Sports Anti-Doping Bill

I move, That the Sports Anti-Doping Bill be now read a second time. This bill was introduced in December last year in order to modernise New Zealand’s anti-doping system. New Zealand is a leader in the fight against doping in sport. This country was a founding member of the World Anti-Doping Agency, and has been a strong supporter of the development of the World Anti-Doping Code. A New Zealander, David Howman, is currently the chief executive of that organisation. We were the fourth country in the world to ratify the International Convention Against Doping in Sport, late last year.

In order for our athletes to compete internationally at Olympics, Commonwealth Games, world championships, and other events, our athletes need to comply with the World Anti-Doping Code. The burden of compliance with the code is a challenge for most small sports organisations, many of which are voluntary and are run on the smell of an oily rag. That is why successive Governments have supported the New Zealand Sports Drug Agency to provide drug testing and education about the harmful side effects of performance-enhancing drugs.

This bill will help our athletes and sports organisations comply with the World Anti-Doping Code by updating the functions of the New Zealand Sports Drug Agency. The agency will be required to make sports anti-doping rules. Sports will be able to adopt these rules in order to implement the World Anti-Doping Code. Although the rules will provide for a simple and efficient way for sports to implement the code, they will not be compulsory. Sports will still be able to implement the code in other ways if they so wish.

I would like to thank the Government Administration Committee for its consideration of the Sports Anti-Doping Bill. I understand that the cross-examination of officials by Mr Connell was quite extensive. However, the select committee received few submissions on the bill. Athletics New Zealand made a submission in support of the bill, recognising that it would make it easier for New Zealand athletes to comply with the World Anti-Doping Code, and recognising that New Zealand needs a strong anti-doping network if our athletes are to compete on a level playing field with overseas athletes who have access to advanced doping techniques.

Three professional players’ associations, representing cricket, rugby, and soccer, raised some concerns about the bill and the rules. I want to address those concerns briefly. The first was that the bill would affect the employment relationship between athletes and their sports by imposing penalties on athletes who were caught cheating with drugs. That concern was based on the misunderstanding that the bill would make the World Anti-Doping Code compulsory. It will not. It provides a mechanism for sports to comply with the code, and it does not affect the employment relationship between athletes and sports. Of course, as those relationships develop, as things are written into them, and as sports move forward, then clearly cheats will have problems with their employment relationships. The problems will not be caused by this bill, but rather by the code, and of course, by the cheating.

Another concern raised by professional players’ associations was that the bill does not require the New Zealand Sports Drug Agency to consult with athletes. The Government Administration Committee has recommended an amendment to the bill to address this, and athletes will be consulted, along with the national sports organisations and the Privacy Commissioner. Another concern was that the bill would affect the privacy of athletes by leading to the publication of names of athletes who have been caught cheating. Again, this is based on a misunderstanding. Publication requirements are set out in the code, not in the bill.

The select committee has also recommended that the name of the New Zealand Sports Drug Agency be amended to Drug Free Sport New Zealand. The Government supports the select committee with its suggestion. The name will more accurately reflect the agency’s task of promoting sport free from drugs.

I understand that the select committee spent some time considering whether the agency should be required to let police know about positive drug tests for classified substances. I am glad that the committee decided not to pursue this idea. The police are not interested in being swamped with information about positive tests for a number of drugs that athletes have been prescribed by their doctor or have been given as part of hospital treatment. On the other hand, police are interested in any intelligence about cases that are serious enough to justify the allocation of investigation resources, such as where there is useful evidence of organised drug use or smuggling of classified substances into the country.

It is not necessary to amend the bill to allow Drug Free Sport New Zealand to pass this information to the police, as under the Privacy Act it is already possible to share personal information to “avoid prejudice to the maintenance of the law by any public sector agency, including the prevention, detection, investigation, prosecution and punishment of offences.” As the committee noted, a requirement to share drug test results with the police will be fundamentally contradictory to the basic principles of the anti-doping regime, and could threaten the agreements between athletes and national sports organisations that underpin the whole anti-doping process. I agree with the select committee.

Therefore, I support all the select committee’s recommended amendments and thank the committee for its consideration of the bill.

I would like to begin by commending my colleagues Shane Ardern and Brian Connell for the excellent work that they did in the scrutiny of this bill to ensure that the appropriate level of protection, the right incentives, and the right enforcement procedures as far as New Zealand is concerned, to play our part in the world of sport, were in place. Of course, for such a small country New Zealand does extraordinarily well. There was, indeed, robust discussion on some aspects of the bill, with appropriate amendments made to strengthen the integrity of the bill before it became an Act.

