Sports Anti-Doping Bill — In Committee 
Sports Anti-Doping Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:634;Page:5973] 
Sports Anti-Doping Bill 
In Committee 
Part 1 Preliminary provisions 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Minister for Building Issues) 
: I rise to take a short call on the Sports Anti-Doping Bill and I will just say a couple of things about this bill to set a bit of context for members. 
Sandra Goudie 
: Nobody’s listening. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: It is the Sports Anti-Doping Bill—not an “Anti-Dope Bill” as it would be in Sandra’s case. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member must use the member’s full name not a single name. There was also a personal reflection. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I withdraw. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: The Sports Anti-Doping Bill updates New Zealand’s anti-doping legislation so that the agencies and national sporting organisations involved in anti-doping activities in New Zealand are more easily able to comply with the World Anti-Doping Code. New Zealand does not require the Sports Anti-Doping Bill in order to implement the said code or convention as New Zealand is already compliant with these instruments. Instead the bill provides a more efficient and effective way for New Zealand to implement the code. However the bill is intended to assist New Zealand’s compliance with that code. 
The bill updates the responsibilities of the agency to reflect the requirements of the code. The bill also provides for the making of rules closely based on the code that will be able to be implemented by sporting organisations through their anti-doping policies and constitutions. Adoption or compliance with the rules is not compulsory under the bill. The bill itself imposes no obligation on persons; rather it sets up an anti-doping regime that is compliant with the code and easily adopted by sporting organisations. 
There is a question of who will be affected by the bill. The bill does not create a mandatory anti-doping regime. Although the bill provides for sports anti-doping rules these will not be mandatory unless national sporting organisations adopt them or require their members to abide by them. Adoption of the rules by national sporting organisations and requiring members to abide by the rules is a way of ensuring compliance with the code. 
I draw members’ attention to the Supplementary Order Paper that the Government is putting forward and I will run quickly through a couple of key points for members. In respect of the commencement date most clauses of the Supplementary Order Paper deal with the new commencement date of 1 July 2007. This date is intended to provide a fixed start date for the bill in order to give national sporting organisations sufficient time to amend their anti-doping policies while ensuring that the commencement of the bill is not delayed unnecessarily. 
In respect of the expanded transitional functions of Drug Free Sport New Zealand a delay in the commencement date would however prevent Drug Free Sport New Zealand from carrying out its new expanded functions under the code such as preparing the sports anti-doping rules and investigating the anti-doping violations of trafficking in prohibited substances. For this reason clauses 48 48A and 48B will commence on the day the bill is given the Royal assent. The early commencement of these clauses will allow Drug Free Sport New Zealand to continue to prepare the sports anti-doping rules and carry out its own investigative functions. 
In respect of clarification of the jurisdiction of the Sports Tribunal of New Zealand the remaining clauses of the Supplementary Order Paper are technical clarifications to ensure there is no question about the scope of the Sports Tribunal’s jurisdiction under the bill. Amendments to clause 3 clarify that the Sports Tribunal will have functions that are not related to anti-doping—that is hearing considering and determining other sports-related matters. This non-doping jurisdiction is continued by the bill. Finally the amendments to clause 38 clarify that the Sports Tribunal will be able to set its own procedures and practices for both anti-doping and non-doping matters. 
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. 
JACQUI DEAN (National—Otago) 
: 
 I support the Sports Anti-Doping Bill. The purpose of the bill is the laudable aim of “protecting athletes’ fundamental right to participate in doping-free sport”—the National Party supports that—and to “promote health fairness and equality for athletes world-wide;”. That is very laudable but I pause and wonder why the Government is promoting the purposes of this legislation on the one hand yet on the other seems to be terribly terribly remiss in addressing a drug problem in New Zealand which is affecting people within sports codes and also other walks of life. The Government is turning an absolutely blind eye to that growing drug problem in New Zealand which is affecting many many young New Zealanders. The problem is the use of benzylpiperazine-based drugs and the regulations on their use. It makes me wonder how the Government on the one hand can have such laudable aims yet on the other can be so terribly terribly remiss in doing something about benzylpiperazine. 
