Sports Anti-Doping Bill — In Committee 
Sports Anti-Doping Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:634;Page:6137] 
Sports Anti-Doping Bill 
In Committee 
Debate resumed from 19 October. 
Parts 3 and 4 schedules and clauses 1 and 2 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki-King Country) 
: 
 It is a rare occasion when one can stand in this Parliament and find total support for legislation from all parties in the Chamber. So to some extent this is something that is quite good to be involved in. Doping is fundamentally contrary to the spirit of sport and it puts at risk the ethical principles and educational values combined in the International Charter of Physical Education and Sport of Unesco. For that reason the National Party is very much in support of this legislation. The anti-doping programmes therefore seek to preserve what is intrinsically valuable about sport which is characterised by values such as honesty ethics fairness health respect courage commitment and solidarity. It is not often that one can find all those words strung together in one bill. It is just a pity that one or two of the political parties in this Parliament could not exercise what is being attempted in this legislation. 
The code that seeks to harmonise international efforts to address doping in sport was finalised at the World Conference on Doping in Sport which was held in Copenhagen from 3 to 5 March 2003. Clearly that was a good position to take. I understand the Minister in the chair the Hon Trevor Mallard might have been somewhere near there at the time so he is to be congratulated on taking us to that position. 
It is heartening to see that this Government which is not well known for this characteristic has decided not to introduce charges when it comes to Customs Service checks at the border and other checks where charges take place. When we think about other border control measures put in place by this Government it has introduced charges on a scale that we have never seen before. I am pleased the Government chose not to do that in this case. The sharing of information or evidence by the New Zealand Police the Customs Service and others is eminently sensible. So those who drafted the legislation and of course the very good Government Administration Committee that looked at it condoned all those measures. 
Darren Hughes 
: Who chairs that committee? 
SHANE ARDERN 
: That committee is very ably chaired and I welcome interjections from my “Nigerian” brother across the Chamber and suggest that some of the measures brought before the committee had all the aroma flavour and taste of—what was it? 
Darren Hughes 
: Nigerian cowhead stew. 
SHANE ARDERN 
: Nigerian cowhead stew. Of course it would have had the same effect on one’s running ability if one had ingested it. I suggest that the Minister in the chair go back and look at some of the things that the select committee had to deal with. We really did tidy that up. 
Part 3 deals with the Sports Tribunal of New Zealand. Membership consists of at least five but no more than nine members. Each member is appointed by the Governor-General on the recommendation of the Minister for Sport and Recreation on the basis of his or her qualifications and ability to represent the sporting sector. That is very sensible as well and once again it is almost out of character for this Government to get so many things right. I am wondering what has happened to the Minister! Perhaps his hopes and aspirations for higher office were at the forefront of his mind therefore he did not give this bill his usual attention and thereby it did not get mucked about. I congratulate the Minister on achieving that goal. 
Around the world New Zealanders are known as a group of individuals who box above their weight and no more so than in sport. Our New Zealand All Blacks are the best in the world. They are world-famous. Our basketball players our netball players our golfers—you name it; we are the best. It is a great thing because it brings everybody together and is good for the health of the nation. I say to the Minister that anything that minimises the use of drugs in this regard has to be positive. 
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 It is indeed an honour to speak to the Sports Anti-Doping Bill. I would like to concentrate just a bit on Part 3. My learned colleague talked about the tribunal and it surprises me to some degree that it has taken this length of time to put these very important structures in place so that we can move forward. Having come from an organisation—Shearing Sports NZ—that received funding from Sport and Recreation New Zealand we had to have a drug policy and implement it. Anybody who ever went for a shearing record had a blood sample taken for testing. So it is quite interesting to see that we are putting in place the Sports Anti-Doping Bill now and to see how it is structured. It is quite significant that this be given quite a bit of credibility if confidence is to be built based around this function. 
We have Drug Free Sport New Zealand the Sports Tribunal of New Zealand and rules that must be upheld. It is interesting that membership of the tribunal consists of a minimum of five and a maximum of nine members. When we look at the requirements for appointment as a member we see that those people must be very appropriately qualified so we could say they do not just fall off the back of a truck. The seriousness of this statutory tribunal is recognised by the fact that those people are appointed by the Governor-General on the recommendation of the Minister who consults with the board of Sport and Recreation New Zealand. 
