Kate Lundy (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Sport and Recreation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Australian Labor Party was proud to recognise the need for a coordinated approach to sports antidoping very early on. In fact, the Labor government’s creation of the Australian Sports Drug Agency, or ASDA, in 1990 placed Australia at the forefront of the international fight against drugs in sport. Labor’s goal in establishing ASDA was to ensure that Australian athletes were able to perform and compete in an environment untainted by banned substances, and this goal needs to be met with ongoing revision and adaptation of our antidoping legislation. Only then is it possible to continue the great tradition of excellent sporting performance that has motivated so many people of all ages to strive to do their best in their chosen sport. Sport, after all, is an essential part of Australian culture, and it needs to be drug free to be fair for the athletes and to be the source of inspiration for, and enjoyment of, children and adults alike.

Labor is supporting the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority Bill 2005 and the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2005 because they represent the next crucial step in strengthening the antidoping regime in Australia. It has been the Labor Party that has pressured the Howard government to continue improving the doping regulation in Australia, something that we believe they have been somewhat slack and slow in doing over the years. I think it is appropriate to make comments as to this slackness and slowness in the context of this legislation.

The slackness is evidenced by the fact that, if it were not for Labor, the bungled investigations into allegations surrounding Mark French and other Australian cyclists would never have been exposed. Just to recap: following the preliminary investigation into this matter, the Australian Sports Commission and Cycling Australia instigated a so-called independent investigation of the incident. Allegations were made of drug use by other then unnamed members of the AIS cycling team and of there being a culture of permissiveness with respect to doping at the Del Monte facility. In May 2004, in evidence to the court, Mr French named five other cyclists who allegedly participated in injecting sessions at the Del Monte facility. It is important to note that, while the court found Mr French guilty of antidoping offences, there was no further investigation into the allegations surrounding the five other named cyclists. There was simply a cover-up, and it was shameful that the Howard government did not do anything about it.

On 18 June 2004, it was the Labor opposition who raised this issue in parliament. Senator John Faulkner criticised the government for the mismanagement of the investigations into these allegations of antidoping violations. Senator Faulkner called for the establishment of an investigation and determination process, independent of the Australian Sports Commission. He also expressed concern that no further investigation had taken place of the other alleged offenders involved in the case. It is noted that at the time it was of the utmost sensitivity because it involved potential team members for the upcoming Athens Olympics.

After Labor raised these concerns, the Minister for the Arts and Sport acted, finally. The Hon. Robert Anderson QC was appointed to investigate the claims of doping within the cycling program and to assess the effectiveness of actions taken by the Australian Sports Commission and Cycling Australia. The key recommendation Justice Anderson made from the inquiry mirrored Senator Faulkner’s concerns. Anderson said:

... there should be a body which is quite independent of AIS and of the Australian Sports Commission and of the sporting bodies themselves with the power and duty to investigate suspected infractions such as substance abuse and to carry the prosecution of persons against whom evidence is obtained.

It is important to note that while the ASDA Act was amended in 2004 in order to comply with the WADA code, and the responsibilities mapped out for sporting bodies and athletes in it, ASDA does not currently have the power to examine all the antidoping rule violations in the code or, indeed, to prosecute cases. That is what this legislation does: it enacts that Anderson recommendation, which was only made as a result of Labor’s intervention in the first place.

I would now like to turn to the issue of timing and slowness that I mentioned earlier. The sad thing is that the rush that we are now experiencing with this legislation is because we are only debating these bills some 13 days out from the Commonwealth Games. I note that the bills reflect the view of the government for quite some time now and, in fact, were mooted mid last year. So it is concerning that it has taken till now—as I said, 13 days out from the Commonwealth Games—to finally debate the legislation in this place. We certainly do not want to hold it up any further and we think that it is good that the government has finally brought it before us.

