Integrity Sport and Recreation Bill

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I am pleased to rise in support of the Integrity Sport and Recreation Bill at second reading, and to confirm that the National Party will be supporting this bill through its remaining stages.

I join with the Minister for Sport and Recreation in firstly acknowledging the collegial nature that the Social Services and Community Committee embarked on. I’m not a permanent member of that, but I was quite heavily involved for this item of business—well chaired by Angie Warren-Clark—and the committee navigated some quite interesting, I think, aspects of this bill. It came to the committee in pretty good shape and I think it’s come out of the select committee in better shape thanks to the very good submitters that we had—and I want to thank them—particularly those who submitted on what the bill actually did, and those people were overwhelmingly supportive of the idea of a sports integrity framework.

Now, by way of background, I think the genesis for this has been sort of twofold and the confluence of two sets of inquiries. One was the two Heron reports into aspects of Cycling New Zealand, first in 2018; and then I think in 2021 following the tragic passing of Olivia Podmore. Then, of course, also the Integrity Working Group’s work that predated that second Heron report and was reported back to the Minister and Sport New Zealand in April last year. So the bill itself is really the product of that.

Although I think it’s also fair to say that this was the story of two Olivias. Because while I think we all remember Olivia Podmore, I want to acknowledge and reference the bravery of another Olivia: former Commonwealth Games gymnast Olivia Jobsis. Now, Olivia Jobsis went public three or four years ago with quite stark revelations of her experience as an elite athlete—Commonwealth Games gymnast—revelations that included fat shaming; improper conduct, including sexual conduct; psychological abuse; and mental manipulation. She appeared before the committee with Gymnastics New Zealand, and that was a very, very important submission because Andrea—the chief executive, Andrea Nelson; sorry, I should have known that—and Sally McKechnie and Olivia Jobsis came and told us firstly about the profile of Gymnastics New Zealand, where 90 percent of the athletes are under the age of 12, and 79 percent of them are female.

That really brought into sharp relief the importance of making sure that the bill was sufficiently robust and strongly reflective of child-friendly processes when we think about an integrity framework. I think, by and large, we certainly listened very carefully. I think the committee has made recommendations that do, to a large degree, reflect those concerns of both Gymnastics New Zealand and others where there are a high number of elite and pre-elite athletes who are nevertheless very young.

Now, I mentioned the issue of those who submitted on the bill. But we had a number of submissions where there were concerns about aspects that the committee concluded—and was advised—were outside the scope of this bill. This related to the issue of transgender participation in sport, particularly women’s sport, and the concerns on both sides of that discussion about the questions of participation being reconciled with safety and fairness.

I think it was fair to say that we had tensions on both sides of that discussion that were not reconciled. Indeed, thankfully, I think the committee didn’t need the Wisdom of Solomon because those issues—important though they are—are not being addressed in this bill. I think it’s important to set on the record that that is the case, and it will be over to individual sporting codes to decide how best to deal with that within the guidelines that Sport New Zealand have provided already.

But I do think it was emblematic of that discussion, a question that I asked a submitter from inside out, where I asked if it was possible to express concerns about fairness and safety of biological women and children in sport without being labelled transphobic, and, if so, how? That was a question that didn’t get an answer. But certainly the person I was questioning acknowledged that that was an important issue.

It is my hope that we can get to a point where we can have legitimate concerns on both sides of that argument raised without epithets being thrown. Unfortunately, if we look at social media and other aspects, that has, I think, got to the point where there are two discrete echo chambers and we need to fix that. Nevertheless, this was not the place to fix that. I want to acknowledge, though, that they were concerns and the sports integrity bill will not resolve them—that is over to the sports organisations themselves.

I was also very pleased to see some exemplars of what a sports integrity framework might look like from Sport Integrity Australia, because the Australian sporting authorities are ahead of us and we were given examples of, for example, Swimming Australia, a child safeguarding policy, a National Integrity Framework, guidance on the improper use of drugs and medicine. These are exactly the sorts of things that New Zealand sporting codes will have to deal with and I hope we don’t have to reinvent the wheel.

As policy makers, we can be a bit like a kleptomaniac—we can steal good policy where we see it globally. I say that because I do have some concerns about the cost of setting up a framework like this, albeit that the best way to invest in an integrity framework is to invest in education and prevention rather than investigation and sanctioning. I do hope that the body—when it is up and running fully and has its codes in place—invests most of its time in education and prevention, because that will be the best for welfare of our athletes.

