Sports Anti-Doping Bill

I rise to take a short call on the Sports Anti-Doping Bill, and I will just say a couple of things about this bill to set a bit of context for members.

Sandra Goudie: Nobody’s listening.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: It is the Sports Anti-Doping Bill—not an “Anti-Dope Bill”, as it would be in Sandra’s case.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): The member must use the member’s full name, not a single name. There was also a personal reflection.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: I withdraw.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Thank you.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: The Sports Anti-Doping Bill updates New Zealand’s anti-doping legislation so that the agencies and national sporting organisations involved in anti-doping activities in New Zealand are more easily able to comply with the World Anti-Doping Code. New Zealand does not require the Sports Anti-Doping Bill in order to implement the said code or convention, as New Zealand is already compliant with these instruments. Instead, the bill provides a more efficient and effective way for New Zealand to implement the code. However, the bill is intended to assist New Zealand’s compliance with that code.

The bill updates the responsibilities of the agency to reflect the requirements of the code. The bill also provides for the making of rules closely based on the code that will be able to be implemented by sporting organisations through their anti-doping policies and constitutions. Adoption or compliance with the rules is not compulsory under the bill. The bill itself imposes no obligation on persons; rather, it sets up an anti-doping regime that is compliant with the code and easily adopted by sporting organisations.

There is a question of who will be affected by the bill. The bill does not create a mandatory anti-doping regime. Although the bill provides for sports anti-doping rules, these will not be mandatory unless national sporting organisations adopt them or require their members to abide by them. Adoption of the rules by national sporting organisations, and requiring members to abide by the rules, is a way of ensuring compliance with the code.

I draw members’ attention to the Supplementary Order Paper that the Government is putting forward and I will run quickly through a couple of key points for members. In respect of the commencement date, most clauses of the Supplementary Order Paper deal with the new commencement date of 1 July 2007. This date is intended to provide a fixed start date for the bill, in order to give national sporting organisations sufficient time to amend their anti-doping policies, while ensuring that the commencement of the bill is not delayed unnecessarily.

In respect of the expanded transitional functions of Drug Free Sport New Zealand, a delay in the commencement date would, however, prevent Drug Free Sport New Zealand from carrying out its new, expanded functions under the code, such as preparing the sports anti-doping rules and investigating the anti-doping violations of trafficking in prohibited substances. For this reason, clauses 48, 48A, and 48B will commence on the day the bill is given the Royal assent. The early commencement of these clauses will allow Drug Free Sport New Zealand to continue to prepare the sports anti-doping rules and carry out its own investigative functions.

In respect of clarification of the jurisdiction of the Sports Tribunal of New Zealand, the remaining clauses of the Supplementary Order Paper are technical clarifications to ensure there is no question about the scope of the Sports Tribunal’s jurisdiction under the bill. Amendments to clause 3 clarify that the Sports Tribunal will have functions that are not related to anti-doping—that is, hearing, considering, and determining other sports-related matters. This non-doping jurisdiction is continued by the bill. Finally, the amendments to clause 38 clarify that the Sports Tribunal will be able to set its own procedures and practices for both anti-doping and non-doping matters.

I rise in support of the Sports Anti-Doping Bill. This is probably one of those rare moments we see in the New Zealand Parliament when there is pretty well universal support for a move that has been brought forward by various organisations. But the origin of this measure was a conference on sports anti-doping, in Copenhagen in March 2003, where it was decided that there should be an international code to address what has become a growing problem in international sport around the world. It would be difficult to have a dissenting voice, as far as that objective goes. The bill aims to provide the legislative framework under which New Zealand can implement the World Anti-Doping Code and do its part to address the global problem of doping in sport.

The select committee brought forward a number of recommendations. We spent some time investigating the issue brought before us. I see that the bill’s first reading was way back on 13 December 2005. It was then referred to the Government Administration Committee. Submissions were due in by 3 March 2006, and the committee duly considered everything brought before it. The bill came back to the House in early October, and we are yet to have its second and third readings. So those who are listening will hear that the bill has been through a thorough process.

