Sports Anti-Doping Bill

I move, That the Sports Anti-Doping Bill be now read a third time. In doing so, it is my pleasure to have the opportunity to present this bill to the House for its final reading. It is a further milestone in New Zealand’s fight against doping in sport. I will put on the record again, however, that not all sports are moving as quickly as they should in the anti-doping area, and note my particular concern about the rules of racing and the ability of courts to frustrate in that area.

In my introductory speech I referred to the case of Lisa Cropp, who, on 7 May 2005, allegedly rode with methamphetamine and amphetamine in her system, and that case has not yet been heard—it has been continually frustrated by judicial review. As I have said previously, I am very concerned that someone who has not contested the fact that she had those drugs in her system has been allowed to get out repeatedly on a racecourse. It is just wrong, and we need to get that area of the law tidied up in the way that this area has been, because New Zealand is considered a leader by the international community in the battle against doping in sport.

New Zealand was a founding member of the World Anti-Doping Agency and is a strong supporter of the World Anti-Doping Code. In fact, in 2005 we were the fourth country in the world to ratify the international convention against doping. This bill will help to implement the World Anti-Doping Code in New Zealand. It is designed to protect athletes’ fundamental right to participate in dope-free sport, and will allow violations to be handled in a consistent manner. The bill updates the functions and powers of the New Zealand Sports Drug Agency, which will be renamed Drug Free Sport New Zealand. It will continue to be the Government’s adviser on sports anti-doping matters, and will be required to make sports anti-doping rules that reflect the code. In order to implement the code, sports will be able to adopt these rules. The rules will not be compulsory, and sports will be able to implement the code in other ways, if they wish.

The bill also continues the Sports Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand, to be renamed the Sports Tribunal of New Zealand, as the body responsible for hearing anti-doping and other sports-related matters. This tribunal provides an accessible and low-cost forum for sportspeople to resolve disputes and to have other sporting matters heard. I would note that we have taken an approach that is different from Australia’s in designing this legislation. Australia has a complex statute that mandates a national anti-doping scheme. Under the Australian statute and its regulations, sports organisations are required to implement detailed anti-doping policies.

By comparison, our legislation is simple, it is elegant, and, we believe, it better reflects the intent of the World Anti-Doping Code. It sets up a regime that is not mandatory but will build on the commitment and goodwill already established in the international sports community. It provides for a single set of consistent anti-doping rules, which can be implemented by sports through a simple and brief provision in their constitutions. I am confident that our legislation will be used as a model for other countries around the world.

I would like to thank parliamentary counsel, the staff at Sport and Recreation New Zealand, Drug Free Sport New Zealand, and the Sports Disputes Tribunal, and, especially, members of the Government Administration Committee for their hard work in bringing this legislation to fruition. But, most important, I would like to take this opportunity to thank our athletes. They have shown, on the international stage, that New Zealand can compete and win fairly and cleanly. I spent a really interesting few minutes this morning with a young woman called Rebecca Spence, a pupil at Rangitoto College, who has recently won the world junior cycling time trial event and also the world junior duathlon event, within about 3 weeks of each other. It was only her second time trial. She is a brilliant young athlete and someone who will go a long way. But what we talked about was how in some parts of the world, especially in cycling, doping is still rife. So thank you to our athletes who behave so well and are so clean.

The final reading of this bill today shows New Zealand’s commitment to fair play. Sport is a very important part of our national identity, and New Zealanders should be proud that we are leading the way to maintain a fair, level playing field for all athletes. I commend the bill to the House.

I rise on behalf of the National Party in support of the Sports Anti-Doping Bill. I endorse the comments of Minister Mallard about our sportsmen and sportswomen around the world. We are leaders. For a small island nation 12,000 miles away from what most people would describe as being the centre of the universe, at the bottom of the South Pacific, we are world leaders, because per capita we have more people who compete at a high level and do well than most other nations similar to ourselves.

