Senate debates

Monday, 17 November 2014

Bills

Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority Amendment Bill 2014; Second Reading

11:49 am

Photo of Mitch FifieldMitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Social Services) Share this | | Hansard source

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows—

AUSTRALIAN SPORTS ANTI-DOPING AUTHORITY AMENDMENT BILL 2014

The Australian government strongly supports a fair, safe and healthy environment for all athletes from all nations and is committed to clean sport. Not only is doping a serious risk to an athlete's health and wellbeing, it is fundamentally about cheating and debasing all that is good about sport to which we hold close to our hearts—from improved health through physical endeavour to the pursuit of athletic excellence and the values it teaches.

The World Anti-Doping Code (the code), administered by sports and governments around the world, ensures that athletes are treated the same and abide by the same rules everywhere, regardless of nationality and sport.

WADA, as custodians of the code, initiated a comprehensive review of the code in late 2011. In reviewing the code, there was a common understanding that anti-doping authorities are now operating in an environment where the potential rewards from sporting success combined with the availability of substances and techniques that are not able to be easily detected through testing provide a greater incentive to cheat through doping.

In response to this, some of the key changes in the code include:

            To ensure that anti-doping arrangements are harmonised across the world, over 300 international sporting federations and 170 governments and anti-doping organisations who are signatories to the code are currently updating their anti-doping policies, rules and legislation to reflect the revised code.

            The Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority Amendment Bill 2014 brings Australia's anti-doping legislation into alignment with the revised world anti-doping code and international standards which will come into force on 1 January 2015. We need to bring our arrangements into line with the code, to ensure that our athletes are working under the same rules.

            The Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority (ASADA) is the Australian government agency responsible for working with sporting organisations to eliminate doping. ASADA's powers and functions are specified under the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority Act 2006 (ASADA Act) and Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority Regulations 2006 (ASADA Regulations).

            One of the key aspects of the code is the anti-doping rule violations (ADRVs). Appropriately, athletes or athlete support personnel who are found to have committed anti-doping rule violations are subject to sanctions such as ineligibility to compete and disqualification of results from sporting competitions. The international anti-doping community has agreed that it is time to take action to protect sports from those support persons who orchestrate systematic doping programs.

            From 1 January 2015, it will be an ADRV for an athlete or support person to associate in a professional or sports-related capacity with another person who is banned from sport or has been criminally convicted or professionally disciplined for an action that would constitute an ADRV.

            In the act, athletes and athlete support persons are adequately protected in this new arrangement. Any association needs to be in a professional or sports-related capacity before it can be prohibited. This allows, for example, for athletes who may have family members in this category. Second, the athlete receives a warning in writing from ASADA to advise on prohibited association.

            ASADA will also be required to use reasonable efforts to issue a notice to the athlete support person that they should not be associating with an athlete and allow that person an opportunity to contest the notice. It is also a requirement under the code that the association is one that the athlete or other person can reasonably avoid. The bill provides the CEO with the ability to issue the necessary advice.

            Athlete support is extended through enabling review of decisions by the Australian Sports Drug Medical Advisory Committee (ASDMAC). ASDMAC is responsible for considering applications by athletes for the legitimate therapeutic use of prohibited substances or methods. Athletes who have their application approved by ASDMAC receive a therapeutic use exemption (TUE). Revisions to the code appropriately require ASADA to provide a review mechanism for TUE decisions.

            This review mechanism will be achieved by expanding the current membership of ASDMAC so that the minister may appoint up to three appropriately qualified review members for the sole purpose of reviewing decisions at the request of athletes.

            Given the increasing complexity of substances and use of intelligence over time to catch cheats, an extension to the time available to commence action is sought through the code. Under the current code, action on a possible anti-doping rule violation must be commenced within eight years from the date the violation is asserted to have occurred. The code was revised so that, from 1 January 2015, authorities would have up to 10 years upon which to commence action. It is proposed to amend the act to align with this revision.

            Since its establishment in 2006, ASADA has established information sharing arrangements with agencies such as the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service. Access to this information has been critical in assisting ASADA to pursue non-analytical violations, such as trafficking or the possession of prohibited substances.

            With investigations and intelligence gathering now forming an integral element of any strategy for detecting doping, the revised code emphasises the need for effective information flows between government agencies, sporting bodies and anti-doping organisations. Accordingly, amendments to the information sharing provisions in the act are proposed to ensure clarity and simplicity.

            With the recent revisions to the code, it has also been necessary to update a number of definitions in the act. The definitions are mainly technical and minor in nature.

            Given the need for legislative amendments to align Australia's arrangements with the revised code, it is also proposed to take this opportunity to make minor administrative amendments that aim to simply the operation of the act.

            One of these simplifications is to remove the requirement for the Anti-Doping Rule Violation Panel (the panel) to enter the details of a possible ADRV onto a register of findings.

            An entry on the register does not reflect a final decision that an ADRV has taken place. Rather, it indicates that, based on the evidence reviewed by the panel, it is possible an ADRV has occurred. Making an entry on the register provides a legislative trigger for a number of notifications to be made under the National Anti-Doping Scheme. Ultimately, it is a matter for a sports administration body to determine whether an ADRV is established.

            The presence of the register has led some people to believe incorrectly that the panel is the final hearing body for considering ADRV cases when its purpose is to independently review the evidence collected by ASADA prior to it being forwarded to the relevant sporting organisation for future action and final consideration by the relevant sports tribunal.

            To assist with correcting these misapprehensions, the concept of 'register of findings' has been removed from the legislation. Instead, the ADRVP may make an 'assertion' of a possible anti-doping rule violation. This assertion is brought to the attention of the ASADA CEO, who, in turn, will refer it to a sports administration body for determination. This brings the legislation in line with the terminology used in the code.

            Currently a decision to place details on the register of findings may be reviewed by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT). The bill includes amendments that will maintain an affected person's access to the AAT, by way of reviewing the ADRVP decision to make an assertion.

            It is also proposed that a 'violation list' will publically record ADRVs and sanctions at the completion of an ADRV process after any hearings and appeals have been finalised. The maintenance of such a public list is a requirement under the code. Provisions are also proposed to give the ASADA CEO discretion not to include an athlete or athlete support person on the violation list in certain circumstances, including for minor athletes.

