Mark Ron: Sports Anti-Doping Bill — Second Reading 
Mark Ron: Sports Anti-Doping Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:634;Page:5607] 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 Pretty much all that needs to be said on the bill has been said thus far. It is interesting listening to the debate. New Zealand First supports the progress of the Sports Anti-Doping Bill through to the Committee stage. From sitting here the different speakers who stand up to speak on sport are noticeable. Some like the honourable Eric Roy who has returned to the House—and I am pleased to see that he is back here—have an extensive sporting background. Even today he still tramps the hills and they still talk about him down in Southland and how active he is in outdoor recreation hunting and shooting. There are others like my colleague Damien O’Connor who still plays rugby with me in the parliamentary rugby team. 
But I do note that very often the only time people making comments on sport are seen anywhere near a sportsground is when they are out there trying to glad-hand their way through an election trying to score some votes. It tends to make me take with a handful of salt what they have to say about sport and recreation in general. I know they are non-participants. They are the proverbial couch potatoes of New Zealand who have a lot to say about sport from the comfort of their armchairs and they tend to reflect that in the way they appear. 
 It was interesting to hear the previous speaker John Hayes straying off the subject and attacking the Government for this that and every other thing. I am not here to be an apologist for the Labour Government but I say to the member who has just spoken that when he talks about whole families having to work day in day out and not being able to attend sporting events together he should remember the name of one Ruth Richardson. 
David Bennett 
: Oh a great MP! 
RON MARK 
: The National Party new boy—the lad who cannot keep his mouth shut during question time during points of order—says she was a great MP. Let me tell that member that not everyone in New Zealand looks upon the years of Ruth Richardson with the same rose-tinted glasses he has. 
When Mr Hayes wants to criticise the situation we have today where people have to work day in day out and do not get time to spend time with their families on the sports fields watching their children he should reflect back on what happened in this country between 1990 and 1996. I have to say that I did my level best for New Zealand when I stood against Ruth Richardson and helped reduce her margin from a majority of about 7000 down to 540 on the night. She was so badly punished by the electorate for the way she handled the New Zealand economy and for the way through her “Ruthanasia” policies she denied young families the opportunity to spend quality time together that her leader Jim Bolger fired her as the Minister of Finance. She spat the dummy and resigned. That is probably the most unsporting conduct I have ever seen from someone—that having lost her job as a Cabinet Minister she spat the dummy resigned and walked away from Parliament altogether. It did the country a favour. It caused a by-election and we moved on. 
So when we talk about the inability of families to spend quality time with their children and when we talk about the inability of New Zealanders to put as much time as possible into voluntarily supporting sport and recreation—being on the netball club committee being a coach assisting to move children in the morning from one venue to another to partake in sport—let us be absolutely clear. Mr Hayes himself used words such as “standards” “ethics” “morals” and “honesty”. Well let us have some standards some ethics and some moral fortitude. Let us have some honesty and put our hands up and say that yes the National Government between 1990 and 1996 played as big a part in destroying that as anybody else that member might like to criticise today. [ 
Interruption 
] The new boy on the block just cannot keep his mouth shut when it comes to interjections. He has a lot to say but we are waiting to hear something of value come out of his mouth. We are waiting and waiting. 
Let us remember what we have done in our past when we stand up and dare to flick criticism. Members talk about standards ethics moral behaviour and honesty. I looked at the membership of the Government Administration Committee. On it are three Labour Party members and three National Party members: Shane Ardern Brian Connell Sandra Goudie Russell Fairbrother Ross Robertson and the Hon Dover Samuels. A paragraph on page 2 of the commentary talks about information sharing. I note with interest: “The majority of the committee are satisfied that it would be undesirable for the bill to be amended to require the Agency to share information with the Police about the results of blood or urine tests.” It says “the majority of the committee”—which has three National and three Labour members. It does not say “unanimous”; it says “majority”. That suggests to me that to get a majority three on one side had to be supported by one on the other. I would like to know who it was on the National Party side or on the Labour Party side who did not agree with his or her colleagues. Clearly someone believed that that information should have been able to be passed to the police. Members can see that on page 2 of the commentary. 
So the question is that if we are to stand up and talk about the problem of drugs in our community as Mr Hayes did and say how terrible it is that we are promoting tolerance towards recreational drugs and how that affects sports anti-doping legislation and the practice of doping in sport then why can we not be honest about who on the committee did not want the police to have the information about who in the sporting fraternity was using drugs? Clearly it was not a unanimous view. Someone on that committee—with three National members and three Labour members—did not agree with his or her colleagues. Someone on that committee said: “To heck with this. If they’re taking drugs the police should know.” I would like to think it was my mate Brian Connell because Brian Connell is an honest man. Brian Connell cannot tolerate lawbreakers. I say this because I have served with Brian Connell on the Law and Order Committee for so long. My heart tells me that he would have a totally uncompromising view on drug use. 
But someone in his party does compromise his or her view. Someone thinks that the police should not know and it would be really interesting to know who it was given National’s long-touted view on law and order and its opposition to drug use. Someone on that committee does not share Brian Connell’s view. I would love to know who. Was it Shane Ardern? I doubt it. Was it Sandra Goudie from Coromandel? Well hello! We all know about Coromandel. I would love Sandra Goudie to come clean. Did she side with the Government? Did that National member Sandra Goudie side with the Labour members on the Government Administration Committee and determine that drug cheats should not be allowed to be exposed to the police? I am looking—as Mr Hayes said—for honesty integrity openness and a high standard of moral behaviour. 
I would like Sandra Goudie to come down to the House because my heart tells me that Brian Connell would dob in drug cheats to the police as quick as a flash. My heart tells me that Shane Ardern would dob them in to the police as quick as a flash. My heart tells me that Shane Ardern and Brian Connell would not want these drug cheats to be able to hide from the law. But someone in National sided with Labour and said that no this information should be kept confidential. Mr Hayes gave a good speech. He preached high on honesty on ethics and on morality. I am now calling upon the member of the National team who voted with Labour to guarantee anonymity and secrecy on the question of who is using drugs and what the results of the blood or urine tests say.