Concerns were raised in regard to the privacy of individuals, the sharing of test results with police, and the broadening of the consultative requirement of the Sports Drug Agency to include athletes. I thought that was a particularly pertinent point raised in discussions with submitters. I could not see any reason why athletes should be left out of the consultative processes, and I think that requirement is certainly a step in the right direction. This will allow not only national sporting organisations but also athletes a reasonable opportunity to comment on any proposed rules. We recommended an explicit requirement to give athletes in national sporting organisations a reasonable opportunity to comment on proposed rules.

The Sports Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand is to be renamed the Sports Tribunal of New Zealand with the deletion of the word “Disputes”, which will make it appear to be a less confrontational body. I think that is to be applauded because we want people to feel confident that it is an agency that will look at all sides of the issues and all the facts of the case, and make a judgment accordingly. The New Zealand Sports Drug Agency’s name is to be changed to Drug Free Sport New Zealand in order to reflect the agency’s current trading name.

The bill was hardly contentious with only two submissions being received, and those two submissions were presented to the select committee, with discussions resulting. Advice was also sought from Sport and Recreation New Zealand officials, who had some good knowledge, to contribute to the few concerns that were raised about the bill.

National is pleased to support the Sports Anti-Doping Bill because we believe in fair play and playing by the rules with integrity, honesty, and courage. We believe in the strengthening of character by meeting challenges openly and honestly, free of the taint of any subterfuge or fraudulent or corrupt practice, and in this instance, of course, the use of drugs. We totally deplore the use of drugs in sport.

There is nothing better than preparing oneself, along with one’s team if one is in a team situation, for the challenge of meeting an opponent or an opposing team. I am glad that I actually had the opportunity in earlier years to swim competitively, to play softball, rugby, squash, indoor basketball, and like my most excellent colleague Eric Roy—who made a wonderful speech during the first reading—to compete in high school discus throwing competitions. However, I did not advance to the lofty heights of my most excellent colleague Eric Roy. I thought it was quite interesting that we both had some skill at throwing the discus.

Talking sport, I was delighted to catch up with the Silver Ferns and their outstanding coach, Ruth Aitken, here in Parliament tonight. Ruth just happens to live in my electorate. I am definitely very fortunate to have such a wonderful person be part of my electorate. I think we need only to look at the Silver Ferns to see what can be achieved in excellence in sport at the highest level—and that is without any taint of anything that might even hint at drugs or any sort of subterfuge in achieving the lofty heights that the team has reached in the sport of netball.

National is very pleased to support this Sports Anti-Doping Bill. We think it will go a long way in curbing any future transgressions. Drugs are becoming far too prolific in sport. We need to be much stronger in making sure that sport maintains its integrity and is free of any form of drug use. My colleague Brian Connell was concerned that anyone indulging in recreational drugs was going to be able to get away with that; that even though those people might be detected using recreational drugs in a sporting context, there was no provision in the bill for that information to be passed on to the police for further treatment through the judicial process. This concern was raised in the select committee. It was felt at that stage, though, that it should be left out. However, I wonder whether we have made the right choice, and whether we should not be putting through an amendment to allow information on people using illegal recreational drugs to be passed on to the police for appropriate action to be taken. This may come about in due course.

People might decide that an amendment to the legislation is required. I think it is something that is worth considering, because so often now people in our communities are resorting to drugs. The drugs are staying in people’s systems for a lot longer and are affecting their performance at all levels, and if they are playing sport it will certainly have an effect. We should take a very tough stance and a very strong position on that with, in my view, zero tolerance. I am very pleased to be part of National’s support for this Sports Anti-Doping Bill, and I commend my colleagues once again for their excellent efforts.

I would certainly like to take a call on the second reading of the Sports Anti-Doping Bill. I was certainly very keen to speak at the first reading, too. I think every single New Zealander has an attitude of fair play; it is a significant part of the way we do things. We like to operate on a level playing field and we like to have, I believe, the best interests of our young people at heart; I believe this bill does those things. It is important that we stay abreast of what is happening internationally and therefore we need to have a programme of regimentation, control, and anti-doping regulations that is in keeping and in accordance with the best practice in the world. This legislation brings us up to that level.

There are a few things that I think are quite pertinent. At the first reading I spoke of the impact of drugs on athletes—the shortening of life, and the distortions of the body. I used my own instance of when I received steroids medically—not for playing sport—and the impact of my hands and feet growing two sizes. These drugs distinctly distort the natural functions of the body. Yes, the drugs are, in part, part of us but when the system is overloaded with these drugs in the pursuit of excellence and winning, then the distortions that can occur in the body can be lethal. There are a number of illustrations of that. So there is the element of danger. We should be saying to our athletes that this is not something they can do. If they attempt to do it, they will be caught, and if athletes are competing with someone else who is using drugs, they will be caught. Let us have a level playing field.