            The fight against doping in sport continues to get tougher. The key factor in addressing doping across the world is the unrelenting commitment of the international sporting movement and governments to work together to implement harmonised programs that are robust, effective and fair. This bill ensures that Australia meets its obligations to contribute to a safe and fair sporting environment, safeguard athlete health and continue to protect the fundamental values of sport.

            Photo of Claire MooreClaire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Women) Share this | | Hansard source

            The Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority Amendment Bill 2014 aligns Australia's anti-doping legislation with the revised world anti-doping code, the code, and the international standards, the standards, that come into force on 2 July 2015. As people in this chamber know, the Senate community affairs committee did an inquiry into this particular bill a couple of weeks ago and the report has been published. The Labor Party's position has always been that we were supporting this legislation. We were interested in the process of the inquiry and the various issues that were raised during that process. I was surprised at the large media interest that was shown to this particular piece of legislation. The community affairs committee is not always blessed with this amount of media interest in its inquiries, but with this one we had significant coverage from just about all sectors of the media, and I think that reflects the interest in ASADA.

            Labor are supporting the bill. We have said that; Mr Ripoll in the other place has made a speech around the agreement that we reached in doing that. We say quite openly that doping is, plainly and simply, cheating. It is using banned substances and practices to gain an unfair advantage, and it also can be seriously detrimental to the long-term health of athletes. We know that the community is concerned and we know that we have a situation, both in our own nation and internationally, where we have to ensure that sport is respected, that athletes are respected and that there is no concern or fear about the equity and the honesty of our sports.

            This particular legislation gives effect to our international obligations under the UNESCO International Convention against Doping in Sport. The UNESCO convention requires states, such as Australia to implement arrangements that are consistent with the principles of the code. The International Sporting Code, including the International Olympics Committee and other international federations who are signatories to the code, are committed to updating their anti-doping policies to reflect the revised code. And there has been significant work done internationally bringing together representations from athletes, athletes' supporters and from the various organisations to ensure that there is a genuine international response to the concerns about cheating in sport.

            Within Australia, ASADA implements code complaint programs and activities that encompass deterrence, detection and enforcement. ASADA works closely with Australia's national sporting organisations in implementing these arrangements and has always done so. All antidoping policies replicate the essential parts of the code in each sport. This includes provisions for the sanctioning of athletes who are found to have committed an antidoping-rule violation, an ADRV.

            In late 2011 the World Anti-Doping Agency initiated a comprehensive review of the code, and revisions to the code arising from this review were adopted by the international antidoping community at the World Conference on Doping in Sport in Johannesburg on 15 November 2013. The key revisions to the code include an enhanced focus on the role of investigations and intelligence gathering, mandatory four-year sanctions for certain ADRVs relating to the use of performance enhancing substances such as anabolic steroids, and a relaxation of the rules surrounding the requirement for specific athletes to provide ongoing notification of their whereabouts to facilitate testing. These are known as the 'whereabouts requirements', which have been criticised in the past for being unjust and unfair, and we had evidence about that in our committee.

            Other revisions relate to systems to promote more effective and efficient testing regimes to maximise the chances of catching doping by ensuring that the testing targets the substances most likely to be used by athletes in that sport, and there is a new requirement on sporting organisations that coaches and support staff do not use prohibited substances themselves.

            To ensure continued operation of a globally harmonised antidoping framework, international sporting federations and governments are now required to amend their own antidoping frameworks to align with the revised code and standards by 1 January 2015. This was a significant issue of discussion at the committee—the time frame and the date by which we need to ensure that we are signed up: 1 January 2015. We know that Australia is a signatory to the UNESCO convention and that the Australian government is obliged to amend our own antidoping arrangements to align with the principles of the code. That is what this bill does, and that is why Labor is supporting it.

            There are serious implications for noncompliance or failure to enforce the WADC. All national Olympic committees and international sports federations are required to sign this code. Sporting codes or countries that fail to sign up to or enforce the code risk exclusion of their athletes from the Olympics and from other key sporting events. This was reinforced at the committee hearing.

            For national sporting organisations, the consequence at the local level of noncompliance includes being ineligible for Commonwealth funding and other support delivered by the Australian Sports Commission and potentially being liable for breaches of existing contracts. At the international level, the relevant groups would be excluded from major international events. It was clear at the committee that no-one wanted that. There was no objection to be linked into the international arrangements, but there were significant issues raised during the committee hearings which I think we need to address.

            The bill provides for the creation of a new antidoping-rule violation. The code currently specifies a list of eight actions that individually constitute an ADRV. The international antidoping community has agreed to increase the number of violations from eight to 10, and this includes a new violation called 'prohibited association'. This was the cause of a number of issues raised at our committee. It will become an ADRV for an athlete to associate in a professional or sports related capacity with an athlete support person who is serving a period of ineligibility or who has been convicted of a crime or sanctioned for professional misconduct for activity that otherwise would constitute a doping violation. This ADRV is designed to curtail the influence of people with a proven history of doping and with the skills to facilitate systematic doping programs.

            We heard concerns about the way this will operate. Indeed, this raised an issue which I raise consistently in this place about the marriage between legislation and regulations—and I know you have raised the same issue in your committees, Mr Acting Deputy President Back. At the hearing it became clear that a lot of the actual details of how this will operate will be in the regulations, which we confirmed were going to be disallowable instruments, so they will come back before the parliament for consideration. But, seeing the amount of concern that this raised at the committee with various athletes and their support organisations, it seems to me that this is crucial. We need to see and to clarify exactly what is involved at the time of passing the bill.

            I believe that the answers we received at the committee respond to the concerns that were raised. I believe that the intent and the need is there and that this legislation with its regulations will make it clear that we are looking at exactly what the goal of the legislation was. But, because those regs were not before us at the time, it led to confusion. I just want to put on the record again that this is a concern. We are comfortable with the department's explanation, but it seems to me it would have been a better way if we had been able to have the detail in the regulations before the committee so that the concerns could be addressed.

