Mallard Trevor: Sports Anti-Doping Bill — Second Reading 
Mallard Trevor: Sports Anti-Doping Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:634;Page:5600] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for Sport and Recreation) 
: 
 I move  
That the Sports Anti-Doping Bill be now read a second time 
. This bill was introduced in December last year in order to modernise New Zealand’s anti-doping system. New Zealand is a leader in the fight against doping in sport. This country was a founding member of the World Anti-Doping Agency and has been a strong supporter of the development of the World Anti-Doping Code. A New Zealander David Howman is currently the chief executive of that organisation. We were the fourth country in the world to ratify the International Convention Against Doping in Sport late last year. 
In order for our athletes to compete internationally at Olympics Commonwealth Games world championships and other events our athletes need to comply with the World Anti-Doping Code. The burden of compliance with the code is a challenge for most small sports organisations many of which are voluntary and are run on the smell of an oily rag. That is why successive Governments have supported the New Zealand Sports Drug Agency to provide drug testing and education about the harmful side effects of performance-enhancing drugs. 
This bill will help our athletes and sports organisations comply with the World Anti-Doping Code by updating the functions of the New Zealand Sports Drug Agency. The agency will be required to make sports anti-doping rules. Sports will be able to adopt these rules in order to implement the World Anti-Doping Code. Although the rules will provide for a simple and efficient way for sports to implement the code they will not be compulsory. Sports will still be able to implement the code in other ways if they so wish. 
I would like to thank the Government Administration Committee for its consideration of the Sports Anti-Doping Bill. I understand that the cross-examination of officials by Mr Connell was quite extensive. However the select committee received few submissions on the bill. Athletics New Zealand made a submission in support of the bill recognising that it would make it easier for New Zealand athletes to comply with the World Anti-Doping Code and recognising that New Zealand needs a strong anti-doping network if our athletes are to compete on a level playing field with overseas athletes who have access to advanced doping techniques. 
Three professional players’ associations representing cricket rugby and soccer raised some concerns about the bill and the rules. I want to address those concerns briefly. The first was that the bill would affect the employment relationship between athletes and their sports by imposing penalties on athletes who were caught cheating with drugs. That concern was based on the misunderstanding that the bill would make the World Anti-Doping Code compulsory. It will not. It provides a mechanism for sports to comply with the code and it does not affect the employment relationship between athletes and sports. Of course as those relationships develop as things are written into them and as sports move forward then clearly cheats will have problems with their employment relationships. The problems will not be caused by this bill but rather by the code and of course by the cheating. 
Another concern raised by professional players’ associations was that the bill does not require the New Zealand Sports Drug Agency to consult with athletes. The Government Administration Committee has recommended an amendment to the bill to address this and athletes will be consulted along with the national sports organisations and the Privacy Commissioner. Another concern was that the bill would affect the privacy of athletes by leading to the publication of names of athletes who have been caught cheating. Again this is based on a misunderstanding. Publication requirements are set out in the code not in the bill. 
The select committee has also recommended that the name of the New Zealand Sports Drug Agency be amended to Drug Free Sport New Zealand. The Government supports the select committee with its suggestion. The name will more accurately reflect the agency’s task of promoting sport free from drugs. 
I understand that the select committee spent some time considering whether the agency should be required to let police know about positive drug tests for classified substances. I am glad that the committee decided not to pursue this idea. The police are not interested in being swamped with information about positive tests for a number of drugs that athletes have been prescribed by their doctor or have been given as part of hospital treatment. On the other hand police are interested in any intelligence about cases that are serious enough to justify the allocation of investigation resources such as where there is useful evidence of organised drug use or smuggling of classified substances into the country. 
It is not necessary to amend the bill to allow Drug Free Sport New Zealand to pass this information to the police as under the Privacy Act it is already possible to share personal information to “avoid prejudice to the maintenance of the law by any public sector agency including the prevention detection investigation prosecution and punishment of offences.” As the committee noted a requirement to share drug test results with the police will be fundamentally contradictory to the basic principles of the anti-doping regime and could threaten the agreements between athletes and national sports organisations that underpin the whole anti-doping process. I agree with the select committee. 
Therefore I support all the select committee’s recommended amendments and thank the committee for its consideration of the bill.