Alan Griffin (Bruce, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority Bill 2005 and the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2005. The Australian Labor Party are proud to have introduced the original antidoping legislation in 1990, which resulted in the Australian Sports Drug Agency. We are equally proud that even from opposition Labor have been able to bring to account the Howard government and ensure Australia continues to build on a drug-free sporting legacy.

Labor’s goal in establishing ASDA was to ensure that Australian athletes were able to perform and compete in an environment untainted by banned substances. This goal was met, with ongoing revision and adaptation of our antidoping legislation. To move forward in antidoping in Australia, it is essential that there be a platform for national and international collaboration, regulation and development. Australia’s antidoping systems are robust and thorough and are managed by an authority that can adapt to ever-changing doping technologies and that has fair and transparent measures in place to investigate allegations of antidoping violations.

The Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority Bill 2005 establishes the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority. Australia is internationally renowned as one of the leaders in antidoping. Drug testing programs commenced in Australia in the early 1980s. In 1989, the Council of Europe Anti-Doping Convention was signed, in recognition of sports organisations developing an internationally coordinated approach to drugs in sport. It took effect in Australia in 1994.

The World Anti-Doping Agency was established in 1999, with the aim of continuing to coordinate and harmonise antidoping efforts across sport at an international level. In March 2003, WADA released the World Anti-Doping Code. The WADA code provides a framework for international and national sporting organisations and public authorities to establish antidoping policies, rules and regulations. This code has been accepted by all Olympic committees and Commonwealth Games associations, 68 national antidoping organisations, 159 of the 161 national paralympic committees, 10 major games associations, all Australian national sporting organisations—through government funding obligations, and other international sporting organisations.

Australia’s commitment to the international antidoping effort was ratified most recently in October 2005, when UNESCO adopted the International Convention Against Doping in Sport, a binding agreement to implement the WADA code. Australia is a signatory to this convention, which will take effect once 30 member nations sign on to the treaty.

While Australia has a strong reputation for its antidoping efforts, gaps in the current ASDA powers were exposed during the handling of an alleged doping violation in December 2003. A plastic bucket of syringes, vitamin B and C vials, Equigen vials, other injecting material and an empty box of Testicomp were found in the room of cyclist Mark French at the Australian Institute of Sport facility in Del Monte in South Australia. A preliminary investigation took place. Allegations were made that there was a clandestine drug culture among elite cyclists and that the AIS was turning a blind eye to the drugs culture at the AIS facility at Del Monte. Following this preliminary investigation, the Australian Sports Commission and Cycling Australia instigated an independent investigation of the incident. Allegations were again made that there was drug use by unknown members of the AIS cycling team and that there was a culture of permissiveness in respect of doping at the Del Monte facility. In May 2004, in evidence to the court, Mr French named five other cyclists who had allegedly participated in group injecting sessions at the Del Monte facility. The court found Mr French guilty of antidoping offences. Mr French was banned from competition for two years and fined $1,000. There was no further investigation into the allegations surrounding the five named cyclists.

On 18 June 2004, it was the Labor opposition that raised this issue in parliament. Senator John Faulkner criticised the government for the mismanagement of investigations into allegations of antidoping violations. Senator Faulkner called for the establishment of an investigation and determination process independent of the Australian Sports Commission. Senator Faulkner also highlighted concerns that there had been no further investigation of the other named alleged offenders involved in the case. This case was of utmost sensitivity given that some of the alleged offenders were considered potential gold medallists at the upcoming Athens Olympics.

After Labor raised these concerns, the Hon. Robert Anderson QC was appointed by the Australian Sports Commission and Cycling Australia to investigate the alleged claims of doping within the AIS track sprint cycling program and to assess the effectiveness of actions taken by the ASC and Cycling Australia following the discovery of injecting material. From this inquiry Justice Anderson made a number of observations. In short: the preliminary investigation tried to do too much, given its objective was only to determine whether Mr French’s scholarship should be suspended; the follow-up investigation was conducted with due expedience; the case should have been taken to the ASC as urgent, given that Mr French may have had a case to answer and that the further allegations may have impacted on Olympic selections, which were only a few months away; and Cycling Australia and the ASC should have instructed their solicitors to proceed with the case more urgently.

The key recommendation that Anderson made from the inquiry was that there should be a body—a body which is quite independent of the AIS, the Australian Sports Commission and the sporting bodies themselves—with the power and duty to investigate suspected infractions, such as substance abuse, and to carry the prosecution of persons against whom evidence is obtained. Throughout the French track cycling case, ASDA did not have the power to investigate, present the case or intervene in any way. The ASDA Act was amended in 2004 in order to comply with the WADA code. However, while the responsibilities are mapped out for the sporting body and athletes in the WADA code, ASDA currently does not have the power to examine all antidoping rule violations in the code.