This legislation has as its objective the stamping out of doping in sport. That, in itself, is a very honourable objective. However, after listening to the concerns raised by the Minister about racing, I point out that I have some anxiety that this legislation may be brought back before this Parliament, and that some other amendment may be put forward to stiffen it up in one or two areas. I know that the Government Administration Committee agonised over whether there should be compulsory reporting to the police and other agencies when someone was suspected of taking drugs. On balance, the choice was made not to go with that option. We will not know whether that approach will work until it is tested, but it will be interesting to see what happens with the Australian example just across the Tasman—whether a heavier regulation or a more bureaucratic approach will have a better outcome.

Clearly, we have a proud record of being fair sportspeople, and doping has not been a major issue for New Zealand. But if it were to become a major issue, then clearly we would have to do more. Representatives from Sport and Recreation New Zealand made submissions to the select committee, and they were very precise in what they suggested.

The purpose of the International Convention Against Doping in Sport that the Minister spoke of is to promote the fight against doping in sport, with a view to its elimination. That goal seems very, very honourable. It is an instrument by which Governments can undertake formal commitments to independent practices in a manner consistent with the practice of the World Anti-Doping Agency. Obviously, we should be supporting these moves.

The World Anti-Doping Code, which came into effect on 1 January 2004, provides a uniform set of anti-doping policies, rules, and regulations that can be adopted by all sports in all countries. The majority of the world’s international sporting federations have signed up to the code. Consequently, New Zealand’s national sports organisations are required to comply with the World Anti-Doping Code as a requirement of participation in international sporting events, such as the Olympic Games or other major international events. I do not think anybody could have any problem with that requirement.

The detail of the bill itself left one or two members a little anxious, and I guess it will be only a matter of time before we really know whether the intent that is outlined in the bill will have the desired outcome. I think somebody called the bill a Clayton’s Bill, and in some respects that is true. It does not have a great purpose. It tidies up some loose ends and modernises some of the rhetoric around various regulations. One could ask why the bill was necessary, and various members who spoke in the debate have done so. I guess it will be a matter of time before we know whether the bill is necessary. The fact is that the Sports Anti-Doping Bill is a move forward, but whether it is a big enough move has yet to be tested.

The bill is consistent with the International Convention Against Doping in Sport, but the bill and the convention are entirely independent—neither one is reliant on the other. The introduction and/or passage of the bill does not commit New Zealand to the signing of the convention. In fact, the Government commenced the development of the bill well before the Unesco development and convention. Those who want to be critical can be critical, but the reality is that the bill is a step in the right direction, and I acknowledge that fact. Maybe we will have to come back and debate the bill again, so let us not get too bogged down in the issue of whether it will work until we find out.

It was interesting to note that we were the fourth country in the world to ratify the International Convention Against Doping in Sport. In the light of what I have just heard from the Minister, I wonder why we were not the first country to do so. Maybe that is typical of this Government—being the fourth out of the blocks instead of the first. We have just established that we did not need to pass this legislation in order to sign up to the convention, so I am not sure why we were not the first country to do so. Maybe the Minister got out of bed later than people in some of the northern hemisphere countries did, or maybe the problem was the extra distance he had to travel—who knows? The reality is that we were the fourth country to sign up to the convention, but I guess that is not a bad place to be, as a small island nation at the bottom of the world. We would not be happy with that, of course, if we were dealing with the All Blacks—we would want them to be first. We certainly would not want any of our other sporting teams to come fourth, either. But to be the fourth country to sign up to this convention is not a bad thing. I will not beat the Government up too much about that, but I have to say that it is pretty typical of the Minister to come fourth.

The limited effects of the rules, which will not affect the rights or obligations of the members of the general public, are, on balance, a good thing. In order to get people involved in this kind of voluntary structure, we cannot have heavy-handed regulations that force them to do this or that. We want this process to start at the small clubs in the small schools in the isolated areas around New Zealand, where a culture is built up that drugs or any kind of chemical enhancement of sporting ability is not tolerated. Of course, at that level we cannot enforce such behaviour with some kind of universal or international convention. On balance, I think we have got it about right. We will wait and see what the outcomes are.

