Mark Ron: Sports Anti-Doping Bill — Third Reading 
Mark Ron: Sports Anti-Doping Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:634;Page:6195] 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to put on the record that New Zealand First supports the passage of the Sports Anti-Doping Bill the principles behind it and everything it stands for. 
When I am out and about as a member of Parliament I talk to people—answering questions and explaining the sort of work that I am engaged in. Lately I have been saying that we are currently working on the Sports Anti-Doping Bill. On one occasion a gentleman suggested: “It doesn’t matter what you do legislatively Ron; you’re not going to stop some people being dopey—end of story.” I guess there is truth in that; there will always be those athletes who seek an advantage and there will always be some MPs who do their business the way they do. 
Speaking of parties I again have to put on the record the concerns raised by New Zealand First when we read the Government Administration Committee’s report. I raised these concerns about the issues of privacy and information sharing during the Committee stage. I say again in this third reading that we note that the select committee reported back that a majority supported the view that information should not be shared with the police. On a select committee drawn up of three National Party members and three Labour Party members that majority means someone on the National team had to have agreed with Labour. 
I have said before that I know in my heart of hearts that Shane Ardern is a man who when he says “zero tolerance” means it. I know my colleague from down south Brian Connell to be a man of his word and a man of honour; a man who says what he means and means what he says. If he says he stands for zero tolerance he means it. This leaves only one person who needs to come to this House and explain her vote in this reading of the bill and that is Sandra Goudie. Quite clearly her view of zero tolerance in terms of drug use and law and order is more aligned with that of Labour than that of National. That is why she broke ranks and voted with the Government on that particular clause. 
Judith Collins 
: This is outrageous! 
RON MARK 
: It is outrageous as Judith Collins says. I agree with her; it is absolutely outrageous that someone who preaches zero tolerance who runs around this country condemning Maori up hill and down dale for drug use and who condemns people for the use of marijuana should vote against mandatory reporting. 
Judith Collins 
: Are you going to apologise to Sandra Goudie for that? 
RON MARK 
: Sandra Goudie—I say to Judith Collins who loves to interject—has every opportunity to come to this House to say that she did not vote in support of retention of the proposal that there should not be mandatory reporting. 
Judith Collins is an esteemed person who obviously went past fifth form and she knows that three and three are equal numbers. To get a majority there must be four against two. Therefore someone has to fess up and say that he or she has a different view of zero tolerance when it comes to the use of drugs and does not believe that people should automatically be reported to the police if they are found to be in breach of the code. That is all we ask—for someone to be upfront and clear about his or her position on this. The issue has obviously hit a very serious nerve with some National members on the front bench. 
If we want to go down that path and talk about restrictions on people expressing their views I will also put on the record that it is disappointing that a member who sits on the Government Administration Committee has not been permitted to speak in this House on that bill. I speak of Brian Connell. Brian Connell and I worked on the Law and Order Committee for years and I found him to be a staunch advocate of law— 
Anne Tolley 
: He spoke last night. 
RON MARK 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Anne Tolley just said: “That is a lie.” which is outside the Standing Orders and an unparliamentary term. Just because she is a whip does not mean to say she can get away with that sort of nonsense. 
Judith Collins 
: I think Mr Mark may have misheard Mrs Tolley. I heard her say: “He spoke last night.” and Mr Connell did. I think Mr Mark should stick to the bill and stop making ridiculous comments about Mr Connell. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I accept the view from the member on my left. 
RON MARK 
: So do I Mr Deputy Speaker. It was gunner’s ear as they say; I thought I had heard something different. But if Mr Connell was permitted to speak last night then I assume he will be allowed to speak today. I look forward to his contribution today because a little birdie had indicated to me that maybe he might not be allowed to speak. If we have just curtailed that decision then that is a good thing because I value Brian Connell’s contributions. I value his contributions down in the South Island. I and New Zealand First as a party have always been very appreciative of the support he has given to legislation that seeks to interdict drug dealers drug users anyone who distributes drugs and anyone who in any way advocates that there is something OK about drug use or the illicit drug use that we are trying to deal with in this legislation. 
People like Brian Connell are hugely valuable to this House. Their contributions in the past have been invaluable and we look forward to more contributions. We look forward to hearing an announcement from the National Party that it has stopped its petty vindictiveness and has reinstated Mr Connell in the caucus to allow him to participate 100 percent as the duly elected member for Rakaia—[ 
Interruption 
]—which he is I tell Anne Tolley. In fact I tell that member that he is an elected member and that is something we should acknowledge. We should ensure that he is accorded the right he so duly and justly has to speak on any issue whenever he pleases. 
If New Zealand First has some concerns about the bill they lie around the privacy issues but we are prepared to go with the select committee’s decisions and recommendations that the names of athletes who have tested positive to prohibitive substances should be kept private prior to the hearing process. But we reinforce the words of the Minister for Sport and Recreation in saying that where an athlete has been found to be using not just a performance-enhancing drug but an illegal drug such as methamphetamine we want it on the record that we have grave reservations that his or her name will not be made known. I ask the House to consider the fact that athletes who aspire to achieve at a high level both nationally and internationally draw with them a huge amount of adoration from our young. They become role models; knowingly wilfully or not—they do. They are people whom young people see on television every night every weekend and every month and those young people adore respect and admire those athletes. To have an athlete who is known to be a methamphetamine user out there in the sporting world adored loved and admired by young people who have no knowledge and whose parents have no knowledge that that athlete is a user of illicit drugs is something we would question the value of. 
So we will accept the word of the six honourable members on the select committee but I think we should underline the words of Shane Ardern in his contribution that in time once this bill has run something of its course we might need to review some of those questions should it be proved we need to. Everyone loves our All Blacks our Silver Ferns and our great international athletes but there is no room for respect or adoration to be built around athletes who are users or even distributors of illicit illegal and harmful drugs. That would do us no good as a nation at all.