the Legal and Social Issues Standing Committee’s inquiry into workplace drug testing in Victoria examined the legislative and regulatory framework for alcohol and other drug (AOD) testing in workplaces and found that:

(a) existing AOD testing methods largely focus on testing for presence rather than impairment, making them ineffective in preventing risks to workplace health and safety;

(b) under the current testing regime, unimpaired employees face the risk of disciplinary action, including loss of employment, for taking a prescribed medication such as medicinal cannabis;

(c) Victoria’s current laws governing AOD testing are outdated, inconsistent and result in uncertainty for both employers and employees;

(3) the inquiry recommended that:

(a) drug testing should only be undertaken in the context of a comprehensive AOD policy and support framework, developed between employees, unions and employers within a workplace relations context;

(b) the government amend:

(i) the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004 to regulate AOD testing;

(ii) the Equal Opportunity Act 2010 to prevent discrimination against people who have a medical condition or are taking a prescribed medication;

(c) WorkSafe update its guidelines and introduce a compliance code to provide a regulatory framework for AOD in the workplace; and calls on the government to promptly progress these important reforms.

Victoria’s workplace alcohol and other drugs framework is a mess, with discrepancies in workplace testing and no agreed processes. AOD testing can rob workers of dignity and privacy and stigmatises those who are prescribed certain drugs, notably medicinal cannabis.

A couple of years ago Legalise Cannabis Victoria referred an inquiry to the Legal and Social Issues Committee to look into the legal and regulatory framework for workplace drug testing, how that framework for AOD drug testing could be improved, the potential for discrimination and how that might be addressed in Victoria’s anti-discrimination laws. The committee recommended broad reforms to our workplace drug-testing regime. Recommendations included amending the Equal Opportunity Act 2010 to prevent discrimination against people who have a medical condition or are taking a prescribed medication and updating WorkSafe Victoria’s guidance on AOD policies to include medicinal cannabis and WorkSafe developing a compliance code for alcohol and other drugs in the workplace. The inquiry wrapped up nearly a year ago and the government’s response was due in February, but there has been little or no action by the government to respond to the committee’s report, much less implement its recommendations. I might add those recommendations were fully supported by the government members of the committee. This is harming workers, causing uncertainty for employers and needlessly jeopardising Victorian workplaces.

So let us have a look at those recommendations. The first one seeks government support for the principle that, outside of mandated industries, drug testing should only occur when employers have a well-founded belief that an employee may be impaired at work and only then in the context of a comprehensive alcohol and other drugs policy and accompanying support framework as agreed by employers, employees and their unions. A major deficiency in our current workplace alcohol and other drugs framework is that the majority of workplace tests screen only for the presence of drugs, rather than impairment. As noted by the Health and Community Services Union, analysis of urine, hair and saliva only indicates past drug usage. No test can detect impairment, and the Australian standards’ cut-off levels for detecting past drug use are largely set to minimise the likelihood of false positives. But I remind members that the detection of trace elements of a drug is not equivalent to impairment and that those trace elements can stay in one’s system for weeks.

AOD testing can generate and exacerbate stigma and discrimination, and it is often based on outdated ideas about the way people who use alcohol and other drugs might behave and the kinds of people who use AOD. Insufficient precautions to protect a participant’s privacy, including access to private medical information, can result in all sorts of assumptions, including that a person might be using drugs illegally. It is hardly surprising that workers are reluctant to expose themselves to such stigma and discrimination by disclosing their use of medication.

One memorable case study I would like to share is of a software analyst who contacted us seeking advice after they disclosed their medicinal cannabis use at work and were promptly suspended and then sacked. They had lived overseas, where they had sustained severe injuries and been prescribed heavy-duty opioids and benzodiazepines to treat symptoms including pain, insomnia and anxiety. These highly addictive drugs come with extremely impairing side effects. After moving to Australia they went through an excruciating withdrawal process and were then prescribed medicinal cannabis. Medicinal cannabis enabled them to sleep and perform their job properly with none of the impairing side effects they had experienced on other drugs. They worked behind a desk. They posed no risk to workplace safety and they were unimpaired; yet they were suspended and ultimately sacked for taking their prescription medication. They did not want to go back to opioids and benzos, understandably, but felt they had no option if they were to find work in Victoria. Frankly, that is appalling. So the recommendation that testing only occur in the context of a comprehensive alcohol and other drug policy and accompanying support framework as agreed by employers and employees within a workplace relations context is very pertinent.

Another concern aired during the inquiry was that it is not clear what AOD policies are actually trying to achieve. It is a reasonable question. There is no legal reason to test workers for alcohol and other drugs outside of a few mandated industries. With no enforceable AOD framework, it is left to employers to decide whether to test their employees and how. A comprehensive AOD framework not only affords protection to employees but certainly also to employers.

What would such a framework look like? Ideally, it would be a standardised and progressive health-led impairment policy developed in collaboration with worker representatives and industry leaders, one that promotes early intervention and best practice responses, upholds worker dignity and privacy and provides peer-reviewed training and education on alcohol and other drugs. It would also include mandatory codes of practice around acquiring and handling samples for AOD testing.

Internationally there is a growing body of case law that regards zero-tolerance policies as unreasonable and advocates for reasonable adjustments to be made for workers on prescribed medications. A contemporary AOD policy must include obligations for employers to make those reasonable adjustments where a worker is unimpaired. And I want to be absolutely clear: no-one should be impaired at work, whether that be through the use of alcohol, other drugs, fatigue or stress. But workplace AOD policies need to move away from the fear, shame and stigma that exist around alcohol and other drug use. Policies need to foster openness, empower workers to assess their own limits and if need be seek help for problem use.

Unfortunately, as the inquiry heard repeatedly, the principal document for developing such policies, the WorkSafe guide for developing a workplace alcohol and other drugs policy, is profoundly flawed and woefully out of date. It also contains highly problematic language around drug use, which perpetuates stigma and discrimination. It has not been updated since 2014, four years before medicinal cannabis was legalised in Victoria. As such, it assumes that all cannabis detected in the workplace is inherently illicit. The inquiry found that the absence of specific guidance from WorkSafe on some issues, including medicinal cannabis, has resulted in uncertainty and therefore inconsistencies in the approach taken by different workplaces. Happily, there are recommendations about updating WorkSafe’s alcohol and other drugs policies and, critically, a recommendation to develop a compliance code for workplaces, giving practical guidance on how an employer can comply with their AOD workplace obligations. WorkSafe’s guide should include information for employers and workers around impairment and safety at work, including the rights to privacy and dignity; the provision of health-led AOD policies and procedures; and reasonable adjustments to the workplace training and advice on alcohol, drugs and, where needed, gambling support. There should also be a public education campaign and AOD-specific training for workplace health and safety representatives.