Clearly, the signal being sent is that doping in sport will not be tolerated. Those who get involved in the coaching and encouragement of young children can take some heart from that fact. They should read the explanatory note of the bill. I hope one or two of those coaches are listening to this debate, because this is one of those rare occasions when the whole Parliament is in support of a bill and there is no dissention, as far as I can tell. I tell those coaches that they should start at the earliest possible stage in a person’s sporting career or development to introduce the principles that are outlined in this legislation. If possible, coaches should also have a better understanding of the various international conventions that New Zealand is involved in, because if athletes within their group have aspirations to compete internationally, they will be forced to meet the requirements of those codes when doing so.

From a signal point of view, I think that it is quite a good thing that we are taking a softly softly approach at this point in time. Obviously, if people are still not participating at a level that we would see as being desirable—and the Minister used the racing industry as an example of this—then further regulation will be required. I am pleased that the Minister sent out that signal.

I do not think that I can add anything else to the debate today. National has supported this bill from the time it was introduced into the House. It will be good to see where it finishes up and whether we have to do any more. At this point in time, I, for one, am willing to give it a go, and I know that the National Party in general is willing to do so, too. I hope we end up with the desired outcome.

I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to put on the record that New Zealand First supports the passage of the Sports Anti-Doping Bill, the principles behind it, and everything it stands for.

When I am out and about as a member of Parliament, I talk to people—answering questions and explaining the sort of work that I am engaged in. Lately I have been saying that we are currently working on the Sports Anti-Doping Bill. On one occasion a gentleman suggested: “It doesn’t matter what you do legislatively, Ron; you’re not going to stop some people being dopey—end of story.” I guess there is truth in that; there will always be those athletes who seek an advantage, and there will always be some MPs who do their business the way they do.

Speaking of parties, I again have to put on the record the concerns raised by New Zealand First when we read the Government Administration Committee’s report. I raised these concerns about the issues of privacy and information sharing during the Committee stage. I say again, in this third reading, that we note that the select committee reported back that a majority supported the view that information should not be shared with the police. On a select committee drawn up of three National Party members and three Labour Party members, that majority means someone on the National team had to have agreed with Labour.

I have said before that I know in my heart of hearts that Shane Ardern is a man who, when he says “zero tolerance”, means it. I know my colleague from down south Brian Connell to be a man of his word and a man of honour; a man who says what he means and means what he says. If he says he stands for zero tolerance, he means it. This leaves only one person who needs to come to this House and explain her vote in this reading of the bill, and that is Sandra Goudie. Quite clearly, her view of zero tolerance in terms of drug use and law and order is more aligned with that of Labour than that of National. That is why she broke ranks and voted with the Government on that particular clause.

💬 Judith Collins: This is outrageous!

It is outrageous, as Judith Collins says. I agree with her; it is absolutely outrageous that someone who preaches zero tolerance, who runs around this country condemning Māori up hill and down dale for drug use, and who condemns people for the use of marijuana should vote against mandatory reporting.

💬 Judith Collins: Are you going to apologise to Sandra Goudie for that?

Sandra Goudie—I say to Judith Collins who loves to interject—has every opportunity to come to this House to say that she did not vote in support of retention of the proposal that there should not be mandatory reporting.

Judith Collins is an esteemed person, who obviously went past fifth form, and she knows that three and three are equal numbers. To get a majority there must be four against two. Therefore, someone has to fess up and say that he or she has a different view of zero tolerance when it comes to the use of drugs, and does not believe that people should automatically be reported to the police if they are found to be in breach of the code. That is all we ask—for someone to be upfront and clear about his or her position on this. The issue has obviously hit a very serious nerve with some National members on the front bench.

If we want to go down that path and talk about restrictions on people expressing their views, I will also put on the record that it is disappointing that a member who sits on the Government Administration Committee has not been permitted to speak in this House on that bill. I speak of Brian Connell. Brian Connell and I worked on the Law and Order Committee for years, and I found him to be a staunch advocate of law—

💬 Anne Tolley: He spoke last night.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Anne Tolley just said: “That is a lie.”, which is outside the Standing Orders and an unparliamentary term. Just because she is a whip does not mean to say she can get away with that sort of nonsense.