I do want to come back to the Heron report, because some of the things that we did here were about winning at all costs, measuring success by medals, and then sort of reverse engineering what’s required to get there. I think what the second Heron report talked about was to say, “Well, if you do it the other way around, if you get the processes and the framework right, medals will follow, success will follow,” and I tend to agree with that. So let’s use what excellent work Australia has already done and set that as the standard for New Zealand.

I want to attach myself to the comments of the Minister of sport in his second reading speech before the dinner break, around the excellent work Drug Free Sport New Zealand has done and that the building into the sports integrity body of the Drug Free Sport organisation is not a reflection that they aren’t doing an excellent job. In fact, it’s quite the opposite. I think it’s an endorsement of that, because I think it’s around that that the integrity body will be built and I commend the work they’ve done.

So, with those comments, the importance of safeguarding children, the importance of moderation and cost—oh, and I think the third issue that was a concern to me at first reading was the voluntary nature of the codes when they came through, and I still have that concern. I think they were alleviated to some degree, but I think the integrity framework will work best when there is a very, very high level of participation and compliance by sports organisations to those codes. So I’ll accept the need for them to be voluntary, but I think we should be watching that closely to ensure that there is a high level of compliance. But, with those comments, I’m very pleased to continue to support this bill at second reading.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I appreciate the opportunity to talk to this bill. As the chair of the Social Services and Community Committee, I do have to absolutely agree with the member who’s just resumed his seat—Michael Woodhouse—on the collegial way that we worked across the matters that were raised with us.

Look, this piece of legislation is long overdue, I believe, and I really want to acknowledge the Minister for Sport and Recreation for presenting to us a piece of legislation that was pretty damned good in its first blush. We have done some work on it and made some changes and, essentially, where we’ve landed, I think, is satisfactory for everyone. We had some really good advice, but certainly we had 183 submissions—all groups or individuals—and we heard from 19 submitters from Wellington or by Zoom videoconference.

The purpose of this bill, quite simply, is to strengthen the integrity of sport and recreation. It sets up an independent Crown entity—a commission—to do a number of things, and I’m just going to run very quickly through those. There’ll be between seven and nine members on this commission. Their work will include developing and issuing integrity codes. We heard about the anti-doping functions which will be collapsed in from Drug Free Sport New Zealand, which is really important, and, again, I put it on record as well how effective they have been. This is a sensible process and movement. They will be investigating and resolving integrity matters. There will be independent methods for resolving disputes, which is really important. We did some changes in there to ensure that those whistleblowers, or people who were making some commentary around what was going on in sports, were actually protected to do so, and it’s very important that their confidentiality is maintained.

There is a lot that we tweaked with this bill, and one of the things that has been mentioned is around children. It’s really important. Many of us here on this side of the House have worked in the child protection area, and we thought it incredibly important that we ensure that child protection is at the forefront of some of the policies that exist in some of the direction.

I also want to acknowledge that at times we heard from submitters in the community who were out of scope in relation to the gender identity of members playing sport. It became quite divisive at times, but I think that as a team and as a select committee, we worked well across that. We were able to listen to opinions, regardless of whether we changed anything in the legislation. We made very certain that girls and women were at the forefront of the work that we do, and we’ve included changing the term “rainbow communities” to “rainbow people”. So, with that, I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Look, it’s a pleasure to stand and take a call on this, the second reading of the Integrity Sport and Recreation Bill. I held the sport and recreation portfolio for only a very short time before it was passed to my good friend and colleague the Hon Michael Woodhouse, who was probably far better qualified to have it, having been a top-notch rugby union referee and also a very, very good halfback for the parliamentary rugby team as well.

But the one thing that became apparent to me very quickly on having that portfolio—and it was a big surprise—is that I had top-level sportsmen and -women come to me seeking meetings that were trying to deal with sometimes serious issues within their code, and I had top sports administrators come and seek meetings as well for exactly the same reason. The one thing that I worked out very quickly is that, especially when you’re dealing in high-performance sport, you’ve got very strong characters that have to be extremely driven to want to be the best that they can be and the best in the world in their chosen sport, but what this often means is that it can create conflict as well. So I think that the need, and a decision by us as a country, to have a commission in place to deal with some of those issues that sort of provides a neutral and unbiased place for some of those issues to be able to be dealt with is a very, very good idea and a very good move on our part.