            Another core element of the legislation is the extension of the limitation period. The bill will extend the limitation period for authorities to commence action after a violation is believed to have occurred. Currently, action on a possible ADRV must be commenced within eight years from the date the violation is asserted to have occurred. The code has been revised so that, from 1 January 2015, authorities will have up to 10 years in which to commence action. This change improves the scope for antidoping agencies to uncover sophisticated doping programs and provides greater scope for the retrospective analysis of stored samples as new technologies to identify prohibited substances are developed. Again, this was an issue that was raised. Because of the way the doping industry is becoming more and more sophisticated and technologically advanced, it is important that there is scope for investigation to occur so that any incidents can be identified and effective responses put in place.

            The bill also seeks to make changes to the operation of the Australian Sports Drug Medical Advisory Committee—I am not going to say 'ASDMAC'. This committee is responsible for considering applications by athletes for the legitimate therapeutic use of prohibited substances or methods through the granting of therapeutic use exemptions. This process aims to ensure that athletes can obtain legitimate medical treatment without committing an offence. Under the revised code, antidoping organisations are explicitly required to provide for reviews of decisions on these therapeutic use exemptions. While currently there is a clear authority for the committee to approve the applications in Australia, the only mechanism available to athletes to appeal decisions of the committee if unsuccessful is to challenge that decision with the world authority WADA.

            The bill will allow the minister to appoint three people with the sole function of reviewing committee decisions in the first instance. While these people are committee members, they will be completely independent from the committee decision-making process, ensuring that reviews are independent of the initial decision. The bill also seeks to enshrine in the ASADA Act the requirement of the revised code that at least one member of the committee should have experience in the care and treatment of athletes with impairments. Labor believes it is important that the needs of athletes with impairments be considered at all stages through this process, and we also believe the issue of independence remains critical and is protected by the provision in the bill.

            Under information management, when we consider that the ASADA CEO recently stated that the positive blood or urine tests detect on average between one and two per cent of violations, it is clear that intelligence gathering is an essential element of any strategy for detecting doping. The revised code emphasises the need for effective information flows between government agencies, sporting bodies and antidoping organisations. This bill enhances and simplifies the information-sharing provisions in the ASADA Act to improve the exchange of information. The bill repeals the current sections of the ASADA Act which distinguish between national antidoping scheme personal information, national antidoping scheme contract personal information and protected customs information and restructures the information sharing provisions around a single concept of protected information. It is absolutely critical that protected information and the concept was raised a couple of times in the committee about breaches of privacy be maintained and that we understand that there needs to be exchange for official reasons but not the kind of open discussion we may have seen.

            The violations list also caused a couple of questions at the committee. The potential to be publicly named as a drug cheat is considered to be part of an important deterrent for any athlete, and all athletes and support persons should be aware that the details of an antidoping rule violation may be made public. It is the current practice for ASADA to report on its website the details of an ADRV—a violation—once the matter is finalised. This bill, to be consistent with article 14 of the code, will propose that ASADA will now be required to maintain a public list of ADRVs, to be known as the violations list. The violations list will include information such as the name of the athlete or athlete's support person, date of birth, sport, team, nature of the violation, date when the ADRV was determined and the period of ineligibility and other consequences imposed. Importantly, the bill provides discretion for the ASADA CEO not to place the details of a violation on the violations list in limited circumstances. For example, this may include a first violation by a person under the age of 18, where the need for confidentiality for an underage person outweighs the need for transparency.

            Around the issue of public disclosure of information, the high-profile ASADA investigations that have dominated news and continue to dominate news in the AFL and NRL over the past two years have taught us that there is a significant public interest in antidoping and significant pressure on persons involved to make public comment. The new code provides that no antidoping organisation shall publicly comment on the specific facts of a pending case except in response to public comments attributed to an athlete, other person or their representatives. While existing legislation prevents public comment from ASADA on specific facts of a pending case, it does not recognise explicitly this exception, which is provided for in the code. This bill seeks to recognise this exception so that a public comment can be provided by ASADA to correct or to clarify facts where an athlete or their representative initiates public discussion about his or her case.

            There are also a number of minor technical amendments proposed in the bill. A definition for 'recognised laboratory' has been added to reflect the accreditation process specified in the international standard for laboratories. The definition of 'international standard' and 'registered medical practitioner' have been updated and reference to safety checking service removed to better reflect current practice. This bill also contains one measure that is not required for consistency with the new WADS. Currently, the operation of the register of findings—the register—midway through the ADRF process creates complexity and confusion, leaving some people to assume that the antidoping rule violation panel is the final hearing body for any ADRV. This is not the case. The purpose of the ADRVP—another acronym—is to review the evidence collected by ASADA, and entry on the register of findings after the ADRVP review only indicates that, based on the evidence that the ADRVP has reviewed, it is possible that a violation has take place. Once an entry is made, the matter is referred to a sports administration body for determination.

            In a recent case, the full Federal Court observed that, despite the terms used in legislation, the ADRVP makes an assertion of a violation rather than finding that an athlete has committed the breach. It is proposed to reduce complexity and the scope for any misunderstanding in such a sensitive area by referring to assertions rather than findings in the ASADA Act and by removing the register. Placing an entry on the register is currently a trigger to allow a number of notifications to be made under the scheme. These include ensuring that the athlete has the right to appeal. Importantly, despite the removal of the register, the right of the person to appeal to the AAT in respect of an assertion made by the ADRVP will be retained. That was an issue of importance; people had a sense that they had an effective right to appeal.

            In conclusion—and this is echoing the words that Mr Ripoll made in both the lower house and in different discussions around this bill, Labor has strong support for the antidoping measures. As parliamentarians, we must do whatever is possible to protect the integrity of the Australian sport, and we will be supporting the bill.

            I want to make a couple of comments about issues raised about effective resourcing of the various bodies that have the ownership of this legislation. It is important that there is trust in the community that any of the issues will be able to be looked at and action taken as quickly as possible. Concerns were raised on a number of occasions that resourcing had led to delays, that people were left in a semi-limbo for too long. We asked these questions directly of the various organisations that came before the committee. They asserted they had effective resourcing and that they would continue to talk with government about what they would need to ensure that they do the job that the parliament has told them that they want them to do. It is extraordinarily important that we understand the need. If we put in place legislation that ensures that there is due process, we must ensure that the organisations that have to take the action are effectively resourced. Because this was raised by a number of people at the committee, I felt it was important to reinforce the need. We need to respect the organisations. We do respect the organisations, but we must have confidence that they have the resources to do the job that everyone wants them to be able to do.

