Sports Anti-Doping Bill

I rise once again, in support of Part 2 of the Sports Anti-Doping Bill. I say in response to a couple of contributions that they were right; there was division within the Government Administration Committee. Certainly, it was the select committee members themselves who pursued the issue of whether reporting to the police should be mandatory. On balance, based on the fact that it is not mandatory in the first place to participate in testing, the majority of the select committee decided that reporting should not be mandatory. Also, under other legislation—the Privacy Act and various other bits of legislation—it is actually mandatory to report something, and a Government agency is in breach of the law if it does not report something it knows is outside of the law. That is the reason why we came to that decision.

The second argument that was brought forward, which the majority accepted, was that if we were to impose such a strict regime, there would be less voluntary participation in the testing in the first place. [Interruption] It is voluntary. As stated in the legislation, ultimately one cannot participate in the sport if one does not agree to testing—that part is compulsory—but one is not, under law, required to submit oneself for tests. It is the code, which is decided on, and is administered by, the sporting body, that requires one to have the test. One is not required by the legislation—

💬 Ron Mark: This is in Clayton’s bill?

Well, “Clayton’s bill” is a very good choice of words, I have to say.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): The member must use the Minister’s full name, not just his first name.

All right, I will use the Minister’s full name. It is a “Clayton Cosgrove filling in for the Hon Trevor Mallard” bill. The member Ron Mark is pretty well on the mark.

I thank the Minister in the chair, Clayton Cosgrove, for his contribution. He opened up the debate enormously. I was wondering what I could do as an Opposition member in terms of the debate, when we totally support the bill, but now I can debate almost anything I like. I know that will make your job much more difficult, Mr Chairman, but I will do my best to stay within the normal bounds of what is parliamentary.

The area where I have a concern, which is reflected in Part 2, is the late introduction of Supplementary Order Paper 64, which, of course, the Government Administration Committee did not have an opportunity to go through. As the chair of the select committee I do not want to be caught out by that, so I seek an assurance from the Minister in the chair that clause 48B, “Use of information and evidence gathered under section 48A(1)(a)”, which is on the Supplementary Order Paper, does not introduce something that is enormously outside of the scope of the original bill that the select committee examined. I do not think it does; I think the explanation the Minister gave is accurate, and the measure tidies up some miscellaneous bits and pieces that the officials did not identify prior to the select committee looking at the bill. But I am anxious about that; I do not want that issue to come back as one we have endorsed, when, in fact, we have not. The Minister may care to take a call to allay those fears.

The Government Administration Committee, in the time-honoured tradition of wanting to make sure that we ended up in a solid position and with a fair description of what we were trying to achieve, chose to change the name of the agency. The decision was a little bit controversial, but overwhelmingly the support was there for that to happen, so the name was changed. The select committee recommended that the name of the agency be amended from the New Zealand Sports Drug Agency to Drug Free Sport New Zealand, a name that clearly stated what we were trying to achieve. So that was done, and I congratulate the Government on accepting that.

The other point that is useful to note is that doping is fundamentally contrary to the spirit of sport and puts at risk the ethical principles and education values embodied in the international agreements.

I rise also to speak to Supplementary Order Paper 64, put forward in the name of the Minister, Trevor Mallard. I share the same concern that has been expressed by Shane Ardern about it, because we have not had a chance to consider the implications of the changes. However, if I look at the World Anti-Doping Code—and I just happen to have a copy here with me—I see that article 2.2 refers to the use or attempted use of a prohibited substance or prohibited method. Without reading the further detail of that, on the face of it that looks fine. Article 2.4 relates to the violation of applicable requirements regarding athlete availability for out-of-competition testing, including failure to provide required whereabouts information and missed tests. On the face of it, that looks OK. Article 2.5 relates to tampering or attempting to tamper with any part of doping control.

We could go through those articles bit by bit. For the benefit of anybody who is interested, I say article 2.7 relates to trafficking in any prohibited substance or prohibited method. So the code does cover trafficking, which I think is an interesting point and well worth including. It follows on from the zero tolerance concept. Actually, in speaking about that, I recall that John Hayes, my most excellent colleague on my right, raised the point that the Minister has actually signed into agreements before this bill has been passed. Some conventions have been signed into, and it is quite extraordinary that the Minister has entered into agreements prior to the legislation being adopted.

Having read out clause 48A and considered the issues in relation to it, I have yet to read the rest of the clauses to see what sort of effect they will have. So I will reiterate the call from my most excellent colleague Shane Ardern that the Minister take a call, actually go through the clauses on Supplementary Order Paper 64, and explain what the material changes are. I have explained the change in regard to clause 48A, so he could skip that one. I looked at the change to clause 3 and I found no problem with that. It just sets out a bit more clearly what Drug Free Sport New Zealand is—the fact that it is an independent body. It also sets out quite separately that the tribunal is also an independent body, and it sets out what each of those bodies undertakes. So on the face of it, the change to clause 3 looks fine, and clause 48A looks fine.