We had a rugby player from the UK a member of the North Otago team staying at our place. As part of that second division rugby team’s team building and learning about ethics he and his team were given a little pamphlet which unfortunately I did not bring. I wish I had because I would have tabled it in the House today. This pamphlet warned young rugby players—players in the rugby code in particular—about indulging in drugs and drug use. That pamphlet which was given to every rugby player in North Otago and possibly further afield had a list of drugs to avoid including benzylpiperazine or party pills. Why can we on the one hand have the Sports Anti-Doping Bill yet the Government sits on its hands and does absolutely nothing about an incredibly dangerous drug—in my humble view—benzylpiperazine? It just does not make sense to me. 
We know anecdotally that there is a drug culture growing in New Zealand—affecting all young people not just sportspeople—of party pills or benzylpiperazine. What is the Government doing about it? The Government is doing absolutely nothing about it. The Government has been told about this problem for months and months. I have called on the Minister for Sport and Recreation Trevor Mallard and in fact the Minister in the chair Clayton Cosgrove has expressed his concerns. I would be very interested to know how he can support this bill yet turn an absolute blind eye to benzylpiperazine. We have heard the rhetoric. The member has been full of plenty of hot air in his own electorate; why is he not calling on the Minister concerned with drug policy to tighten up the regulations on party pills? Why is he satisfied to sit back and let a drug problem grow in New Zealand? 
It is interesting that in small provincial communities in New Zealand we are encouraging young people to get into sport—rugby netball hockey; all the good healthy things—and at the same time those people can walk away from their rugby practice go into the dairy and see party pills for sale that contain benzylpiperazine. What kind of message is the Government sending? How can its members sit there and promote this bill—which National members will support—with the purpose of protecting athletes’ fundamental right to participate in doping-free sport when those same athletes can walk out of the changing rooms into the dairy and buy a drug that affects their performance? I ask those members to answer me that because I would dearly love to know. I would dearly love the Minister concerned with drug policy to finally wake up realise what is happening to young people in New Zealand because of drugs and tighten up the regulations around benzylpiperazine. 
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 It gives me great pleasure to rise and speak in support of the Sports Anti-Doping Bill. When one thinks about how we interface as a nation one finds that we certainly celebrate the principles and values around a good even contest. In fact as a nation our sportspeople perform equally as well as—if not better than—any others in the world. 
When we look at Part 1 of the legislation we see that clause 3(a)(i) is “protecting athletes’ fundamental right to participate in doping-free sport and in this way promote health fairness and equality for athletes world-wide;”. That is laudable as the very good member from Otago mentioned and may I take the opportunity to reinforce the comments of that member Jacqui Dean on the party pill problem. The current approach is sending out double standards and a mixed message to our young people. We cannot be complacent when we look at a bill of this nature. I must confess that it is very well-structured and very very consistent all the way through in defining its purpose. Fundamentally that is what Part 1 does. 
The bill talks about some interesting things. For the benefit of the public who are listening at the moment when we talk about anti-doping bills we are talking about people taking substances that will give them an advantage. It could be an advantage in their training and preparation for an event or it could be an advantage during the event itself. Two recent high-profile cases come to mind that sent a sense of great sadness as to the outcome of the events. One was the Tour de France where the first finisher has subsequently run into huge difficulties about the levels of chemicals in his body. Last night some of us had the pleasure of sitting down with Sir Richard Hadlee who was a great bowler; what comes to mind is the problems that have surfaced around the Pakistani pace bowlers. They too have to prove that they have not been assisted by their taking drugs of some nature. So one can appreciate just how important this bill becomes from the point of view of engaging in international sport. 
Sadly the criminals—the cheats—will constantly be moving forward and the bodies that are registered for the purpose of making sure that sports are clean and fair will have to do their utmost to keep up with them. So it is very important that we empower these bodies with what is necessary for them to be able to do that. When I reflect back on it—to bring up a very close-to-home example of having an advantage and actually winning because of that advantage—I think about the overspending of the Labour Party in winning the 2005 election. I was searching for a more sporting example but I could not find one. When we break it down we see that Labour members spent $14000 per electorate more than they were allowed to. That really is an example of what this bill is about because Part 1 refers to the importance of having consistency of standards. 