            12:08 pm

            Photo of Richard Di NataleRichard Di Natale (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | | Hansard source

            I rise today to also speak on the introduction of the bill here that seeks to align Australia's antidoping legislation with the revised World Anti-Doping Code. Before I speak to specific aspects of the bill let me put on the public record that the Greens, like the current government and indeed the opposition, want to see our sports to be clean and free of drug cheats. I know there is a view in some parts of the community that this is a battle that we cannot win and in fact what we should do is effectively admit that it will be impossible to eliminate doping from sport and therefore drop any effort to try to combat doping in sport. I do not subscribe to that view. I think it is really important for the integrity of sport that we know that people are competing on a level playing field. I also think it is very important in terms of people's health. Some of the substances that are used are potentially very, very harmful. Indeed, we have already seen a number of high-profile athletes who have had significant complications as a result of drug or performance-enhancing substances.

            To get on to the substance of the bill, the bill seeks to align Australia's sports and antidoping act with the world code—that is, the WADA World Anti-Doping Code. It does this through a variety of mechanisms. It creates a new part which would mean that somebody who is associating with an individual that is deemed to have been a prohibited person is in fact subject to a penalty. That is, should an athlete associate with another individual and that individual is somebody who is deemed to be a prohibited person, the athlete themselves and not the person who is deemed to be prohibited would be subject to a penalty. The Greens have got serious concerns about that. It challenges the right to freedom of association. We are concerned about that specific aspect.

            There are a number of other parts to the bill that we think are sensible: the fairly minor changes to the Australian Sports Drug Medical Advisory Committee; the provisions around information sharing; and the removal of the requirement for the Anti-Doping Rule Violation Panel to maintain a register of findings. We understand the move in that direction. We do have, however, broader concerns about the doubling of penalties that will be implemented as a result of this change. On balance we think the time has come for a much broader review into the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority. We have got an opportunity here to decide whether the current framework we have adopted is in fact achieving what it sets out to do, and that is to ensure that people are competing on a level playing field.

            We do not think the majority report into this bill gave enough attention to the concerns that were identified by a number of groups. There were concerns identified by athletes' associations, by a number of people within the legal fraternity, who had very serious concerns about the impact of this bill on athletes and their families, and particularly on athletes who are not engaged in any serious antidoping violation. Let us acknowledge here that there is a spectrum. On one end of the spectrum we have got the Lance Armstrongs of the world—the people who are engaged in deliberate, systematic, deceptive cheating. No-one, I think, would argue that someone like Lance Armstrong deserves anything other than the full force of the law when it comes to antidoping. But there is a spectrum. We have seen recently investigations into the Essendon Football Club and indeed Cronulla. We have seen football clubs push the boundaries, shall we say. It appears now, with the issuing of infraction notices, transgressing in some instances. But then at the other end of the spectrum we have innocent athletes who may be caught up, for example, in the prescription of medication from their doctor that may in fact be captured under the WADA code as a banned substance. They will be subject to a doubling of the penalties along with other people, as outlined in this bill.

            So our concern is that the bill does not target accurately enough or appropriately the people we want to weed out of sport—that is, the drug cheats—and there will be many innocent athletes who will be caught up in this. Often we have this debate about sport and we have this view of sports people at the elite end of the spectrum, but in fact most people who are involved in sport do not play sport professionally. They may be in second- and third-tier sports. Of course there is concern about their ability to represent themselves in inadvertent or innocent breaches. There is a doubling of the penalties under the current code. A two-year penalty will now be doubled to four years. Somebody who may be guilty of an inadvertent breach, who previously would have been suspended for one year, may now, as a result of these changes, be suspended for two years. That is a significant change. If we are going to introduce legislation like this we need to ensure that we are not using a very blunt instrument to tackle people who are not intended to be the target of the antidoping framework that we have in this country.

            The WADA code effectively is designed to address the legal use of performance-enhancing drugs, but we have to recognise that there are many other ways that we can achieve that aim and that in fact many other countries have pursued a different path to the ones we have pursued. Rather than targeting an athlete because they are associating with somebody who is deemed to be a prohibited person—again, putting the onus on the athlete—why is it that we cannot adopt some of the other measures that were identified during the hearing into this bill, which look at other opportunities that might exist to target people who are involved in the importation and distribution of what are often illegal substances. It seems to me that through the framework we have adopted, which is one of strict liability for and onus on the athlete, we are ignoring many of the other issues that exist further up the chain and that, indeed, we are targeting athletes who in many cases will be innocent of a serious breach. We could amend sections of the Crimes Act, as was suggested during inquiry, because of the issues I have just spoken about.

            We heard from the Australian Athletes' Alliance, which represents Australia's eight major playing associations, about 3½ thousand elite athletes, and which was very strongly opposed to the bill on a number of grounds. Its view is the view that I have just put forward, that the legislation does not do enough to protect the rights of 'clean' athletes and that it is often those people who are the victims of antidoping legislation, while the serious drug cheats, those people who do it deliberately and systematically—the Lance Armstrongs of the world—are very rarely captured by legislation such as this. There is a huge gulf in the problem that we face—the issue of drug cheats in sport—and the outcomes that the bill is trying to achieve. We need to keep an open mind about other possible measures that we can introduce.

            Australia is saying that we have to change our own antidoping framework to align with WADA code, but there are major sporting associations right around the world that have made a decision that the WADA code does not actually address some of the issues in the way it needs to for their sport. We were told right through the inquiry that we had no choice other than to sign up to this legislation, because if we did not align our legislation with the WADA code there would be serious penalties. It is not the case in the US. In the US some major sports, such as the National Football League, have not signed up to the WADA code. They have made a decision that they accept that the WADA code has changed The NFL has decided to take a very different path. The NFL uses negotiation between the employer—the major sporting bodies—and their employees, the athletes, to make very clear what expectations exist around their employment. That includes ensuring that athletes are not using any substances that may be deemed to be performance enhancing. You have only to look at the investigation into the Essendon and Cronulla football clubs to know that this is a very blunt tool. It is very difficult to achieve the desired outcomes simply by increasing the powers of our antidoping authority. Maybe we need to look at other opportunities. The NFL has shown us that it believes that there is a different pathway open to us. We need to explore it.