Our motivation for this legislation is simply this: we want to protect sportspeople. There are incentives to win and today, with the level of professionalism, winning brings money, it brings glory, it brings adulation, it brings contracts, and it brings sponsorship—it brings a whole lot of things. It is important that we tell sportspeople that they deserve those rewards if they are good enough, but to use drugs is cheating.

I do not know at what stage drugs started entering into the whole realm of athletics and sport. Certainly when I was young, and my heroes were people like Don Oliver, we did not hear of drugs being involved. Initially, their use started in the bulk sports—weightlifting—and the field events. As the need for stamina and recovery came along, there were refined drugs that assisted people in a whole lot of ways. There was shock, disappointment, and anger when people found out the level at which some of my heroes of the 1970s and 1980s were involved in drugs,

There is a sense of frustration for those who are actually playing the game—those who are not cheating by using drugs. We recall the Olympics where Ben Johnson, I think, broke the world record, got the gold medal, and then—hey presto—came up with a positive drugs test. He said he had put his drink bottle down and when he got it back it tasted sticky. Even at that stage chemists could tell what drugs people had been using, how long they had been using them for, and most probably—with the sorts of concentrations that had been taken—they could take an imprint, going back. So Carl Lewis was elevated—the great Carl Lewis who won four gold medals and was the best thing since Jesse Owens—and subsequently, in later years, there are some very serious questions to be answered about his association with drugs.

Again, the use of drugs just dims that whole aspect of our heroes and sends the wrong message to our young people. We need to say that the use of drugs is simply not on. It is not on because of health reasons. Basically it is not on because it means people are cheats. I recall four or five Olympics ago when someone won the silver medal at fencing. Fencing is electronic and when a player contacts with an opponent a light goes on. This fencer had installed some kind of circuitry that overrode what was happening when there was a contact, and he won a silver medal. Shock, horror—that was cheating. No one reckoned he should have been anywhere near the medal. He was a reasonable, passable fencer, but what he did was cheating. So is using drugs to enhance performance; it is the same thing, it is cheating. Let us not dress it up in any other way; it is simply cheating.

Similarly, I am trying to think of the name of the baseball player in the United States who beat Babe Ruth’s record. It was subsequently found that he had a corked bat. I do not know much about baseball but a corked bat helps to hit the ball further. That player was a cheat and he should not have had the record; we understand that. Using drugs is exactly the same thing. So it is right and proper that New Zealand stands alongside the international body that says drugs must not be used in sport. If drugs are used, those using them will be caught and if they are caught, there will be penalties and those cheating will have no right to stand on the winners’ podium.

It is probably true, because of the money involved, that the best chemists are creating the drugs and the agents masking them, and the second-best chemists are trying to catch them. That is probably the case. I am not sure how that can be turned round. What we have to do is to make every attempt to restrict, limit, catch, and punish those people who are cheating by using drugs.

I am pleased that there is a high degree of unanimity over this legislation. As Sandra Goudie mentioned, there were only two submissions to the select committee. That shows a high degree of approval since people who approve of legislation generally do not take the effort to write a submission. As I said, most New Zealanders have a belief that our sportspeople should be operating on a level playing field and that they do serious damage to themselves if they embark on a drug career.

I note one or two things about the bill. I was interested in the Minister’s comments with regard to the involvement of the police. Yes, I accept his statement that there is no point in overloading the police force with a lot of irrelevant information. I note that under the Privacy Act 1993 Drug Free Sport New Zealand does have the power to disclose information if something shows up—there might be some recreational drugs that are banned. Again, this is an interesting paradox. Society is more and more accepting of recreational drugs as the years go by, even though in many cases they are not allowed by law, and socially, there is a high degree of tolerance. In a way, that can dim our awareness or our vigilance in the sports arena. In my view, there should be no tolerance anywhere; the law should be the law and we want to be quite clear about that. There are people like Simon Poelman who got caught—finally—for smuggling recreational drugs into New Zealand in a teddy bear or some other toy. Surely, if he was a recreational drug user that must have shown up somewhere in the tests that he had. It is my view that the police could have, and should have, been able to get involved in that case much, much more quickly than they did.

I conclude by saying that tonight members were at a function when the best netballers in the world—those of Australia and New Zealand—were recognised here in the Banquet Hall. They were rightly recognised and wished well, and everything else. On the night that we extol the best in the world in netball, it is appropriate that we are having this second reading. Members want every athlete who is performing in New Zealand to perform well. We want them to be the best in the world. But we do not want them to cheat. If they attempt to cheat by taking drugs they will be caught, and we as a Parliament approve of the fact that we will catch them and punish them. National supports the second reading of this bill.

It is a pleasure to be here in the House this evening with very few dopes, where we are engaged in debating this legislation on an anti-doping convention. But I have to say that the Government is in complete disarray.