Part 1 talks about the structure for drug-free sports in New Zealand. There would be a board consisting of five individuals. It talks about “the Code” and for a while I was wondering what sort of code we were referring to. In fact we were referring to the World Anti-Doping Code 2003 as adopted by the World Anti-Doping Agency in Copenhagen on 5 March 2003. I believe that the origin of that code was in issues to do with the Olympics and we know that the Olympic movement is very much about fair play—which is something we certainly do not see when we look at the outcome of the misuse of taxpayers’ funds during the 2005 election. I am sure that that will have ongoing ramifications in the future as those people are held to account under the spirit of fair play which New Zealanders are very well known for. 
JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) 
: 
 Thank you for the opportunity to speak this afternoon on the Sports Anti-Doping Bill. I think that sport has a value and an importance of itself and when we look at sport in the broader context we see it is clear that the values of sport are of massive importance to individual behaviour and also to our society. Sporting activities teach our children a sense of fairness and cooperation. Through sport our youngsters can play win make goals and set goals for themselves. They can also learn of the disappointment that comes with losing in a sporting activity and I think that experience provides them with an opportunity to do better next time. As for our society sport is an important element of all citizens’ lives. Sporting events bring us together particularly rugby and netball—whether provincial or international—as do events like the America’s Cup yacht race. They bring our communities together and sport plays a really crucial role in our society in doing that. 
Sport is also a business and often it is a big business. Sport generates large sums of money and it is also an industry. Sport plays a major role in expanding our economy and in providing employment. It contributes increasingly to the dynamic of economic growth as we saw after we won the America’s Cup here in New Zealand. There are many good aspects to sport that are essential for us as individuals. I think therefore that we need to protect and safeguard those aspects for the sake of our children for the sake of our industry for the sake of sportspeople and for the sake of us all. We are all stakeholders and there is a lot at stake. 
Increasingly the core values of sport are becoming subject to serious threat through the use of drugs—as my colleague from Otago Jacqui Dean pointed out—and it is pleasing that this bill is designed to protect the good from the bad and the ugly. The main danger we face with regard to sport in this country is cheating and I think that either one cheats or one does not. Cheating a little bit or cheating once in a while is cheating whichever way we look at it. So we either play the game or we do not. I am sure that every one of us has witnessed a dirty tackle an unjust rule or a one-eyed referee—or that is what we might have thought—and such experiences particularly if we had them as children give us a clear sense of what is right and what is wrong. We do not tend to forget the childhood indignation caused by injustice and cheating. 
Taking drugs in order to enhance sporting performance is cheating. Doping contains risks for the individual but more important it undermines the credibility of sport. Doping is indeed cheating—it is cheating fellow competitors and not least it is cheating oneself. Every child knows about cheating and also children’s exposure to drugs in schools is encouraging them to walk a dangerous path. Doping without a doubt is the most serious problem we confront. It is pleasing to see that the World Anti-Doping Agency has given us a worldwide instrument that Governments and sporting organisations can use in cooperating against that common fraud. Through the adoption of the Unesco International Convention Against Doping in Sport we now have the framework to address the issue. The legislation we are giving a second reading to today will enable our Government to contribute to that process. 
Accordingly I commend members of the Committee for joining forces in order to ensure good governance democracy the rule of law fairness and physical and moral integrity. The convention will apply to organisations and industry and it involves the media and civil society. We all must come together and work to confront the problem of doping in sport. Only through a set of commonly agreed principles can we ensure accountability in the wider sense. Government alone cannot address the challenges in this area; we must work together with all parties. The media in particular have a very important role to play in drawing to the community’s attention cheating and doping in sport. I believe that all of us must cooperate very thoroughly in this matter. It is really good to have the opportunity here this afternoon to play the game with unity in this Chamber. 
The National Party supports this bill. Thank you. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Minister for Building Issues) 
: 
 I just want to take a short call. Firstly I thank Shane Ardern and John Hayes for their contributions. I especially thank Mr Ardern whom I know better—he knows a bipartisan moment when he sees one. 