The Governor-General appoints the chairperson and that person must not only have a good knowledge of sport but also legal knowledge. That is very important. If the tribunal does not have the overall trust and confidence of the entire institutions of sport when it is dealing with matters brought before it then it will collapse and will not uphold the good intentions of the sports anti-doping legislation. So Part 3 is very important. The Governor-General also appoints the deputy chairperson. The chairperson deputy chairperson and at least one other member must be a barrister or solicitor of the High Court of New Zealand with no less than 7 years’ practice and must have substantial experience in legal issues affecting sport or have had a substantial involvement in sport. They need a minimum of a 10-year aggregate period of experience in a sporting body or a high level of sporting experience. 
The tribunal in itself has to be quite robust and because it is a statutory body its functions go to considerable lengths to ensure that its powers are carried out. It has the power to summon witnesses. It also has the power to ensure that those people who refuse to turn up do so at the risk of a fine—the fines are spelt out in Part 3—so there can be no doubt in the minds of those concerned about what they are undertaking. However the tribunal’s importance is also recognised by the fact that costs can be imposed where those people do not turn up or do not subscribe to the appropriate course of conduct. An order for those costs can be filed in the District Court and may be enforced as a judgment of that court. 
This bill is a foundation cornerstone to having robust sporting anti-doping legislation and as such finds its place appropriately—although considerably later than it should have been—on the statute book. Interestingly only two submissions were received. I would not say that in itself would indicate a lack of interest. I would probably say those two submissions were quite appropriate but it also indicates there was a universal acceptance of the importance of this legislation. 
So as we go forward supporting this Sports Anti-Doping Bill we recognise that New Zealand does have a good record to uphold in the world of sport. We want to be able to hold up our sporting heroes as examples and sport is probably the very best activity we can encourage our young ones to participate in. When one drives back from the airport in Blenheim one goes past the sign “A child in sport stays out of court” and as long as our young ones do not dabble in drugs that would tend to be the case. 
If people who are involved in sport aim to be at the top end and are tempted to cheat we say that cheating is not allowed. If those people take stimulants of a prescribed nature that exaggerate their performance whether in training or in competition that is cheating—and they will be punished by the tribunal. The tribunal has a set of rules which it will uphold with integrity and honour. 
BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia) 
: 
 By popular demand I am back and I thank you Mr Chairperson for the call on the Sports Anti-Doping Bill though my colleagues on the other side of the Chamber might regret having supported my call when I get to the substance of what I want to talk about. 
Let me start by saying that anything that sends a message that drug abuse in sport will not be tolerated has my support. Anything that sends a message that says that cheating will not be tolerated no matter under what guise has my support. But if ever there was legislation that did not need to come to this Chamber this is it. Let me articulate why I believe that. 
This bill will provide the legislative framework to facilitate New Zealand’s compliance with the World Anti-doping Code. That is a voluntary code but what would have happened had we not signed on to this? Let me tell the Committee that the perfect market effect would have taken place. Sportspeople cannot participate in elite sporting events anywhere in the world unless they abide by the code. To waste Parliament’s time legislating this is simply unnecessary. The real reason for doing it is that the Minister for Sport and Recreation wants to be able to tell the world that New Zealand was one of the first to sign on to the Unesco convention. A self-governing model was in place yet here we are at 9 o’clock on 25 October 2006 talking about this type of legislation. 
The other thing I want to refer to is information sharing which is something that throughout the course of the bill in the Government Administration Committee I felt rather strongly about. There is a conflicting message in what we are suggesting in the stamping out of drugs and in what we have decided to do as a committee. I respect the select committee process and I respect the fact that my arguments there were put and lost but there is still an opportunity to raise them in the course of this debate. 
“Evidence of a prohibitive drug in an athlete’s blood may be sufficient to affect the athlete’s rights under a sporting code but it is unlikely to be sufficient evidence for Police purposes.” That is what we have written in the commentary on the bill. I want to raise this objection and I want to raise it now. If we do not say to elite athletes that we will not tolerate their using class A drugs then however will we get the message out to the wider community that taking drugs in any guise is simply not acceptable? We have an agency that has now proudly changed its name to Drug Free Sport New Zealand yet at the same time the committee would not write into the legislation that it has no tolerance whatsoever of class A drugs. 
A high-profile example is the case of Wendell Sailor the Wallabies right-winger who was caught with a class A drug by his blood tests. The argument rages that that may not be enough reason for a conviction but for goodness’ sake does it not put the police on notice that there is a member of society a member of the wider community who is getting access to an illicit drug regardless of whether it is sports-enhancing? He was engaged—and he has now admitted it—in illegal activities. 