Recommendation 2 calls for an amendment to the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004 to include key principles around alcohol and other drug testing. While Legalise Cannabis Victoria is, unsurprisingly, focused on the discrimination faced by prescribed medicinal cannabis patients, we know this occurs within the wider context of a discriminatory and stigmatising approach to alcohol and other drugs in the workplace. The Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission proposed an amendment to the Equal Opportunity Act 2010 to protect workers taking prescription medication or receiving medical treatment for a disability by amending the definition of ‘discrimination’ to clarify that those actions are a characteristic that a person with that disability generally has. Recommendation 3, then, calls for the Victorian government to amend the Equal Opportunity Act 2010 accordingly.

The right to health is a recognised human right under the World Health Organization and under the Australian Charter of Healthcare Rights. We have a right to access the services and treatments that meet our needs. The lack of a standardised, progressive and health-led AOD framework compromises this right, robs workers of dignity and autonomy and undermines their right to privacy, and this is a fact that a Victorian government recognised a long while ago. In 2005 the then Labor government commissioned the Victorian Law Reform Commission to inquire into reforms needed to ensure workers’ privacy was protected and consider the physical and psychological testing of workers, including drug and alcohol testing, medical testing and honesty testing. The report had a lot to say about AOD policies and testing. It recommended the creation of workplace privacy legislation and mandatory codes of practice around the taking of bodily samples from workers or prospective workers for AOD testing, including obtaining written consent from a worker, the specific purpose of testing, what kinds of tests should be used and how tests should be conducted. These are exactly the same sorts of things the committee recommended WorkSafe include in its guidance and compliance code.

It has been 20 years since that report was tabled. Had the then government implemented those recommendations we would be much further along the road to the comprehensive, contemporary and progressive occupational health and safety laws that we need.

The government’s response to the inquiry into workplace drug testing is now well overdue, but hopefully we will not be waiting another couple of decades for a government to pull its finger out. AOD testing is not only limiting, it cannot indicate time of use, quantities, doses or patterns of usage. It is ineffective. There is also little evidence that testing does anything to reduce the risk of harm in the workplace.

We recognise that Labor as a party has a strong commitment to workers, and we have been quite overwhelmed by the support these recommendations have received among Victorian trade unions and union members. We were also heartened by the remarks made by the federal health minister on Sunrise yesterday:

I’m a very big believer that people should be protected in undergoing their medical treatment, particularly where that treatment is prescribed by their medical practitioner. … the first principle must be people should be supported through their medical treatment. There will obviously be questions about using heavy equipment and the like, but I think it is time to have that debate about updating our laws.

It is lovely to see Minister Butler recognising this and also that this matter is being debated in the house today.

The government needs to implement the recommendations of the inquiry into workplace drug testing in Victoria now. We simply cannot afford to wait. Prevention, risk education and training are the things that keep workplaces safe, not the fear, shame and stigma that currently exist around alcohol and other drug use in the workplace. I urge members to support the motion.

Ryan BATCHELOR (Southern Metropolitan) (16:00): I am very pleased to rise to speak on the motion that has been moved today by Mr Ettershank about the recommendations of the Legal and Social Issues Standing Committee’s inquiry into workplace drug testing in Victoria – an inquiry that, as a member of the Legal and Social Issues Committee, I participated in. The chamber referred the topic to the committee in August 2023, and following an extension we tabled the report in August 2024. I think it was a really good inquiry. I think it was thorough. I think it was thoughtful. I think it heard from a range of witnesses about the need to examine this – so the justification for why this was a matter of concern. I think it also stepped through quite comprehensively some of the areas of ambiguity that exist in current law. What we needed to do as a committee and what the government needs to do is to very carefully consider the matters raised, because there was a lot of complexity in figuring out the framework that should exist to support the issues around drug testing and the presence in the workplace of people who are impaired by drugs, whether they be prescription or non-prescription, whether they are sold for legal consumption or whether they are not sold for legal consumption in the open retail market. We heard from a range of witnesses in a range of industries. Particularly we did hear some very powerful evidence from members of the trade union movement, and I want to join Mr Ettershank in thanking them for their evidence.

What we heard in the course of the inquiry quite clearly was that – and I think this is the major issue that we are trying to grapple with – the tests that we have got or the accepted standards we have got for understanding when impairment exists for those who are consuming certain drugs varies. We have a very clear and commonly accepted definition of ‘impairment’ for those who have been consuming alcohol, and that is one which we find in our road safety framework: impairment exists when someone has a blood alcohol content of greater than .05 per cent. What the inquiry demonstrated to us was that there is no real clear test for impairment for other drugs. There is an absence of an accepted test for impairment for those who have been consuming cannabis, whether through a prescription or otherwise, just as there is a lack of a test for impairment for people who have been consuming opiates or benzodiazepines, whether they are consuming them under prescription or otherwise. That presents I think a pretty significant challenge for policymakers, for regulators and for legislators to be able to quickly and efficiently provide a clear legislative response to remove those ambiguities. If there was something that we could point to that says ‘We know that this percentage of this agent is the threshold at which it is commonly accepted that impairment occurs’, I think the task in responding to the report would be a lot simpler.

But there is not, and it was made very clear by the report itself that we do not use a test for impairment and testing for impairment in these circumstances is quite difficult for a number of reasons. I think it was quite legitimately and quite convincingly put across in evidence that there are certainly people who will test positive for the presence of certain drugs, including cannabis, in their system when there is no evidence of impairment at all, but we do not have a mechanism for us to be able to articulate what exactly constitutes impairment and without having a nationally, let alone globally, accepted scientific standard, and particularly having a test that does not just, as many of the tests do, as we do for alcohol, have its basis in some sort of body chemical composition test, rather than where we are at the moment, it seems, which is largely in the realm of behavioural tests and perceptions of behaviour. I think we can all agree that bringing those sorts of tests firmly into a legislative framework presents a range of challenges which need to be thought through very carefully.

The other thing that I think is important to just go through is that, given the changes that have been made to the prescription of medicinal cannabis in Victoria, it is the right thing that our workplace health and safety agencies and WorkSafe Victoria have a look to make sure that their policy settings are up to date to take account of the current law. We do know that the application of these issues obviously is different in different industries, and the report itself and the committee itself certainly heard evidence that there needs to be or there can be a continued application of different rules in different industries. For example, the mining industry has some pretty strict rules when it comes to the presence of drugs and alcohol in people’s systems. The transport industry, bus regulation – there are some particular industries with some regulated frameworks that the committee certainly considered that were important to both recognise, understand and maintain.

