Ardern Shane: Sports Anti-Doping Bill — In Committee 
Ardern Shane: Sports Anti-Doping Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:634;Page:5983] 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki-King Country) 
: 
 I rise once again in support of Part 2 of the Sports Anti-Doping Bill. I say in response to a couple of contributions that they were right; there was division within the Government Administration Committee. Certainly it was the select committee members themselves who pursued the issue of whether reporting to the police should be mandatory. On balance based on the fact that it is not mandatory in the first place to participate in testing the majority of the select committee decided that reporting should not be mandatory. Also under other legislation—the Privacy Act and various other bits of legislation—it is actually mandatory to report something and a Government agency is in breach of the law if it does not report something it knows is outside of the law. That is the reason why we came to that decision. 
The second argument that was brought forward which the majority accepted was that if we were to impose such a strict regime there would be less voluntary participation in the testing in the first place. [ 
Interruption 
] It is voluntary. As stated in the legislation ultimately one cannot participate in the sport if one does not agree to testing—that part is compulsory—but one is not under law required to submit oneself for tests. It is the code which is decided on and is administered by the sporting body that requires one to have the test. One is not required by the legislation— 
Ron Mark 
: This is in Clayton’s bill? 
SHANE ARDERN 
: Well “Clayton’s bill” is a very good choice of words I have to say. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member must use the Minister’s full name not just his first name. 
SHANE ARDERN 
: All right I will use the Minister’s full name. It is a “Clayton Cosgrove filling in for the Hon Trevor Mallard” bill. The member Ron Mark is pretty well on the mark. 
I thank the Minister in the chair Clayton Cosgrove for his contribution. He opened up the debate enormously. I was wondering what I could do as an Opposition member in terms of the debate when we totally support the bill but now I can debate almost anything I like. I know that will make your job much more difficult Mr Chairman but I will do my best to stay within the normal bounds of what is parliamentary. 
The area where I have a concern which is reflected in Part 2 is the late introduction of Supplementary Order Paper 64 which of course the Government Administration Committee did not have an opportunity to go through. As the chair of the select committee I do not want to be caught out by that so I seek an assurance from the Minister in the chair that clause 48B “Use of information and evidence gathered under section 48A(1)(a)” which is on the Supplementary Order Paper does not introduce something that is enormously outside of the scope of the original bill that the select committee examined. I do not think it does; I think the explanation the Minister gave is accurate and the measure tidies up some miscellaneous bits and pieces that the officials did not identify prior to the select committee looking at the bill. But I am anxious about that; I do not want that issue to come back as one we have endorsed when in fact we have not. The Minister may care to take a call to allay those fears. 
 The Government Administration Committee in the time-honoured tradition of wanting to make sure that we ended up in a solid position and with a fair description of what we were trying to achieve chose to change the name of the agency. The decision was a little bit controversial but overwhelmingly the support was there for that to happen so the name was changed. The select committee recommended that the name of the agency be amended from the New Zealand Sports Drug Agency to Drug Free Sport New Zealand a name that clearly stated what we were trying to achieve. So that was done and I congratulate the Government on accepting that. 
The other point that is useful to note is that doping is fundamentally contrary to the spirit of sport and puts at risk the ethical principles and education values embodied in the international agreements.