Simmonds PennyPENNY SIMMONDS (National—Invercargill): Thank you so much Mr Speaker. I'm pleased to rise in this final reading to speak in support of the Integrity Sport and Recreation Bill. Can I thank the Minister for Sport and Recreation for the very open debate that we had on the mandatory versus voluntary in the committee of the whole House. It was something that we had flagged that as a party we had some concerns around but I think that we were given a very full explanation and an ability to think a little bit further on that. And I think that in looking at this in hindsight the fact that they have fallen on the side of voluntary rather than mandatory has been a sensible decision particularly recognising the value of having buy-in from sports codes rather than mandating. So I thank the Minister for his openness on that particular point.I think too some of the points that he bought up reinforced that while it will be voluntary there will be some fairly significant mitigating aspects of that not the least being that there is that public interest test where if it is deemed to be sufficient regardless of whether you've bought in or not there will be an ability for the Integrity Sport and Recreation Commission to be involved. So that's certainly a mitigating fact. There is also the fact that around doping in sport there are aspects of that that are mandatory because of the international sporting body requirements. So that and the fact that this can be reviewed in three years' time to see how it's working all I think gives sufficient comfort to consider that falling on that side of voluntary was the right thing to do at this time. So thank you for that.Just reflecting on how this encompasses and then broadens out from the Drug Free Sport New Zealand—disestablishing that morphing it into this much broader commission—I was reflecting on what sort of secondary benefits we might get from this now being broader. I looked at things like collation of data the ability to track trends across sporting codes and the ability to share best practice. You know I think there will be secondary benefits that come from this that we perhaps haven't even thought of. That is not in any way diminishing the very good service that we have had from Drug Free Sport New Zealand and the functions that they have undertaken.I was thinking back as we were speaking on this to just how long ago it was that I was introduced to this as a coach. I think it was when I was coaching an under-18 team so it would have to be in excess of 15 years ago. It was an under-18 hockey team. That the drug-free aspects were brought into that level on that age group and normalizing it at that age group allowed that education component of it. So I am a great believer in things not being compulsory to be mandatory and to put the emphasis on the education and prevention.I'm not going to go on at length with this but there is one point I do want to make—and I know we're all very keen to be able to watch perhaps the semi-final across the ditch. At the risk of jeopardizing trans-Tasman relationships I have to say that I am rooting for the English team and for one particular reason: they are the only team left with a head coach that is female. In fact even at the eight team part of the tournament they were the only team with a female head coach left. I remember that we had these challenges in hockey of being able to progress female coaches through and I'm not sure whether it's heartening or disheartening to see that actually this is something that's obviously on a global scale. I know we're speaking a little bit broader than this bill and a little bit broader in matters of integrity but it is nonetheless a very important matter of women's coaches being valued and progressed in women's sport. So for that reason when we are able to watch the semi-final in about 20 minutes' time I will be cheering for the English team. With that I support this bill.