We have lost the opportunity as a Parliament to send out a very clear message that we object not only to drug cheating in sport but also to drug use full stop and that the full force of the law will be brought down upon those who engage in these types of activities. 
I realise that we do not want to prolong this debate but I want to take the opportunity to thank the select committee members for the way they have worked on this legislation. I also thank the advisers who came to the select committee and offered their assistance. Before I conclude I will reiterate the message about drugs. In order to set a precedent that says drug taking of any sort will not be tolerated we need to write it into our legislation when the opportunity presents itself and we need to be firm and walk the talk. 
JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) 
: 
 Mr Chairman— 
Darren Hughes 
: The athletic prowess himself. 
JOHN HAYES 
: The member for Otaki might laugh but I have been out every morning for weeks doing my 30 minutes Push Play. I say to that youthful member of this House who probably cannot remember back to the 1960s that at that time when I was young—[ 
Interruption 
]—yes I say to Ms Dalziel; about the same time as she was young—our parents had to demand that we come in from being outside. Today under this politically correct cringing administration we have trouble getting our kids to go outside. They are glued to the Internet they are glued to television— 
Martin Gallagher 
: It’s all Darren’s fault. 
JOHN HAYES 
: It is—the bikie boy from Otaki. Because we are dealing with a leftist administration I suggest that we could find useful because we are supporting this bill together the words of Nelson Mandela who extolled the virtues of sport in the following way: “Sport is very important for building character”—the member might pass that on to the Prime Minister—“because when you’re involved in sport your individual character comes out your determination your ability to be part of the team and the acceptance of the collective effort is extremely important in developing your country as well as patriotism.” It is in this context that I want to reflect for half a minute on the issue of role models because they are extremely important to the development of our community. 
Over the last 20 years I have seen the development of commercial sport with people earning very very significant amounts of money. When they have finished with their sport having earned quite a lot of money they seem to move on to the entertainment industry where they earn more significant amounts of money. But there is a common denominator—drugs. I think the people who have found themselves tangled up in this way are very poor role models and that is why I welcome and my party welcomes this bill and supports the Labour Government in promoting it. I think that is a very important issue. 
As I said at an earlier stage of this bill sport is a thriving and vital part of our economy. We see it here in Wellington in the impact of sporting events at the Cake Tin. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: The what? I thought the member came from the Wellington region. It’s not called that in the Wairarapa. 
JOHN HAYES 
: The Cake Tin yes. The member’s Wainuiomata ratepayers contributed as did mine in the Wairarapa. I think sport also helps project the nation on the international stage and I particularly welcome the activities of our yachtsmen who are competing in and preparing for the America’s Cup campaign. I think sport plays a significant role potentially in our international relations. 
The habits developed in childhood remain with us for life. Coming back to what I said at the beginning I think there are many reasons for the diminishing rate of participation in sport among children. A glimpse inside the average suburban home in the Wairarapa provides the clues: television computer games and the Internet. Our communities now—and I am talking particularly of the Wairarapa—have far more two-income families and single-parent families for whom getting children to and from sport is very difficult. I think we need as a community to address these issues. 
Let me refer now to the bill and in particular to Subpart 3 “Rules” in Part 2. Clause 16(4) states: “Before making a rule under this section the board must give national sporting organisations athletes and the Privacy Commissioner”—God help us—“a reasonable opportunity to comment on the proposed rule.” Having the Privacy Commissioner involved is an example of political correctness. Then I refer to clause 17 and in particular to subclause (1) which states: “The following written material may be incorporated by reference in the rules: (a) standards requirements or recommended practices of the World Anti-Doping Agency:”. That is fair enough. Then that is repeated: “(b) the World Anti-Doping Agency’s International Standards:”. It strikes me that that is superfluous and unnecessary. Paragraph (c) states: “the World Anti-Doping Agency’s Models of Best Practice.” This is very poorly drafted legislation. 
Let me go on. Clause 18 “Effect of amendments to or replacement of material incorporated by reference in rules” states—work this lot out—“An amendment to or replacement of material incorporated by reference in the rules (the principal rules) has effect as part of the principal rules only if rules made after the making of the principal rules state that the particular amendment or replacement has that effect.” What is the Minister for Sport and Recreation up to here? This is gobbledegook—absolute nonsense with no meaning at all. And he is asking us to support it? For goodness’ sake he should get his drafting sorted out. 