I think that the previous speaker highlighted drugs, and I think drugs now—we’ve all seen the stories where you might have an athlete that inadvertently takes some sort of even prescribed medicine that suddenly traps them in a negative or a positive test, whichever way it may fall. It’s a complicated and complex world out there now in terms of how they’re operating and competing, and I think that us as a country, in terms of maintaining our own integrity on the sports field—because as Kiwis we like to think that we’ve got a pretty fierce reputation around the world for being very, very tough competitors but also being fair—I think that it’s important that we continue to maintain and guard that great international reputation that we have.

Although I didn’t sit on the Social Services and Community Committee and I didn’t hear—

Angie Warren-Clark: You missed some fun.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: It was fun, was it? I’m sure it was, because it looks like you had a wide range of submissions, and I’m sure that on the select committee certainly that feeling of the fact that we’ve got lots of fantastic sports administrators in this country who are deeply passionate about their codes or their respective sport, backed up by incredible athletes, regardless of what level they want to compete at. It’s actually really important to make sure that they are supported and they’ve got a place to be able to go that’s safe, to be able to maintain those standards and make sure that their respective codes are operating in the best, most professional, and fairest way for everyone, whether it be an administrator, whether it be a competitor, or whether it be someone that’s just involved in the sport as a supporter or, you know, more on the sidelines.

So, look, I think that this is a very good bill. We are supportive of it. There were some changes made on this, I see, in the select committee process which were good changes, which certainly on our side of the House made it easier to continue to support the bill. I’m very happy to recommend it at this second reading. Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.

Thank you e te Mana Whakawā. It’s an honour and a privilege to make a brief contribution on the Integrity Sport and Recreation Bill. As we’ve heard, the bill establishes the Integrity Sport and Recreation Commission and it sets out its powers and its functions. The commission will be an independent Crown entity and it will have seven to nine members. What I like about the membership is that a minimum of two members must have experience and knowledge of Te Ao Māori and tikanga Māori, because I think that’s really important in terms of our commitment to the Treaty of Waitangi.

Also what it does is the commission has to identify integrity codes and it also includes anti-sports and anti-doping. I want to acknowledge the—what? 180?—

Angie Warren-Clark: 183.

ANAHILA KANONGATA’A: —183 submitters, acknowledging that there were a lot of form submitters. But I want to acknowledge that there have been some discussions held in those submissions that, as a country, even though some of the things that were said were hard to listen to, we needed to have that conversation. And I want to respect everybody whose views were heard by the committee, but I think it was a place to have listened and have heard.

I want to acknowledge Madam Chair and, of course, the member Michael Woodhouse, who has also made very good contributions in our select committee work, but also the work of Ricardo Menéndez March, from the rainbow community. One of the submitters said that they want to change the word from “rainbow community” to “rainbow people”. So I want to acknowledge those changes and I just want to acknowledge that the committee—it has been said many times that the work of the committee is valuable in terms of changing the law. I know that there are some changes that are coming about into this bill, which is welcomed, and I welcome the conversations that we have on that.

But I do want to commend the Minister on his leadership and his passion about getting sports right for women and children and, basically, for Aotearoa. On that note, I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I stand on behalf of the ACT Party, but, more importantly, for my two colleagues who are not here this evening to speak to this bill: Karen Chhour, who sits on the Social Services and Community Committee, and Damien Smith, who is our sports and recreation spokesperson, who also sat in on the committee during the hearings of the submissions for this, the Integrity Sport and Recreation Bill.

We’re going through all remaining stages this evening, so I’m going to concentrate my second reading speech on a particular aspect of the select committee report and speak to the two Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) that my colleague Karen Chhour is hoping to have on the bill for speaking to at the committee stage. In the third reading, I will then look to speak to the other issues that have come out of the bill.

There were less than four weeks for submissions, and we were told that 183 were received, with 19 being oral submissions as well. I’d like to acknowledge all of those that submitted, both in writing and those that came to appear in front of the committee, whether it be through presenting themselves or through Zoom, which has been a great way to get people to participate in select committee processes. And I’d like to, as part of my emphasis on one aspect of this bill, acknowledge those that submitted, including—and I’m going to quote here directly from the select committee report—the “significant proportion of submitters [that] raised the issue of the participation of trans people in sport.”, and the concerns that were raised there around the fairness of participation. While others are concerned this bill will ultimately end up reducing the participation of females in sport, those submitters’ concerns were determined by the committee to be out of scope. So, relatively, they were ignored because it was out of scope of the bill.