I just want to address some of the usual political bile that was heaped upon the Sports Anti-Doping Bill by the member for Otago. She again tried to play politics with a bill that I think is pretty straightforward and pretty bipartisan as exhibited by her more mature colleagues Mr Ardern and Mr Hayes. She tried to say that on the one hand the Government was promoting this bill yet on the other hand it was doing nothing about a substance called benzylpiperazine and party pills. Somehow Ms Dean has become the Joan of Arc of this cause. I say to Ms Dean that before she was nothing but an embryonic twinkle in the eyes of her voters before the last election my good self and other colleagues who have experienced the scourge of benzylpiperazine in their electorates were on to this issue. About a week before the election a person called Mr Terry Brown from my electorate opened one of these scurrilous shops and a petition was then launched. I note that Ms Dean came to the battle a couple of days late when the war was won and tried to bayonet a few wounded grab a few political headlines and move on. 
She asked what the Government has done about benzylpiperazine so I will tell her. The Government has acted quite logically. We have a Minister called Mr Anderton as the chair of the Ministerial Committee on Drug Policy. He rated the drug R18 he killed off any advertising opportunities for the drug and he then assembled a medical experts committee to examine the substance. That medical experts committee—[ 
Interruption 
] I think Sandra Goudie and Ms Dean are on benzylpiperazine given the nature of their interjections. As he said in talking to the bill the medical experts committee will do a simple thing. It will act logically. It has conducted studies that once released I am advised will be informative studies far in advance of any medical studies known done or executed in the world. When these studies are released we will know more about benzylpiperazine than anybody else. Then as Mr Anderton has said if the members of the medical experts committee—those who have medical degrees and are charged with making these recommendations unlike Ms Dean who must be on benzylpiperazine—recommend that it should be banned and I hope they do he will ban it. 
The way to deal with substances and drugs that flow across our border is not simply to have a gut reaction. Although the drugs may be despicable on the face of it and I grant members that benzylpiperazine is exceptionally despicable it is logical to get the medical experts—those with a science background and a degree in medicine who know something about this subject—to examine those substances and make a recommendation. As I have said once this is done if the recommendation is to ban they will be banned. Ms Dean has turned this debate unlike her colleagues Mr Ardern and Mr Hayes—who made bipartisan sound logical and calm contributions to this debate because this is good legislation— 
Jacqui Dean 
: Don’t trivialise drugs. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Well Ms Dean made a speech that was more about waving political pamphlets and slogans than actually dealing with the issue. She knows that the Government has a medical experts committee examining this. She knows that others were fighting this war far in advance of when she bounced into this House to grab a silly headline. She knows that myself and other colleagues are working with accident and emergency medical specialists like Dr Paul Gee and others who see kids who are full of the stuff being carried into Christchurch Hospital on gurneys. She knows Mr Anderton’s view and the rest. 
Unlike the National Party we act logically and we put up logical bills in the House like this one. All the squawking from the bantam hens over there—and particularly the orange one in the corner of the Chamber who could not even get a point of order right; that shows how many brains she has—will not make up for the fact that two contributions from National Party members to this debate were bipartisan and sound and one contribution from Ms Dean was silly and juvenile although not addictive. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I call the honourable member Sandra Goudie. 
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 Mr Chairperson I really do appreciate that added honorific; thank you very much indeed for that. Once again I would like to commend the most excellent work done by my colleagues Shane Ardern and Brian Connell in supporting the Sports Anti-Doping Bill. We should all have zero tolerance to drugs—especially given that we have had some discussion around party pills. I just reacquaint the Minister with the fact that at the Government Administration Committee it was National members who asked the important question. I know this because I was there on the day—in fact it was my question. When the submitter—a manufacturer of these party pills—was sitting there at the end of the table I asked him what research he had done to assess the long-term impacts of party pills. Of course everybody was gobsmacked when he said “None.” So absolutely no research had been done about the impacts of party pills. 
Why was the Government not on to this issue earlier? Why was it not doing something about this earlier? What has it done since? Has there been any progress on demanding some accountability for those— 
Hon Member 
: What’s the answer? 
SANDRA GOUDIE 
: Jacqui Dean is certainly the answer. She is the white knight championing against benzylpiperazine pills. We say: “Let’s get rid of them; zero tolerance!”. Well done Jacqui Dean; she is a most excellent colleague. Her petition is a great move forward and I commend her. 
