John Alexander (Bennelong, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

Australia is a great sporting nation. In the last few days alone, we've seen our all-conquering women's cricket team winning in the West Indies, Ash Barty regaining the world's No. 1 ranking, the inspirational Dylan Alcott narrowly missing a grand slam and, of course, the Bradmanesque Steve Smith help us hang onto the Ashes and win in the UK for the first time since 2001. We celebrate victory, we celebrate effort and we even celebrate noble defeats. But, as we know all too well, when we find out that our athletes have not been playing by the rules, it leaves us feeling sick with shame. We put sporting prowess on such high pedestals that, when we find out that our people have gotten there nefariously, our national identity is shaken to the core.

Tribunals are never popular but they are necessary for Australians to have faith in the teams and individuals who represent us. To take a pertinent example, while many decried Steve Smith's ban as overly harsh, it was that unwavering decision made by those at Cricket Australia which allowed him the full redemption story we have seen him pulling off in recent days. Because of the judicious handling by authorities, there were no lingering doubts or resentment about his place in the team, a place which has brought us glory today.

Back in 2017, when we commissioned the Wood review of Australia's sports integrity arrangements, sports around the world had been through a rough patch. Locally, we had seen issues in the Essendon football team, but, on a global scale, there were problems in athletics and recent memories of widespread doping by national swimming teams at the 2016 Olympics. The previously established national sports integrity unit was a good start but had no investigative powers, making it a fairly lame duck. We commissioned the Wood review not only in response to growing global threats to the integrity of sport but also to ensure we actively protect Australia's sports and sport participants as well as the economic, health, cultural and social benefits of sport to the Australian community.

The government commissioned the Wood review in 2017 and released the review report in August 2018. It represents the most comprehensive review of sports integrity arrangements ever conducted in Australia, if not globally. The panel looked at similar models from around the world—including New Zealand, Japan and the UK—for best practice. From this, they determined a tribunal would greatly enhance the credibility of sport in Australia. The government's response is the result of extensive consultation with all stakeholders, including sports players' associations, state and territory governments, law enforcement agencies and wagering service providers. The National Sports Tribunal will offer a cost-effective, transparent, timely and independent dispute resolution function for athletes and sporting bodies.

The tribunal will hear antidoping matters in compliance with the World Anti-Doping Code and other sports related disputes, such as player selection and sports code of conduct matters. Depending on the nature of the issue, disputes may be heard through a variety of resolution methods, including arbitration, conciliation and mediation. Critically, through establishment by statute, the National Sports Tribunal will be given powers to inform itself, including the ability to summon witnesses and compel the provision of relevant documents. These powers have not been given to the agency before and will be critical in making it a successful tool for the future. These powers are not available to in-house sports tribunals, and their provision to the National Sports Tribunal will ensure informed decision-making and the provision of natural justice. Given the ongoing shift towards the need to establish antidoping rules violations through intelligence and investigations complementary to the traditional testing programs, the necessity for such powers is likely to increase. While the National Sports Tribunal will have the power to compel the attendance of witnesses at hearings and to compel a witness to answer questions, these powers do not abrogate a witness's right to claim the privilege against self-incrimination. Such an abrogation of a common-law right would need to be express.

The one downside of regulations in this matter is the manner in which they can wrap up sportspeople in bureaucracies that make demands on them that take them away from the field. Importantly, then, the tribunal will be integrated into the current sporting tribunal landscape, complementing the activities of internal sports facilities presently in place and providing a timely and cost-effective alternative to the Court of Arbitration for Sport, based in Switzerland. A trial period of two years will provide the opportunity to develop sustainable costing arrangements and refine the operations and services of the body. Some constitutional matters impinge on the general division of the tribunal. However, this is not a reason to delay its establishment. We have had reassurance from the minister that the department continues to work with constitutional and commercial law experts to assist sports to access the full suite of services to be offered by the National Sports Tribunal in the most effective way.

A version of this legislation was introduced into the previous parliament. The election and subsequent need for reintroduction has allowed for additional consultation to be undertaken with key stakeholders in both the private and public sectors. The Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills provided comments in relation to the previously introduced bill, seeking clarification on the immunity granted to tribunal members and the reverse burden of proof for the lawful disclosure of information. These issues have been addressed.

The current bill, the National Sports Tribunal Bill 2019, has seen some minor language changes to aid with clarity, as well as the introduction of a civil penalty scheme in addition to the pre-existing criminal offences. This will allow the tribunal to effectively manage its affairs without necessarily needing to always deal with noncompliance in the criminal courts. One further and significant change from the previous version of the bill package is that the bill seeks to amend the Freedom of Information Act 1982 to exempt material from release where it is covered by the secrecy provision of the National Sports Tribunal Bill 2019. This proposed amendment is necessary to ensure that parties to a dispute before the National Sports Tribunal have the appropriate guarantees around the protection of their information, including sensitive medical and health information. Without this assurance, individuals may be reluctant to utilise the National Sports Tribunal due to concerns about privacy and reputation. Similarly, parties may be reluctant to fully participate in proceedings and/or provide required information.

This tribunal will be a great step forward in solidifying the integrity of our world-beating sports men and women. But it's not the only thing that this government is doing on this matter. There is a pipeline of further legislation coming forward so that everyone on the Australian field, court or tracks knows that their competitors are playing within the rules. Legislation to implement agreed enhancements to the National Anti-Doping scheme and to establish Sport Integrity Australia will be introduced in parliament in the near future. Work continues to ratify the Council of Europe Convention on the Manipulation of Sports Competitions—the Macolin convention—which Australia signed in February 2019. The government expects to introduce Commonwealth match-fixing offences legislation in early 2020, and negotiations are underway with all stakeholders on the design and operation of the proposed Australian Sports Wagering Scheme. Together, these will be a comprehensive suite of policies which will ensure the playing field is always level and we can watch as our athletes compete on the world stage, confident that they are representing us honourably and fairly. They can keep inspiring our young Australians and building on our sporting culture of fair and honest competition. This tribunal, as recommended by the Wood review, will provide a desperately needed service to Australian sport: an independent, dependable, honest, prompt, cost-effective and unswerving system for resolving sports disputes in all their forms.

See this speech in context