            Doubling the penalty, from two years to four years, makes it for many people a career-ending penalty. If you are footballer in your mid-twenties in one of the major codes and receive a four-year ban, that is the end of your career—done and dusted. What if that breach is the result of being within a sporting organisation that assures you that what it is doing is within the bounds of the law but which later turns out to be something that is subject to a four-year ban? Imagine you are a young kid from the country. You come to a football club. There is a culture within that club of sporting personnel providing and administering injections or other substances. You are reassured that what is being done is absolutely within the antidoping framework. Under this legislation, you are expected to challenge that. You are expected to have the knowledge, the wherewithal and indeed the confidence to take on your employer and challenge what you have been given through your sporting organisation. That is the problem with this strict liability. The onus ends up being just on the athletes rather than on the employer and the sporting code. What you end up with is a situation where young athletes, who may be taking a substance, thinking that what they are doing is appropriate, end up having their career end. That is what will be the impact of increasing the ban from two years the four years. It goes too far. The WADA code is really designed with an eye on the Olympic Games, and international competition with a specific focus on Olympic competition. Because we have adopted it as a universal framework that is to be used through all of our sporting codes we end up with penalties that are disproportionate and not appropriate for some of our local codes. There was no justification expressed to the inquiry that this increase was necessary. It is not as though we were given any convincing evidence that simply increasing the penalty from two years to four years would result in a reduction of the number of people who use illicit substances. I think there are often assumptions built into this, but the drivers that are at play here are not going to be addressed by simply doubling the penalty and potentially ending someone's career.

            The question of whether ASADA actually needs more powers as opposed to more resources was alluded to through the inquiry, but we did not really get to the heart of that. We have seen, through the investigation into those two major codes, a complete inability to provide a timely resolution to those cases. It does call into question whether we need to have a much broader look at the resourcing of that organisation, if that is going to be the pathway through which we are going to prosecute the attempt to reduce doping in sport.

            We also know that the focus on testing and penalties is probably, again, not backed up by the evidence in terms of where most of the gains are to be made. For example, in 2011-12, we saw 10½ thousand drug tests and there were 13 positive results. A couple of those were for illicit drugs that most people would not consider to be performance enhancing. Just think about that—13 positive tests out of 10½ thousand. It points to the fact that we need to look at different ways of prosecuting this, and simply increasing powers, increasing penalties and putting the onus on the athlete around changes to things such as prohibited association probably are not going to give us the sorts of gains that we want to achieve. What we would like to see is a much more broad-ranging inquiry into our antidoping framework. We think that is the best place to start.

            It is interesting that in the previous parliament, when a bill was presented by the then Labor government to increase ASADA's powers—that is, to increase powers around the right to silence and a number of other matters—the coalition voted against those changes. I was involved in that inquiry. It was a bill to increase ASADA's powers, and we had the coalition vote against that legislation. Granted, it was at the start of the investigations into the matters at Essendon and Cronulla, and there was clearly a lot of interest in that. I do not want to speak for the coalition, but I suggest they smelt a political opportunity there and were prosecuting their case around the way that was handled. But it is interesting that they at that time refused to grant ASADA more powers, sought to make a political issue of what was going on in the investigation and now we have them in government seeking to introduce a bill that goes even further than the previous government went in terms of granting ASADA more powers. So we have this very confused attitude to how it is that we should be prosecuting the case around drugs in sport.

            What I would like to see—and I think the time has come—is a much broader inquiry into the current Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority, to look at the level of resourcing available to them, to look at whether our commitment to the WAD Code is the best way of reducing drug use in sport—that is, not just Olympic sport but all of our major sporting codes. I think that is where we are going to make the most gain here when it comes to this issue that we all think is incredibly important—that is, trying to ensure that it is the team with the best athletes rather than the best pharmacists who achieve success on the sporting field.

            12:26 pm

            Photo of Zed SeseljaZed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party) Share this | | Hansard source

            Before I get to some of the detail of the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority Amendment Bill 2014, which our committee was able to look at in some detail, I want to say that it is unfortunate that, whenever we talk about anything in relation to drugs in sport and in relation to ASADA in recent times, it is always looked at—even in the contribution of Senator Di Natale there—in the context, to some degree, of the 'darkest day in sport' and the shameful way that that was handled. I will come back to that, because I want to deal with the bill. We are dealing with two very separate issues, but I can understand how, in the public's mind and in sporting bodies' minds, they would look at even legislation like this, which I think is pretty uncontroversial broadly and is certainly legislation that should be supported. But it is difficult to separate those two issues because of the way that we saw the politicisation of that process some time ago by the former Labor government.

            There is no doubt that Australians value their sporting teams. We enjoy sport, we enjoy watching sport and we have great and understandable pride in the performance of our elite athletes, be they our athletes who compete in the Olympics or be they our athletes in our major sporting codes—the NRL, the AFL, the A-League, rugby union, netball, a whole range of elite sports in this country. We have a proud tradition and we are justifiably proud of our athletes. But what is critically important to that is the idea that we expect that it will be a fair contest. There are some things we can agree on. We do want to see a fair contest. We do want legislation that ensures we have the maximum confidence that we are not seeing wide-scale, widespread cheating, with people using drugs to get a competitive advantage over others. Australians have absolutely no time for people who would seek to cheat, for people who would seek to use drugs to get an unfair advantage, and for anyone who might facilitate that.

            What we are debating in the Senate today is legislation that will help to give us more confidence and help to improve our regime so that Australians, when they see our elite athletes, be it at an international level, be it at a domestic level, will know that all that can reasonably be done is being done to ensure we have a fair playing field, that we are stamping out drugs in sport and that we are sending a very clear message to our athletes—not just our elite athletes but our younger athletes coming through—that there is no time for this and that, in some cases, severe penalties will be needed to deal with some of the worst abuses of our laws and of the rules of various sports.