This legislation provides two additional powers: the power to investigate doping allegations and the power to present antidoping violation cases of hearings of CAS or other sports tribunals. Sporting bodies who made submissions to the Senate inquiry into the legislation concurred that this type of body was required. These additional powers will enable ASADA to examine all eight antidoping violations contained in the WADA code—namely, the presence of a prohibited substance or its metabolites or markers in an athlete’s body or specimen; use or attempted use of a prohibited substance or a prohibited method; refusing or failing, without compelling justification, to submit to sample collection after notification, as authorised in the applicable antidoping rules, or otherwise evading sample collection; violation of applicable requirements regarding athlete availability for out-of-competition testing, including failure to provide required whereabouts information and having missed tests, which are declared based on reasonable rules; tampering or attempting to tamper with any part of doping control; possession of prohibited substance and methods; trafficking in any prohibited substance or prohibited method; administration or attempted administration of a prohibited substance or prohibited method to any athlete; and assisting, encouraging, aiding, abetting, covering up or any other type of complicity involving an antidoping rule violation or any attempted violation.

ASADA will maintain the existing drug testing, education and advocacy functions of ASDA and will also carry out additional functions in relation to the investigation of potential additional sports doping violations; the presentation at hearings conducted by the International Court of Arbitration for Sport and other sports tribunals of cases against an athlete or support person alleged to have committed an antidoping rule violation; determining mandatory antidoping rules to be included in ASC funding agreements with sports; and advising the ASC of the performance of sports in observing these requirements.

ASADA will carry out these functions within the context of the National Anti-Doping Scheme, or NAD Scheme, which is also established by the ASADA Bill. Detailed protocols and procedures for the exercise of ASADA’s functions will be contained in the NAD Scheme, which will be a legislative instrument, developed alongside the ASADA Bill, to be tabled in parliament. The National Anti-Doping Scheme will be consistent with the mandatory provisions of the World Anti-Doping Code and will implement the UNESCO convention, once ratified. The bill acts as the broad legislative umbrella for ASADA, and the NAD Scheme will contain much of the detail that will directly affect the athletes and sporting bodies.

The Senate committee inquiry into this bill has been told that the NAD Scheme will contain antidoping rules applicable to athletes and support personnel, including details of antidoping rule violations and the consequences of infractions; protocols for ASADA drug-testing procedures; protocols and procedures governing ASADA investigations; protocols for ASADA to establish a register of its findings and to advise sporting organisations and athletes of its findings; and protocols for ASADA’s presentation of doping cases at sports tribunal hearings. Under the scheme, it is the responsibility of Australia’s sporting organisations to promote athlete compliance with the scheme, refer violations of the scheme to ASADA, assist ASADA in the course of its investigations and take action in response to ASADA finding that a violation has occurred. The scheme also authorises ASADA to monitor the compliance of sports and sports administration bodies, including the ASC, with these obligations; notify the Australian Sports Commission in regard to such compliance; and publish reports about the extent of compliance.

The NAD Scheme has not yet been produced. This is a key concern of Labor along with sporting bodies and players’ groups. National sporting bodies, athletes and players, not to mention the parliamentarians, have to trust this government that the regulations attached to this bill are consistent with the WADA code and UNESCO convention. They have to trust this government that the NAD Scheme regulations do not contain provisions that will affect them in a negative way. There are also valid concerns, both from Labor’s point of view and that of the sporting bodies, with regard to delays that would be caused by the need to disallow the regulations. While amendments to the NAD Scheme are required to go through a public consultation process, this is not the case for the initial regulations. This is certainly not ideal.

In the Senate committee hearings on this bill the government gave a guarantee that all interested sporting and players associations would be contacted and consulted regarding the detail of the NAD Scheme. Australian sport has a lot riding on the proper establishment of effective antidoping regulations. This consultation is vital. The Australian Olympic Committee characterised some additional concerns in relation to these bills. They argued that the ASADA Bill does not separate the ASADA functions and powers relating to policy making, administration, investigation and prosecution; does not outline the reasons for or status of the register of findings; does not provide ASADA with the necessary and appropriate powers of investigation; and has adopted definitions at variance with those in the World Anti-Doping Code and the UNESCO antidoping convention. These are all valid concerns. The management of ASDA believes that the powers will be separated through good management practices. This remains to be seen. Without seeing the actual NAD Scheme it is difficult to look any further into their concerns.

Labor, as they have done throughout their term in opposition, will hold the government to account on their commitment to the national sporting bodies and their commitment to athletes to ensure that this legislation will offer positive benefits to sport and not incur any additional cost or risk associated with the NAD Scheme.

I should also note before I close that the rush we are in to get this legislation through parliament is not really acceptable. While not wanting to hold this legislation up any longer—it has been on the government’s agenda since mid last year—the government should have had this legislation on the table long before now. We should have seen the regulations before now. This would have allowed the parliament to assess the real impact and would have allowed for an efficient and effective antidoping body with additional powers to be well and truly in place by the Commonwealth Games.

