George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Minister for the Arts and Sport) Share this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Bernardi for the question and acknowledge his distinguished contribution to Australian sport as both a participant and as a member of the Australian Sports Commission. In the course of my answer I propose to address an issue that he first raised in this place in an important speech on 11 September last year.

Australia has been a leader in the fight against doping in sport. It played an active role in the development the UNESCO International Convention Against Doping in Sport, which came into force on 1 February this year. Last year the Australian government launched the Australian Sport Anti-Doping Authority, ASADA, a single, dedicated focal point designed to combat the use of drugs in sport. Australia was also an active participant in the negotiations associated with drafting the World Anti-Doping Authority code. The code has been adopted by the International Olympic Committee, national Olympic organisations and all Olympic sports.

The Australian government’s position is that all sports in receipt of government funding are required to be code compliant. All such Australian sports are code compliant, including the AFL. Under the code, while unlawful drugs are prohibited in competition—whether or not they are performing enhancing—only performance-enhancing drugs are prohibited out of competition. Non-performance-enhancing drugs—sometimes described as illicit drugs—are not generally banned by the WADA code out of competition. The words ‘illicit drugs’ are in fact weasel words. These are illegal drugs and their use in any but defined medical circumstances is a criminal offence.

This government supports a zero-tolerance approach to illegal drug use. While it is the philosophy of the WADA code to leave it to domestic law to police the use of non-performance-enhancing drugs out of competition, the obligations of sporting bodies are, in the government’s view, more extensive. That is the very point that Senator Bernardi made in his speech last year. Mr Andrew Demetriou, the chief executive officer of the AFL, said last year:

Our strong view is that the fight against illicit drugs is not a fight that should be restricted to match day. We believe that if we are to take the toughest possible stance against drugs, then we need to fight the use of illicit drugs out of competition and out of season. It is not a part-time fight. It is a full-time fight.

They are commendable words, but unfortunately the AFL’s three-strikes policy, while admittedly assuming an obligation beyond the strict requirements of the WADA code, is unequal to the standard prescribed by Mr Demetriou. A three-strikes policy is not a zero-tolerance policy. It is not, in Mr Demetriou’s words, the toughest possible stance against drugs. It does not go far enough.

Under the three-strikes policy, after a first positive test, the player enters a treatment/education program coordinated by an AFL medical officer, who informs the AFL club doctor at that point. The club doctor is under strict ethical and contractual obligations to maintain confidentiality, so the result is known only to those involved in the player’s treatment and education. A second positive test is dealt with by the AFL medical officer with a view to further educating, counselling and treating the player. The AFL medical officer informs the relevant AFL club doctor on a confidential basis. It is only after a third positive test that the AFL player is deemed to have breached AFL rule 1.6 dealing with conduct unbecoming or prejudicial to the interests of the AFL and must face the AFL tribunal. If the player is found guilty in those circumstances(Time expired)