Let us move on to clause 20 “Effect of expiry of material incorporated by reference” which states: “Material incorporated by reference in the rules that expires or is revoked or ceases to have effect ceases to have legal effect as part of the rules only if rules made under section 16 state that the material ceases to have legal effect.” I say to the people of this country that they are paying millions of dollars for bureaucrats to write this gibberish this absolute and utter nonsense. It hurts me to have to get up here and support this bill because I disapprove of this absolute nonsense that the Minister is promoting to us and to the people of New Zealand. 
Next I refer the Minister to clause 33 “Term of office of members of Tribunal” which states: “Except as provided in section 34 a member of the Tribunal holds office for a term not exceeding 5 years.” Well what is wrong with 3 years? We should keep it near to a parliamentary term because in that way we can keep a balance in appointment processes. 
Next is the real hole in the Minister’s legislation clause 43 “Privileges and immunities” which states: “(1) Witnesses appearing before the Tribunal have the same privileges and immunities as witnesses have in proceedings in a District Court. (2) Every counsel agent or other person appearing before the Tribunal has the same privileges and immunities as counsel have in proceedings in a District Court.” If I were from another country such as China which exports dope and drugs and in particular sport-enhancing drugs I think I would put all my athletes on diplomatic passports because straight away the whole lot of them would be exempt from the Minister’s rules. 
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 My colleague has raised some very interesting issues. Perhaps the Minister might like to take a call and elucidate what he thinks will happen in terms of District Court rules applying to overseas athletes here in New Zealand and how that will be addressed. I commend yet again my colleagues Shane Ardern and Brian Connell for their sterling efforts at the Government Administration Committee to ensure we have something that we can at least manage to some degree. [ 
Interruption 
] What is the bleating over there from that member? He cannot even get himself to a select committee. 
In relation to this bill the issue of the sharing of information about positive drug tests has been raised a number of times in the House. I would like to share with members a report that came to the select committee with additional detail on the implications of amending the Sports Anti-Doping Bill to require Drug Free Sport New Zealand or the Sports Tribunal to share information with the police about the results of blood or urine tests if the test results indicate that an athlete has used a substance that is classified under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975. 
The select committee asked Sport and Recreation New Zealand officials to consider whether the bill should require Drug Free Sport New Zealand to share drug-testing results with the police. These officials advised the select committee that Drug Free Sport New Zealand should not be required to share information about alleged criminal offences with the police the Customs Service or any other agencies. Under the bill Drug Free Sport New Zealand will not be prevented from sharing the information and the decision on whether to share it will be made on a case by case assessment. Drug Free Sport New Zealand will have the ability to share the information if it feels it is a serious issue. I know that my colleague Brian Connell was particularly concerned about this point. He took a very strong position on this and I commend him for that. 
The select committee asked Sport and Recreation New Zealand officials to provide further advice on this issue and to canvass this matter with the Minister for Sport and Recreation and other interested agencies. They discussed the issue with the Minister for Sport and Recreation and perhaps he might like to take a call and explain his view. They also discussed it with Drug Free Sport New Zealand the New Zealand Police the Office of the Privacy Commissioner and the Ministry of Justice. Based on these discussions the view of the officials remained that it would be undesirable to require Drug Free Sport New Zealand to share with the police the results of blood and urine tests. It is good to reiterate this point to settle people’s minds about the reasoning for not including mandatory sharing of information. 
The World Anti-Doping Agency has a code that sets out a decision-making formula which can be found in some of the reports. When an athlete is subject to a doping test under the World Anti-Doping Code the blood or urine sample is divided into an “A” sample and a “B” sample. At step two in the diagram the “A” sample is where the sample has tested positive for a prohibited or specified substance under the code and for the purpose of this example has also tested positive for a substance that is classified under the Misuse of Drugs Act. That is what is in the “A” category. 