The committee considered a number of contentious issues. One of the contentious issues was the potential effect the bill might have on employment relationships between athletes and their various sports bodies, as a result of the imposition of penalties on athletes who were caught cheating with drugs. That issue was based on the notion that the bill would make the World Anti-Doping Code compulsory. I assure the Committee, and anybody who is listening, that it will not make it compulsory; it will still be voluntary. A number of people were concerned about that matter and raised it with the committee. The bill provides certainty for compliance with the code, but it does not affect the employment relationship of sports bodies with athletes, and I think that that point needs to be cleared up.

One of the most controversial points raised with the select committee, and in fact by members of the select committee, was in regard to whether there should be mandatory reporting to police when there was suspected or potential use of drugs. Of course, that could include prescription drugs for injury or illness, and, on balance, it was a pretty tough call for the select committee. In fact, the members of the select committee spent some weeks going backwards and forwards on this issue with officials. On the one hand, it seemed correct and sensible for it to be mandatory under the bill that all suspected drug use be reported, and that would have been consistent with the objectives of the bill. But on the other hand, and on further balance, it was thought to be unnecessary to make that reporting mandatory under the bill, for the simple reason that it was already possible, under the Privacy Act and other legislation, for such information to be provided. In fact, someone who is part of a Government organisation and who does not report suspected drug use is a potential criminal, in the sense that that person would be prejudicing the maintenance of law by any public sector or agency if the matter were not reported to the police.

In other words, it is important that New Zealand—with our proud sporting history—keeps a very high standard in that regard. The select committee decided, on balance, that the objective was achievable without having that provision in the legislation. The flip side of it was that if we did introduce that requirement, then the voluntary submission to have the test in the first place would potentially dry up, and we would end up ultra vires in relation to the intent of the bill.

I am not sure whether we have that balance right, quite frankly, and I do not suppose we will ever know until it is tested. It will be interesting to see what international jurisdictions will do in regard to that issue.

I support the Sports Anti-Doping Bill. The purpose of the bill is the laudable aim of “protecting athletes’ fundamental right to participate in doping-free sport”—the National Party supports that—and to “promote health, fairness, and equality for athletes world-wide;”. That is very laudable, but I pause and wonder why the Government is promoting the purposes of this legislation on the one hand, yet, on the other, seems to be terribly, terribly remiss in addressing a drug problem in New Zealand, which is affecting people within sports codes and also other walks of life. The Government is turning an absolutely blind eye to that growing drug problem in New Zealand, which is affecting many, many young New Zealanders. The problem is the use of benzylpiperazine-based drugs, and the regulations on their use. It makes me wonder how the Government, on the one hand, can have such laudable aims, yet, on the other, can be so terribly, terribly remiss in doing something about benzylpiperazine.

We had a rugby player from the UK, a member of the North Otago team, staying at our place. As part of that second division rugby team’s team building and learning about ethics, he and his team were given a little pamphlet, which unfortunately I did not bring. I wish I had because I would have tabled it in the House today. This pamphlet warned young rugby players—players in the rugby code in particular—about indulging in drugs and drug use. That pamphlet, which was given to every rugby player in North Otago, and possibly further afield, had a list of drugs to avoid, including benzylpiperazine or party pills. Why can we on the one hand have the Sports Anti-Doping Bill, yet the Government sits on its hands and does absolutely nothing about an incredibly dangerous drug—in my humble view—benzylpiperazine? It just does not make sense to me.

We know, anecdotally, that there is a drug culture growing in New Zealand—affecting all young people, not just sportspeople—of party pills or benzylpiperazine. What is the Government doing about it? The Government is doing absolutely nothing about it. The Government has been told about this problem for months and months. I have called on the Minister for Sport and Recreation, Trevor Mallard, and, in fact, the Minister in the chair, Clayton Cosgrove, has expressed his concerns. I would be very interested to know how he can support this bill yet turn an absolute blind eye to benzylpiperazine. We have heard the rhetoric. The member has been full of plenty of hot air in his own electorate; why is he not calling on the Minister concerned with drug policy to tighten up the regulations on party pills? Why is he satisfied to sit back and let a drug problem grow in New Zealand?