💬 Judith Collins: I think Mr Mark may have misheard Mrs Tolley. I heard her say: “He spoke last night.”, and Mr Connell did. I think Mr Mark should stick to the bill and stop making ridiculous comments about Mr Connell.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I accept the view from the member on my left.

So do I, Mr Deputy Speaker. It was gunner’s ear, as they say; I thought I had heard something different. But if Mr Connell was permitted to speak last night, then I assume he will be allowed to speak today. I look forward to his contribution today, because a little birdie had indicated to me that maybe he might not be allowed to speak. If we have just curtailed that decision, then that is a good thing because I value Brian Connell’s contributions. I value his contributions down in the South Island. I, and New Zealand First as a party, have always been very appreciative of the support he has given to legislation that seeks to interdict drug dealers, drug users, anyone who distributes drugs, and anyone who in any way advocates that there is something OK about drug use, or the illicit drug use that we are trying to deal with in this legislation.

People like Brian Connell are hugely valuable to this House. Their contributions in the past have been invaluable, and we look forward to more contributions. We look forward to hearing an announcement from the National Party that it has stopped its petty vindictiveness and has reinstated Mr Connell in the caucus to allow him to participate 100 percent as the duly elected member for Rakaia—[Interruption]—which he is, I tell Anne Tolley. In fact, I tell that member that he is an elected member, and that is something we should acknowledge. We should ensure that he is accorded the right he so duly and justly has to speak on any issue whenever he pleases.

If New Zealand First has some concerns about the bill, they lie around the privacy issues, but we are prepared to go with the select committee’s decisions and recommendations that the names of athletes who have tested positive to prohibitive substances should be kept private prior to the hearing process. But we reinforce the words of the Minister for Sport and Recreation in saying that, where an athlete has been found to be using not just a performance-enhancing drug but an illegal drug such as methamphetamine, we want it on the record that we have grave reservations that his or her name will not be made known. I ask the House to consider the fact that athletes who aspire to achieve at a high level, both nationally and internationally, draw with them a huge amount of adoration from our young. They become role models; knowingly, wilfully or not—they do. They are people whom young people see on television every night, every weekend, and every month, and those young people adore, respect, and admire those athletes. To have an athlete who is known to be a methamphetamine user out there in the sporting world, adored, loved, and admired by young people who have no knowledge, and whose parents have no knowledge, that that athlete is a user of illicit drugs, is something we would question the value of.

So we will accept the word of the six honourable members on the select committee, but I think we should underline the words of Shane Ardern in his contribution that in time, once this bill has run something of its course, we might need to review some of those questions, should it be proved we need to. Everyone loves our All Blacks, our Silver Ferns, and our great international athletes, but there is no room for respect or adoration to be built around athletes who are users, or even distributors, of illicit, illegal, and harmful drugs. That would do us no good as a nation at all.

The Green Party, of course, supports the Sports Anti-Doping Bill, but I want to talk in its third reading on why sports doping itself is more prevalent now than it was in the past, and why people have such a desperation to win that they will affect their own health so dramatically. Of course, some of them die very young, and we need just to see examples of that, like Robin Tait and Graham May in New Zealand sport, or Florence Griffith Joyner, the American woman athlete. The suspicion is that the drugs they took had some impact on their shorter lives.

I think there are four reasons—although there has been change over time—why people are motivated to win at all costs and to take drugs to do so. The first is the simple reason of the personal gratification of winning. That has been unchanged over time, but I do not think that it alone pushes people into drug taking very much.

The second factor is public acclaim, which has been with us for a long time, too, but I think its nature has changed. New Zealand’s great winner in the 1,500 metres at the 1936 Berlin Olympics, Jack Lovelock, got great public acclaim—domestically in New Zealand, and internationally. But the nature of the acclaim athletes win has changed as we have become a more globalised world. The era of global communications, television coverage, etc., means that an athlete’s victory is more immediately seen by billions of people around the world, particularly if it is at an Olympic Games. Athletes can travel around the world much more easily, live in the aura of their victories, and be acclaimed by people in many lands. There is quite a difference, I think, between a Jack Lovelock and what he could do following his 1,500-metre victory in 1936, and what for instance Carl Lewis was able to achieve in the athletics world, in terms of public acclaim. The latter became not just a victor, but a celebrity on a world stage.