Yet the bill itself, when enacted, could cause a transgendered person to be eligible to compete in an event designed for females only, because of the discrimination factors about to be legislated into this bill. When there is a significant proportion of submitters, as has been reported in the select committee report, who have raised an issue around this, we need to make sure that we can in some way look to address that as fully as submitters would like. As a way of being able to do that, ACT have submitted two different Supplementary Order Papers for the next stage, the committee of the whole House, and they are supplementary order papers 410 and 411.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! I’m just going to warn the member that if she were to refer to Speakers’ rulings—and I’d encourage members to do that as they’re writing their speeches—Speaker’s ruling 115/1: “At the second reading of a bill it has long been accepted that the broad intention of the bill, the broad principles of it, are a proper subject of discussion”—and, thank you, the member has done that. Speakers’ ruling 115/2, “On the second reading of a bill discussion must be confined to the bill before the House as printed.” And we go on to Speakers’ ruling 115/3, “(1) A member may … refer to the subject matter of an amendment appearing on a Supplementary Order Paper, but it cannot be discussed in detail; that is a matter for [the committee of the whole House]”. So I would ask the member to reflect on those Speakers’ rulings, and craft her speech accordingly.

NICOLE McKEE: Thank you, Madam Speaker. ACT finds it troubling that a bill claiming to address sporting integrity issues fails to address a global issue of sports integrity—that is, the issue of biological women having to compete in sport against biological males who choose to identify as women. Male puberty makes people on average significantly taller with greater muscle and bone mass, and this has actually been directly responded to within the Human Rights Act at section 49. This actually does make a difference to those who participate in sport—and, depending on the sport, a significant difference; for example, if a person was weightlifting, if they were running, or even if they were swimming. An American college sportsperson who’s a 6 foot 4 swimmer called Lia Thomas bounced from rank No. 462 in men’s swimming to No. 1 in the women’s code after transitioning. And New Zealand’s own Laurel Hubbard, who transitioned at the age of 34, went on to win gold medals in an international weightlifting competition.

This is not an issue of transphobia. ACT says people should be able to live however they want, if they’re not affecting other people. This is an issue of fairness. Speaking as an athlete who has represented New Zealand on the international stage at multiple times, I understand the blood, sweat, and tears that goes into training for an event and goes into training to achieve the success of what it is that you’re trying to get medals in or win competitions in. Luckily, the sport that I participate in is gender neutral and there is no issue there. However, I recognise that after literally years of training to become elite in a field of expertise, to have someone with such an unfair advantage come along, potentially to take that achievement away from me, is in itself unfair.

So, when we’re looking at what it is that has potentially been changed, we see that women’s rights and actually women themselves have been added into the bill, but we still do not, within the bill, actually look to make sure that women are able to have safe spaces within their sport and be able to compete in fairness. The Human Rights Act 1993 at section 49 actually speaks to this, and, in their own words, not mine—

Angie Warren-Clark: Point of order.

NICOLE McKEE: —it actually says nothing in section 44 shall prevent, quote—

Angie Warren-Clark: Point of order.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Oh, point of order. Sorry, I didn’t hear the member.

Angie Warren-Clark: Thank you, Madam Speaker. The matter that is being raised currently is out of scope, and we have heard it for quite a period of time. The matter of transgender is not part of the bill.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Thank you for that. I have been reading through—this is the first time I’ve looked at this bill. I have noted, though, that there is discussion in the select committee report on rainbow communities. Now, I believe and I determine that that is close enough, though I’m listening very carefully to the member. It is my ruling that yes, the discussion, which is consistent with a second reading focus on the principles of a bill, is in order.

NICOLE McKEE: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’d like to also point out—I believe it’s on page 4 of the select committee report where it is acknowledged, as I quoted at the beginning of my speech—the “significant proportion of submitters [that] raised the issue of the participation of trans people in sport”. In order to be able to ensure that their voices are heard in the second reading speech, as part of the select committee report—this is why the ACT Party are standing up for those particular submitters.

As I was starting to talk about, the Human Rights Act 1993, section 49, actually refers to nothing in section 44 preventing “the exclusion of persons of one sex from participation in any competitive sporting activity in which the strength, stamina, or physique of competitors is relevant.” And so that’s why we’ve brought it up today.

I look forward, in the third reading, to speaking to some of the other points within this bill. But it looks like I’m getting pretty close to my time, so I will finish it there and speak to my SOPs in the next stage, the committee of the whole House. Meanwhile, ACT does oppose this bill. Thank you.

I just want to set the record straight because the ACT Party spoke to a multitude of things that have nothing to do with the bill. And part of why the select committee’s report in relationship to participation in sports ruled all of those submissions out of the scope of the bill was because the Integrity Sport and Recreation Bill does not cover or address who gets to participate in sports. And that is something really important—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Can I just—Order!