It is interesting that in small provincial communities in New Zealand we are encouraging young people to get into sport—rugby, netball, hockey; all the good, healthy things—and at the same time those people can walk away from their rugby practice, go into the dairy, and see party pills for sale that contain benzylpiperazine. What kind of message is the Government sending? How can its members sit there and promote this bill—which National members will support—with the purpose of protecting athletes’ fundamental right to participate in doping-free sport, when those same athletes can walk out of the changing rooms into the dairy and buy a drug that affects their performance? I ask those members to answer me that, because I would dearly love to know. I would dearly love the Minister concerned with drug policy to finally wake up, realise what is happening to young people in New Zealand because of drugs, and tighten up the regulations around benzylpiperazine.

It gives me great pleasure to rise and speak in support of the Sports Anti-Doping Bill. When one thinks about how we interface as a nation, one finds that we certainly celebrate the principles and values around a good, even contest. In fact, as a nation, our sportspeople perform equally as well as—if not better than—any others in the world.

When we look at Part 1 of the legislation, we see that clause 3(a)(i) is “protecting athletes’ fundamental right to participate in doping-free sport and in this way promote health, fairness, and equality for athletes world-wide;”. That is laudable, as the very good member from Otago mentioned, and may I take the opportunity to reinforce the comments of that member, Jacqui Dean, on the party pill problem. The current approach is sending out double standards and a mixed message to our young people. We cannot be complacent when we look at a bill of this nature. I must confess that it is very well-structured and very, very consistent all the way through in defining its purpose. Fundamentally, that is what Part 1 does.

The bill talks about some interesting things. For the benefit of the public who are listening at the moment, when we talk about anti-doping bills we are talking about people taking substances that will give them an advantage. It could be an advantage in their training and preparation for an event, or it could be an advantage during the event itself. Two recent high-profile cases come to mind that sent a sense of great sadness as to the outcome of the events. One was the Tour de France, where the first finisher has subsequently run into huge difficulties about the levels of chemicals in his body. Last night some of us had the pleasure of sitting down with Sir Richard Hadlee, who was a great bowler; what comes to mind is the problems that have surfaced around the Pakistani pace bowlers. They, too, have to prove that they have not been assisted by their taking drugs of some nature. So one can appreciate just how important this bill becomes from the point of view of engaging in international sport.

Sadly, the criminals—the cheats—will constantly be moving forward, and the bodies that are registered for the purpose of making sure that sports are clean and fair will have to do their utmost to keep up with them. So it is very important that we empower these bodies with what is necessary for them to be able to do that. When I reflect back on it—to bring up a very close-to-home example of having an advantage and actually winning because of that advantage—I think about the overspending of the Labour Party in winning the 2005 election. I was searching for a more sporting example, but I could not find one. When we break it down, we see that Labour members spent $14,000 per electorate more than they were allowed to. That really is an example of what this bill is about, because Part 1 refers to the importance of having consistency of standards.

Part 1 talks about the structure for drug-free sports in New Zealand. There would be a board consisting of five individuals. It talks about “the Code”, and for a while I was wondering what sort of code we were referring to. In fact, we were referring to the World Anti-Doping Code 2003, as adopted by the World Anti-Doping Agency in Copenhagen on 5 March 2003. I believe that the origin of that code was in issues to do with the Olympics, and we know that the Olympic movement is very much about fair play—which is something we certainly do not see when we look at the outcome of the misuse of taxpayers’ funds during the 2005 election. I am sure that that will have ongoing ramifications in the future as those people are held to account under the spirit of fair play, which New Zealanders are very well known for.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak this afternoon on the Sports Anti-Doping Bill. I think that sport has a value and an importance of itself, and, when we look at sport in the broader context, we see it is clear that the values of sport are of massive importance to individual behaviour and also to our society. Sporting activities teach our children a sense of fairness and cooperation. Through sport our youngsters can play, win, make goals, and set goals for themselves. They can also learn of the disappointment that comes with losing in a sporting activity, and I think that experience provides them with an opportunity to do better next time. As for our society, sport is an important element of all citizens’ lives. Sporting events bring us together, particularly rugby and netball—whether provincial or international—as do events like the America’s Cup yacht race. They bring our communities together, and sport plays a really crucial role in our society in doing that.