            We know that anti-doping regulation is a key part of the approach. To maintain sport integrity in the WAD Code is the global standard for over 170 governments and 300 international sporting bodies. As a signatory to the WADA convention the Australian government has made a commitment to abide by the principles of the code. The example that Senator Di Natale used of the NFL is a false comparison because what we are talking about here is what the government does—what kind of framework we put in place. If we do not put in place the right framework it will undermine particularly our Olympic athletes ability to compete on a world stage. We do not want to be laggards in this area; we want to be leaders. And we want to ensure that we have the best possible compliance with the WAD Code here in Australia. So the comparison with the NFL is a false one—that needs to be said. That is an individual sporting code. What we are talking about here is our nation's response to doping and our nation's response to the WAD Code, which we have signed up to—both sides of politics have committed to it. We are committed to the WAD Code and this is our legislative framework for implementing that WAD Code.

            There is a lot of detail in this, some of which is in the headline legislation and some of which necessarily must come through regulation. That is also important to ensure that we comply with the WAD Code. It is worth just going through some of the key changes because the committee looked through the changes to the code and additional administrative changes in detail.

            We have the prohibition of athletes and support persons from associating with convicted drug cheats. This is designed to protect athletes from known doping facilitators, such as unscrupulous doctors or support staff. This is the prohibited persons violation and I will come back to that because that was one of the most controversial parts of it. But I think that in broad terms this is a very important part. This is a recognition, in fact, that we cannot always test for every substance; testing alone does not always get to the bottom of it. We do know that in many cases there needs to be a whole range of mechanisms for regulatory bodies to deal with these issues. As we have seen in the broad publicity around recent cases—and I will not go into details of recent cases, some of which may be ongoing—we know it can centre around one or two individuals. So it is an important tool, and there are important safeguards that were outlined to the committee in some detail to ensure that a casual association is not something that is likely to bring someone undone. We are talking about protecting athletes, in fact, from people who would in some cases lead young, impressionable athletes astray; who would take them down a path that is detrimental to their health and potentially detrimental to their careers and to their reputations. So it is actually a great protection for athletes as much as it is an inhibition on them.

            We have complicity: aiding and abetting or covering up a doping violation is now a violation in its own right. There is increasing the sanction under the code from two years to four years for deliberate doping infractions, such as taking anabolic steroids. There is smarter target testing by testing for specific substances for particular sports—for example, steroids for strength sports and blood doping for endurance sports, making testing more efficient and targeted. The establishment of a violations list formalises a WADA requirement to publish a list of people who have received an anti-doping sanction for the period of that sanction.

            The provision of a review panel in the Australian Sports Drug Medical Advisory Committee, which is separate to ASADA, will provide mechanisms for athletes who apply unsuccessfully for a therapeutic use exemption. A therapeutic use exemption is where an athlete is approved for legitimate use of an otherwise prohibited drug for medical reasons, such as asthma medication. There is the removal of unnecessary distinctions in types of information received by ASADA by clarifying content as protected information, regardless of the source, and ensuring that the same provisions apply for all information to protect the unlawful use of that content. ASADA will be enabled to comment publicly in response to incorrect statements by an athlete or their representatives to correct the record—that was certainly something that the head of ASADA put to us as being important.

            There is the removal of the register of findings. The register is currently confusing to athletes and the public, as the Anti-Doping Rule Violation Panel does not in fact make a 'finding', rather they make an 'assertion' that it is possible that a violation has occurred and then this information is provided by ASADA to the sport to consider through the normal tribunal process. Importantly, whilst the register is removed, safeguards for athletes to appeal a decision by the ADRVP are retained. There is one that I recall that is not in my notes here about the ability to go back and test. At the moment it is eight years; that will go to 10 years. I think that is also an important provision because that sends a message to dopers who think they can get away with things now and who think that maybe there is no test for the substance that they are taking. In fact they will have 10 years of technological advancement where we might be able to go back and find out if they actually are cheating now. I think that is a very sensible change, and a very reasonable change, to ensure that we can use future technologies to provide a deterrent right now and get to the bottom of doping in the future.

            We found a lot of support for these changes, notwithstanding—as Senator Di Natale has raised—that there were a number of organisations who are opposed to these changes. We had some of the lawyer representative groups and we had the Australian Athletes' Alliance opposed to a number of the changes. But I commend the committee's report, which has been tabled in the Senate, to senators and to others because it actually dealt with each of these objections one by one and in some detail. It dealt with the responses and the safeguards that we have. We had submissions to the inquiry stressing the importance of Australia taking a stronger stance on drug use in sport for the benefit of all athletes and the importance of protecting Australia's integrity as a sporting nation. The majority of submissions expressed support both for the revised code and for the measures in this bill to facilitate the implementation of the code.

            A key point raised by a number of submitters was that they wanted to make sure that we were able to continue to compete on the world stage. Simon Hollingsworth, of the Australian Sports Commission, noted in his evidence:

            … if the bill were not to go through in its current form, national sporting organisations would be placed in a situation where they would be required to comply with their international federations and organisations like the International Olympic Committee and the Australian Olympic Committee, which would be different to the legislative framework that would exist in Australia.

            John Coates, of the Australian Olympic Committee, submitted:

            In order to continue this longstanding commitment, any staging of future Olympic Games, World Championships and other major international events in Australia, such as the Asian Football Cup in January 2015 and the Commonwealth Games in 2018, must be Code compliant.

            With this in mind, passage of this bill is important to secure our participation in world sporting events.

            I will deal with the prohibited persons violation because this was, I think, probably the most contentious part of this legislation, and it certainly got the most commentary as the committee examined this. Some argued that the prohibited persons violation is broad and might implicate athletes whose family members or other unavoidable associates have previous doping violations. However, in response, the department made clear:

            … the association which might be the subject of a prohibition must be in a professional sports related capacity.

            So there are limitations around that prohibition to start with. It is not meant to interfere with the day-to-day interactions between individuals outside those particular provisions. It is targeted at athlete-support personnel. There are numerous safeguards in place that ensure that athletes will not be charged due to accidental or unavoidable association with a prohibited person, including opportunities to explain associations and rights to appeal.