The Sport and Recreation New Zealand officials considered it was premature for Drug Free Sport New Zealand to share information about the test result with another agency at step two in the process because Drug Free Sport New Zealand would not have had an opportunity to review the testing process to ensure there had been no testing error—which can of course occasionally happen when there is a laboratory malfunction or there has been a confusion of the samples. Step two was also a point where Drug Free Sport New Zealand would not have had an opportunity to check whether the athlete had used the substance illegally or legally as a prescription medicine and where the athlete had not been given an opportunity to have the “B” sample tested. Also Drug Free Sport New Zealand is obliged under the World Anti-Doping Code not to publicly release the name of the athlete until after there has been an administrative review. That of course is all part of the process; it is actually step three. Drug Free Sport New Zealand would undertake an administrative review to see whether the athlete has a therapeutic-use exemption. 
JACQUI DEAN (National—Otago) 
: 
 I support this Sports Anti-Doping Bill. It is a great thing that we have a bill that really encapsulates what all of us must feel about the association of drugs with sport. I guess we have all seen examples of bodybuilders and weightlifters ruining their kidneys and falling victim to taking muscle-enhancing drugs. I do not know much about the drugs themselves but I do know the message that this bill is sending out to young people and young sportspeople in New Zealand. 
I understand that the bill will provide a framework that will allow New Zealand to comply with the World Anti-Doping Code. So the spirit of the bill reaches out well beyond New Zealand shores and brings us into line with the thinking on drugs and sport throughout the world. It is good that the bill retains the former New Zealand Sports Drug Agency and renames it more aptly and more appropriately Drug Free Sport New Zealand. I support the very clear message that the renaming of this agency brings with it. This of course is the organisation responsible for the rules that reflect the code in New Zealand. It is good that the bill also retains the Sports Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand renaming it the Sports Tribunal of New Zealand which is fine. 
National sporting agencies will be able to adopt the rules as provided in the bill through the anti-doping policies. The bill outlines the functions of Drug Free Sport New Zealand which will include consultation with Government sporting organisations local authorities the New Zealand Olympic Committee Inc. national sporting organisations and any other bodies on any matters concerned with doping in sport. So it brings me to the point of wondering why the Minister responsible for drug policy is undermining the very spirit and intention of this bill by not clamping down on the sale of benzylpiperazine-based products which are drugs that are also freely available to our young people. 
 How can it be that within our Government we have one Minister who is promoting a Sports Anti-Doping Bill that sends all the right messages to our young people but within that very same Government we have another Minister who is also concerned with drug policy and the message that that drug policy sends to New Zealanders—a message that absolutely without doubt irrefutably undermines the very spirit of this bill? It makes me wonder what it will take for the “Minister of Drug Policy” the Hon Jim Anderton to get off his hands stop looking up at the ceiling stop travelling overseas stop sending funny messages out to farmers and finally do something about tightening the regulations around benzylpiperazine in New Zealand. It is an embarrassment for the Government. It is so embarrassing! I mean on the one hand Government members are going out there with the Sports Anti-Doping Bill saying that it is sending all the right messages to young people but on the other hand they are saying that people can go down to their dairies and buy benzylpiperazine-based products. Where is the consistency in our message on drugs in New Zealand? 
I can tell members that as far as the National Party is concerned our message is extremely consistent on drugs which is why we support this bill. I believe we should be sending one extremely clear message to our young people. Whether it is rugby hockey or drama they are involved in I do not care; the message we should be sending to them from this Parliament should be very clear and very simple. It is that all recreational drugs or mind-altering drugs are bad. But what is this Government sending out? With the Sports Anti-Doping Bill it is sending out one message —a very good message I say to the Minister—but in our drug policy and in the Misuse of Drugs Act it is sending out a completely different waffly “Oh I’m not quite sure if it’s bad and is it doing any harm?” message. I think that that is entirely wrong. 
NATHAN GUY (National) 
: 
 It is good to take a call on the Sports Anti-Doping Bill. It is interesting that the word “doping” was probably derived from the Dutch word “dope” which was an alcoholic drink made up of grape skins and used by Zulu warriors apparently. It made them pretty macho in battle. So that is a little bit of history about where the word “dope” came from many many centuries ago. 
The important thing is that performance enhancement through foreign substances—oh the Minister is going to get out the dictionary now. We will look forward to something from the “Mallard Concise Dictionary” shortly. 
The main thing is that for years and years there have been performance-enhancing drugs in sport. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: “Doop” was the word. 
NATHAN GUY 
: “Doop”? 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Yes that was the Dutch word. 
NATHAN GUY 
: Oh I thought it was “dope”. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: No “doop”—d o o p. 
NATHAN GUY 
: OK I am using another dictionary from Holland. Anyway it is a small debating point. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: It is a derivative so to speak. 