Sport is also a business, and often it is a big business. Sport generates large sums of money, and it is also an industry. Sport plays a major role in expanding our economy and in providing employment. It contributes increasingly to the dynamic of economic growth, as we saw after we won the America’s Cup here in New Zealand. There are many good aspects to sport that are essential for us as individuals. I think, therefore, that we need to protect and safeguard those aspects for the sake of our children, for the sake of our industry, for the sake of sportspeople, and for the sake of us all. We are all stakeholders, and there is a lot at stake.

Increasingly, the core values of sport are becoming subject to serious threat through the use of drugs—as my colleague from Otago, Jacqui Dean, pointed out—and it is pleasing that this bill is designed to protect the good from the bad and the ugly. The main danger we face with regard to sport in this country is cheating, and I think that either one cheats or one does not. Cheating a little bit or cheating once in a while is cheating, whichever way we look at it. So we either play the game or we do not. I am sure that every one of us has witnessed a dirty tackle, an unjust rule, or a one-eyed referee—or that is what we might have thought—and such experiences, particularly if we had them as children, give us a clear sense of what is right and what is wrong. We do not tend to forget the childhood indignation caused by injustice and cheating.

Taking drugs in order to enhance sporting performance is cheating. Doping contains risks for the individual, but, more important, it undermines the credibility of sport. Doping is indeed cheating—it is cheating fellow competitors and, not least, it is cheating oneself. Every child knows about cheating, and also children’s exposure to drugs in schools is encouraging them to walk a dangerous path. Doping, without a doubt, is the most serious problem we confront. It is pleasing to see that the World Anti-Doping Agency has given us a worldwide instrument that Governments and sporting organisations can use in cooperating against that common fraud. Through the adoption of the Unesco International Convention Against Doping in Sport, we now have the framework to address the issue. The legislation we are giving a second reading to today will enable our Government to contribute to that process.

Accordingly, I commend members of the Committee for joining forces in order to ensure good governance, democracy, the rule of law, fairness, and physical and moral integrity. The convention will apply to organisations and industry, and it involves the media and civil society. We all must come together and work to confront the problem of doping in sport. Only through a set of commonly agreed principles can we ensure accountability in the wider sense. Government alone cannot address the challenges in this area; we must work together with all parties. The media, in particular, have a very important role to play in drawing to the community’s attention cheating and doping in sport. I believe that all of us must cooperate very thoroughly in this matter. It is really good to have the opportunity here this afternoon to play the game with unity in this Chamber.

The National Party supports this bill. Thank you.

I just want to take a short call. Firstly, I thank Shane Ardern and John Hayes for their contributions. I especially thank Mr Ardern, whom I know better—he knows a bipartisan moment when he sees one.

I just want to address some of the usual political bile that was heaped upon the Sports Anti-Doping Bill by the member for Otago. She again tried to play politics with a bill that I think is pretty straightforward and pretty bipartisan, as exhibited by her more mature colleagues Mr Ardern and Mr Hayes. She tried to say that on the one hand the Government was promoting this bill, yet, on the other hand, it was doing nothing about a substance called benzylpiperazine and party pills. Somehow Ms Dean has become the Joan of Arc of this cause. I say to Ms Dean that before she was nothing but an embryonic twinkle in the eyes of her voters before the last election, my good self and other colleagues who have experienced the scourge of benzylpiperazine in their electorates were on to this issue. About a week before the election a person called Mr Terry Brown, from my electorate, opened one of these scurrilous shops, and a petition was then launched. I note that Ms Dean came to the battle a couple of days late, when the war was won, and tried to bayonet a few wounded, grab a few political headlines, and move on.