The other aspect of it which I think is worth reflecting on from the committee’s report is the reflections on the issues to do with Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004. The report at page 31 says:

Legislators face several challenges regarding medicinal cannabis, as established throughout this Report:

• The term ‘medicinal cannabis’ can refer to medication that has zero (or very close to it) THC or higher amounts of THC.

• Highly safety‑sensitive workplaces are justified in their zero‑tolerance approach to alcohol and illicit drugs, yet workers taking medication said to contain only CBD may test positive for tiny amounts of THC.

• Although it can be said that small amounts of THC are unlikely to cause impairment, defining what is a small amount is difficult.

• There is no accepted test for impairment regarding cannabis.

• Safety risks differ between workplaces and within workplaces.

And it goes on in a number of other ways. I think it is important to put that on the public record in this debate, particularly a debate that calls on the government to bring forth its response quickly. What the government is trying to do is consider the report carefully and the range of issues that the report itself articulates as being challenges that certainly exist when seeking to formulate a response to the committee’s recommendations – recommendations that were in and of themselves framed to underline the complexity of coming up with a straightforward regulatory and/or legislative response because of the range of issues that needs to be considered and the limitations that might exist with current accepted testing approaches to simply go to the implementation of an approach which is advocated, which is that the test should be not for presence but for impairment. They are very significant things that the government has to work through. We would wish it was tabled sooner, but that detailed work is being undertaken, as is further engagement with stakeholders. The Labor government is absolutely committed to ensuring that workplace drug testing treats all workers fairly, respectfully and with dignity, and that not only the report itself but the government’s response will be as thoughtful.

Renee HEATH (Eastern Victoria) (16:10): I rise to speak on this motion around workplace drug testing in Victoria. I want to start off by saying I really have enjoyed both this inquiry and also the industrial hemp inquiry. Just a shout-out to Mr Ettershank and Ms Payne: I was remarking to my colleague Mr McCracken that you have just been really wonderful, open and honest and really willing to share information. I guess coming into both of these inquiries at the start, I would have thought that I would have been an absolute dead ‘no’ to all of it, but I have thoroughly enjoyed learning about what can be done with hemp in terms of building material, in terms of the use of fabric and in terms of carbon capture and these different things. But I now can say that I really strongly support the use of medical cannabis too. I have actually been amazed at some of the incredible benefits, and I am really thankful for these inquiries and the work that we have done together to come to that. I support that, and I want to acknowledge that this is one of those interesting subjects, because we are balancing the rights of individuals but also the safety of workplaces. This is something that is complex, and I think we actually need to do quite a bit more work in the area. Mr Batchelor spoke about it quite a bit – that we cannot be testing for just the presence of a substance but the impairment that it causes.

One of the questions that I asked just about every witness that came in was ‘How do we test impairment?’ Unfortunately – and I think this is an area where we have to come up with better ways – every one of the witnesses said, ‘Well, we can’t test impairment.’ I think this is something that we really have to acknowledge. We cannot disregard that in some high-risk workplaces, if you cannot test impairment – like Mr Batchelor said, there are very clear guidelines with alcohol and you can say there are some situations, like if you are a pilot, where there is absolutely zero tolerance. In other situations where it is a more low-risk work environment there are still standards, but there does not seem to be that with medical cannabis. I think that has to be an area where we move forward and advance and encourage that sort of research.

There are a couple of things we put in a minority report, and there were some findings. I want to go through some of those and just put them on record on this topic. I might actually say that one of the stark differences between the main report and the minority report was that the evidence presented during this inquiry really showed that the frameworks often fall short in ensuring the highest standards of safety for Victorians. We rejected several of the premises that the majority report suggested – that the current framework may be inherently flawed or discriminatory. We wanted for a second to say, ‘Well, hang on. We’ve also got to really highlight the need for safety.’ One of the findings was:

The existing legal framework under the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004 is inadequate and does not provide sufficient clarity or support for employers to implement effective drug testing policies, particularly in high-risk industries.

What we recommended is that that act needs to be amended. I think this is some work we have to do going forward, or we have to issue explicit guidelines under the OH&S act to clarify the lawful authority of employers to conduct workplace drug safety testing and the circumstances in which it is permitted. The reason, like I explained before, is that some jobs and some areas are just inherently more high risk. This is in a sense a shortfall in itself. I know Mr Ettershank mentioned things like benzodiazepines. I agree that if there is the presence of impairment, it should be treated differently. Impairment is impairment, no matter what medication it comes from or what substance it comes from. I do believe that there have to be some areas and many steps forward in the area of how we are going to test that. The experts need to come up with a way to figure out impairment quickly and in a way that does maintain dignity for people. One of the research papers that I read during the inquiry was around eye movements and eye testing. Are there things like this that we can come up with that will move this in the right direction?

Another finding was that the failure to properly regulate or oversee medical cannabis threatens the legitimacy and credibility of medicinal cannabis as a therapeutic option in Australia. I have actually really loved learning about this. I know many in this chamber know that one of my best friends passed away from cancer last week, and it has just been an absolutely terrible time, the most dreadful pain and things like this. One thing that really helped her and that I was a champion for in the last couple of months was medical cannabis, while I would not have been a couple of months ago. So I am very thankful for that. There were fewer side effects, it did not affect her digestive system, and it was a real blessing.

The other finding was that the regulatory oversight of medical cannabis products is inadequate, posing significant risks of unintended workplace impairment due to mislabelled or inaccurately controlled THC content. With the science that we have today, this has got to be something that we are able to measure. Our recommendation is to immediately develop robust guidelines specific to Victoria for detecting and managing THC-related impairment in high-risk occupations, ensuring a balance between employee rights and workplace safety.

I think, in a sense, like all human rights, they often compete with each other. We have the community as a whole and what the expectation is, and we have the ability for individuals to choose these sorts of things. I think this is something that should be a real focus moving forward so people, when accessing the medical health care of their choice, have the ability to do so confidently.

The fourth finding we had was that employees find managing THC-related impairment in the workplace complex and confusing, compounded by the lack of clear, scientifically based definitions of impairment. What we recommended is to demand an urgent federal intervention to implement stricter regulations of medical cannabis products, including mandatory THC labelling standards, rigorous compliance orders and penalties for noncompliance.

I have really loved learning about this. I think there is a lot more work to be done, because health care is changing – it is a hugely changing landscape. I think that medical cannabis, as a special piece of the puzzle, gives people an option that is more natural and that has fewer side effects than other more chemically synthesised options. But I do think that we have to always balance individual freedom, individual rights to access the medical care that you need, and safety as a whole.

We will not be supporting this bill for those reasons. We think that there does need to be more – well, we are not opposing it. Sorry, we are opposing it – I do not know what happened to my brain then. Because of those reasons, we want to see those three recommendations acted on so we can ensure safety in workplaces, particularly in high-risk areas.