At 1748 hours this evening the Government released a press statement under the name of the Minister, the Hon Trevor Mallard, announcing that New Zealand leads the way on the anti-doping convention. The press statement states: “ ‘New Zealand is one of the first countries to become party to the UNESCO International Convention against Doping in Sport,’ … Trevor Mallard announced today.” That was before this legislation was debated in the House. He announced in the press statement that we formally became a party to this convention last weekend. It seems to me to be ironic that we are joining things before we actually have the legislation in place to underpin them. In fact, I think it is a damn outrage.

Then when I thought about the Minister’s statement I noticed the originality of this Labour Government. I will read from the Hansard in the name of one Chris Tremain, my colleague from the next electorate north, in Napier. He said during the first reading of this bill: “As a result, the National Party supports the introduction of the bill. We believe that it will seek to preserve what is intrinsically valuable about sport, which is characterised by values such as honesty, ethics, fairness, health, respect, courage, commitment, and solidarity.”

I ask members to remember those words, because tonight in the press statement being used by the Labour Government, the Minister states “… where honesty, ethics, fairness, health,”—have members heard those words before—“respect, and courage drive outstanding performances, …”. Labour members are stealing National Party words and promoting them as their own, such is the bereft nature of this administration.

From a foreign affairs perspective I would just like to recall that in February 1999—this is now 2006, 7 years later—the IOC convened the first world conference on doping in sport. It was attended by the sports movements and Governments of the world to consider the problem of doping. As a result of that sportspeople came together and countries came together, because it was recognised that the issue of doping in sport, just like the bad behaviour of our young people in our electorates, cannot be tackled by one party alone. There are some actions that sports organisations can take and some they cannot—and similarly with Governments. But by sport and Government joining forces, the problem of doping in sport could be better tackled for the good of sport throughout the world.

It is on that basis that I am here tonight to support this legislation on the part of the people in my electorate, the Wairarapa. “Be true to yourself, be true to your sport” is the message I want to deliver to New Zealand sportspeople, to coaches, to teachers, to family, and to community members who are involved in sport. That message is geared towards reminding sports participants about the need to engage in sport in an ethical manner, to respect the principles of fair play, honesty, and respect for diversity, and to be completely doping free. I have the same expectations of young people in my electorate who, earlier in the week and last week, I talked about as being somewhat out of control.

I rise tonight on behalf of the people in my electorate, which, as you know, Mr Deputy Speaker, goes from Cook Strait through to the back of Te Mata peak. My constituents on the southern east coast of the North Island are strong supporters of sport. Whether it is the Wairarapa Bush rugby team, which is doing so well at the moment, or one of 750 cyclists who rode around Lake Wairarapa on a beautiful day last Sunday, people in my community are opposed in all respects to the use of drugs in sport. My community is opposed, as well, to the production of drugs, particularly P, which I know to be taking place in my electorate.

Accordingly, as a member of the National Party—the next Government of New Zealand—I rise to support a legislative framework to facilitate our country’s compliance with the World Anti-Doping Code. For listeners beyond this House I would just say that what we are talking about here in relation to this business of doping is the use of performance-enhancing drugs such as anabolic steroids, particularly those that are forbidden by the organisations that regulate competitions.

💬 Eric Roy: Testosterone.

Yes, testosterone is a drug. I tell my colleague from the deep south that the first recorded attempt to enhance the performance of a sportsman occurred as early as the 8th century BC when ancient Greek Olympians ate sheep’s testicles. Today we would recognise that as being a source of testosterone, and we have a lot that in the Wairarapa, too.

💬 Eric Roy: Very tasty.

It is very tasty, yes, I am well aware.

💬 Eric Roy: Prairie oysters!

Yes, it could be a substitute for Viagra. As early as the late 19th century, professional cyclists were using substances like caffeine, cocaine, and ether-coated sugar cubes to improve performance, reduce pain, and delay fatigue. In 1904 Olympian Thomas Hicks from America won the marathon at St Louis and collapsed. It took hours to revive him. He had taken brandy mixed with strychnine—I know of some other people who could use that. Anyway, he took it to help him win a gold medal. The Nazi German athletes were rumoured to use rudimentary testosterone—advanced from the state of sheep appendages—in the 1936 summer Olympics. At the world weightlifting championships of 1954 there were the first unconfirmed testosterone injections by Soviet athletes—the doping attempt ended in the Soviets’ winning the gold medal in most weight classes and breaking several world records.

During the 1967 Tour de France Tom Simpson collapsed during the ascent of Mont Ventoux. Despite mouth-to-mouth resuscitation and the administration of oxygen, plus a helicopter airlift to a nearby hospital, he died. Two tubes of amphetamines and a further empty tube were found in a rear pocket of his racing jersey. The famous case of drug use in the 1988 summer Olympics also comes to mind, with the name Ben Johnson being prominent in most people’s minds. We need to bring these things to a halt. For this reason National is very, very supportive of this bill.