Labor has always been committed to, and the leaders in, Australia’s push to eradicate drugs in sport. Labor created ASDA in 1990 and it was Labor who pushed for the Anderson inquiry, which recommended this legislation. Labor supports the passage of the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority Bill 2005. Whilst we have several concerns with this legislation, they are not significant enough to amend the bill. As such, the government should accept this as an act of good faith on behalf of the Labor Party and the opposition will closely monitor its implementation. I commend the bill to the House.

Bruce Baird (Cook, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am very pleased to support the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority Bill 2005 and to commend the minister, Senator Rod Kemp, who is doing an outstanding job as Minister for the Arts and Sport, and his officers and members of the Sports Commission. I think all of us are very proud of Australia’s sporting achievements, including at the Olympic level. When we think of the outstanding performance of the Australian team at the last Olympics, in Athens, which I had the good fortune to attend, it is something of which we are very proud. We had a record haul of medals. We are very proud of the way in which women have come to the fore, particularly in swimming, achieving incredible results, breaking world records.

I think we can look forward to the Commonwealth Games as a time at which we will again see an incredible result for Australian athletes. I do not think any of us will be surprised if we end up with the largest share of medals at the forthcoming games in Melbourne. This promises to be a wonderful games, and Melbourne has done an outstanding job in this area.

There is no doubt that, essential to ensuring Australia’s image as a great sporting nation is that we not only take great results from the likes of the Ian Thorpes of the world but also prove to the world that our athletes are drug free, that we run a clean environment in the training of our athletes and that we do not have any high-profile scandals.

I remember the great tragedy for the Greeks when two of their top athletes were caught with drugs. They were devastated by it. I personally believe one of the reasons why the attendance numbers in the first week of the Athens Olympic Games were down was that they were so shocked by those results. So it is important to national pride that we do address the questions of drugs, and this is what this bill is all about.

The ASADA Bill creates the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority. We have taken a balanced Tough on Drugs in Sport approach which is appropriate and which is achieving results. It is about having a fair treatment system ensuring that athletes’ rights are protected, because that is also essential. Last year, Minister Rod Kemp announced that the government would establish a new Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority to take on the advocacy functions of the Australian Sports Drug Agency.

The ASADA Bill will allow the organisation to investigate all antidoping outlined in the World Anti-Doping Code. Specifically the bill provides for ASADA to undertake antidoping testing, determine mandatory antidoping provisions and advise the Australian Sports Commission of progress on the work being carried out. It provides for education for Australian athletes and support personnel. I am sure that is going to be an absolute key. I am sure young people are often tempted to take supplements to lift their performance just a notch higher. It encourages antidoping initiatives by the states and territories, provides antidoping and other services under contract and makes resources available to the Australian Sports Drug Medical Advisory Committee for the performance of its functions.

In the event of serious allegations of doping infractions, Australia will have in place an integrated system—from collecting, preserving and analysis of evidence to making educated recommendations on its findings and carrying a case to a tribunal if required. This is going to enhance our compliance with the World Anti-Doping Code and will also implement the UNESCO International Convention Against Doping in Sport, once ratified by Australia.

The ASADA Bill sets out the broad requirements under which ASADA will operate. The National Anti-Doping Scheme will reflect the provisions of the two major international instruments that I have mentioned. The scheme will contain antidoping rules, protocols for ASADA drug-testing procedures, protocols for establishing a register of its findings and protocols for presentation of doping cases at sporting tribunals. The scheme will set out obligations for Australian sporting organisations such as promoting athlete compliance, referring violations to ASADA, assisting ASADA in the course of its investigations, taking action in response to ASADA finding that a violation has occurred and assisting in hearings. The scheme will authorise ASADA to monitor the compliance of sports and sports administration bodies, notify the Australian Sports Commission in regard to such compliance and publish reports about the extent of compliance.

There is obviously a whole laundry list of things that they are responsible for, but it is a practical way for an antidoping authority to be involved in all the machinations—from first apprehensions, through all the procedures when somebody is caught to assisting with cases et cetera. They will be involved in the transfer of information to the Australian Federal Police. The bill will also contain the rights of the athlete, which I think is important.

The ASADA Bill attaches strict conditions to receipt and disclosure of sensitive information from Customs, the Australian Federal Police and other law enforcement bodies. For example, disclosure must not contravene the terms of Customs initial disclosure to ASADA, and sports in receipt of such information must give an undertaking that any use of the information on its part must be for antidoping purposes and will not occur in a way prejudicial to the subject of the information. Athletes will have access to established external review mechanisms in relation to ASADA investigation, including the Commonwealth Ombudsman, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and the Federal Court or the Federal Magistrates Court under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977.