Sarah MANSFIELD (Western Victoria) (16:19): I rise too to speak in support of this motion calling on the government to get on with it and respond to the Legal and Social Issues inquiry report on workplace drug testing. Better yet, this government needs to move quickly to implement the important reforms recommended by the committee in its majority report. I concur with Dr Heath – this was a great inquiry. I really enjoyed being part of this as well. It was able to dig deep into an issue and identify clear and readily actionable steps that the government could take. This included sensible recommendations that would not only strengthen workers protections and workplace safety but also provide greater certainty around the obligations of employers. The impacts of these reforms could make a huge difference for many people who are currently facing discrimination based on the type of prescription medicine that they have – those who have been prescribed medicinal cannabis to treat one of the many conditions it can assist with. It has been almost 10 years since medicinal cannabis was legalised in Victoria, and thousands are now accessing this treatment. It is well past time that our laws and workplace frameworks were updated to reflect the present situation.

Workplace drug testing is an odd patchwork of regimens where frequently the test itself is seen as a tool for discharging employers’ obligations with respect to creating a safe workplace. At the risk of taking the most radical position in this chamber, and I have previously stated this, this inquiry convinced me that workplace drug testing – at least the types of testing that are currently done – has very limited application, if any. There was little convincing evidence to support its use during the inquiry and in fact plenty to suggest that it is not only pointless but actually counterproductive, because apart from alcohol, there is actually minimal relationship between the detection of the presence of a drug, particularly with the methods that are currently used in workplace testing, and its association with impairment. Of course it depends a lot on the nature or the properties of the drug itself as well as the individual and their unique biology and how it is going to affect them, how long it stays in their system for et cetera, and it is impairment that should be our focus if we are serious about workplace safety.

Employees risk instant dismissal if they return a positive test for cannabis, and we heard this countless times throughout this inquiry. That is regardless of whether it is prescribed cannabis or whether it actually produces any level of genuine impairment. Further, we only test for some drugs, which are selected somewhat arbitrarily based on their legal status or the fact that the tests are easy enough to produce, not on some sound rational basis where we have thought it through: ‘Okay, these drugs are ones we are worried about because they cause a lot of impairment and may be a risk in this workplace.’

So many drugs – legal, illegal, prescribed, purchased over the counter, complementary medicines – can impair someone’s motor and cognitive functions. As an example – and I know it is just a one-off example, but I think it is a reasonable one – I once took some valerian. Valerian is a herbal over-the-counter sleeping tablet. You can get it from any pharmacy in the multitudes of vitamins you can select from. You can get it from a herbal medicine store. It is easily available. I took it because I was doing shiftwork and I was struggling to adjust to time zones. I was an absolute zombie for at least 24 hours; it knocked me for six. This is something that would never be tested for, but I was not fit to make a cup of tea, let alone drive or work in a high-risk environment.

The inquiry heard growing concerns that people are choosing to take alternative medications, like opioids or benzodiazepines, rather than take cannabis so as not to fail workplace drug tests, but these sorts of medications can actually cause more impairment and greater risk. That is not the approach we should be taking if we really care about workplace safety. Sadly, we also heard that some people are left choosing between employment or taking a treatment that they can actually tolerate, and I, again, do not think that is a fair situation to leave people in.

We also – and I think Mr Ettershank touched on this – have to recognise that it is not just drugs that cause impairment at work. Any parent of young children has probably been faced with having to turn up to work on no sleep. I know that is something that I have done on a regular basis. Other health and mental health issues can also have a bearing. We heard during the inquiry that some people stopped taking their prescribed medicinal cannabis to ensure they passed the testing, which in turn left them with greater impairment and reduced function at work because their symptoms were not being controlled. They could not sleep; they were in pain. It then caused significant mental health issues for them. If all we are focusing on is a positive mark on a test – a light flashing up, a line coming up, a report coming back saying this has been detected in your system – we miss all of that story. If we are genuine about creating safe workplaces, then impairment of workers should be the absolute focus. Identifying impairment, as we have heard – and we heard it through the inquiry – is not a perfect science, but we have to remember that neither is drug testing. We require more research in the area of impairment, as acknowledged by the inquiry, but it is possible. We heard about different tests that can be done. There are different methods that are used in different industries, and I think it is possible to adopt an approach that does make impairment the central focus.

Once that focus is shifted to impairment, how it is dealt with also completely shifts. The responsibilities of employers and workers become clearer. The options focus on reducing risk and impairment rather than how to avoid a positive test sample. Workers are more likely to be open. They are more likely to receive support than punishment, or at least that is how it should be geared. It also sharpens the focus on the need to ensure safe work practices in themselves. We do not want the workplace to create an environment that in turn causes impairment, and there are lots of industries where I think there are poor practices that lead to impairment just through the nature of the work. I accept that workplace drug testing is and will continue to be performed – putting aside my reservations about it – and I certainly accept that in some high-risk workplaces it will absolutely continue to be used. But it is clear that medicinal cannabis needs to be treated like other prescription medicines at the very least and systems to accommodate this need to be developed. It is also absolutely imperative that any testing is done within a framework that respects people’s rights to dignity and privacy and focuses on supporting rather than punishing workers. These were critical findings and recommendations from the report, and I cannot understand why the government, particularly one that prides itself on being a party of workers, would object to that. I sincerely hope they would not.

Aside from the importance of the substance of this matter, this is also an integrity issue, and I have to take the opportunity to highlight that. It is frustrating that time and time again the government misses key deadlines. There is a well-established pattern now of the government not responding unless they also have the policy response ready to go, which means sometimes those responses simply do not happen or reports remain buried. Responding to committee inquiry reports is really the tip of the iceberg when it comes to failures of transparency and accountability, and it is time we saw better. That said, I look forward to seeing the government’s prompt response and commitment to actioning the recommendations of this report that will, I believe, improve worker rights and safety.

Michael GALEA (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (16:28): I also rise to make a contribution on the motion that has been put forward by Ms Payne and Mr Ettershank today. In doing so I acknowledge the importance of this inquiry, indeed one of two such inquiries that this committee that I am on, the Legal and Social Issues Committee, has undertaken into these interrelated areas in this term of the Parliament. We had a recent inquiry into potential models for the decriminalisation of personal use of cannabis, modelled on the ACT model earlier this year, and indeed to which today’s motion directly refers. We did have the aforementioned inquiry into workplace drug testing in Victoria, which as my colleague Mr Batchelor noted, was passed as a resolution of this house in August 2023, with our report being handed down in August 2024.