The Government Administration Committee had representations from a number of officials and various representatives. I mention the excellent work done by doping control officers in very trying circumstances. It is very important to acknowledge their role in the sports anti-doping arena because it is pivotal in keeping drugs out of sport. Their role is not always welcome; they interfere in the lives of athletes coaches and administrators but do so for a real and just purpose—that is to keep drugs out of sport. They do so with confidence and integrity and with the support of all members of the House I am sure. It is important to recognise the superb performance of New Zealand athletes in Athens and our gold medallists Sarah Ulmer Hamish Carter and Georgina and Caroline Evers-Swindell who have continued to support the New Zealand Sports Drug Agency in its mission to provide all athletes with an environment free of the scourge of drugs. We must have an attitude of zero tolerance. 
I wonder whether Ron Mark is awake. In one of his previous speeches on this bill he talked about me a lot so clearly my involvement has made a significant impact on him. He talked about National’s involvement on the select committee and wondered why we did not include a mandatory requirement that people taking illegal drugs be referred to the police. That can be done anyway so there is no need to make it mandatory for agencies or people to pass information on to the police to follow up. That protects those people from trying to cover up any situation where drugs might be involved. That is appropriate and I hope anybody who knows anything about somebody taking illegal drugs has the fortitude to pass that on to the police and uphold a zero-tolerance attitude towards drugs. I certainly do and would not hesitate. That is why I am such a strong supporter of Jacqui Dean’s opposition to party pills—which is supported by all of National—and the use of illegal drugs in any situation but particularly in sport. I recognise Sarah Ulmer’s efforts and acknowledge her appointment to the athletes committee of the World Anti-Doping Agency. 
For the benefit of some people who may be out there listening and be absorbed in the debate I want to expand a little— 
GEORGINA BEYER (Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: No I call Sandra Goudie. 
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. 
TIM BARNETT (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I was not considering taking a call but since the point has been raised by the honourable Sandra Goudie—[ 
Interruption 
] All members are honourable and some are more honourable than others I guess. I have listened to Ms Goudie’s comments regarding the Government Administration Committee’s majority decision not to require mandatory reporting to the police and the question I asked in the second reading is still left unanswered. Given that there are only six members on the committee—Mr Ardern Mr Robertson Mr Connell Mr Fairbrother Sandra Goudie and Dover Samuels; three Labour members and three National members—how is it that we did not get a unanimous decision that there not be mandatory reporting? Clearly someone in the National Party and I am assuming it was the National Party said: “By Jove! We should have mandatory reporting.” Clearly that person stood out on his or her own otherwise this report on page 2 paragraph 5— 
Sandra Goudie 
: Yes I said that. Read the  
Hansard 
. 
RON MARK 
: I say to Ms Goudie that she has had two calls and now she is trying to get a third by interjection. It sounds to me like she could be on some sort of performance-enhancing drug—but obviously not! Maybe she needs it. That paragraph if one cares to read it and I assume that one’s brain has not been addled by performance-enhancing drugs says: “The majority of the committee are satisfied …”. To get a majority on a committee that is split three to three between National and Labour someone in National had to agree and someone had to disagree. I know hardened law-abiding citizens who stand up for zero tolerance when I see them and my gut tells me Shane Ardern is one and Brian Connell is one. But I have a sneaking suspicion that up there in the Coromandel National has a slightly different view of life. 
It is possible that Sandra Goudie’s attempts to mitigate her vote with Labour is now what we are hearing. If Sandra Goudie did not vote and become one of the majority who oppose mandatory reporting to the police of athletes who use illegal substances—[ 
Interruption 
] She does not want to say. Maybe she should say. Maybe she should be clear and say: “I’m the odd person out in the National Party caucus. I come from the Coromandel and I have a different view of drugs.” I tell Sandra to just say it be happy with it because Labour agrees with her. 
Hon Member 
: Coromandel green. 