            The new WADA code comes into force on 1 January 2015, so it is vital that we help these clean athletes by enacting the amendments as soon as we can to avoid any consequences that might come from not being compliant. In the AOC submission we had a number of quotes from some of our athletes imploring the parliament to pass this legislation and imploring us to protect these clean athletes through changes such as are being proposed in the legislation we are debating today. Matthew Dunn, a three-time Olympian, said:

            As an ex-athlete I hope all stakeholders will be able to use the new WADA Code with maximum effect to protect all clean athletes and ensure a level playing field.

            Claudia Bokel, also a three-time Olympian, said:

            … I am proud to say that all athletes' representatives unanimously supported strong bans for athletes convicted of a deliberate and aggravated doping offence. We actually wanted lifetime bans. Clean athletes don't want to compete against dirty athletes!

            We had a number of other quotes from Beckie Scott, from Cydonie Mothersill and from Kim Crow. Kim Crow said:

            For every doper out there, clean athletes suffer. We dedicate our hearts and souls to pursuing our sporting dreams. To have those dreams stolen by cheats is an irreplaceable theft.

            This is an important piece of legislation. It has been thoroughly examined. I think it has stood up to the scrutiny in terms of some of the criticisms that have been put by some groups, but I think there is a far more compelling argument put by the many submissions in favour as to why it is important that we do this.

            In passing, I note Senator Di Natale's comments in relation to a broader inquiry. I think that is something that needs to be considered. I think that any inquiry would need to look at the politicisation of ASADA that occurred under the former government. I do not think that we can turn our eyes away from that. It was something that I know that all sporting bodies in Australia now look at and see the damage of those kinds of inflammatory comments and the way that that particular press conference—the 'darkest day in sport' press conference, as it is now known—was handled. It cast a pall over all Australian athletes, unfortunately, when we know that the vast bulk of Australian athletes do absolutely the right thing. They stay within the rules. They work their butts off to compete, but they have no time for doping and they have no time for cheating. The way that that particular issue was handled and the way that that particular press conference was handled damaged Australian sport in the eyes of others. Those headlines were damaging and unnecessarily so.

            We do not need inflammatory rhetoric. We need a sensible approach. We need sensible legislation. If there is a case to look at things like ASADA resources, well, so be it. But I think we should also look at how we can avoid the type of politicisation that we have seen in the past to ensure that ASADA can get on and do its job, that we give it the legislative tools that it needs and that we give it the resources that it needs. We, as legislators, have a responsibility to do that, and governments have a responsibility to make sure that independent bodies like ASADA can do their job so that the integrity of sport is not called into question—certainly not called into question unnecessarily—and so that Australians can have confidence that all is being done to ensure that we have a fair and level playing field. I commend the bill to the Senate.

            12:42 pm

            Photo of David LeyonhjelmDavid Leyonhjelm (NSW, Liberal Democratic Party) Share this | | Hansard source

            In the game of bridge, table talk is ruinous. A player might let their partner know that they have hearts by touching their chest, or they might play with their wedding ring when they have diamonds. This is cheating, plain and simple. Table talk is unfair for current players, discourages new players and hurts the organisations that host casual games of bridge and more serious bridge competitions. And they are serious, including national and international competitions.

            When some people see a problem, they decide that something should be done about it, and they pretty quickly conclude that the government should be doing that something. So what should we do to crack down on table talk in bridge? Should we establish a government agency and fund it to police the bridge tables around the nation? And, if this agency finds a table talker, should we write a law that allows the agency to ban the table talker from ever sitting around a bridge table again? Surely the answer is no. I would like to think that everyone in this chamber believes that the answer is no. After all, bridge is just a game. Table talk is not a criminal act, and the organisations running the game can ban table talk without getting the government involved. In fact, they already do.

            That brings me to the bill before the chamber, the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority Amendment Bill 2014. In the late 1980s, some people came to see Ros Kelly, the sports minister at the time, to say that something should be done about cheating in sport. I would imagine they did not mention table-talking in bridge. Instead, they would have focused on the use of steroids in more physically demanding sports. Ros Kelly should have told those people that sporting codes are perfectly capable of banning the use of performance-enhancing substances by their players. Instead, she created the Australian Sports Drug Agency, which has now become ASADA.

            ASADA is a government agency that tells players in various sporting codes not to use various substances, from caffeine to peptides, many of which are perfectly legal. ASADA tests the players and, if it finds that the players use any of the various substances, it tells the sporting codes that the players cannot play anymore. I emphasise that we are talking about legal substances here, not illicit drugs. Taxpayers pay more than $12 million a year for ASADA to do this.

            There is absolutely no justification for it. Sporting codes are owned and managed by private organisations. If they think their players should not take various legal substances, they can make that a rule of their sport. No-one wants to maintain the integrity and popularity of a sport more than the sporting codes themselves. What ASADA does cannot be justified on health grounds. There is no case for stopping a tiny percentage of people, mostly elite athletes, from taking caffeine or peptides while letting them punch each other in boxing, torture themselves in triathlons or attack each other's hamstrings in rugby league. It is none of the government's business.

            This bill before the Senate ramps up ASADA's powers. ASADA already requires sporting codes to ostracise players who have taken the wrong substances. The bill will give ASADA the power to require sporting codes to ostracise players who merely associate with previously ostracised players. This is government overreach in the extreme, and for that reason I oppose this bill.

            Finally, to those who agree that it would be ridiculous for the government to spend taxpayers' funds to crack down on cheating in a game like bridge but who fail to see the connection with the ASADA bill we are now debating, let me pass on some news: ASADA regulates the humble game of bridge. So, if your mother is on a diuretic and is playing in a serious bridge competition, she might be in for a shock; and, if you associate with her and play bridge, you might be as well.

            12:48 pm

            Photo of Jacqui LambieJacqui Lambie (Tasmania, Palmer United Party) Share this | | Hansard source

            I rise to contribute to the debate on the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority Amendment Bill 2014. In summary, the bill seeks to align Australia's antidoping legislation with the revised World Anti-Doping Code and international standards that will come into force on 1 January 2015.