I will come to some other broader comments generally, and in the vibrancy of this place and the many different aspects of vibrancy that we have, one such area is the very full and wholesome committee schedule. Unfortunately, due to that schedule I was actually in, I believe, Public Accounts and Estimates Committee hearings for both days of hearings of this particular inquiry, but I did get some good reports back. Certainly the transcripts made for informative and educational reading, and it was a pleasure to take part in further evidence gathering and deliberation and discussion over this report. I acknowledge the work of particularly Mr Ettershank in being able to come together to come to some very sensible and sound recommendations and findings as a result of this inquiry. It is really important that we do conduct these inquiries. They exist for a reason, and they are a very special part of the work that we do in this place. It is the learning of information, the gathering of new information and challenging that information and putting it to the test.

Whilst I was not there in the hearings for this particular inquiry, I certainly was for the more recent cannabis deregulation inquiry, which I greatly enjoyed. Indeed we had a day of visits and meetings in the ACT and then we had some stakeholders come before us here in Melbourne, and we were able to put those ideas to the test. As you can imagine, with a number of those stakeholders there was some overlap for both inquiries. I note in particular for the inquiry that this motion refers to we saw submissions from groups as diverse as Harm Reduction Australia, the Victorian Trades Hall Council, which I acknowledge, the Penington Institute, Ai Group, the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission, the Police Association of Victoria and indeed the Drug Advisory Council Australia too. I did have the opportunity of meeting with them and putting some of those learnings from our Canberra visit to them. I did not have the opportunity to discuss the evidence that we heard in my previous statement on the report on that. I did try and succinctly capture the very many thoughts of that inquiry into a 5-minute speech, and I almost got there. But I really do value each and every witness that came before the inquiry, even those who perhaps were not overly burdened by an excess of insight or connection with the arguments that were being put to them; I nevertheless appreciated that input. It is important that everyone has the chance to have their say, and that is why the committee process is so important.

It is also important that governments do take the time to properly and, dare I say, soberly and seriously consider the topic here. As my colleague Mr Batchelor went to, there is a really great need – indeed as Dr Heath touched on as well – to get this right. I know that that work is being undertaken and it is underway. As much as we would love to have had a quicker response in this particular instance, I know it is certainly not for a lack of effort or attention by the government, including in particular by the minister, who has taken a keen interest in it.

We have got a few various different elements of reform as well. I have had the opportunity in this place, through both a confluence of interest and also happenstance, to have been involved in debates such as the one on medicinal cannabis road testing and testing for impairment there, and I was very fortunate to be in a position to present some amendments on that particular piece of legislation which helped to secure its passage. In doing so I was very appreciative to learn, again, much more in that space, including from the very good report by Dr Tony Parsons, who was in the Parliament and who certainly did a lot of work in facilitating that. As we know, there is the ongoing track trial, because in that particular instance we know just how important for the recovery or indeed easing of pain or treatment of people medicinal cannabis can be.

I do want to take a moment to acknowledge the very moving contribution by Dr Heath. It is an unimaginably hard thing for you to have brought into this place and talked about so openly, rawly and honestly, and I think the chamber and this debate have greatly benefited from that and from your courage in sharing that story today. It underscores the importance of treatments such as this, and there are many people for whom medicinal cannabis is the right option. Going back closer to the substance of this motion today, there are many other treatments that people also rely on, and it makes it all the more important that we do have laws that respond appropriately and that acknowledge safety and the precautions that we need to have in place.

Whether it is for treatment or whether it is for any other proclivities that one might have to take these substances, it is important that we are applying the rules in a fair way. I think there is broad acknowledgement, if I hear correctly from across the chamber, that the settings are not quite working right. We all agree on that. We just need to work out the best way to do that. I again appreciate and acknowledge the support and the tireless effort and deeds of the minister but also indeed the advocacy of my colleagues in Legalise Cannabis Victoria for raising this and reminding us of the importance of this issue, which they have done so very well today.

Just touching on that last point as well, we also do know that there is a track trial in Lang Lang in Minister Shing’s electorate and in Dr Heath’s electorate underway at the moment, which will greatly inform – and, Acting President Bourman, in your electorate too, yes. How could I forget you? But the minister Melissa Horne has also been deeply engaged on that issue. I know I am very much looking forward to seeing the results of that. I did in fact have some very good dialogue with a constituent recently who was asking me about this exact issue and asking what we were doing as a government, and it was very good to be able to say, ‘Well, this is what we have done, and this is what we still need to do and what we are still working on.’ It was very good to be able to have that meaningful conversation insofar as it pertains to the equity and the fairness of medicinal cannabis whilst driving but also as it pertains to road safety and the many measures that we are doing on that front as well. Indeed there was some legislation that was passed just yesterday to further that, but there is a significant power of work that is being done and is still to be done there as well.

So whilst I would love to be in a position today to provide more indication of the response, I reiterate the point that it is more important that we get this work right rather than rush it. I know that work is continuing, and I appreciate the contributions of all colleagues in this place today as we work towards delivering a framework for workplace drug testing that is as fair as it possibly can be for all parties involved. Being a former union official myself – and I know Ms Terpstra, who is in the room, is also very passionate on this subject, being a former union official too – it is really important that we treat workers with dignity, with fairness and with respect and that they are treated appropriately, justly and fairly whilst we also have that paramount importance of protecting workplace safety. Many more contributions will be made in this chamber today, I am sure, so I will leave my remarks there. But I do very much appreciate the chance to reflect on and to discuss this important motion pertaining to a very important inquiry which delivered its report just under a year ago undertaken by the Legal and Social Issues Committee.

Joe McCRACKEN (Western Victoria) (16:37): I want to put on the record my thanks to the Legalise Cannabis Party as well for their motion and for their contribution in the inquiry, along with other members of course as well, which I had the pleasure of being on. I do echo the comments and the sentiment around the chamber that it was indeed a very interesting inquiry and a lot of different things came out of it.

I take the issue very seriously, and making decisions always involves balancing competing interests. It is usually not a balance just between two interests, sort of like a seesaw – if you increase one, you diminish another; I do not think it is as simple as that. It is about balancing multiple interests, and balancing out in a careful, considered and informed way can sometimes be a challenge.

In the motion there are a number of different findings that are highlighted. The alcohol and other drug testing methods that are focusing on presence as opposed to impairment: under the current testing regime the unimpaired employees do face risk of discipline or sacking or those sorts of consequences, and current laws, according to the report, need reform. And then the motion mentions a number of recommendations, such as talk of an AOD policy, amendments to various acts, including the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004 and the Equal Opportunity Act 2010, and updating WorkSafe Victoria guidelines. That is a selection of some of the findings and the recommendations. But I want to talk about some of the other recommendations and findings as well, because it was clear that there were a number of different views that fed into this and probably the broader context of how this operates. Some of the concerns that were raised were about safety as well.