All that is important because we have had quite a lot of controversy—for example, in the use of coffee, coffee supplements and NoDoz tablets, which I was familiar with as a student but have not used in the sporting field. It is unlikely: I had no great sporting field in which to test it. When some of our young athletes have been accused of a case—you can just imagine—it has been referred to the Australian Federal Police and then gone out to the media. We saw that occur in the cycling area, where information was suddenly broadcast to the media. The devastation in and impact on young athletes of such a provision is unconscionable. By all means, if they are found to be guilty of infractions and have been taking illegal supplements, additives or drugs of any form, they should be held accountable not only by the legal process but also in the court of opinion. If they are using unfair means to gain advantage to win medals, it is against the whole Australian ideal of the athlete and the Australian ideal of a fair go. We want a fair go: if they have achieved the best result they should not have someone else take the medal away from them because that person has been into drugs or supplements. We all want to support that. I am very pleased to see that the rights of the individual are going to be preserved.

The establishment of ASADA represents a significant enhancement to the Tough on Drugs strategy, which is already a world leader. We within government are very proud of that. ASADA will ensure that Australia remains the leader in the international fight against drugs in sport. Mr Deputy Speaker Barresi, I know that you personally will be very interested, coming from the city that is very proud to be hosting the Commonwealth Games, which will put us at the forefront of international sport. We can expect to see many world records broken at this event. We want to ensure that we have not only the finest athletes who do their best and perform to their ultimate but also drug testing done on a fair and appropriate basis, that any cheats are weeded out, appropriate testing is carried out, appropriate procedures are followed and that the athletes’ rights are protected.

I commend the minister, his staff and the Sports Commission. Bringing this bill forward is an important step forward. I believe it is going to add to Australia’s reputation in producing not only fine sportsmen but also a drug-free sport environment. I commend the bill to the House.

Michael Johnson (Ryan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to speak on the important Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority Bill 2005 in the parliament of Australia. I am particularly pleased—indeed honoured—to speak after my good friend and senior colleague in the parliament the member for Cook, who I know has a very strong interest and reputation in the world of sport. He played a very significant role in the very successful Sydney Olympic Games of 2000. This bill is important for our sporting community and for the overall reputation of the Australian nation.

We all know what illicit and unprescribed drugs can do to people’s health and wellbeing. When an Australian athlete in particular takes drugs that are illegal or illicit and unprescribed by medical professionals, the cost is very significant. It costs athletes their health, with the side effects of performance-enhancing drugs very well documented. It costs the Australian sporting fraternity its international reputation as an honest and fair competitor. It costs the faith of the Australian public, who have continually ranked sport as something special and unique to the Australian character—something which defines Australianness. In fact, 62 per cent of the adult population of this country do participate in some kind of physical activity for recreation each year, and over half of those do so through organised community sporting associations, clubs and the like.

There is also an economic cost to Australian businesses. Successful sporting events attract businesspeople from around the world and create a wealth of opportunities for Australian businesses and industries. One such example is Austrade’s Business Club of Australia. This has come to be an important mechanism for Australian businesses to piggy-back off major competition in Australia and to network with significant corporate and business figures from around the world who come to Australia, not only to enjoy high-level sporting competition but also to do business. Bolstered by $800,000 in funding from the Howard government in 2004-05, the Business Club of Australia is set to hold more than 25 business networking events across the 12 days of the Melbourne Commonwealth Games. Previous networking events held by the club during the Sydney Olympics and during the Rugby World Cup in 2003 are widely seen as having been very successful, netting this country’s businesses hundreds of millions of dollars worth of business transactions. Over 190 Australian businesses have achieved an international sale as a direct result of the club’s activities during these major sporting events.

Why is this important? Because of the place that sport has in the fabric of Australian society, we can leverage off sport to further our country’s economic success. Therefore, the use of drugs by Australian elite athletes does have an economic impact. It directly impacts on businesses and mars their opportunity to leverage off major sporting events, and it tarnishes the profile of Australia as a clean and fair sporting country.

Despite all these costs, some athletes nevertheless continue to bow to the pressures placed on them by their coaches and by the public for them to do well and, in particular, to the pressure they place on themselves and turn to performance-enhancing and recreational drugs. Australia has a reputation for placing enormous pressure on its elite athletes to perform at their very best. We idolise our sporting heroes—the Bradmans, and the Pat Rafters and Ian Thorpes of today’s world. Successful sportsmen are beacons to the 1.6 million young Australians aged between five and 14 who participate in organised sports every year. At the same time, the Bradmans, the Rafters and the Thorpes stand as shining examples of sportsmanship and of Australians who have performed at an elite level and have become the best in the world without taking drugs or performance-enhancing substances. So it can be done. It is important to portray the message to young Australians who might see themselves as having great potential in the sporting arena that they can be the very best in the world, that they can be champions, without taking performance-enhancing drugs.