The third factor that pushes people towards drug taking is national pride. That motivates individuals to do well; they want to do well for their nation. But there is a bad side to it as well, particularly in terms of the people behind the athletes—the people pushing the athletes. Sometimes national pride, in relation to the activities of national sports organisations, can lead to drug taking. We have seen that particularly in the more authoritarian countries that want the glory of sports success to shore up their reputations both domestically and internationally. We saw it with the Nazis back in the 1930s. They wanted to win a lot of medals, etc., at the Olympics to gain domestic support, and to try to reduce the criticisms of their policies internationally.

The practice carried on in the post-war years in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, where there was a huge amount of drug taking by athletes. Some of the world records on the books today, particularly in respect of women’s athletics, were attained by Eastern European athletes whom everyone now recognises were into wholesale drug taking. Drug taking was organised by the sporting authorities. In fact, sportspeople would not get into teams unless they took drugs. I think the same thing occurred in China for a period, particularly when women distance athletes were breaking world records, some of which are still on the books. The women’s world record for the 1,500 metres is an example. Beyond the authoritarian countries, some other countries turned a blind eye to drug taking in sports for a period. The United States athletic authorities turned a blind eye to some of their country’s sprinters, in particular, taking drugs, but those people were subsequently caught out by drug tests. It does not happen so much in the US today because a better sporting regime is in place.

The fourth factor that is becoming more and more important in terms of pushing people into drug taking is the money involved in sport as we have moved not only to professional sports on a more universal basis but also to global sport where a huge amount of money is available to teams that win. Sportspeople in those teams, or individuals in global sport, particularly soccer, tennis, golf, and basketball, can become multimillionaires very quickly if they win. Their winning attracts global sponsorship, such as has happened for people like Michael Jordan, Tiger Woods, and Carl Lewis, etc.

So all of those four factors put great temptation in front of sportspeople to take drugs, and the sporting bodies to encourage or somehow allow that to happen. It is good that this bill is part of an international movement to establish proper processes to reduce the possibility of that, although it is a battle between those who are involved in doping, and are well-financed because of all the rewards I have just talked about, and the sporting authorities, which sometimes have less funds to keep up.

As there is always a bit of a delay between the development of the method of doping and the development of the testing regime, I think it is important to try to get around that by keeping blood samples for a while so that new tests can be applied to them. That would mean that people who cheat by using drugs can perhaps be caught out a year or two later and have their medals taken off them. Also, I think the penalties have to be very strong. In professional sports, there needs to be much more banning for life rather than for just a 6-month or year suspension. I think that a serious penalty is needed.

It is incumbent on every sports body and agency in New Zealand to try to change the culture as much as possible in terms of the four factors I have mentioned, so that drug taking does not take place. Perhaps, in one respect, the Government and Sport and Recreation New Zealand need to have another look at their practices. I support most of what the Government and Sport and Recreation New Zealand are doing in terms of funding sport. Sport and Recreation New Zealand has two funds: one for high performance sport and one for generally encouraging more participation in sport. Unfortunately, with the high performance grants that Sport and Recreation New Zealand gives, there has been some debate of late in terms of the latest round of funding. In its choice of sport it seems to be encouraging the concept that winning is all. That has been to the disadvantage of high-participation sports like soccer. The soccer people have been a bit critical of Sport and Recreation New Zealand in this respect. Even though more kids play soccer, it is very hard for the New Zealand soccer team to win internationally—that is, to win the World Cup—so the high-performance grants tend to be given to other sports.

I am not against these sports getting money, but I think we should recognise a difference between team sports like soccer and other team sports, like rugby, which fewer people play internationally, giving New Zealand a better chance of winning. That is not to take anything away from the All Blacks, or from individual sports, such as rowing, where New Zealand has a greater chance of winning because fewer countries fully engage in those sports and a greater number of medals are on offer compared with team sports. I think there has to be a balance.

