Ardern Shane: Sports Anti-Doping Bill — Third Reading 
Ardern Shane: Sports Anti-Doping Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:634;Page:6193] 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki-King Country) 
: 
 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 12000 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.