Finding 3 of the report stated that those who were concerned about the bill believed it would lead to increased cannabis use in Victoria and cited the risk of negative health and social outcomes. Some of the risks they were worried about were things like mental health, cognitive development and potential impact on academic performance. There was also discussion about storage controls and ensuring that minors do not have the ability to consume cannabis. I note finding 4 of the report also stated that stakeholders agreed that there was a need overall to prevent children accessing cannabis due to the risk of negative health and social outcomes. That was a recommendation that all stakeholders agreed to.

Recommendation 2 of the report also suggested that any implementation include a five-year statutory review clause, recognising the need for reform in this space to be accompanied by an appropriate monitoring and evaluation process, which I think is fair enough. Finding 9 of the report also noted that if the bill passed, for people under the age of 18 drug diversion programs would still be a relevant pathway. The report did not say we should completely get rid of drug diversion pathways, and it is another important element that sort of talks about this in the wider context. It was also noted that the eligibility criteria of existing programs can be rather narrow, and I think it was recommendation 7 that suggested that perhaps some of those eligibility criteria could be expanded so that more people could be considered for those programs.

Apart from the recommendations and the findings that are in the actual motion itself, I wanted to highlight that the inquiry did look at the situation in a very broad sense and made a series of findings and recommendations. Some of the issues raised within the motion are interrelated with other recommendations that I have just gone through now, but also, to be fair, probably wider aspects of lawmaking in society. I guess what I am trying to draw attention to is that it is very difficult to balance out competing interests like that. One of the things that sticks out to me, which I bet everyone in this chamber would not argue against, is that everyone has the right to be safe at work. I do not think anyone in here would argue that is not a fundamental right. The point has been made both by Legalise Cannabis and also throughout the report that the testing arrangements should be around testing for impairment as opposed to how much of a particular substance you can detect in somebody through a test. I guess the challenge to grapple with is that different people have different responses to tests. A person like me – I am not a cannabis user per se – would likely be impaired very quickly as opposed to someone who is a more regular user for a medical purpose. My body reactions would be very different. I will just say that. I do not know what would happen, to be honest.

David Ettershank interjected.

Joe McCRACKEN: I will leave that one to you, I think, Mr Ettershank. So I guess the question becomes: how do you establish a standard that should be met across the workplace given that there can be varying degrees of sometimes wildly different reactions and responses in users? I know I laughed about my case there, but there is not just one test that tests for impairment. It is quite possible that you have multiple tests that might test for impairment, and you might do different things to establish that. And how do people mask impairment as well? Again, that is just another layer of complexity we can talk about there.

I would probably err on the side of caution in that in a workplace safety has got to come first. Both users of cannabis but also those that might be around them deserve to have a safe workplace. I think of situations where there are examples of heavy plant equipment that is used – I am sure everyone has already thought through a lot of those situations – people that are responsible for driving buses, trains, aeroplanes and those sorts of things. If something for whatever reason is not right, then it is not just the risk of the person who is consuming cannabis; there are obviously others that are put at risk as well. Now, that is not to say that I am not sympathetic to those that, for whatever reason, want to use cannabis for a medical purpose. I know that it is used for pain relief. I know people personally that use it for that purpose. It makes a significant change to their life and their wellbeing and how they can go about their business, so I am not trying to argue that point at all. I guess what I am trying to say is that I think at this point in time more work needs to be done to establish how impairment might be measured and how you implement a standardised sort of approach across a workplace, and a set of different workplaces as well, before we, as the motion says, call for the government to promptly progress important reforms. I guess, probably similar to Mr Galea in a sense, we want to get it right and want to make sure that what we are going forward with has a robust framework around it as well.

In closing, you want to give certainty to employers and employees so they have a clear understanding of what their obligations are so that that reasonable standard that hopefully is come to is understood by all and can be implemented. I am just not sure that that reasonable standard of testing, whatever that case might be, is there yet.

Rachel PAYNE (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (16:46): This motion calls for recognition that the current workplace drug testing regime here in Victoria discriminates against people who take prescribed medications, including medicinal cannabis. As a member of the Legal and Social Issues Committee I was part of the inquiry into workplace drug testing in Victoria, an inquiry that was off the back of a motion by Legalise Cannabis Victoria in 2023. In this inquiry we examined the legislative and regulatory framework for alcohol and other drug testing in workplaces. We found that existing AOD testing methods largely focus on testing for presence rather than testing for impairment, making them ineffective in preventing risks to workplace health and safety. In fact – and I am sure many in this chamber will recall this – during that inquiry process we heard from many unions that represent workers who disclosed that they are actually not reporting incidents in the workplace out of fear of getting drug tested. So it has the alternate effect of deterring people from reporting workplace safety issues and incidents because they are fearful of getting a drug test, which is the total opposite of what they are trying to achieve. We also found that under the current testing regime, unimpaired employees face the risk of disciplinary action and loss of employment for taking a prescribed medication, including medicinal cannabis. And finally, we found that Victoria’s current laws governing AOD testing are outdated and inconsistent and result in uncertainty for both employers and employees.

From these findings, it can be no surprise that the committee recommended several changes to the workplace drug testing regime. These include that:

(a) drug testing should only be undertaken in the context of a comprehensive AOD policy and support framework, developed between employees, unions and employers within a workplace relations context;

(b) the government amend:

(i) the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004 to regulate AOD testing;

(ii) the Equal Opportunity Act 2010 to prevent discrimination against people who have a medical condition or are taking a prescribed medication;

(c) WorkSafe update its guidelines and introduce a compliance code to provide a regulatory framework for AOD in the workplace …

The motion before us today calls on the government to promptly progress these important reforms.

This inquiry confirmed our worst fears. Workplace drug-testing practices in Victoria are discriminatory, disorganised and outdated and lack proper safeguards for employees. The committee’s final report was tabled on 27 August 2024, giving the government until February 2025 to issue a response. It is now the end of July, five months after the deadline, and we are no closer to understanding when this government will respond to, much less progress, these important reforms. In trying to encourage the government to respond to this report, we have been handballed from department to department. Where issues are complex and extend across several departments, you would think this would be reason for unity and greater resourcing, but unfortunately it just appears to be a reason to say it is someone else’s job, and it is ticked off the list. While these recommendations are handballed between departments, workers suffer – the same workers that this government claims to represent.

Particularly close to my heart is the amendment recommended to the Equal Opportunity Act 2010 that would ensure people living with a disability who are taking a prescribed medication are protected from discrimination. This is vital reform, particularly for those who have lost their job simply for trying to do the right thing and disclosing to their employer that they are a medicinal cannabis patient, and we have heard many cases of that actually happening. It is those people who were front and centre of the committee’s work; we listened to their experiences with workplace drug testing and medicinal cannabis.