She asked what the Government has done about benzylpiperazine, so I will tell her. The Government has acted quite logically. We have a Minister called Mr Anderton as the chair of the Ministerial Committee on Drug Policy. He rated the drug R18, he killed off any advertising opportunities for the drug, and he then assembled a medical experts committee to examine the substance. That medical experts committee—[Interruption] I think Sandra Goudie and Ms Dean are on benzylpiperazine, given the nature of their interjections. As he said in talking to the bill, the medical experts committee will do a simple thing. It will act logically. It has conducted studies that, once released, I am advised, will be informative studies far in advance of any medical studies known, done, or executed in the world. When these studies are released we will know more about benzylpiperazine than anybody else. Then, as Mr Anderton has said, if the members of the medical experts committee—those who have medical degrees and are charged with making these recommendations, unlike Ms Dean, who must be on benzylpiperazine—recommend that it should be banned, and I hope they do, he will ban it.

The way to deal with substances and drugs that flow across our border is not simply to have a gut reaction. Although the drugs may be despicable on the face of it, and I grant members that benzylpiperazine is exceptionally despicable, it is logical to get the medical experts—those with a science background and a degree in medicine who know something about this subject—to examine those substances and make a recommendation. As I have said, once this is done, if the recommendation is to ban, they will be banned. Ms Dean has turned this debate, unlike her colleagues Mr Ardern and Mr Hayes—who made bipartisan, sound, logical, and calm contributions to this debate, because this is good legislation—

Jacqui Dean: Don’t trivialise drugs.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: Well, Ms Dean made a speech that was more about waving political pamphlets and slogans than actually dealing with the issue. She knows that the Government has a medical experts committee examining this. She knows that others were fighting this war far in advance of when she bounced into this House to grab a silly headline. She knows that myself and other colleagues are working with accident and emergency medical specialists like Dr Paul Gee and others, who see kids who are full of the stuff being carried into Christchurch Hospital on gurneys. She knows Mr Anderton’s view, and the rest.

Unlike the National Party, we act logically, and we put up logical bills in the House like this one. All the squawking from the bantam hens over there—and particularly the orange one in the corner of the Chamber, who could not even get a point of order right; that shows how many brains she has—will not make up for the fact that two contributions from National Party members to this debate were bipartisan and sound, and one contribution, from Ms Dean, was silly and juvenile, although not addictive.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I call the honourable member Sandra Goudie.

Mr Chairperson, I really do appreciate that added honorific; thank you very much indeed for that. Once again I would like to commend the most excellent work done by my colleagues Shane Ardern and Brian Connell in supporting the Sports Anti-Doping Bill. We should all have zero tolerance to drugs—especially given that we have had some discussion around party pills. I just reacquaint the Minister with the fact that at the Government Administration Committee it was National members who asked the important question. I know this because I was there on the day—in fact, it was my question. When the submitter—a manufacturer of these party pills—was sitting there at the end of the table, I asked him what research he had done to assess the long-term impacts of party pills. Of course, everybody was gobsmacked when he said “None.” So absolutely no research had been done about the impacts of party pills.

Why was the Government not on to this issue earlier? Why was it not doing something about this earlier? What has it done since? Has there been any progress on demanding some accountability for those—

Hon Member: What’s the answer?

SANDRA GOUDIE: Jacqui Dean is certainly the answer. She is the white knight, championing against benzylpiperazine pills. We say: “Let’s get rid of them; zero tolerance!”. Well done, Jacqui Dean; she is a most excellent colleague. Her petition is a great move forward and I commend her.