We need to take up the calls of basketball and soccer to also be part of this high-performance grants system. Even though they may not necessarily win at an international level, we want to reward high performance and to reward teams getting to international events, such as the All Whites did in the World Cup in 1982, even if they do not go beyond the first round. Achievements such as that should be equally rewarded. Although Sport and Recreation New Zealand is very much involved in trying to stop sports doping, if it adopts too much the “winning is all” philosophy, then it will, against its intentions, help keep the culture going that encourages sports doping—the very thing that this bill is against.

Kia ora, Mr Deputy Speaker; kia ora tātou te Whare. In picking up on what the previous speaker said, I note that if the country was going to reward success through Sport and Recreation New Zealand funding, waka ama would probably get millions and rugby would not get anywhere near as much as it does, because for all of its relative support from sponsors and from the Government, its success at the highest level has yet to be achieved.

We know that Aotearoa is a world leader in promoting and supporting drug-free sport. We are a founding member of the World Anti-Doping Agency, and we were one of the first countries to introduce domestic sports drug-testing. So the Māori Party is happy to congratulate the New Zealand Sports Drug Agency on its excellent work in providing drug-free sports education to our national sporting bodies and other key agencies, in providing effective drug-testing procedures, and in providing educational and research programmes to underline our commitment as a nation to fair play in sport.

We also see this bill as an opportunity for this Parliament to take note of other values that we can draw on from our nation’s athletes: values such as integrity, honesty, justice, morality, and fairness—values that Mr Shane Jones assures me are likely to be unfamiliar to many in this House, but that exist in abundance in the Māori Party caucus.

This bill also gives the Sports Tribunal of New Zealand greater power to obtain evidence and conduct hearings on doping cases in sport. But it raises the question of whether a sports ban is a sufficient penalty, particularly given that in Italy drug cheats are prosecuted as criminals, whereas in Aotearoa it remains a civil rather than a criminal offence.

I would also like to mention another key player that is promoting this bill, and that is Sport and Recreation New Zealand, which through its credibility and expertise right across the sporting world has played a big role in bringing together comments and opinion from national sports organisations, athletes, and other key stakeholders on draft anti-doping rules. Within Sport and Recreation New Zealand there is also a national network of Māori organisers that have operated under the banner of He Oranga Poutama since 1988. It is a great example of an initiative to develop healthier, more active lifestyles for Māori people. It is also due to the hard work of both the New Zealand Sports Drug Agency and Sport and Recreation New Zealand that Aotearoa has been at the forefront of the fight against doping, and the Māori Party is happy to record its gratitude to those two bodies for their efforts to protect an athlete’s fundamental right to participate in drug-free sport.

In closing, I would like to mention one of the key stakeholders in the Sport and Recreation New Zealand structure, one Dallas Seymour, a former New Zealand Sevens representative and All Black who, along with Eric Rush, was one of the most talented sevens players in the world. He was highly respected for the energy and thinking he brought to the game, and for the school he attended, St Stephen’s College. And, of course, his wife, Julie, after bringing three little Seymours into the world, revitalised her own netball career and was selected for the New Zealand netball team that recently played against the Australians. In the Seymour family we see all the values that we want to promote in sport and some of the positive aspects we want to see in our athletes. In fact, I was reading a blurb about Dallas the other day, where he said: “I’m Māori. I’m passionately proud of our country. It’s always been an enormous privilege for me to pull on the black jersey with the silver fern—in sixteen years of representing New Zealand I never took that moment for granted. For me, the jersey was motivating—each time I wore it I was deeply aware of its history and meaning, which meant I knew I could perform to the best of my abilities.”

This House can learn a lot from the leadership that our athletes exhibit. The Māori Party will support the Sports Anti-Doping Bill, and we do so because of the motivation that people like Dallas Seymour give us to honour the spirit and the history of Aotearoa. Kia ora tātou.

Bill read a third time.

The House adjourned at 5.43 p.m.