We will have to work our way through the rest of the Supplementary Order Paper, perhaps, as the Minister takes a call. He could explain clause 48B, “Use of information and evidence gathered under section 48A(1)(a). That, I think, is quite an important clause, and should not be understated in any way. I would also like the Minister to take a call about clause 48, “Preparation and making of rules before 1 July 2007”. That is new. We are always a little concerned when rules are to be prepared and made, so we require the Minister to get up, take a call, and explain why that measure has suddenly popped in there. He could explain the conditions and dates in that clause, in relation to clauses 16 to 22. If the Minister would do that, it would be greatly appreciated, and we could then support that Supplementary Order Paper with a little more confidence.

In talking further about this bill, I see that these provisions are about the World Anti-Doping Code; they are all about what the World Anti-Doping Agency has in its code. The bill picks up on some of the more pertinent aspects of the code, and with a zero tolerance to drugs and their use in sport—for the benefit of Mr Mark—I think that those particular parts of the Supplementary Order Paper are quite pertinent. I am running out here; I will let my colleague take over.

I will just briefly address the point that Mr Ardern was asking about. Supplementary Order Paper 64 has been reviewed by the Ministry of Justice in respect of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. Clause 48A will allow Drug Free Sport New Zealand to carry out the investigations required under the World Anti-Doping Code. The Supplementary Order Paper does not go beyond what was set out in the bill, but because the commencement date of the bill has been delayed, clause 48A will allow the agency to exercise those functions in the interim period.

The Sports Anti-Doping Bill is a good example of a bipartisan bill, and it is a very important one, because so much of our international reputation hangs on the activities of our athletes. But I am very reluctant to impose responsibility on our athletes without sharing a reasonable understanding of the situation.

I guess, when I speak on this part of the bill—which I am very pleased to support—I have to reflect that, to date, my life has spanned an era from what could be termed pre - drug use to widespread drug use. I can recall that when I was at school, and I am sure some of my senior colleagues on that side of the Chamber can remember a similar period, we only ever heard about drugs. They were not part of our life in any shape or form, particularly from the point of view of performance-enhancing drugs at a sports level. But we were keen on sports, and sports are an intensive, competitive business.

Fairness has to be established by rules. It is not a natural feature of sport. And the rules have to be equally applied. In the case of really good performers, they were often gifted with what we call a natural ability. Natural ability was one of the main contributors to people having real success in teams representing their schools. I suggest that life has continued on that basis for the majority of young sportspeople and sports-minded people ever since.

I remember some years ago when my wife and I visited an isolated township in the far north, in Tai Tokerau, where the local population has an endemic drug-taking problem—a legacy of the hippie period of the 1970s. We were invited to take morning tea with the local schoolteachers who were getting ready for the forthcoming term. They explained to us the difficulty they had in helping kids to avoid getting hooked on drugs and how useful it was to encourage them in sport. They had to do it by the time the kids were about 10 or 11 years old. I guess things go in full circle. Once heavily into sports of a competitive nature, young athletes of today have to be encouraged to avoid becoming hooked on performance-enhancing drugs.

I have never actually excelled particularly in competitive athletics, in field sports, and I make no pretence that I have.

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: That would be right.

But I did have some success in competitive sword fencing. I do not know what sports the Hon Clayton Cosgrove has excelled in; I have not heard about it yet. No doubt he will tell us. But I have never come close to any level of excellence that would lead me to tip the balance in my favour by taking performance-enhancing drugs.

When one thinks, though, of the effort that goes into the training of modern athletes and sportsmen and sportswomen—the endless runs, the swims, the cycling, whatever it is—one realises the huge commitment on the part of individuals, their trainers, their managers, and their families. The temptation to use drugs must be enormous, particularly if others are doing it too. The only way to prevent drugs in sports is to apprehend those who use them and deal with them in a way that discourages others. The whole regime must have a robust, ethical norm that all athletes and trainers can have confidence in. How do we do that? We do it through good legislation and effective agencies.

I note that David Gerrard, the Chairperson of, now, Drug Free Sport New Zealand, formerly known as New Zealand Sports Drug Agency, says in his report, “When good men (and women) do nothing, bad things happen …”. In making his report on the activities of the agency, he is happy to advise that, clearly, good men and women in his organisation have been working very hard. The work is not easy. Doping control officers have a difficult time. It is a job of unpredictable responses and less than warm welcomes. Theirs is frequently a thankless task. However, the measure of their crucial input is recorded in the annual survey of athlete satisfaction, and this year it affirms the confidence the majority of athletes have in the integrity of the process. They might not like it, but it is fair and it works. That is the important thing.

The international code, the World Anti-Doping Code, can be put in place by the legislative effect of the bill. To have the legislative structure will permit Drug Free Sport New Zealand to do its job. National sporting agencies will be able to adopt the rules through their anti-doping policies and in ways that bind national and international athletes as well as officials.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 64 in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard to Part 2 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

Part 2 as amended agreed to.

I think at this time in the debate, before we start on Part 3, it would be appropriate to report progress. I seek leave for that purpose.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): The member does not need to seek leave. I am now in the situation where I have to leave the Chair, anyway.

Progress to be reported presently.

House resumed.

The Chairperson reported progress on the Sports Anti-Doping Bill and no progress on the Communications Legislation Bill.

Report adopted.

The House adjourned at 5.56 p.m.