Ardern Shane: Sports Anti-Doping Bill — In Committee 
Ardern Shane: Sports Anti-Doping Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:634;Page:5974] 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki-King Country) 
: 
 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.