Sport is about competing. It is about performing to the best of one’s ability; the pursuit of human and sporting excellence. Taking prohibited substances or using prohibited methods is cheating, it is unfair, and it is contrary to the ethics of sport and fair play. Doping undermines the fundamental spirit of sport and severely damages the integrity, image, and value of sport. We firmly stand against it—as we stand against a Government that plagiarises the words of its opponents to use in its press statements, and as we stand against a Government that signs up to agreements offshore without first having the legislative framework go through this Parliament so that it can act honourably.

We note tonight the total silence in this debate on the part of the Government. It concerns me greatly, and it should concern the people of New Zealand, that the Government is silent on this issue, just as it is silent in our communities on bringing and encouraging our young people to play sport and to develop standards, ethics, and behavioural patterns that are acceptable. I am really concerned about the damage being done in our communities by the policies of this Government, which taxes our parents so heavily that they have to spend their whole day at work and they are ignoring their kids. Their kids are not in organised sport. Their kids are exposed to drugs.

Children in my community display unacceptable behaviour, and in my own experience there is no support from parents because they are too busy. There is no support from the police force at a community level to deal with this situation and to help children define boundaries. I think the time has come to hold this Government to task to deliver decent outcomes to our young people, as well as to our sportsmen. Thank you.

Pretty much all that needs to be said on the bill has been said thus far. It is interesting listening to the debate. New Zealand First supports the progress of the Sports Anti-Doping Bill through to the Committee stage. From sitting here, the different speakers who stand up to speak on sport are noticeable. Some, like the honourable Eric Roy, who has returned to the House—and I am pleased to see that he is back here—have an extensive sporting background. Even today he still tramps the hills, and they still talk about him down in Southland and how active he is in outdoor recreation, hunting, and shooting. There are others like my colleague Damien O’Connor, who still plays rugby with me in the parliamentary rugby team.

But I do note that very often the only time people making comments on sport are seen anywhere near a sportsground is when they are out there trying to glad-hand their way through an election, trying to score some votes. It tends to make me take with a handful of salt what they have to say about sport and recreation in general. I know they are non-participants. They are the proverbial couch potatoes of New Zealand who have a lot to say about sport from the comfort of their armchairs, and they tend to reflect that in the way they appear.

It was interesting to hear the previous speaker, John Hayes, straying off the subject and attacking the Government for this, that, and every other thing. I am not here to be an apologist for the Labour Government, but I say to the member who has just spoken that when he talks about whole families having to work day in, day out and not being able to attend sporting events together, he should remember the name of one Ruth Richardson.

💬 David Bennett: Oh, a great MP!

The National Party new boy—the lad who cannot keep his mouth shut during question time, during points of order—says she was a great MP. Let me tell that member that not everyone in New Zealand looks upon the years of Ruth Richardson with the same rose-tinted glasses he has.

When Mr Hayes wants to criticise the situation we have today, where people have to work day in, day out, and do not get time to spend time with their families on the sports fields watching their children, he should reflect back on what happened in this country between 1990 and 1996. I have to say that I did my level best for New Zealand when I stood against Ruth Richardson and helped reduce her margin from a majority of about 7,000 down to 540 on the night. She was so badly punished by the electorate for the way she handled the New Zealand economy and for the way, through her “Ruthanasia” policies, she denied young families the opportunity to spend quality time together, that her leader, Jim Bolger, fired her as the Minister of Finance. She spat the dummy and resigned. That is probably the most unsporting conduct I have ever seen from someone—that having lost her job as a Cabinet Minister, she spat the dummy, resigned, and walked away from Parliament altogether. It did the country a favour. It caused a by-election and we moved on.

So when we talk about the inability of families to spend quality time with their children, and when we talk about the inability of New Zealanders to put as much time as possible into voluntarily supporting sport and recreation—being on the netball club committee, being a coach, assisting to move children in the morning from one venue to another to partake in sport—let us be absolutely clear. Mr Hayes himself used words such as “standards”, “ethics”, “morals”, and “honesty”. Well, let us have some standards, some ethics, and some moral fortitude. Let us have some honesty and put our hands up and say that, yes, the National Government, between 1990 and 1996, played as big a part in destroying that as anybody else that member might like to criticise today. [Interruption] The new boy on the block just cannot keep his mouth shut when it comes to interjections. He has a lot to say, but we are waiting to hear something of value come out of his mouth. We are waiting and waiting.