On behalf of the people of Ryan, whom I have the great privilege of representing in this parliament, and as a member of the government who supports this bill very strongly let me make it clear that the use of drugs in sports by a small minority of sportspeople sullies our image. Unfortunately, the fact that drugs are used by only a minority of sportspeople does not take away the fact that the impact of their use is substantial indeed.

I want to comment on the matter of obesity. An estimated 1.5 million people under the age of 18 are overweight or obese. One in 10 children under 16 is obese. One in five children under 15 is categorised as being fat or overweight. These figures are too high for us to accept as a nation. One way to try to make an impact on these figures and reduce the level of obesity is through sport. Successful sporting figures figure strongly in this country as role models. There is a role here for our sports men and women. Young Australians look up to our elite athletes as role models. If they see the reputations of their role models being tarnished in the community and in the media, if they see their role models being criticised by public figures for taking performance-enhancing drugs, that is not going to do them any good whatsoever. Kids who are overweight should be encouraged to take up sport as a way of reducing their weight. I want to say very strongly in the parliament today that what this bill is trying to do is very important. It tries to address the issue of the use of drugs and illegal substances in sport at the elite level.

As we all know, the Howard government is very committed to ensuring a level playing field for all athletes and to upholding the good name of the Australian sporting fraternity by eliminating drugs from sport. In order to achieve this, the government has introduced the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority Bill 2005. In formulating this bill, the government has taken into account its obligations under international treaties and conventions, as well as the recommendations of the 2004 Anderson inquiry. The government has delivered a scheme which is tough on drug cheats but respectful of the rights of athletes.

In 1999, in an effort to coordinate and harmonise antidoping efforts across the globe, the World Anti-Doping Agency, known as WADA, was established. Subsequently, in 2003, WADA released the World Anti-Doping Code. The code is a benchmark for international antidoping authorities and sets out eight doping violations. WADA is also responsible for the creation and revision of a list of prohibited substances, the use of any of which qualifies as a doping offence. In the 2004 election campaign, subsequent to the release of the code, the government committed to ensuring that sport in Australia was as drug free as humanly possible. As part of this commitment, the government now requires all of Australia’s sporting codes to enact antidoping regulations in line with the WADA code. As of July 2005, all major Australian sporting organisations are code compliant.

The government also amended the Australian Sports Drug Agency Act in 2004 in order that it comply with the code. However, the structure of ASDA meant that amendments alone could not bring it fully in line with the code. The government acknowledges that ASDA was created by the Labor Party when it was in office in 1989, under former Prime Minister Hawke—a good example of the Labor Party doing something right, which is more the exception than the rule. However, this meant that antidoping investigations lacked both independence and neutrality—a situation that was highlighted in the 2004 investigation into Australian Olympic cyclist Mark French and in the subsequent 2004 Anderson report. In that case there was a concern that issues raised by Mr French, including claims that there was a systemic culture of doping among his fellow cyclists within the Australian Institute of Sport, were not appropriately investigated.

An inquiry, chaired by Mr Robert Anderson QC and commissioned by the Australian Sports Commission and Cycling Australia, investigated the effectiveness of their investigations into Mr French’s claims. In his recommendations, Mr Anderson QC called for an independent body with the power to investigate and carry out prosecutions of persons suspected of infractions of the antidoping code. In October 2005, Australia adopted the International Convention Against Doping in Sport, which was put forward by UNESCO. As a signatory to this agreement, Australia entered into a binding agreement to implement the WADA code. Following Australia’s formal and binding agreement to implement the WADA code, and in recognition of the findings of Mr Anderson QC, this bill will create a new authority, the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority, ASADA, and a new scheme, the National Anti-Doping Scheme.

In the time I have remaining, I will make some brief comments on ASADA. ASADA will assume the functions of ASDA, including retaining the role of the Australian Sports Medical Advisory Committee, created by ASDA, to provide expert medical advice. Along with its inability to investigate doping allegations, ASDA also suffered under definitions which were imposed by the Labor government, forcing it to have even more unnecessary constraints on its functions. Specifically, the ASDA Act defined ‘competitor’ as ‘any international and national athletes, or younger athletes who may become international or national level athletes’. The ASADA Bill will replace references to ‘competitor’ with the word ‘athlete’, defined as ‘any participant in sporting activity’. This gives ASADA jurisdiction over all levels of sport in Australia, to aid it in the goal of ensuring Australian sport is completely drug free. In other words, this provides more of a blanket coverage. This piece of legislation provides a wider net and brings into it Australian sports men and women across the country, which is a very important distinction.

While the ASDA Act recognised the role of persons other than competitors in the use of drugs in sport, the ASADA Bill specifically gives the power to enforce antidoping provisions against a new category of people, in addition to athletes. This new category is classified as ‘support people’. Support people are defined as being the coaches, the trainers, the managers, the agents, the team staff members, the officials and the medical or paramedical practitioners—a group of people who might place undue pressure on a young athlete. This extension of powers is designed to address the kind of systemic doping culture identified in the case of Mark French, which I touched on earlier.