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: I’m responding to the ACT Party member.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): No. The member will sit down. The member’s comments are beginning to reflect on the ruling around relevancy, and I will ask the member not to do that but to stick to the substance of this debate and discussion of the bill. Please don’t argue with me.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: OK. Well, I will speak about the submissions that were out of scope and that were ruled out of scope by the select committee because what the Integrity Sport and Recreation Bill sets up is an integrity unit. It has nothing to do with who participates in sports. That is why we considered the submissions that were speaking about issues regarding integrity in sports such as the wellbeing of athletes, such as the wellbeing of young people, such as the wellbeing of rainbow peoples. And as was noted by previous speakers, this was done constructively and collaboratively because the members of the select committee understood that we needed to set up an integrity unit that looked after the wellbeing of athletes. Something that, as previous members have noted, had been an issue for too long; that we needed a body that could look after the wellbeing of athletes to then allow the different bodies of sports to determine who gets to participate in sports.

So one of the things that was noted in the submissions was the need to better address the wellbeing of young people, but they also spoke about how we needed to use precise language. For example, changing the words “rainbow communities” to “rainbow peoples” to then specify what we mean by that. We also looked at reviewing and putting in place provisions so that anti-doping rules were reviewed at least once every three years, because we recognised that anti-doping as a concept and as a regime does change over time and therefore those rules need to be changed over time. And I want to acknowledge as well that the field of sports is broadening to include things like e-sports. This is why it’s important that we have an integrity unit that is also resourced to cover the broadening of the scope of what we consider sports. For example, anti-doping issues in e-sports can be different. Things like caffeine and Ritalin that are now used in a completely different scene are things that are now going to be able to be considered as part of this unit.

I think part of the other thing that we considered was about the potential make-up of this board and what the things are that we’re looking at when we’re thinking of what we want the Minister to consider when it comes to appointing members of the board. While it is good to see that there is consideration for Māori representation, it could be greater. I think we also could do better in terms of the representation of rainbow people. For example, having gender minorities being represented as well, because a lot of these issues are deeply, deeply complex. On the one hand, there may be the argument that there is not a huge number of people in Aotearoa with this level of expertise, but what I would say from the work in the community that we’ve done is that there is. There is a huge range of people who are passionate and understand the needs of our sporting community. So we also need to tap into that and we need to develop that expertise as well so that we have the ability to have succession in this board in a way that enables all these diverse communities to be able to guide the integrity unit in a way that prioritises wellbeing.

So the Green Party is supporting this bill because we do acknowledge the need to have this integrity unit. We need to also learn from overseas examples such as Australia that has a similar unit, and what they’ve done that has worked and what hasn’t and keep an open mind in that regard. We need to also then commit to resourcing this unit so that it can do its work appropriately, because ultimately a lot of this will involve adequately consulting with different community groups. For example, part of what we’ve acknowledged is that we do think it’s important to add things like having national sports and recreation organisations and women and girls amongst the list of relevant stakeholders that the commission must consult. In order for this to be done adequately, proper resourcing will need to go into the unit so that that work in the community can happen, because we’ve seen what happens when we set up bodies that are supposed to consult with different stakeholders. And if there’s not enough staffing resources to do that at a community level, then it’s the loudest and most well-resourced voices that then win when that consultation happens.

Finally, I want to honour the people who came and submitted, who submitted in good faith and with a clear understanding of the bill. I think the committee was able to identify really tangible improvements we could make to this bill. This came from a diversity of voices. I think this once again highlights the importance of the feedback from our communities about how legislation can be improved to centre the voices that are coming to Parliament. So the Green Party looks forward to supporting this bill, looks forward to continuing this constructive conversation, and pushes back against the comments from the ACT Party regarding what they believe is relevant or otherwise to bring up in Supplementary Order Papers later in the debate.

I rise to speak in support of this bill as a member of the Social Services and Community Committee who worked long and hard upon it, and if I may I will begin by reiterating the comment made by various colleagues around the House that it was a most collegial working process. I particularly enjoyed getting into the minutiae with the Hon Michael Woodhouse, and I don’t think that clause 19 will ever leave me.

As has been said by Mr Woodhouse and also by our wonderful chair, Ms Warren-Clark, this was a bill that came to us in pretty good shape. We believe it left in better shape.