The Government Administration Committee had representations from a number of officials and various representatives. I mention the excellent work done by doping control officers in very trying circumstances. It is very important to acknowledge their role in the sports anti-doping arena, because it is pivotal in keeping drugs out of sport. Their role is not always welcome; they interfere in the lives of athletes, coaches, and administrators, but do so for a real and just purpose—that is, to keep drugs out of sport. They do so with confidence and integrity, and with the support of all members of the House, I am sure. It is important to recognise the superb performance of New Zealand athletes in Athens, and our gold medallists Sarah Ulmer, Hamish Carter, and Georgina and Caroline Evers-Swindell, who have continued to support the New Zealand Sports Drug Agency in its mission to provide all athletes with an environment free of the scourge of drugs. We must have an attitude of zero tolerance.

I wonder whether Ron Mark is awake. In one of his previous speeches on this bill he talked about me a lot, so clearly my involvement has made a significant impact on him. He talked about National’s involvement on the select committee and wondered why we did not include a mandatory requirement that people taking illegal drugs be referred to the police. That can be done anyway, so there is no need to make it mandatory for agencies or people to pass information on to the police to follow up. That protects those people from trying to cover up any situation where drugs might be involved. That is appropriate and I hope anybody who knows anything about somebody taking illegal drugs has the fortitude to pass that on to the police and uphold a zero-tolerance attitude towards drugs. I certainly do, and would not hesitate. That is why I am such a strong supporter of Jacqui Dean’s opposition to party pills—which is supported by all of National—and the use of illegal drugs in any situation, but particularly in sport. I recognise Sarah Ulmer’s efforts, and acknowledge her appointment to the athletes committee of the World Anti-Doping Agency.

For the benefit of some people who may be out there listening and be absorbed in the debate, I want to expand a little—

I move, That the question be now put.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): No, I call Sandra Goudie.

Thank you, Mr Chairperson, because I wanted to make the link between the Sports Anti-Doping Bill and the precursor to that, and why National is supporting it so much. I hope my colleagues who have not had the opportunity to make their contributions will be able to.

In explaining the World Anti-Doping Agency, I inform people that it was established by the International Olympic Committee in 1999 with the sole purpose of eliminating doping from international sport. That is highly commendable, and the agency is the fundamental vehicle for achieving this objective. That was finalised at an international conference in Copenhagen in March 2003. It was at that conference that New Zealand became a signatory to the Copenhagen Declaration on Anti-Doping in Sport. That was a good start and effectively provided the means for different countries to support the World Anti-Doping Code. To achieve the implementation, New Zealand must recognise the code by way of legislation and that is the reason for the Sports Anti-Doping Bill before us today.

In essence, the code provides a series of rules that represent a framework to standardise and coordinate international efforts for the prohibition of doping. The code’s fundamental rationale is to preserve what it describes as the “spirit of sport”, which it characterises by reference to a series of values that include fair play, health, and respect for rules and laws. At the heart of that code is the prohibited list—substances that, if present in an athlete’s body, constitute an anti-doping violation. In order to be included on the prohibited list, a substance must meet at least two of the following three criteria: it must have the potential to enhance performance; it must represent an actual or potential health risk, as, of course, they all do; and its use must violate the spirit of sport, as all drugs do. So the World Anti-Doping Agency, WADA—I am not sure whether there is any other way to pronounce that, and perhaps the Minister in the chair, the Hon Clayton Cosgrove, might like to take a call and give us a pronunciation explanation—

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: You’re doing very well.

SANDRA GOUDIE: In summary, although the agency’s stated objective is related to the elimination of doping in sport, its powers allow it to go further and to prohibit athletes from using substances that violate the spirit of sport, even where those substances are not necessarily performance enhancing. Although the agency must consult about the inclusion of any substances on the prohibited list, its view on these matters is ultimately final, and must be implemented by New Zealand as a signatory. That is a particularly important sentence to understand. I think it is important to take note of that.