To that end the committee conducted a survey to gather evidence on these issues, and we received 487 responses. Forty-eight per cent of participants that responded to the survey agreed that their employment had been affected by using medicinal cannabis. They cited stigma among colleagues, limited job opportunities, concerns over random drug testing, fears of being fired for disclosure and losing the ability to drive. Alarmingly, 276 of the people surveyed had been prevented from using medicinal cannabis altogether.

While we cannot know the circumstances of each case and the reasons for the prevention, all too often we know that this is a decision made from the top down. Employers need to meet employees where they are at, have an open mind about why they are being prescribed medicinal cannabis and discuss how appropriate accommodations can be made. The survey found that a failure to do so leads almost half of people to use other medications to replace medicinal cannabis. For some this means instead of using medicinal cannabis to manage pain, they are using other medications, like benzodiazepines, which have a much greater range of side effects.

The committee asked people who declared themselves to be subject to testing in their workplace what industry they work in. It was surprising and concerning to discover that people reported workplace drug testing in industries like retail, tourism and events and education. These findings are symptomatic of a broader issue identified in this inquiry: employers being left to test workers for alcohol and other drugs in the absence of an enforceable AOD framework. The most common industries highlighted in the survey were building and construction and transport and logistics.

It is difficult to have a conversation about workplace drug testing without recognising the relationship it has with Victoria’s driving laws. This government’s medicinal cannabis driving trial will be completed early next year, and as we understand it, the government will use the data it collects to inform changes to Victoria’s road safety laws and definition of impairment. We already know that presence does not equal impairment. They have changed the laws in Tasmania and the sky has not fallen in, and there is no need to wait. When medicinal cannabis patients take their medication as prescribed and are not impaired, they should be able to drive. We do not have prohibitions on people driving while on heavy opioids, and yet even trace amounts of medicinal cannabis are illegal.

My colleague David Ettershank has spoken to the recommendations of the inquiry in detail. I would like to focus on the stories of people who bravely shared their experiences with the committee, many of whom were women who have been prescribed medicinal cannabis. One woman was prescribed medicinal cannabis after dealing with several months of insomnia that left her barely functioning mentally, emotionally, socially and physically at work. Medicinal cannabis helped her finally get a deep sleep with no after-effects. When suffering from insomnia, she was constantly terrified of the dangers she would cause, and her medication now rids her of this fear. Yet many employers would prefer an employee with crippling insomnia over one who is a medicinal cannabis patient.

Another woman shared her fear of not being able to advance from her current position to higher duties because of the medication she uses. She rightly acknowledged that people who take addictive prescription medications are not subject to the same level of scrutiny. We heard about women being denied jobs that they would have loved because their medication meant they would test positive to cannabis, not because they were impaired or unable to do their job.

Medicinal cannabis and women’s health are deeply intertwined, and I myself am a medicinal cannabis patient for pelvic pain symptoms, endometriosis and perimenopause. Too often women are shut out of holding positions of power in workplaces, and it is shameful that current workplace testing practices are also contributing to ingraining this kind of inequality in our workplaces. Our current approach relies on a one-size-fits-all punitive response and leaves employees without clarity or support.

The reality is workplace AOD policies should be focused on fostering a relationship of trust between employees and employers and, where necessary, support people to seek help. That is why we call on this government to progress the important reforms highlighted in the inquiry into workplace drug testing in Victoria, because we can do better.

Jacinta ERMACORA (Western Victoria) (16:56): I thank the Legalise Cannabis Party for bringing this issue forward and for Mr Ettershank’s ongoing activism in this space. It is a very important issue for Victorians, and I would like to thank the many individuals and organisations who made submissions to this inquiry, including the Drug Advisory Council Australia, the Police Association of Victoria, the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission, the Ai Group, Penington Institute, the Victorian Trades Hall Council and Harm Reduction Australia.

The government is currently reviewing the final report and will consider all the recommendations as a part of our response. I want to be very clear that the Allan Labor government is committed to ensuring that workplace drug testing treats all workers fairly, respectfully and with dignity, and that is what I am going to spend some time on in my contribution today. I support a compassionate, fair and evidence-based approach to workplace drug testing. In workplace drug testing, policies are often better when they come from a place of support and understanding rather than punishment. Automatic dismissal can quite frankly be a brutal tool. It is not proven to deter substance abuse, and more often than not it ignores the complex realities that sit behind someone’s behaviour. I would say, as I have said on a number of occasions in this chamber, as a former counsellor advocate with the South Western Centre against Sexual Assault in Warrnambool I encountered multiple clients seeking counselling who were using substances to help them cope with PTSD. So it is true that there are often complex circumstances sitting behind substance abuse in the workplace.

Let us be up-front: substance abuse and impairment are not just legal matters; they are health issues, they are social issues and, yes, they are also workplace safety issues. However, treating people punitively without context or care does not make workplaces safer, it simply makes them harsher. A compassionate and rehabilitative approach is not just humane, it is also smart policy, and it is good for business. We know that alcohol and other drug issues are often deeply linked to mental ill health, trauma, chronic stress or illness. These are often signs that someone needs support, and a termination letter is in no way the first or best option. If someone came to work with a broken arm, we would not fire them. We would help them adjust to the workplace and recover. Substance dependence should be treated with the same care.

Many current tests detect the presence of substances that do not cause impairment, and there have been a number of contributions referring to this. Medicinal cannabis, for example: a worker could legally use a prescribed treatment for pain, anxiety or a chronic condition and yet still test positive days later, as has been very eloquently raised in this chamber. Should that person be fired? It does not seem either fair or logical. Workers are far more likely to come forward and seek help or disclose a health issue when they know they will be treated fairly rather than punished without explanation. Unsurprisingly, when people feel safe they are more likely to act early and are more likely to recover well. Compassionate policy allows for clear procedures, appeals and rehabilitation pathways. Importantly, it also helps employers meet their legal obligations around fairness, privacy and equity.

I want to be clear: this is not about being soft; this is about being effective. Workplace safety is best achieved through managing risks, not through punishment. Drug testing should be a tool to prevent harm, not to catch people out. A one-off test taken out of context does not tell us whether someone is actually unsafe at work, yet when combined with a good risk assessment, proper supervision and genuine support it becomes part of a responsible and just safety culture.

At a broader level, a compassionate approach also makes economic sense. Replacing a skilled worker can cost 50 to 150 per cent of their salary. However, workers who receive support and are retrained through tough times often become the most loyal, grateful and productive members of a team. Compassionate policies can build a culture of inclusion, dignity and mutual respect. These qualities are highly valued in modern workplaces, particularly amongst millennials and gen Zs, for whom many employers are competing.