This is a bill that sets up a commission that will look to guide and lead our sporting codes to create their own codes within their own disciplines, which will look to enhance the integrity of sport by setting up, essentially, complaints processes. So there will be codes of the principles under which people are to operate, and then complaints processes, accountability for offenders when they are found to be offenders, and protection for whistleblowers. The complaints process will be in an accessible form that will be appropriate for the often very young people who come before it. Making sure the complaints process will be child friendly, young people friendly, was one of the excellent changes the committee is recommending.

We came to this bill for the simple reason that there is a desperate need for it. We have already heard referred to in this House the tragedy of Olivia Podmore, and we have also had her colleagues bravely speak to us about their experiences of abuse and bullying within the codes described here tonight.

I am, as I have said before in this House, no sportswoman, but I am the mother of a young sportswoman, and one of the things that was very apparent to us was the real vulnerability particularly of young sportswomen in these disciplines who are, sadly, open to abuse. As someone who has worked on institutional abuse cases, it’s often remarked that in any place where there is a strong hierarchy and little power to participants, there is an environment ripe for abuse. And the sad truth is that that does happen, unfortunately, in some of our sporting codes where it should not happen. Sport should be a matter of joy and pride that it is in most cases. I strongly commend this bill to the House and look forward to hearing further speeches upon it.

Chris Penk—five-minute call.

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. Well, it’s been interesting, actually. The collegial nature of the discussion as Emily Henderson has just referred to has made me reflect that politics itself can sometimes be a team sport. I had thought I would resist the temptation to do that very New Zealand thing and make everything a sporting metaphor—

Arena Williams: Do it!

CHRIS PENK: Oh, OK, well, maybe—maybe so.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Who is he to deny the audience?

CHRIS PENK: I know, well, that’s right. I’d be surprised if there is any audience by the end of the five minutes but we’ll see how we go. But, actually, it does seem like it’s been a constructive approach. It seems as though there’s been a lot of serious thought in terms of the detail, with a starting point that there was broad agreement about the desirability of establishing a commission. I did wonder, having not been part of that select committee process, why it was that it was the Social Services and Community Committee that it went to. I couldn’t think of a more appropriate one—

Dr Emily Henderson: Because we’re awesome.

CHRIS PENK: Because they’re awesome, I hear. Well, I was going to mention another select committee that it might have gone to, for example, Health, and I thought, well that kind of might be appropriate too. Sport in New Zealand is also big business at, you know, the elite end, if I can use that phrase, so in terms of even within the health sphere you know it’s sort of the physical health benefits as well as costs, I suppose, in terms of injury, mental health, and so forth. So anyway, I didn’t reach any other conclusion than that select committee was as good as any other. Some might say, “It was awesome”, and they’re entitled to their view of course.

But, in any case, sport is many things to many different people and it’s a lot of different things to this nation of ours as well so I think it’s right that we all take it very seriously for all those reasons. And if you look at the things that the commission is being set up to do—and it’s the establishment of the commission that’s at the heart of the bill—then it’s clear that there are serious matters that do need to be considered and are worth the time of the House and are worth an independent body being established; an independent Crown entity, no less.

So, if you think about the kinds of issues that are going to need to be handled by this commission, they are actually quite complex and we’ve had a bit of a flavour in the House tonight of what some of those might be. The commission’s remit will, it seems, be quite broad. So the House, and indeed the select committee, doesn’t appear to want to bind its hands too tightly in terms of the kinds of issues it will consider, let alone prescribe an outcome. But we’ve considered tonight, even across the House, issues of safety and fairness, doping in sport, competition, manipulation, bullying, sexual misconduct, racism, and discrimination. And these are specifically set out as areas that the commission will be invited to prevent and address threats to integrity in relation to those.

So it will be extremely interesting work actually, that the commission will be doing, and there has been a bit of guidance in terms of the procedural matters and, at the risk of turning even a bill about sports into something of a procedural justice matter—I can’t help myself, I suppose—but, genuinely, if you look at the powers that are given to the commission, it’s to allow the specified organisations to provide information or documents necessary for an investigation, it’s prescribing reasonable and proportionate sanctions for breaches, and establishing a disciplinary panel; so all these mechanisms to say, “Well, actually, if there are issues of fairness and integrity and discrimination, all these things that have been discussed, then there must be some powers for the commission to investigate these things to actually do something about it that’s constructive and meaningful and worth the time of this independent Crown entity.”

So I think it’s obvious from reading the select committee report that the members have turned their mind to that and they’ve wished to give effect to the intent of the Minister to allow a body to be set up that’s going to be able to do some useful things in this space.

