Goudie Sandra: Sports Anti-Doping Bill — In Committee 
Goudie Sandra: Sports Anti-Doping Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:634;Page:5980] 
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 Thank you Mr Chairperson because I wanted to make the link between the Sports Anti-Doping Bill and the precursor to that and why National is supporting it so much. I hope my colleagues who have not had the opportunity to make their contributions will be able to. 
In explaining the World Anti-Doping Agency I inform people that it was established by the International Olympic Committee in 1999 with the sole purpose of eliminating doping from international sport. That is highly commendable and the agency is the fundamental vehicle for achieving this objective. That was finalised at an international conference in Copenhagen in March 2003. It was at that conference that New Zealand became a signatory to the Copenhagen Declaration on Anti-Doping in Sport. That was a good start and effectively provided the means for different countries to support the World Anti-Doping Code. To achieve the implementation New Zealand must recognise the code by way of legislation and that is the reason for the Sports Anti-Doping Bill before us today. 
In essence the code provides a series of rules that represent a framework to standardise and coordinate international efforts for the prohibition of doping. The code’s fundamental rationale is to preserve what it describes as the “spirit of sport” which it characterises by reference to a series of values that include fair play health and respect for rules and laws. At the heart of that code is the prohibited list—substances that if present in an athlete’s body constitute an anti-doping violation. In order to be included on the prohibited list a substance must meet at least two of the following three criteria: it must have the potential to enhance performance; it must represent an actual or potential health risk as of course they all do; and its use must violate the spirit of sport as all drugs do. So the World Anti-Doping Agency WADA—I am not sure whether there is any other way to pronounce that and perhaps the Minister in the chair the Hon Clayton Cosgrove might like to take a call and give us a pronunciation explanation— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: You’re doing very well. 
SANDRA GOUDIE 
: In summary although the agency’s stated objective is related to the elimination of doping in sport its powers allow it to go further and to prohibit athletes from using substances that violate the spirit of sport even where those substances are not necessarily performance enhancing. Although the agency must consult about the inclusion of any substances on the prohibited list its view on these matters is ultimately final and must be implemented by New Zealand as a signatory. That is a particularly important sentence to understand. I think it is important to take note of that. 
Actually speaking about consultation National members took great advantage of the opportunity to talk to one of the two submitters who talked to the select committee—there was huge interest in this bill! One of them raised a very valid point which National was quick to understand about the need to include athletes in the consultative process. The bill talked about sporting organisations or sporting bodies but not about athletes. We think it was a really positive step forward to ensure that athletes are included in the consultative process and the feedback was very very positive. I think the Government Administration Committee did a very good job in the way it addressed some of the concerns raised by the two submitters. 
However testing for the presence of substances may occur both in and out of competition. The prohibited list recognises this distinction and distinguishes between substances that may be tested for in different circumstances. The reason for this is ostensibly sensible. Certain substances have only a short-term effect—for example to raise an athlete’s performance for a period of hours during a race or a game—and would be objectionable if found during the period of competition but would not provide unfair assistance outside the competition.