ASADA’s primary functions will relate to sports drugs and safety matters. These include advising the Australian Sports Commission on sports drugs and on safety matters to be included in funding agreements with sporting organisations. It will include promoting the education of sports men and women and support personnel about sports drugs and safety matters. It also has an important role to play in the area of general support and encouragement, of course, as well as in conducting research. ASADA will also carry out the functions conferred on it and authorised by the NAD Scheme. The ASADA Bill ensures that it has the correct balance of powers to ensure that it can perform its duties without becoming a coercive body against the primary interest of athletes and support personnel—which is, of course, that athletes perform at their peak in the sporting arena.

The only limitations on the powers of ASADA are as follows: it cannot acquire or hold real property and it cannot enter into contracts or transactions or lease land and/or buildings and other like infrastructure. ASADA is also prevented from coercing any athlete or any support person into giving testimony. Although the government has been criticised by some for not giving ASADA the power to compel testimony, the government believes that this is an important limitation to ensure that athletes see ASADA not as a witch-hunting body intent on dragging the good name of athletes through unwarranted investigations but as an organisation that is there to help them—to benefit their interests by ensuring that drugs do not become rife within their sport.

We in the parliament know that when our name is put in print or in the media in a very negative way it does leave a connotation which is quite unhelpful, even though it might be completely unjustified. This also applies to athletes. When their names are on television sets in living rooms across the country, there is a connotation and an inference that they might have done something wrong, when in fact they may have done nothing wrong at all. That is a very important constraint that this bill imports into this organisation.

There is of course much more that I could say when talking about a piece of legislation introduced by the Howard government—all very positive stuff and, in this case, all in the interests of the Australian sporting fraternity—but I will conclude with some general remarks about Australia’s reputation in the sporting world. We are known around the world as a great sporting nation. We compete with the very best. Indeed, we punch well above our weight as a small nation of some 20 million people. We win world titles and Olympic gold medals in the spirit of fair competition and high sportsmanship. Equally, we lead the world in antidoping administration technology and in our very strong moral commitment to taking drugs and illegal substances out of sports and competition.

Our efforts are second to none. For the first time at an Olympic Games athletes competing in Sydney in 2000 were not just tested after their events; they were also subject to pre-Olympic and out-of-competition testing. This, combined with a new test for the previously undetectable performance-enhancing drug Erythropoietin, made the Sydney Olympics one of the most drug free Olympics ever—and a triumph for Australia in promoting our commitment to drug-free sporting events. In the weeks ahead Melbourne, the capital of Victoria, will host the Commonwealth Games. This will no doubt showcase Melbourne to the world, and it will also showcase Australia. It will showcase the very best of Australian sporting success. As well, it will showcase how very strong this country’s commitment is to fair competition and strong sportsmanship.

As the member for Ryan, and as someone who played a little bit of sport in my younger days, I hope very much that I can continue my good work in the local Ryan community, to interact with young people, with the sporting kids at the various schools in my wonderful electorate, and to convey to them the very strong and important message that there is absolutely no place in sport—or, indeed, in their lives—for drugs. Drugs damage lives and damage circles of friendships. They are no good whatsoever to sporting kids. I will take this opportunity to say that I want to continue to encourage the educators, the parents and those who hold public positions in the Ryan community—and the wider circle of friends and relatives of young people—to continue to speak very strongly about health issues with kids and grandkids and to speak very strongly about living a very healthy lifestyle, being active and saying absolutely no, no, no to drugs. Drugs are not something that we want to see infecting or contaminating the young lives of Australians in this wonderful country.

Stuart Henry (Hasluck, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am proud and pleased today to speak in support of the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority Bill 2005 and the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2005. These bills signal a new era in Australia’s already strong commitment to eliminating performance-enhancing drugs in all forms and at all levels of sport. Australia has long been recognised as a world leader and as a nation with firm principles on drugs in sport. The Sydney 2000 Olympic Games brought with them some of the toughest antidoping measures ever adopted. The previous speaker, the member for Ryan, said the conduct of the Sydney Olympics was a triumph for Australia not just in competition on the field but because of our tough antidoping measures. I endorse all of what he had to say.

I have a keen interest in these antidoping bills, having been involved in competitive sport of one form or another for most of my life—including swimming, running, triathlons and rugby. Indeed, for me over many years rugby union was a way of life. Rugby union, as they say, is the sport played in heaven. It starts this Friday night, in Western Australia, when the Western Force take on the Brumbies in the new Super 14 format. Rugby, like many other sports, is a sport built on the principles of honour, fairness, sacrifice, discipline and sportsmanship. These same principles have been the backbone of Australian sport of all kinds for generations. The use of performance-enhancing drugs—indeed, any drugs—flies in the face of these principles, undermining everything which makes sport such an important part of the social fabric of this country.