Let us remember what we have done in our past, when we stand up and dare to flick criticism. Members talk about standards, ethics, moral behaviour, and honesty. I looked at the membership of the Government Administration Committee. On it are three Labour Party members and three National Party members: Shane Ardern, Brian Connell, Sandra Goudie, Russell Fairbrother, Ross Robertson, and the Hon Dover Samuels. A paragraph on page 2 of the commentary talks about information sharing. I note with interest: “The majority of the committee are satisfied that it would be undesirable for the bill to be amended to require the Agency to share information with the Police about the results of blood or urine tests.” It says “the majority of the committee”—which has three National and three Labour members. It does not say “unanimous”; it says “majority”. That suggests to me that, to get a majority, three on one side had to be supported by one on the other. I would like to know who it was on the National Party side, or on the Labour Party side, who did not agree with his or her colleagues. Clearly, someone believed that that information should have been able to be passed to the police. Members can see that on page 2 of the commentary.

So the question is that if we are to stand up and talk about the problem of drugs in our community, as Mr Hayes did, and say how terrible it is that we are promoting tolerance towards recreational drugs and how that affects sports anti-doping legislation and the practice of doping in sport, then why can we not be honest about who on the committee did not want the police to have the information about who in the sporting fraternity was using drugs? Clearly, it was not a unanimous view. Someone on that committee—with three National members and three Labour members—did not agree with his or her colleagues. Someone on that committee said: “To heck with this. If they’re taking drugs, the police should know.” I would like to think it was my mate Brian Connell, because Brian Connell is an honest man. Brian Connell cannot tolerate lawbreakers. I say this because I have served with Brian Connell on the Law and Order Committee for so long. My heart tells me that he would have a totally uncompromising view on drug use.

But someone in his party does compromise his or her view. Someone thinks that the police should not know, and it would be really interesting to know who it was, given National’s long-touted view on law and order and its opposition to drug use. Someone on that committee does not share Brian Connell’s view. I would love to know who. Was it Shane Ardern? I doubt it. Was it Sandra Goudie from Coromandel? Well, hello! We all know about Coromandel. I would love Sandra Goudie to come clean. Did she side with the Government? Did that National member Sandra Goudie side with the Labour members on the Government Administration Committee and determine that drug cheats should not be allowed to be exposed to the police? I am looking—as Mr Hayes said—for honesty, integrity, openness, and a high standard of moral behaviour.

I would like Sandra Goudie to come down to the House, because my heart tells me that Brian Connell would dob in drug cheats to the police as quick as a flash. My heart tells me that Shane Ardern would dob them in to the police as quick as a flash. My heart tells me that Shane Ardern and Brian Connell would not want these drug cheats to be able to hide from the law. But someone in National sided with Labour and said that, no, this information should be kept confidential. Mr Hayes gave a good speech. He preached high on honesty, on ethics, and on morality. I am now calling upon the member of the National team who voted with Labour to guarantee anonymity and secrecy on the question of who is using drugs and what the results of the blood or urine tests say.

The Green Party is supporting the Sports Anti-Doping Bill. The discussion has been a good one. The very bad consequences of drug use in sport have been outlined by previous speakers. The health effects are substantial.

Two of the most prominent cases of drug use in New Zealand sport that led to what appears to be early death involve Robin Tait, the discus thrower, and Graham May, the weightlifter. Those people died young, probably as a result of drug use in their sports. We have to realise why drug use takes place. It is not just a case of individuals taking drugs for their own gratification. One of the problems is the nature of sport, particularly the nature of professional sport, in the world today. A huge amount of money is involved. One can become a multimillionaire overnight and famous throughout the world. Very often sport is tied up with national pride, so pressure is put on the officials as well as the athletes to bend the rules and engage in drugs in sport.

Even New Zealand, in its own way, can encourage that situation by the way it sometimes promotes sport. I am referring here to the controversy that happened after Sport and Recreation New Zealand announced its grants for high-performance sports. The criteria for receiving these grants seemed to include sports that New Zealand could win at internationally. When the approach of winning is taken as being the main criterion, the door is opened to the use of drugs in sport. I am not saying that would be the case in New Zealand, but it would be the case in some other countries. For example, Sport and Recreation New Zealand gave money to sports that would most likely win at the Olympics or the Commonwealth Games, and left aside the most popular participation sport in New Zealand today in terms of the number of kids playing—soccer. It is obvious that because soccer is an international sport, and we are a country of just over 4 million people, we would be very unlikely to win the World Cup. But we should still encourage high performance in this sport, just as other countries do. Other countries take pride in their small successes in soccer, and they do not have the goal that they have to win or it is nothing. So I think Sport and Recreation New Zealand is going down the sort of track that has encouraged the use of drugs in sport overseas.

It is very disheartening for people competing in international sports such as athletics—particularly for women in athletics, from the sprint events through to middle distance—to know they are very unlikely to break a world record. The world record holders in women’s athletics are all from Eastern European countries, China, and the United States. Those countries engaged heavily in drug use for their sportspeople, and this was encouraged by officials. The records of Florence Griffith Joyner in the 100 metres and 200 metres, of Eastern Europeans such as Jarmila Kratochvilova, and of the Chinese runner Qu Yunxia in the 1,500 metres were set quite a while ago and are very unlikely to be broken, because they were so drug-induced. Well, that is the suspicion; there is no proof, because we did not have the testing regime at that time. It is good that we are bringing forward a bill like this one, because we need that testing, nationally and internationally, to be able to stop that sort of thing from happening in the future.