RON MARK 
: See Labour agrees with Sandra Goudie. But clearly I might be wrong so I am looking to hear someone clarify the situation for me. But my gut tells me and New Zealand First that Shane Ardern and Brian Connell do believe in zero tolerance for drug cheats they do believe in zero tolerance for people who enhance their performance with illegal drugs and that those members would be the types of people who would want to see a bodybuilder nabbed at the earliest instance and reported to the police for using illegal drugs not to have him pop up later as some P-crazed P dealer as was the case. 
Our argument would be to go for mandatory reporting because in that way we can nip it in the bud. That is zero tolerance. If one waits for the system to take its course one ends up with the situation we have just seen go through the courts. A bodybuilder in a sport that is riddled with drug abuse has finally been imprisoned for P dealing. He admitted to the use of anabolic steroids. If he had been picked up in the early stages and potted to the police right at the earliest instance one could argue—if those facts reported in the newspaper are true—that he would not have gone on to be involved in the criminal fraternity dealing with P as he subsequently was. We do believe in zero tolerance. We would say that the only regret is that the decision not to have mandatory reporting was upheld. 
SHANE JONES (Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 71 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 45 
New Zealand National 45. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 64 in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard to clause 3 be agreed to. 
Amendment agreed to. 
Part 1 as amended agreed to. 
Part 2 New Zealand Sports Drug Agency 
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. 
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 I rise also to speak to Supplementary Order Paper 64 put forward in the name of the Minister Trevor Mallard. I share the same concern that has been expressed by Shane Ardern about it because we have not had a chance to consider the implications of the changes. However if I look at the World Anti-Doping Code—and I just happen to have a copy here with me—I see that article 2.2 refers to the use or attempted use of a prohibited substance or prohibited method. Without reading the further detail of that on the face of it that looks fine. Article 2.4 relates to the violation of applicable requirements regarding athlete availability for out-of-competition testing including failure to provide required whereabouts information and missed tests. On the face of it that looks OK. Article 2.5 relates to tampering or attempting to tamper with any part of doping control. 
We could go through those articles bit by bit. For the benefit of anybody who is interested I say article 2.7 relates to trafficking in any prohibited substance or prohibited method. So the code does cover trafficking which I think is an interesting point and well worth including. It follows on from the zero tolerance concept. Actually in speaking about that I recall that John Hayes my most excellent colleague on my right raised the point that the Minister has actually signed into agreements before this bill has been passed. Some conventions have been signed into and it is quite extraordinary that the Minister has entered into agreements prior to the legislation being adopted. 
Having read out clause 48A and considered the issues in relation to it I have yet to read the rest of the clauses to see what sort of effect they will have. So I will reiterate the call from my most excellent colleague Shane Ardern that the Minister take a call actually go through the clauses on Supplementary Order Paper 64 and explain what the material changes are. I have explained the change in regard to clause 48A so he could skip that one. I looked at the change to clause 3 and I found no problem with that. It just sets out a bit more clearly what Drug Free Sport New Zealand is—the fact that it is an independent body. It also sets out quite separately that the tribunal is also an independent body and it sets out what each of those bodies undertakes. So on the face of it the change to clause 3 looks fine and clause 48A looks fine. 
We will have to work our way through the rest of the Supplementary Order Paper perhaps as the Minister takes a call. He could explain clause 48B “Use of information and evidence gathered under section 48A(1)(a). That I think is quite an important clause and should not be understated in any way. I would also like the Minister to take a call about clause 48 “Preparation and making of rules before 1 July 2007”. That is new. We are always a little concerned when rules are to be prepared and made so we require the Minister to get up take a call and explain why that measure has suddenly popped in there. He could explain the conditions and dates in that clause in relation to clauses 16 to 22. If the Minister would do that it would be greatly appreciated and we could then support that Supplementary Order Paper with a little more confidence. 
