Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Aged Care and Senior Australians) Share this | Hansard source

I have just a couple of quick comments on the Greens amendments, which the government won't be supporting. I will just put a couple of points on the record in the context of that position. With respect to retaining access to the AAT, which is one of the provisions that the Greens are looking for, the government does agree that it is right that there is an appeal process for anti-doping decisions. That is why the government has established the National Sports Tribunal, which has commenced its operations. So there is a process for athletes to make an appeal. They also do retain access to both the Federal Court and also the Commonwealth Ombudsman. So there are processes that can be obtained by athletes.

The Greens also made some comments with respect to cost. There is some provision within the National Sports Tribunal process for the CEO to assist in that circumstance, although employing your own lawyers will obviously come at some cost to anyone involved in those processes. So we won't be supporting the Greens amendment in that context.

There are some discussions in the Greens amendments with respect to access to documentation. The processes proposed within the bill don't actually prevent athletes or parties having access to documents; it's basically about the time and place and availability of those documents. So we're not removing the right to access information and documents as part of the way that the legislation works. For example, information or documents may not physically be in the possession of the CEO of ASADA—or Sport Integrity Australia, as it will become—at the time. So, it's about determining a time when they are able to be produced. We agree that parties should have access to appropriate documentation. This is about organising and determining a time and place for those elements.

On the points that the Greens raised with respect to self-incrimination: given that these are civil proceedings, not criminal proceedings, there is a difference in how the right to self-incrimination does or does not apply. The common law right to self-incrimination does not apply in civil proceedings in the same way that it does in only criminal matters. So, there is a difference there, and proceedings under this act are civil provisions, not criminal.

One of the really important points that I think has been raised by a couple of colleagues in the debate is the capacity to deal with third parties, not necessarily contracted parties. If we consider the circumstance of some of the most infamous events in recent times with respect to doping, some of those parties have not been subject to any aspects of our antidoping process, because the antidoping process does not have reach. It's important that the facilitators of doping can be captured as a part of our antidoping process, and we think that's a really important change in the way our antidoping system operates.

I've made some comments about the importance of the National Sports Tribunal. We think that's an important addition to the overall framework of sport integrity in Australia. It's designed to be cost-effective for athletes and to provide support to athletes as part of that process. I've already mentioned the fact that the CEO of the National Sports Tribunal has an obligation to provide support to athletes, including through the establishment and maintenance of a free legal advice panel. So, there are ways for athletes to get access to support at reasonable cost.

The Greens also, in their amendments, talk about the opportunities for the establishment of a specific athlete ombudsman. The World Anti-Doping Agency, WADA, has formed a working group to examine that concept. The government would like to wait for that working group to report back. It's not something we can completely rule out, but we want to make sure that Australia remains compliant with the World Anti-Doping Agency code, and we will refer the outcomes of the deliberation of the WADA working group to the soon-to-be-formed Sport Integrity Australia Advisory Council on how to proceed. So, that provision that the Greens are seeking through their amendments is not completely shut off. It's something we'll consider as that piece of work continues through the World Anti-Doping Agency process. I would note in that sense, though, that athletes do retain access to the Commonwealth Ombudsman.

So, the government won't be supporting the Greens amendments, but we acknowledge some of the concerns that the Greens have raised as part of their contribution to the debate. And there are some things that we will consider as the antidoping system in this country continues to evolve.