However, there could still be a problem. Examples have been raised already about the cheating that has been encouraged for a period by the American athletics authorities. It seems that those authorities have upped their act, and they now have some good people in their sports drug agencies. But there have been scandals, with the most recent one involving the 100 metres world record holder Justin Gatlin. Previously, scandals involved Tim Montgomery and, as was mentioned by a previous speaker, Carl Lewis. There is a history of drug scandals, so we cannot even trust the men’s world records completely, given that they all come from the United States—if we go from the 100 metres through to the 400 metres and include the hurdles. So that is a problem for young athletes.

It is important to have people motivated and to have role models, but it is very hard to have those things if there is not a level playing field and if the world records that athletes are competing against were set through the use of drugs. There have been a number of scandals recently in other sporting areas like cycling. The most recent example occurred during the Tour de France, when Floyd Landis was found to have taken drugs, and on many occasions there has been suspicion about the previous winner of the Tour de France, Lance Armstrong.

We are dealing with a serious problem, and it is important to try to set a bit of a lead in the world on this issue in terms of adhering to the world anti-doping code. I think that with our example, and by working with other countries, we can perhaps bring countries like China along. In the past, China has been engaged in drugs in sport at the level of officials and athletes. Hopefully, China is moving beyond that, although, obviously, the national pride element comes in and the Chinese will want to do well in the 2008 Olympics. So the pressure of the world community will, hopefully, stop that from happening.

We should encourage very serious penalties, such as lifetime bans, for athletes who are found to be using drugs in sport. It is disheartening to see that some of the bans last only for a year or two before those athletes are back in their sport. We have to be very serious about the bans. It is good that this bill has a clause stating that New Zealand athletes have to be involved in decision making on drug rules, because athletes definitely do not want to compete against people who are influenced by drugs. So athletes will help to strengthen the procedures and the penalties.

It is a big battle because often the chemists for the cheats are one step ahead of the testers. But if the world works together, we can help to reduce that gap. There are various techniques we could use, like keeping blood and urine samples for some time into the future so that we can apply new tests on earlier samples. There are ways to reduce the use of drugs in sport that I think the Sports Anti-Doping Bill will enhance. The Greens support this bill. Thank you.

Kia ora, Mr Deputy Speaker, kia ora tātou. The Māori Party is pleased to stand and support the Sports Anti-Doping Bill in our desire and commitment to promote health, fairness, and equality for athletes throughout the globe. We do so with genuine pleasure because sport is one area where the statistics for tangata whenua are exceptional, and I stand as an example of that.

Indeed, although the majority of Māori adults are active—apparently around 67 percent—this is an area where Māori men in particular come into their own. I must say that following the somewhat depressing kōrero associated with the Succession (Homicide) Bill earlier today, it restores the spirit to be able to stand in this House and share the achievements of Māori men in regard to this bill, for Māori men spend more time being active per week than all other adults in the country as a whole. The record shows that young Māori men particularly excel in this area. Seventy-one percent of young Māori spend, on average, 7.7 hours per week taking part in sport and active leisure. That is a whole hour more than members have spent in the Chamber today, so it is quite a big period of time. And we are not just busy being fit—information from Sport and Recreation New Zealand states that even in our downtime we are busy looking for a new sport or active leisure activity. More than half of Māori adults have the desire to be even more fit than they currently are.

Given this profile, the Māori Party will support the implementation of the World Anti-Doping Code as a key means of being able to preserve the fundamental rights of athletes to participate in dope-free sport. It is also in light of this profile that we strongly support the recommendation from the Government Administration Committee that Drug Free Sport New Zealand consult with, advise, and assist Sport and Recreation New Zealand and athletes. Although the sporting bureaucracy, namely local bodies, the New Zealand Olympic Committee, and national sporting bodies, etc., will no doubt have the expert experience to do everything necessary to comply with and implement the rules of Drug Free Sport New Zealand, the perspectives of athletes themselves must be considered as a unique and necessary source of advice.

As a case in point, I want to consider one of the world’s fastest-growing sports, waka ama. In March of this year the Waka Ama IVF Va’a World Sprint Champs 2006 attracted up to 5,000 international competitors from 26 countries, including Pacific nations, the United States, Canada, and countries in Asia and Europe. On a scale as significant as this, the importance of ensuring harmonised, coordinated, and effective anti-doping programmes is critical if we are to retain our international reputation. In line with the constitution of Ngā Kaihoe o Aotearoa, the governing body, the taking of specified drugs is banned from this sport. The emphasis in the testing places importance on the identification of performance-enhancing drugs, although a full, broadband test is also administered at any event. If a positive test is confirmed, the paddler concerned appears before the Ngā Kaihoe o Aotearoa disciplinary committee, by whom particular penalties may be imposed. The penalty imposed may be that the paddler is suspended from all competition in the sport in any national or international event for a minimum period of 2 years. Re-entry into the sport can occur only on the basis of a negative test.