NATHAN GUY 
: Thank you. Thanks for that. I will look forward to hearing a call from the Minister shortly. 
What is actually happening is that this legislation is a bit of a tidy-up as I look at it because the old legislation looks to be a little bit fragmented and haphazard. I think that now what the Government Administration Committee and the Minister are trying to do—which we are supporting—is actually to modernise the rules around this subject and in particular around professionalism. It is really a matter of having a level playing field. I think back to the days when I used to play a little bit of rugby—that is rugby to National Provincial Championship standard. I remember coming off the field from one particular game and seeing a colleague of mine being given a jar and having to do a urine sample there and then on the spot. So he went away to drink a whole lot of water— 
Brian Connell 
: That was Jerry’s problem. 
NATHAN GUY 
: Oh I am not sure about that. So this legislation will actually tidy up a few things that need to be done in order to move our sporting ethics into the modernised world. But I think the key thing with sport—and the Minister knows this being a bit of a sport buff and having a history of playing for the parliamentary rugby team. Unfortunately I do not think he will be putting on his boots next week for the golden oldies tournament will he? 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: No I’m history. 
NATHAN GUY 
: Yes. That is actually a good comment. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: In a rugby sense. 
NATHAN GUY 
: Yes. We will wait for 2008 or before to see whether that becomes true. 
The good thing about sport though is that it enables participation and I would hate to see this legislation stop people from playing sport. For a lot of rural and provincial areas around New Zealand it is extremely hard to attract people into our rugby clubs and sports clubs so the important thing with sport is actually to make sure that people are able to participate. 
I was pleased to see that the select committee did not want to refer to the police people who take some of these substances because that to me would seem a bit ludicrous. Someone may have to take a substance on the advice of a doctor. Pethidine or morphine are examples. It would seem stupid to refer that to the police because right now we have problems in our society and we need the police out there solving those problems. Notwithstanding that if a major drug ring were involved in sports then it should be referred to the police. 
I alert the Minister to new subclause (2A) of clause 30: “In recommending a person for appointment as a member of the Tribunal the Minister must have regard to the person’s personal attributes qualifications and skills.” There are a couple of people up in Horowhenua whom I think the Minister might like to consider. One of those of course is Dean Kent a fantastic swimmer who did extremely well in the Commonwealth Games of 2006 when he obtained a silver medal in the 200 metre individual medley in the pool. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: You don’t think he might have a conflict at the moment? 
NATHAN GUY 
: Ah—not that I am aware of. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Being a current athlete? 
NATHAN GUY 
: Oh yes—fair enough. I was meaning in more futuristic terms. The other one whom I think in the future the Minister might want to have a look at is a great sporting icon from Horowhenua who is still playing a little bit. It is Carlos Spencer. 
Jo Goodhew 
: Oh we thought you were talking about you. 
NATHAN GUY 
: No no not myself I have actually retired. It is Carlos Spencer. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Where’s he playing? 
NATHAN GUY 
: He is playing at the moment over in Northampton in England but he will be coming back to New Zealand at some stage soon. He got his first tattoo at the age of 15 while at Waiopehu College. So I say well done; it is a good bill and we support it. I look forward— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Say “Mr Chairman” and you can keep going. 
NATHAN GUY 
: Mr Chairman? 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: If you are praising me you can keep going for another 5 minutes. 
NATHAN GUY 
: I look forward to the Minister taking a call because I think he needs to do so on a couple of things. One is the definition he has got out of his dictionary and the other is his talking about himself being history. I think it would be great if he could take a call and further explain that. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for Sport and Recreation) 
: 
 I thank members for their contribution. I think it has been light-hearted and members who know my rugby history with the parliamentary rugby team will know that they are not losing too much through my not being there with the team although I will be thinking of them as they play. The member is absolutely right on the derivation of “dope”. It does come from the Dutch and the spelling is “doop”. We would probably have to consult with Mr Duynhoven to get the exact pronunciation later on. 
I thank the Government Administration Committee for the work it has done on this bill. One point I would like to make is that although it was a spirited attack from Mr Hayes he was entirely wrong. International athletes will not be able to become exempted by having diplomatic passports because they will not appear through the system. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 64 in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard to Parts 3 and 4 and clause 2 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to. 
Parts 3 and 4 as amended schedules clause 1 and clause 2 as amended agreed to. 
Bill reported with amendment. 
Report adopted.