Actually, speaking about consultation, National members took great advantage of the opportunity to talk to one of the two submitters who talked to the select committee—there was huge interest in this bill! One of them raised a very valid point, which National was quick to understand, about the need to include athletes in the consultative process. The bill talked about sporting organisations or sporting bodies, but not about athletes. We think it was a really positive step forward to ensure that athletes are included in the consultative process, and the feedback was very, very positive. I think the Government Administration Committee did a very good job in the way it addressed some of the concerns raised by the two submitters.

However, testing for the presence of substances may occur both in and out of competition. The prohibited list recognises this distinction, and distinguishes between substances that may be tested for in different circumstances. The reason for this is ostensibly sensible. Certain substances have only a short-term effect—for example, to raise an athlete’s performance for a period of hours during a race or a game—and would be objectionable if found during the period of competition, but would not provide unfair assistance outside the competition.

I move, That the question be now put.

I was not considering taking a call, but since the point has been raised by the honourable Sandra Goudie—[Interruption] All members are honourable, and some are more honourable than others, I guess. I have listened to Ms Goudie’s comments regarding the Government Administration Committee’s majority decision not to require mandatory reporting to the police, and the question I asked in the second reading is still left unanswered. Given that there are only six members on the committee—Mr Ardern, Mr Robertson, Mr Connell, Mr Fairbrother, Sandra Goudie, and Dover Samuels; three Labour members and three National members—how is it that we did not get a unanimous decision that there not be mandatory reporting? Clearly someone in the National Party, and I am assuming it was the National Party, said: “By Jove! We should have mandatory reporting.” Clearly that person stood out on his or her own, otherwise this report on page 2, paragraph 5—

Sandra Goudie: Yes, I said that. Read the Hansard.

RON MARK: I say to Ms Goudie that she has had two calls and now she is trying to get a third by interjection. It sounds to me like she could be on some sort of performance-enhancing drug—but obviously not! Maybe she needs it. That paragraph, if one cares to read it, and I assume that one’s brain has not been addled by performance-enhancing drugs, says: “The majority of the committee are satisfied …”. To get a majority on a committee that is split, three to three, between National and Labour, someone in National had to agree and someone had to disagree. I know hardened, law-abiding citizens who stand up for zero tolerance when I see them, and my gut tells me Shane Ardern is one and Brian Connell is one. But I have a sneaking suspicion that up there in the Coromandel, National has a slightly different view of life.

It is possible that Sandra Goudie’s attempts to mitigate her vote with Labour is now what we are hearing. If Sandra Goudie did not vote and become one of the majority who oppose mandatory reporting to the police of athletes who use illegal substances—[Interruption] She does not want to say. Maybe she should say. Maybe she should be clear and say: “I’m the odd person out in the National Party caucus. I come from the Coromandel and I have a different view of drugs.” I tell Sandra to just say it, be happy with it, because Labour agrees with her.

Hon Member: Coromandel green.

RON MARK: See, Labour agrees with Sandra Goudie. But clearly I might be wrong, so I am looking to hear someone clarify the situation for me. But my gut tells me and New Zealand First that Shane Ardern and Brian Connell do believe in zero tolerance for drug cheats, they do believe in zero tolerance for people who enhance their performance with illegal drugs, and that those members would be the types of people who would want to see a bodybuilder nabbed at the earliest instance and reported to the police for using illegal drugs, not to have him pop up later as some P-crazed P dealer, as was the case.

Our argument would be to go for mandatory reporting, because in that way we can nip it in the bud. That is zero tolerance. If one waits for the system to take its course, one ends up with the situation we have just seen go through the courts. A bodybuilder, in a sport that is riddled with drug abuse, has finally been imprisoned for P dealing. He admitted to the use of anabolic steroids. If he had been picked up in the early stages and potted to the police, right at the earliest instance, one could argue—if those facts reported in the newspaper are true—that he would not have gone on to be involved in the criminal fraternity, dealing with P, as he subsequently was. We do believe in zero tolerance. We would say that the only regret is that the decision not to have mandatory reporting was upheld.

I move, That the question be now put.