But, that said, it is still important to note that it would have been far better for stakeholders to have more time and to have had a longer lead time in to the Senate inquiry—and it was very important that the government allowed a Senate inquiry, given they have the numbers in this place. We heard during the evidence to the Senate inquiry that a number of stakeholders were concerned that not enough time was provided to them. Because of that condensed time frame the other issues relating to the NAD Scheme, the National Anti-Doping Scheme, which is a critical part of the new operation of ASDA under this act, have not been fully fleshed out. I will speak more to that in a minute.

So they are my criticisms about timing and the slackness evidenced by the Howard government over the years. There is generally a bipartisan policy commitment to wanting Australia to be the best in the world and, as I said, this legislation takes the next step. It is worth noting in my comments, incidentally, that it does provide Australia’s antidoping body with two specific additional powers: the power to investigate doping allegations and to present antidoping violation cases at hearings of CAS or other sports tribunals. Sporting bodies who made submissions to the Senate inquiry concurred that that type of body was required, and the Labor Party also supports it. The additional powers will enable the new ASADA to examine all eight antidoping violations contained in the WADA code—a sensible measure for a government which has required all NSOs to sign on to WADA so that all is consistent in setting up the regime.

ASADA will maintain the existing drug testing, education and advocacy functions of the current ASDA, and will also carry out additional functions in relation to investigation of potential additional sports doping violations; presentation at hearings conducted by the international Court of Arbitration for Sport, CAS, and other tribunals, of cases against an athlete or support person alleged to have committed an antidoping rule violation; determining mandatory antidoping rules to be included in the ASC funding agreements with sports; and advising the ASC of the performance of sports in observing these requirements—all crucial improvements.

ASADA will carry out these functions within the context of the National Anti-Doping Scheme, or NAD Scheme, the framework of which is created by these bills. The detailed protocols and procedures for the exercise of ASADA’s functions will be contained in this scheme, which is a legislative instrument to be developed alongside the bill. Ultimately, it will be tabled in parliament as a disallowable instrument. The National Anti-Doping Scheme will be consistent with the mandatory provisions of the World Anti-Doping Code and will implement the UNESCO convention once it is ratified. The bill acts as a broad legislative umbrella for ASADA, and the NAD Scheme will contain much of the detail that will directly affect athletes and sporting bodies.

We have been advised that the NAD Scheme will contain the antidoping rules applicable to athletes and support personnel, including details of antidoping rule violations and the consequences of infractions; protocols for ASADA drug testing procedures, protocols and procedures governing ASADA investigations, protocols for ASADA to establish a register of its findings and to advise sporting organisations and athletes of its findings and the protocols for ASADA’s presentation of doping cases at sports tribunal hearings.

Labor is satisfied with the government’s, and certainly the department’s, insistence, through the Senate committee process, that national sporting bodies and players associations were to be consulted with the content of this National Anti-Doping Scheme. During the inquiry process sporting bodies did raise a number of valid concerns regarding implementation, such as not being able to see the detail of the NAD Scheme. Certainly, we are taking it on good faith that the government will adhere to its commitments and that, if there is any transfer of current powers as described in the existing ASDA legislation to the regulation, the disallowable instrument, they will not be weakened or undermined in any way, and that it will be a direct reflection of existing powers along with the improvements as provided for as part of these bills.

Some of the questions that sporting bodies were asking were, ‘Would ASADA be conducting raids in the middle of the night or any other time? Would ASADA provide legal support for athletes? Could the major professional sports run hearings at their own tribunals?’ et cetera. The bottom line is that Australian sport has a lot riding on the proper establishment of effective antidoping regulations, and this process of consultation will be invaluable to the pending smoothness of the implementation of the new regime.

During the Senate inquiry, the Australian Olympic Committee also raised some concerns in relation to the bill, in particular that it does not separate the ASADA functions and powers relating to policy making with administration, investigation and prosecution, and this is a valid concern. We heard at the inquiry that ASDA management gave the guarantee that these powers will be separated through good management practices. Time will tell. However, we are satisfied with those assurances. Labor will continue to hold the government to account on their commitment to the national sporting bodies and athletes that this legislation will offer positive benefits, clarify many issues for sports and not incur any additional cost or risk associated with the NAD scheme. Stability, certainty and education are critical elements of an effective regime, and we are assured that all of these will be addressed effectively.