On any weekend across the country we see hundreds of thousands of young Australian kids, youths and adults playing sport of one kind or another. We need to encourage and increase this level of participation in all our communities and promote our ideals of sportsmanship. It is this interaction, this social fabric in our communities, that is important and, coupled with the admiration we have for our sporting stars, it makes it so vital that the issue of drugs in sport be treated seriously.

I noted with interest the comments in yesterday’s Australian newspaper regarding this very issue. It seems that the National Rugby League is unhappy that the Howard government is taking a strong stance against the use of so-called recreational drugs by our sports men and women. Their argument, which is flimsy at best, is that the proposed ASADA should focus only on performance-enhancing drugs and that the use of other drugs should be dealt with by the various sporting bodies such as the NRL. This is, frankly, a nonsensical position for anyone to take. While Mr Gallop, the head of the NRL, says that the rationale for the introduction of ASADA is to stop cheating, I believe, and I think most Australians would agree, that ASADA has a wider role—that is, to set standards with respect to all drug use in sport. Surely the use by athletes of illegal drugs, whether or not we call them recreational, is just as damaging to them, their sport and our country’s reputation as the use of performance-enhancing drugs. All sports men and women and their sporting organisations must take a strong leadership role in this.

In Australia, our young people hold their sporting heroes in awe. The example set by athletes has a profound effect on the youth of our nation. I for one am pleased that ASADA will be taking an active role in ensuring that athletes using illegal drugs will be shown to be a poor example for our children. I am surprised that the NRL has not welcomed the Howard government’s move to eliminate the use of all illegal drugs in sport. I am also surprised and disappointed that the NRL, amongst others, believes that the proposed ASADA has too much power to investigate and prosecute drug use in sport. Mr Gallop’s suggestion that the NRL tribunal should continue to investigate and prosecute drug cheats seems to ignore the principles of arms-length investigation and fails to recognise the need for stringent, consistent, nationwide standards with regard to drug use in sport.

The Howard government recognises the importance of sport in Australia and the need for Australian sports men and women to compete fairly in domestic and international sporting competitions. The Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority Bill provides for the creation of a body—the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority—which will replace the current Australian Sports Drug Agency. The new ASADA will perform all the functions of the old ASDA in relation to drug testing, education and advocacy. But it will also carry out important additional functions, such as investigating potential sports doping violations; presenting cases against an athlete or support person alleged to have committed an antidoping rule violation, at hearings conducted by the international Court of Arbitration for Sport and other sports tribunals; determining mandatory antidoping rules to be included in Australian Sports Commission funding agreements with sports; and advising the Australian Sports Commission of the performance of sports in observing these requirements.

ASADA will also incorporate the current Australian Sports Drug Medical Advisory Committee. ASADA will be governed by a board consisting of a chair, a deputy chair and from one to five members. A quorum will consist of the chair and two other members. The chair is the head of the agency and will exercise some of the corporate governance functions independently of the board. The board will have a decision making role in relation to ASADA’s regulatory function—it will decide on matters regarding ASADA’s testing investigations and hearings functions. ASADA will be responsible for overseeing the National Anti-Doping Scheme, which will initially be outlined in regulations developed alongside the ASADA Bill. The National Anti-Doping Scheme will thereafter be further developed and refined by ASADA in consultation with stakeholders in the sporting community.

The National Anti-Doping Scheme will set out the specific processes and protocols to be employed in implementing the World Anti-Doping Code and the UNESCO International Convention Against Doping in Sport. ASADA will be responsible for monitoring the compliance of sports bodies and sports administration bodies with their obligations under the NAD scheme. ASADA will notify the Australian Sports Commission of the extent of compliance by sports bodies and will publish reports on the same. Failure to comply is not dealt with in the ASADA Bill but, rather, will be set out in the Australian Sports Commission funding agreements.

ASADA will also have access to Customs information in certain prescribed circumstances. This is similar to previous amendments to the Australian Sports Commission Act 1989. ASADA may also authorise the disclosure of that information to sporting organisations, under a prescribed set of circumstances. The ASADA Bill specifies permitted antidoping purposes for which disclosures may occur. The disclosures must be in the course of investigating possible doping breaches; determining whether to take action over such breaches, and the consequences of such breaches; or taking action, or participating in proceedings, in response to such breaches.

The ASADA Bill specifies trusted persons, generally ASADA members and staff and designated associates, who may receive information. It also specifies penalties of up to two years imprisonment for the improper disclosure of protected information.

The ASADA Bill also allows ASADA to disclose information to the Australian Federal Police under appropriate circumstances. The Australian Federal Police disclosure to ASADA is facilitated through its own act, the Australian Federal Police Act 1979.

The ASADA Bill contains specific and detailed provisions protecting athlete’s rights and carries over existing safeguards under the ASDA Act. It provides for appeals by athletes to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and for complaints by athletes to be brought to the attention of the Ombudsman.