In talking further about this bill I see that these provisions are about the World Anti-Doping Code; they are all about what the World Anti-Doping Agency has in its code. The bill picks up on some of the more pertinent aspects of the code and with a zero tolerance to drugs and their use in sport—for the benefit of Mr Mark—I think that those particular parts of the Supplementary Order Paper are quite pertinent. I am running out here; I will let my colleague take over. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Minister for Building Issues) 
: 
 I will just briefly address the point that Mr Ardern was asking about. Supplementary Order Paper 64 has been reviewed by the Ministry of Justice in respect of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. Clause 48A will allow Drug Free Sport New Zealand to carry out the investigations required under the World Anti-Doping Code. The Supplementary Order Paper does not go beyond what was set out in the bill but because the commencement date of the bill has been delayed clause 48A will allow the agency to exercise those functions in the interim period. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National) 
: 
 The Sports Anti-Doping Bill is a good example of a bipartisan bill and it is a very important one because so much of our international reputation hangs on the activities of our athletes. But I am very reluctant to impose responsibility on our athletes without sharing a reasonable understanding of the situation. 
I guess when I speak on this part of the bill—which I am very pleased to support—I have to reflect that to date my life has spanned an era from what could be termed pre - drug use to widespread drug use. I can recall that when I was at school and I am sure some of my senior colleagues on that side of the Chamber can remember a similar period we only ever heard about drugs. They were not part of our life in any shape or form particularly from the point of view of performance-enhancing drugs at a sports level. But we were keen on sports and sports are an intensive competitive business. 
 Fairness has to be established by rules. It is not a natural feature of sport. And the rules have to be equally applied. In the case of really good performers they were often gifted with what we call a natural ability. Natural ability was one of the main contributors to people having real success in teams representing their schools. I suggest that life has continued on that basis for the majority of young sportspeople and sports-minded people ever since. 
I remember some years ago when my wife and I visited an isolated township in the far north in Tai Tokerau where the local population has an endemic drug-taking problem—a legacy of the hippie period of the 1970s. We were invited to take morning tea with the local schoolteachers who were getting ready for the forthcoming term. They explained to us the difficulty they had in helping kids to avoid getting hooked on drugs and how useful it was to encourage them in sport. They had to do it by the time the kids were about 10 or 11 years old. I guess things go in full circle. Once heavily into sports of a competitive nature young athletes of today have to be encouraged to avoid becoming hooked on performance-enhancing drugs. 
I have never actually excelled particularly in competitive athletics in field sports and I make no pretence that I have. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: That would be right. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: But I did have some success in competitive sword fencing. I do not know what sports the Hon Clayton Cosgrove has excelled in; I have not heard about it yet. No doubt he will tell us. But I have never come close to any level of excellence that would lead me to tip the balance in my favour by taking performance-enhancing drugs. 
When one thinks though of the effort that goes into the training of modern athletes and sportsmen and sportswomen—the endless runs the swims the cycling whatever it is—one realises the huge commitment on the part of individuals their trainers their managers and their families. The temptation to use drugs must be enormous particularly if others are doing it too. The only way to prevent drugs in sports is to apprehend those who use them and deal with them in a way that discourages others. The whole regime must have a robust ethical norm that all athletes and trainers can have confidence in. How do we do that? We do it through good legislation and effective agencies. 
I note that David Gerrard the Chairperson of now Drug Free Sport New Zealand formerly known as New Zealand Sports Drug Agency says in his report “When good men (and women) do nothing bad things happen …”. In making his report on the activities of the agency he is happy to advise that clearly good men and women in his organisation have been working very hard. The work is not easy. Doping control officers have a difficult time. It is a job of unpredictable responses and less than warm welcomes. Theirs is frequently a thankless task. However the measure of their crucial input is recorded in the annual survey of athlete satisfaction and this year it affirms the confidence the majority of athletes have in the integrity of the process. They might not like it but it is fair and it works. That is the important thing. 
The international code the World Anti-Doping Code can be put in place by the legislative effect of the bill. To have the legislative structure will permit Drug Free Sport New Zealand to do its job. National sporting agencies will be able to adopt the rules through their anti-doping policies and in ways that bind national and international athletes as well as officials. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 64 in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard to Part 2 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to. 
Part 2 as amended agreed to. 
LINDSAY TISCH (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I think at this time in the debate before we start on Part 3 it would be appropriate to report progress. I seek leave for that purpose. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member does not need to seek leave. I am now in the situation where I have to leave the Chair anyway. 
Progress to be reported presently. 
House resumed. 
The Chairperson reported progress on the Sports Anti-Doping Bill and no progress on the Communications Legislation Bill.  
Report adopted.