Labor are committed to ensuring that Australia continues to lead the world in the push against drugs in sport. Labor created ASDA in 1990, and we hold dear this proud legacy. Labor will support the passage of these bills. As I said, the concerns we had have generally been allayed through the Senate inquiry process, and we take in good faith that the government will act on their commitments in relation to the development of the NAD scheme. And we hopefully look forward to a drug-free Commonwealth Games in just a few weeks time.

Rod Kemp (Victoria, Liberal Party, Minister for the Arts and Sport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Lundy, we fully endorse your hopes and expectations about the Commonwealth Games. All of us would certainly hope that, but we are all comforted that the antidoping regime which is now in place is far more rigorous and thorough than any on previous major sporting occasions in this country. I think that it was a big step forward. Senator Lundy indicated in her speech that the Labor Party was very supportive of the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority Bill 2005. We welcome that very strong support.

For the record, the bill was tabled in parliament at the end of the last session to give time for some public scrutiny, which did occur. There was a Senate hearing and the submissions were considered by a Senate committee. A number of questions were raised and those questions, I think, were comprehensively answered. Clearly, the Labor Party would not support this legislation if they felt that those questions had not been answered in a satisfactory fashion. Senator Lundy was very keen that the national sporting system and the regulations be subject to consultation with key sporting bodies. The advice I have is that that has occurred. A number of issues have been raised but they are not major issues, and we are very comfortable in making sure that Senator Lundy and her officers are fully briefed on these developments.

I think this is a very important day for the fight against doping in sport in Australia. Senator Lundy spoke about the delays, and I will speak briefly on that. There has probably been a delay, and if former Senator Black were here he would say there had been a delay of 16 years. In the investigation that was carried out in the Senate in 1990, headed by Senator Black, there was a proposal not only to set up an antidoping body but to give that body investigatory functions. The truth is that successive ministers for sport did not accept that proposal, and I take considerable pride, as the minister for sport, that it has now been done. Senator Lundy is right to draw the Senate’s attention to the delays, but I think the delays go back further than was perhaps indicated. The Labor Party from 1990 to 1996 was certainly not prepared to proceed down this track. It has happened now and I think that is a good thing. We welcome Labor’s support.

The only unfortunate aspect of Senator Lundy’s speech was the mention of the Anderson inquiry. I invite Senator Lundy to very carefully read the results of that inquiry. Very briefly: Mr Anderson indicated that there was no need for these matters to be raised in parliament, that investigations were under way. The fact that these things were raised in parliament caused a great deal of hurt and pain to many people. There were allegations which were very damaging to the Australian Institute of Sport. It is appropriate to note that the allegations that were made were found to be false. There were allegations about a shooting gallery at the AIS which received worldwide press. I think it is beholden on those people who made those allegations about our sporting system which have been shown to be wrong—and they have been subject to an independent inquiry and shown to be wrong—to withdraw those statements and apologise to the people who were involved. That is a debate for another day, if Senator Lundy would like to have it. But I do invite Senator Lundy and her advisers to carefully reread the Anderson report. I urge those people who read Senator Lundy’s comments today to read the findings of that Anderson report and find out what the genuine facts were.

Putting that aside, this is an absolutely historic day in terms of the fight against doping in sport. As the minister for sport, I am very proud to be associated with this legislation. I am pleased to acknowledge the strong support that we have received from Senator Lundy on this matter. The timetables are tight; Senator Lundy was quite right to mention that the timetables are tight. Regrettably these things take time. The fact is that we would not be this far if, at this last stage, we did not have the support and cooperation of Senator Lundy. I am happy to acknowledge that. We wish the legislation a speedy journey, which it looks as though it is about to have. I assure the Senate that every effort will be made to ensure that ASADA is up and running before the Commonwealth Games.

Question agreed to.

Bills read a second time.