There are protections from retaliation or victimisation by an organisation if they make a complaint. So that’s sort of a whistle-blower regime, and the closest I’m going to come to the threatened sporting metaphor is that a whistle-blower, of course, has a particular role in the sporting context—whether a referee or an umpire—and, of course, the appeal rights to the sports tribunal as well is reminiscent of a captain’s challenge in the world of rugby league, which I am very fond of, or video umpire or video referee, as the case may be.

So these are good mechanisms that are set up to allow some integrity in the system, to give some serious weight to the role that the commission will play. We think they’ve got a good remit. We think it’s a worthwhile body to establish. We’ll wish them well at the point that they’re set up but for now at the second reading, National continues to commend the bill to the house.

Arena Williams—five minutes.

Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. Safer, fairer, and more inclusive sport—that’s something we can all get behind, and I acknowledge those members of the Social Services and Community Committee who have reached a pretty good outcome on this bill. They have heard from submitters who have approached these submissions with a lot of knowledge and goodwill, and have come back to the House with a number of really sensible changes.

This will be a short and simple call for what is a pretty short and simple bill, and it’s a good one. It deals with the problem of how we make complaints in our sports systems, and prior to this bill, several reports into New Zealand’s sport and physical recreation sector found that there is insufficient capability to deal with integrity-related issues, particularly the management of complaints within the system. That is an issue that this House needs to address.

We all need to have faith in our sporting system and the people who are participating in it, so the creation of the Integrity Sport and Recreation Commission is a great solution to that, and that has a wide remit. My colleague Chris Penk, who’s just taken his seat, is right to comment that it is a wide remit. It includes threats to integrity, including doping in sport, competition manipulation, bullying, sexual misconduct, racism, and other behaviours that undermine sport and recreation in New Zealand. That’s not things that any New Zealander wants to see in our sports, and so this solution deals with that issue in a way that everyone can accept.

I want to conclude my comments by thanking those members of the committee who made a particular contribution throughout the process, particularly Ricardo Menéndez March and my colleague Dr Emily Henderson. Having an expert on the way that children engage with procedural law and with complaints in the room in a select committee is something that the New Zealand Parliament has benefited from, and I thank Dr Henderson for her contribution. I commend this bill.

Thank you, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity just to take a short call on the second reading of the Integrity Sport and Recreation Bill. Given the kaupapa and especially the focus namely around sports and women, I just want to take a moment to acknowledge the recent passing of a wahine toa in the sporting field: Leanne Harrison, from Ngatokowaru in the Ōtaki electorate who was the president of the Horowhenua Netball Association and will leave a massive gap in the Horowhenua netball communities. Moe mai ra e hoa and my aroha goes to Erana, Anna, Bill, Justine, Michelle, and Jody. Thank you for indulging me, Madam Speaker.

This bill, as we have heard, and the commission that will be established, will address and support integrity issues at all levels from elite sports to grassroots, the community sports, and everything in between. This bill, the commission will look after the wellbeing of all people who participate in sports—all people who participate in sports, and that includes women, that includes our rainbow people, and that’s what this bill is so good about. It makes sure it supports the wellbeing of all people who participate in sports.

As a member of the Social Services and Community Committee, I want to thank, also, the submitters—the over 100 submitters—that submitted on this bill. I took the time to do that, but I also want to thank the officials that helped us work through it. Of course, the Minister, for bringing this important kaupapa to the table, and I’m not just saying that because everyone wants the fill a space, I really do mean that; it’s an important piece of legislation to make sure that we support, again, all people who participate in sports. As our colleagues around the House tonight have said, it was collegial for the most part, there was differing views on rainbow people, and I’m really glad where we were able to land because, again, this bill will support all people who participate in sport, and that includes our rainbow, our takatāpui, our women, and everyone else in between.

The other thing I like about this bill is it protects the participants who raise integrity matters, and that’s really important as well. The bill provides protection for participants and other people that make a complaint or provide information to the commission, and the bill requires that to be confidential information—really key. So, again, I love that about this bill. I love that it protects all people that participate in sports, and I also love that this bill is not just for the elite, not just for the professionals but the grassroots as well and everyone in between. Great piece of legislation, and I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m pleased to be able to rise and speak also in support of the Integrity Sport and Recreation Bill. While sport was a very big part of my life some years ago, it has been less so in the last few years, and so I was very happy to take my lead on this bill from my friend and colleague the Hon Michael Woodhouse. As we’ve heard, Michael Woodhouse was a top rugby referee, and I have to confess there may have been times when I called his integrity into question when he may have been refereeing Otago versus Southland, and I didn’t feel he had both eyes open at that time. However, notwithstanding that, I was very happy to take the lead from the Hon Michael Woodhouse.