In today’s climate, workplaces are being held to higher standards. Under Victoria’s updated workplace safety framework, employers are expected to uphold psychosocial safety as well as physical safety. Employees are increasingly seeking workplaces that prioritise support, flexibility and mental health, not outdated, punitive approaches, a shift that reflects the broader attitudes of our community towards addiction, towards disability and towards lawful use of prescribed medication.

These are views backed by both health professionals and unions. The evidence supports. Unions have long advocated for alcohol and other drugs policies that are comprehensive and balanced: testing only when there is a reasonable suspicion of impairment, education and peer support, referral pathways and genuine consultation with staff. Health experts agree that early intervention and wraparound care are more effective than fear-based approaches.

Every person deserves the chance to be safe, supported and productive, rather than enduring silence or shame. Let us build workplaces where people can speak up, can seek help and can contribute meaningfully even when life gets hard. This is the Labor way: equality of opportunity, valuing workers and their rights, supporting the vulnerable and listening to unions, communities and local voices. I will end my contribution there.

Georgie PURCELL (Northern Victoria) (17:03): I too rise to briefly speak in support of the motion before us and in doing so join the calls for the government to respond to the now overdue recommendations of the inquiry into workplace drug testing. I thank my colleagues from the Legalise Cannabis Party for bringing this to the house today, and I would really like to acknowledge the work of Ms Payne and Mr Ettershank in advocating for the rights of medicinal cannabis patients across Victoria and beyond.

It has been nine years since Victoria first legalised medicinal cannabis, and today it is estimated that over 400,000 Victorians use cannabis to treat a range of conditions, including chronic pain and sleep disorders. For many, this represented the very first time their symptoms were successfully managed by a medication, and for others, medicinal cannabis was a medication with far fewer and less harmful side effects than the alternatives that they had used in the past. Despite this, our workplace drug testing framework has remained the same, and it is fundamentally flawed. As many have already mentioned today, it focuses on the presence of substances in someone’s system, not on whether they are impaired for duty at work. That distinction is critical. We have heard far too many cases of unimpaired workers doing the right thing and disclosing their medicinal cannabis usage to their employer, only to face immediate dismissal.

Critical to solving this is recommendation 3 of the inquiry, which proposes amending the Equal Opportunity Act 2010 to prevent discrimination against people who have a medical condition and are taking a prescribed medication. This would protect not only medicinal cannabis patients at work but also all Victorians with a disability or a chronic illness who have found a medication which alleviates their symptoms. No worker should face discrimination due to their chronic illness, and as someone who lives every single day with a chronic illness that often manifests in chronic pain and is invisible to so many in society – and I know Mr Ettershank deals with the same thing – I can speak to the many, many patients that suffer from my autoimmune condition, and medicinal cannabis has absolutely changed the entire course of their lives and the way in which they can function every single day. The inquiry also recommended amending the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004 to create more consistency when it comes to workplace drug testing and to further enshrine privacy and dignity for all workers. I would really encourage the government to consider the review of both of these acts more broadly, with a particular focus on improving discrimination protections for workers. The recent vilification legislation made great strides, but clearly there is so much more that can be done.

Victorian workers deserve laws that are fair, consistent and modern. Employers deserve clarity so they can implement policies that protect safety without trampling on the rights of their staff, and people living with chronic illnesses deserve dignity while managing their conditions in a way that works for them and for their doctors. Presence-based drug testing does not make workplaces safer. It is an ineffective tool that punishes workers rather than addressing genuine risks. For those reasons I commend this motion to the house today.

David ETTERSHANK (Western Metropolitan) (17:07): May I start out by thanking all of the members who have contributed to the debate this afternoon for their very thoughtful and frank contributions. I would also like to thank all of the many organisations and individuals who participated in the inquiry process and who appeared before the committee. I think it was, for all of us, a big learning curve. It was a great experience, and I think the quality of the recommendations that have come from that reflect that richness of thought.

Dr Heath and Mr Batchelor both talked about the difficulties associated with impairment testing, and I think clearly that is an issue. It is for that reason that one of the findings of the inquiry is that workplace drug testing should only occur where there is a well-founded concern that a worker is impaired. In other words, it is not a simple random act, it is not a coercive act; it is one that takes into account concepts of due process and natural justice and is premised upon the observation of impairment. That is a fairly simple test to make, and it is only reasonable that workers not live in fear on a daily basis that they will be discriminated against, stigmatised or victimised simply for taking a prescription medication.

Dr Mansfield talked about the fact that all too often current testing is actually counterproductive. That is, again, very often because what we are seeing are coercive or prejudicial alcohol and other drug policies that assume a level of guilt, ignorance or abuse by workers. I think we really need to push back against that, and I know the government is committed to pushing back against that sort of stereotyping of people who consume alcohol and other drugs. Also, in addressing these questions we need to have a health-based approach that reflects best practice and that reflects a harm minimisation approach to dealing with issues such as this. Mr Galea talked about the closed-track driving trial, and I think a number of us were a bit disappointed when we went out to the closed-track driving trial to find that what was promised in the early scoping documents for that trial, including extensive testing of different impairment methodologies, in fact was no longer the case, because this does strike to a motion that was moved by Mr McCracken to actually learn more about this question, including the incorporation of the findings from the closed-track driving trial.

Ms Payne talked about the Equal Opportunity Act 2010 amendment, and I think it is a great example of a change that the government can do really quickly and with minimal further delay. What we saw in the inquiry was that the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission came before the committee advocating for this change, and not only did they advocate most persuasively about the need for change but they even provided drafting for amendments to the act. I guess this is a good example of where we say that the pursuit of perfection should not be the enemy of the good. There is more than enough on the plate here for the government to make meaningful changes both to the Equal Opportunity Act and also to the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004.

We implore the government to pull its finger out and make these changes. They are needed to protect workers. It has broad support within the labour movement, and there was a high level of consensus within the committee. With that I thank the members and commend the motion to the house.

Council divided on motion:

Ayes (20): Ryan Batchelor, John Berger, Lizzie Blandthorn, Katherine Copsey, Jacinta Ermacora, David Ettershank, Michael Galea, Anasina Gray-Barberio, Shaun Leane, Sarah Mansfield, Tom McIntosh, Rachel Payne, Aiv Puglielli, Georgie Purcell, Harriet Shing, Ingrid Stitt, Lee Tarlamis, Sonja Terpstra, Gayle Tierney, Sheena Watt

Noes (13): Melina Bath, Gaelle Broad, Georgie Crozier, David Davis, Moira Deeming, Renee Heath, Ann-Marie Hermans, Wendy Lovell, Trung Luu, Joe McCracken, Nick McGowan, Rikkie-Lee Tyrrell, Richard Welch

Motion agreed to.