Importantly, there is strong support among sporting organisations for the creation of ASADA. This was emphasised in submissions to the government’s discussion paper. I repeat: the issue of drugs in sport must be treated seriously, given the public recognition, admiration and community profile many of our sporting stars receive. Indeed, many of our top-flight sporting stars are hero-worshipped by the young and the youth of our great country. They must comply with society’s expectation of our sporting elite.

Within the electorate of Hasluck, I think it is very important that we set the benchmarks and appreciate the need to encourage and support young people in sport in our schools and through our different sporting associations, whatever that sport may be—whether it be rugby union, Australian rules football, hockey, tennis, athletics, swimming, netball or basketball. We must not be seen to be supporting the use of drugs. Illegal drugs in any form are just not acceptable, and performance-enhancing drugs are not fair in competition. We must ensure we continue to recognise those issues in our sporting endeavours.

Sport is built on the principles of honour, fairness, sacrifice, discipline and sportsmanship, as I said earlier. Those principles must be fundamental to the way we encourage our young people into sporting activities and commitment to those sports. In a competitive environment the challenge is for people who are highly motivated and wish to win. We must make sure that that is balanced with the need for them to be fit and committed to the healthy pursuit of their sport in an appropriate way and not encourage—and make sure we are not seen to be encouraging—people to take performance-enhancing drugs or any other drugs to improve performance. The use of performance-enhancing drugs, indeed any drugs, flies in the face of these principles and is totally unacceptable.

These bills, and the Howard government’s policy on doping in sport, have been developed with the full involvement of sporting organisations and athletes in Australia. The Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority bills reflect the Howard government’s commitment, domestically and internationally, to eliminating doping and drug use in sport. I commend the bills to the House.

Sussan Ley (Farrer, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On behalf of the Minister for Arts and Sport I thank those who have contributed to the debate on the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority Bill 2005 and the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2005the members for Bruce, for Cook, for Ryan and, most recently, for Hasluck.

These bills establish the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority as the single organisational focal point for Australia’s antidoping activities. Testing, investigation, research and education functions will reinforce each other in presenting a unified, integrated response to doping in sport. The creation of ASADA balances a tough on drugs approach, ensuring that all athletes are treated fairly and that athletes’ rights are protected. The bills before the House enhance an Australian antidoping framework that is already world leading. They add more robust arrangements for the investigation and hearing of antidoping violations to the government’s existing drug testing, education and advocacy activities.

The creation of ASADA represents a comprehensive response to Australia’s obligations under the WADA code and the UNESCO International Convention Against Doping in Sport. ASADA will enhance Australia’s compliance with the World Anti-Doping Code and will strategically implement the UNESCO International Convention Against Doping in Sport, to be ratified by Australia, once it enters into force.

There is strong support among sporting organisations for the creation of ASADA, which was emphasised in submissions to the government’s 2004 discussion paper on the proposed creation of a sports doping investigations board. The establishment of ASADA will mean that sports, athletes and the public can have complete confidence that doping allegations will be investigated and pursued in an independent, robust and transparent way. It represents a tough response to doping in sport and a response that treats all athletes fairly.

The ASADA bill sets out the broad requirements under which ASADA will exercise its functions. Detailed protocols and procedures for the exercise of ASADA’s functions will be contained in the National Anti-Doping Scheme, which will be a legislative instrument to be tabled in parliament. The scheme will contain the core functions of ASADA to enable the new authority to operate efficiently and effectively from commencement. It will also carry over and consolidate into a single document the existing regulations and orders relating to ASADA’s current testing functions.

As a condition of any funding from the government, sports will be required to adopt the scheme as part of their antidoping policies, which will include submitting to the antidoping jurisdiction of ASADA. As a condition of the scheme, sports will be required to ensure that their athletes and support personnel cooperate with ASADA officials in carrying out its testing, investigations and presentations at hearings functions. Sports will also be required to accept any findings by ASADA that an individual has committed a doping offence, and issue appropriate infraction notices to athletes.

The bill also contains specific and detailed provisions protecting athletes’ rights and carries over existing safeguards under the ASDA Act. The bill includes provisions facilitating the exchange of sensitive information between ASADA, the Australian Customs Service and the Australian Federal Police in regard to the use and importation of prohibited substances. These provisions, along with the obligations imposed on sports through the contractual arrangements with the government, will put in place a system that will provide ASADA with the powers and ability to carry out its functions effectively and systematically.

The World Anti-Doping Agency, the body responsible for coordinating the international effort against doping in sport, has welcomed the entry of ASADA as the new linchpin in Australia’s antidoping framework. Australia, as host of the Commonwealth Games in Melbourne next month, now has an opportunity, through the creation of ASADA, to underscore to the international sporting community its absolute commitment to fighting against drugs in any sport.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Ordered that the bill be reported to the House without amendment.