Look, the purpose of this bill is quite clear, and it is to strengthen and protect the integrity of New Zealand sports and recreation. As, again, my friend and colleague the Hon Mark Mitchell has said, that’s incredibly important to us in New Zealand, because we are known for being tough sportspeople but for being fair, and so this helps support that reputation and helps support the individual codes.

Several reports did outline that the sector has insufficient capability to deal with integrity issues. As I said, in a previous life I was very involved with hockey at regional level and at national level, and there is never a lot of money and there is never a lot of resources. So I was particularly pleased with the work of the Social Services and Community Committee in making some slight changes around the fees, to ensure that fees would not be charged for complaints and investigations. I think that’s a very enabling addition to the bill, and I thank the select committee for bringing about those small changes. I acknowledge that this could have perhaps gone to a number of select committees, but I do occasionally sit on the Social Services and Community Committee and I’m sure that they were particularly mindful and respectful of the submitters—the 183 submitters and those that made oral submissions. So I thank both the submitters but also the select committee for listening and giving consideration to those submitters.

My colleague the Hon Michael Woodhouse has talked about how important it will be for the emphasis to be on education and prevention, because we know that mandating is much less successful than educating and preventing things before they happen. So the key functions of the commission have been outlined as promoting, advising, and educating on integrity issues and threats to integrity, and so it will be really important to see that come through strongly.

It will be also important—and, again, my colleague has talked about it, the Hon Michael Woodhouse—that we don’t have to reinvent the wheel on many of these matters: developing the integrity codes, setting minimum standards of conduct, prescribing policies and procedures. We are not the first to have engaged in this, and it will be really important that we don’t waste time and money by trying to reinvent the wheel when there will be many good examples that we can pick up on. So I endorse the comments of the Hon Michael Woodhouse on this.

The ability to investigate suspected breaches of integrity in codes and threats to integrity—being an external and independent set of eyes—will be incredibly important as part of this role. It is very difficult in a country our size, in different sporting codes—we all get to know each other very well, and so having that ability to have that external and independent set of eyes is going to be an extremely valuable thing.

A couple of the other small changes that were made through the select committee process: putting in place the three-year review period I think is a very sensible thing to do, and also adding age into the list of characteristics, because as I think the select committee found during the submissions process, particularly around sporting codes such as gymnastics, and, I would probably think, swimming also, a lot of the elite or pre-elite athletes there are very young children. So, again, a very sensible change made by the select committee.

So I’m certainly very pleased to join with all the other voices around the House tonight in supporting—sorry, I accept that it’s not a unanimous support but the vast majority of speakers supporting this bill. So thank you for the opportunity to participate, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It is a pleasure to take the last call on this Integrity Sport and Recreation Bill second reading. This is my first time speaking on this particular bill—and obviously it’s talking about sports and I love my sports. I love my rugby and I played for the high school that produced the most All Blacks, and that’s out at the mighty Auckland Grammar School. Then I became the sports doctor for Ponsonby Rugby Club, which produces the most All Blacks as well.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Oh, hang on!

Dr ANAE NERU LEAVASA: Hey, let me check that on Google—I just did a quick Google check. But as a sports doctor that has worked with grassroots sports athletes for around 20 years now—that’s where my first medical career started and then shifting into elite athletes and high-performance units and international world cups as well—it’s a pleasure to see this bill come to the House. I thank the Minister for his work and our awesome Social Services and Community Committee members for their work as well. Also the many organisations that have submitted on this bill.

Working with our athletes, it’s always my goal to look after the health and wellbeing—the total health and wellbeing—of our athletes. I always follow the Te Whare Tapa Whā model in order to make sure that that has a full scope. Seeing this commission to be set up and addressing the different issues that come through to our athletes, it is really important that we look at that full picture and I also want to acknowledge the youth and the children included in the commission’s work.

Because, as a sports doctor and as a GP sitting in a clinic, we often see our young folk come in and there’s always a few questions to ask our young folk when they come in with sports injuries. It’s “Which school do you go to?”—because that’ll often point out what their training programme is like—which sport do they play, and also their position in the team. All these factors play a huge role in whether it be physical injuries or the mental health issues that come with it as well. So overtraining, nutritional issues that come with it as well.

So I’m so glad that this commission will be doing the mahi to make sure this provides another avenue—whether it be our youth, our children, up to our adult, elite level—it’ll produce many of the health and wellbeing issues that we want to be addressed. So I commend this bill to the House.