I draw upon this example for two reasons. The first is that in a bill that jumbles up a whole lot of quangos and agencies—the Sports Disputes Tribunal, Drug Free Sport New Zealand, Sport and Recreation New Zealand, the New Zealand Olympic Committee, and so on—it is important to understand how the system practically impacts on the individual athlete in any sporting arena.

The second reason I draw on the case of waka ama is, of course, the recent phenomenon associated with this elite sport and the unique capacity that tangata whenua have demonstrated to excel in it. I remember hearing earlier this year of a Māori woman describing how the children of Tai Rāwhiti had left home as schoolchildren and returned home after the waka ama event as world champions. They attributed their success to the traditional training they benefited from through wānanga. The traditions associated with waka are interspersed throughout our whakapapa. They demonstrate our proud history of entrepreneurship, of risk taking, and of adventure, and, in a more contemporary sense, they show us Māori realising our potential through sport. So it is probably no surprise that New Zealand was placed second after Tahiti for the number of gold medals won, and first overall, with 63 medals in total. It is therefore an excellent example to put before this House of a sporting body, of athletes, and of constitutions that are achieving international status and, at the same time, doing all they can to comply with international agreements and arrangements concerning doping in sport to which New Zealand is a party.

I want to raise one other significant issue in the context of this bill, and that is the complex and highly sensitive issue associated with the testing of bodily fluids as directed in the anti-doping rules and principles that are accepted by most of the world’s international sporting organisations. Matters concerning the storage, returning, and disposal of DNA are of utmost relevance for tangata whenua in our respect for whakapapa and the preservation of mana tangata, mana tupuna. Whakapapa guides us in knowing who we are, from whom we descend, and what our obligations are to those who come after us. It is because of the sacred significance of whakapapa, the unique genetic blueprint for every human life, that we would seek particular caution in the handling of large amounts of body fluids. The implementation of the anti-doping sporting code involves, of course, the collection of genetic samples and data from athletes, including indigenous peoples. Our commitment to preserving the unique design of whakapapa leads us to scrutinise any research so as to ensure that it complies with the protocols that protect human rights.

It is not long ago that the Genographic Project proposed to take over 100,000 blood samples and historical knowledge from indigenous peoples around the world. The project of the National Geographic Society, IBM Corporation, and the Waitt Family Foundation sought to collect blood and other bodily tissue samples from over 700 different indigenous communities. It was, of course, in Aotearoa that 150 participants from 14 UN nation States developed the Mātaatua declaration in June 1993, which calls: “for an immediate halt to the ongoing ‘Human Genome Diversity Project’ (HUGO) until its moral, ethical, socio-economic, physical and political implications have been thoroughly discussed, understood and approved by indigenous peoples.”

Strangely enough, despite international resistance and the eventual cancellation of the Human Genome Diversity Project, a 5-year project recently emerged to reconstruct a genealogy of the world’s populations. As I said earlier, the project of the National Geographic Society and IBM Corporation aims to collect 100,000 blood samples from indigenous populations around the world. According to its supporters, the project would help map humanity’s genealogy. However, the Indigenous People’s Council on Biocolonialism has voiced its opposition to the project and the genetic testing. We urge the international community and the United Nations to participate with indigenous peoples in developing international policies and conventions that protect all life forms from genetic manipulation and destruction.

We can, of course, appreciate how scientists and biologists of the world would want to look at indigenous populations in order to grow the perfect child. It goes back to the start of my speech—to the outstanding example of tangata whenua as a model specimen for health and fitness. The influence and promulgation of dope—of any illicit drug, of course—stands to ride roughshod over that ideal model.

Finally, I pick up on the point made by the Hon Phil Goff this afternoon, in response to Ron Mark, when he referred to the drug that most worries the police—the drug called alcohol. I also refer to a recent statement made by the Prime Minister: “what I know is that tobacco smoking is as addictive and habit-forming a behaviour as addiction to any hard drug like morphine and heroin.” The Māori Party will be interested to see whether attention is drawn in the Committee stage to these other legal, but perhaps more lethal, drugs that serve to threaten the body beautiful. We in Aotearoa have a lot to be proud of, but our major success in the sporting area will be proven by setting a standard internationally that could result in further progress of our sport on the world stage. That means a drug-free and alcohol-free sport. Kia ora tātou.

Bill read a second time.

The House adjourned at 9.47 p.m.