David Leyonhjelm (NSW, Liberal Democratic Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Assistant Minister for Health, representing the Minister for Sport, Senator Nash. At the recent Senate estimates, ASADA noted that sporting organisations have their own strong incentives to be dope-free. ASADA noted that, around the world, sporting organisations can run their own anti-doping organisations. They do not need to be run by government. ASADA noted that, in Australia, if a sporting organisation wanted to opt out of the ASADA regime, there would be a potential loss of government funding from the Australian Sports Commission. So I have two questions. Shouldn't sporting organisations be free to manage anti-doping themselves?Is it the policy of the government to use taxpayer funding of sports to prevent this?

Fiona Nash (NSW, National Party, Assistant Minister for Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Leyonhjelm for his question and for some advance notice of it. World anti-doping is founded on equal contributions from sports and governments acting in close collaboration, particularly through the operation of the World Anti-Doping Agency. Over 175 governments, including Australia, commit to anti-doping through being a state party to the UNESCO International Convention against Doping in Sport. As a result, those governments agree to abide by the principles of the World Anti-Doping Code, which sets out uniform anti-doping rules to ensure the global response to doping is consistently applied. This is for the benefit of athletes competing on a level playing field and also, importantly, to protect athlete health.

A failure by a government to comply with the requirements of the UNESCO convention may result in its ineligibility to host major sporting events, such as the highly successful Cricket World Cup and Asian football tournament hosted earlier this year, amongst other consequences. International sporting federations also require respective national federations to implement anti-doping policies compliant with the code to be eligible to participate in international competitions. Many governments give effect to the obligations of the code through the operation of a national anti-doping organisation.

Past experience with doping matters shows the necessity of a dedicated capability enshrined in agencies such as ASADA to support sports to meet the requirements and to maintain a level of independence. It ensures that the anti-doping effort is appropriately resourced and capable of meeting the challenges of modern doping practices, particularly through investigations and intelligence. Without this, many sports would lack the capacity to administer an anti-doping program. Most sports lack the capabilities and, thus, work closely with anti-doping organisations on violation matters.

David Leyonhjelm (NSW, Liberal Democratic Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I note that the first question—shouldn't sporting organisations be free to manage antidoping themselves?—was not answered. On 7 February 2013 the then head of ASADA stated that it was 'the blackest day in Australian sport'. Does the government agree or disagree with the view that 7 February 2013 was the blackest day in Australian sport?

Fiona Nash (NSW, National Party, Assistant Minister for Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In terms of the sporting organisations being able to run their own antidoping programs, the government believes—in terms of complying with the international rules and also having consistency of practice across sporting organisations, to be able to deliver those issues around level playing field and also protecting health—that it is important that we have the current system in place.

I understand that the 'blackest day in sport' comment was actually attributed to a media commentator and not the head of ASADA. I do recognise that the infamous press conference created expectation and was unfortunate in some of its overhyped delivery, and I would ask the senator to perhaps take that up with the member for Blaxland, Jason Clare. The Australian Crime Commission, though, is indeed very concerned about the serious issues of the involvement of organised crime in the supply of performance-enhancing drugs in Australian sport, and we are very committed to the protection of the integrity of Australian sport. (Time expired)

David Leyonhjelm (NSW, Liberal Democratic Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. Minister, your government is responsible for ASADA. Since ASADA's 'blackest day' comment, no player has been found to have breached any laws but plenty have been put through the legal wringer and have had their names dragged through the mud. Will you apologise on behalf of the government to the Rugby League and Aussie Rules players and supporters adversely affected by the actions of ASADA?

Fiona Nash (NSW, National Party, Assistant Minister for Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think it is very important for senators to understand that there are actually no criminal sanctions for doping violations in Australia. Also there is actually no provision within the government legislation for the sanctioning of athletes for antidoping rule violations. These sanctions are determined, as many people would be aware, by the sporting organisations themselves, imposed by the relevant national organisation in line with the provisions of the code. Those sanctions of course range from periods of ineligibility for sport to disqualification of results and the loss of prize money. Any criminality associated with the supply or use of performance- or image-enhancing drugs is a matter for the relevant law enforcement agencies, and I think it is very important that we draw the distinction between those two matters.