Andrew Southcott (Boothby, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment Participation, Training and Sport) Share this | Hansard source

In speaking to the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority Amendment Bill 2009, I want to indicate that the opposition lends its support to this bill. This piece of legislation is largely directed towards the governance of ASADA, and the bill will build on the foundations which the former coalition government laid down to stamp out doping in sport. Despite some governance issues that this bill is addressing, the policies of the coalition ensured that ASADA developed a strong international reputation as a world leader in best practice anti-doping regulation.

The coalition improved Australia’s anti-doping effort by replacing the Australian Sports Drug Agency with ASADA in 2006. This was as a result of the Anderson inquiry in 2004 into the Australian track cycling team. We armed this new agency with strong powers to investigate and present cases as well as exchange information with other enforcement agencies. We gave it the power to investigate suspected anti-doping rule violations outlined in the World Anti-Doping Code, to make recommendations on its findings and to present cases against alleged offenders at sport tribunals. We provided an additional $2.24 million to ASADA in the 2007 budget for enhanced investigation of alleged doping violations and the subsequent preparation and submission of briefs in relation to individual cases, bringing total funding to $12.9 million. We launched the ‘stamp out’ hotline in March 2006, where people can report information about possible doping in sport. We established the Register of Findings in March 2006, which makes public the names of athletes who have committed a violation, and we initiated the Athlete Whereabouts information register in March 2007 to further facilitate ASADA’s no advance notice testing program so that athletes can be located at any time and be tested.

Because of the work of the previous government, ASADA has earned a fine international reputation. It now conducts approximately 4,200 government funded tests each year. Additionally, a Curtin University survey found that the proportion of athletes vulnerable to doping had declined in the last four years. The proportion of athletes who would give a lot of or some consideration to taking up an offer of a banned substance had decreased from 16 per cent in 2004 to eight per cent in 2008, in this survey. However, the same survey found that 18 per cent of athletes believed they could get away with using performance-enhancing drugs while out of competition, while six per cent said they could get away with it during competition. Therefore, there is clearly more work to do.

To ensure that our anti-doping efforts are as effective as possible, ASADA, which is central to our fight against doping, must be operating at its optimum. A review of ASADA commissioned by the Department of Health and Ageing in 2008 found that this may not be the case. The review found that the complex governance arrangements made it difficult to resolve disagreements between the ASADA chair, who was also the head of the agency, and the ASADA members. These disagreements have included the strategic direction of ASADA, the testing of schoolboy rowers, the handling of a test result from Ian Thorpe and a Medicare-data-correlating pilot project.

The review found that the definitions of the roles, responsibilities and powers of the ASADA chair and chief executive officer, on the one hand, and the members, on the other, are blurred. The review found that disagreements between the members and the chair-CEO, in the amalgamated role, have therefore been hard to resolve, which has caused tensions to develop and, in some cases, relationships to break down. The review stated:

Many of the problems which have faced ASADA since its inception can be directly attributed to the lack of clarity in the ASADA Act about the roles, powers and functions of the Chair/CEO on the one hand and the non-executive members on the other …

It recommended that two main issues required clarification. The first was the need for clear allocation of roles and responsibilities within ASADA and between ASADA and key stakeholders, including the Department of Health and Ageing. The second issue was the need for a clear distinction between functions through which ASADA acts as an arm of government and functions in which independence from government may be desirable. This bill seeks to alter ASADA’s governance arrangements by ensuring that ASADA operates as a conventional FMA Act agency by removing its CAC Act elements. It will create a new CEO position with an advisory board, create an anti-doping rule violation panel and make changes to the way the National Anti-Doping Scheme will be amended in the future.

The first element is to ensure that ASADA operates as a conventional FMA Act agency by removing its CAC Act elements. When ASADA was established in 2006, its financial arrangements were determined by the FMA Act and its staffing arrangements were determined by the Public Service Act 1999. ASADA was established as a body corporate, consisting of a chair, deputy chair and independent non-executive members who were given decision-making roles. This meant that it would also perform some functions attributable to the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act 1997, the CAC Act. So it had, in a sense, a hybrid nature—features of an agency operating under both the FMA Act and the CAC Act. For the purposes of the FMA Act, the ASADA chair was also the chief executive of the agency. Removing the CAC Act elements and ensuring ASADA operates as an agency under the FMA Act will separate the chair and chief executive roles. We will now have a chief executive officer and an advisory group.

The creation of a new chief executive officer position and a new advisory group is being proposed to clarify the roles and responsibilities within ASADA. The CEO position will be responsible for directing ASADA in carrying out functions prescribed under the ASADA Act, including financial responsibilities normally expected of a CEO under the FMA Act and the Public Service Act. The advisory group will have purely advisory functions. Members will be appointed by the Minister for Sport and will have specialist skills in areas such as education and training, sports medicine, sports law, ethics and investigations.

There will also be a new anti-doping rule violations panel. The panel being created by this bill will replace the current anti-doping rule violation committee. The new panel will consist of members with specialist skills, such as sports law, sports medicine and pharmacology, and will not include the ASADA chief executive, ASADA staff or members of the new advisory group. So there will be very clear separation. The panel will have a quasi-judicial role, in that it will be their responsibility to determine any anti-doping rule violations and make recommendations, which will be given back to the ASADA chief executive officer. It will be his responsibility to notify the individual athletes and the national sporting organisation.

Finally, the bill will change that the way the National Anti-Doping Scheme will be amended in the future. The National Anti-Doping Scheme ensures Australia remains compliant with the World Anti-Doping Code. When the World Anti-Doping Code changes, the NAD Scheme is amended to reflect the changes. Under current arrangements, ASADA can only change the National Anti-Doping Scheme as a whole by a written instrument. Under the new arrangements, which provide more flexibility, the chief executive officer will still make changes via a written instrument, but the bill will include additional matters where the CEO can make changes, allowing him or her the ability to change just sections of the National Anti-Doping Scheme instead of the scheme as a whole.

In conclusion, I regard the legislation as very straightforward. It goes to the governance of ASADA. I believe ASADA has operated well in terms of the functions it has carried out but clearly these governance problems have been identified and they need to be resolved. I think this will be a much better structure going forward. As I said earlier, ASADA has earned an excellent reputation in its work on stamping out doping in sport and Australia maintains a very strong line against doping in sport. It is a matter of pride to Australia that WADA is headed up by an Australian, a former federal minister and former New South Wales Premier, John Fahey.

I wanted to indicate that the opposition support this legislation. It is very straightforward. I would also like to thank the Minister for Sport and her staff and the department for their extensive consultation and briefings on this legislation. The bill is implementing structural changes to the internal operations of ASADA which are consistent with the independent review. It will clarify the roles and responsibilities within ASADA and streamline the way it runs. I indicate the opposition will be supporting this bill.

See this speech in context