            The bill would amend the Australian Sports and Anti-Doping Authority Act 2006 to (1) authorise the making of regulations to allow the Australian Sports and Anti-Doping Authority Chief Executive Officer to implement a new prohibited association, the antidoping rule violation; (2) extend the time period in which action on a possible antidoping rule violation must commence from eight to 10 years from the date the violation is asserted to have occurred; (3) expand the membership of the Australian Sports Drug Medical Advisory Committee to allow the appointment of three members for the sole purpose of reviewing decisions, where requested, in relation to applications for therapeutic use exemptions; (4) require that at least one Australian Sports Drug Medical Advisory Committee primary member possess general experience in the care and treatment of athletes with impairments; (5) simplify information-sharing provisions in the act to improve the exchange, between relevant stakeholders, of information that would assist in identifying and substantiating antidoping violations; (6) require that the Australian Sports and Anti-Doping Authority maintain a public record of antidoping rule violations, to be known as the violations list; (7) remove the requirement for the Anti-Doping Rule Violation Panel to maintain a register of findings; and (8) allow the ASADA CEO to respond to public comments attributed to an athlete, other person or their representatives with respect to a doping matter.

            These measures contained in the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority Amendment Bill 2014 are reasonable, and, ordinarily, I would have supported them. However, as I indicated in my speech earlier this morning, I remind this chamber that today we have an opportunity to make a stand in this place for the men and women of the Australian Defence Force. Today, if each non-government member chose to do so, we could say no to the government's disgusting pay rise offer to the ADF by saying no to their legislative program—and yes to a fair deal for our Defence Force families. It would only take a couple of votes against the Abbott government's legislative program, for what is a matter of conscience with regard to Defence pay, and this government would fold like a house of cards.

            Today in this place we have the power to undo the harm that the coalition government have done to the men and women of our Army, Navy and Air Force, not to mention to their morale. On behalf of the men and women of our defence forces, this chamber can make the Abbott government taste some of their own medicine.

            The Liberal and National party members have bullied the states into increasing the GST, by ripping funding from them so that they cannot meet their budgets. They bully our major universities by ripping funding from them, backing them up against the wall. They bullied the Senate with their recent tax hikes on fuel. They bully the public to put pressure on the Senate, telling them that, if the Senate does not toe the line, they will hike up taxes.

            And now they are bullying our Defence personnel, who have rules not allowing them to fight back, not allowing them to speak, not allowing them to have a union to represent them. If they do not do as they are told, they will wear the repercussions—that is, they will have to do extra duties, they will be charged and they will have a black mark put near their name. They are basically being held captive.

            There is only one way to deal with a bully and that is to stand up to them. The government's behaviour would never be accepted in any school yard or any workplace, and I do not see why we should put up with it from our governments in our parliaments. Unless there are any objections from those opposite, I will give voice to the men and women of our Defence Force who have contacted my office because of this appalling pay offer, not to mention the reduction of their Christmas leave.

            As I said earlier, I have received numerous emails from Defence Force personnel and so will continue to read them. Email No. 4 reads:

            Congratulations, Jacqui on going into bat for the Defence Force over this disgraceful pay offer to the serving members. You have our total support.

            Tony Abbott is a Defence Force junkie who loves to have his photo taken at any opportunity with serving members, and now he insults them with a pay offer that does not even keep up with inflation.

            Keep up the fight, and thank you for your stance on behalf of the Defence Force members.

            Email No. 6 reads:

            Thank you for your stand on the pay issue for our ADF members. Congratulations and give the government heaps.

            You have my full support and admiration. Please tell uncle Clive Palmer, he should be making a statement of support for this business.

            As an ex service member, my pension has suffered over the years because of the application of the CPI instead of the MTAWE. I guess you have seen the gap. If not, I can send you a copy.

            They will sit up and take notice, they will change their minds and they will give our ADF members a decent pay rise entirely due to your efforts. Please keep up your fight. Please do not buckle to any external pressure.

            Email No. 7 reads:

            This is an admirable position by Jacqui and we support what she has placed upon the table. It is a national disgrace that Defence conditions of service and veterans' entitlements are being eroded by this cruel and un-caring government just to save money.

            The government and the people of Australia have an obligation to ensure that our ADF personnel and veterans are given the best entitlements and not to erode these entitlements for their service to this country. After all, they are the only ones who have or are prepared to sacrifice their lives, health, wellbeing and quality of life. This particularly affects their respective families.

            Email No. 8 reads:

            I am writing to you to thank you for your efforts with regards to ADF personnel pay offer. I have three members of my family in the ADF and I too am disgusted in the way they have been treated.

            They have not only been offered a pittance but their conditions and allowances have also been eroded to pay for it as an offset. I do not see how the Abbott government can consider this to be any sort of pay rise.

            One of my family has been to the Middle East, is now severely traumatised and facing medical discharge, another has been in the RAAF for 23 years and has been told there are no prospects for promotion.

            He has been forced to relocate to another base and, due to the dire financial situation he has been put under, he has had to leave his wife and children in Queensland. The other member has been highly trained, has completed several degrees and masters qualifications and she too has been told that the chance of promotion is remote.

            They are asked to put themselves in the firing line and then when they ask for some monetary return they are treated in this manner. Once again, I thank you for your interest and support.

            I have written to my local member and am yet to hear from him. I wish a few more of members such as yourself spoke up on their behalf so their life might be just that bit better. They are not asking for much.

            Once again, thank you for your efforts. With kind regards, father of three proud members.

            Email No. 9 reads:

            Photo of Cory BernardiCory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | | Hansard source

            Senator Lambie, I would ask you to remain relevant to the legislation we are discussing. I would ask you to return to the substance of it please.

            Photo of Jacqui LambieJacqui Lambie (Tasmania, Palmer United Party) Share this | | Hansard source

            Acting Deputy President, I can do that. We are aware that steroids are used in service and I think this has certainly got to do with this thing here. This is obviously very important. This has got to do with national service. Is this not a free and fair performance of a senator here that needs to be cut down? This is obviously very important to these people.

            Photo of Cory BernardiCory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | | Hansard source

            The matter is relevance. We are discussing the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority Amendment Bill 2014. I have given you a great deal of leeway and I would ask you to return to the substance of the bill so that your remarks are relevant.

            Photo of Jacqui LambieJacqui Lambie (Tasmania, Palmer United Party) Share this | | Hansard source

            Email No. 9 reads:

            I would like to congratulate you and thank you for standing up for us in the ADF. I would just like to outline to you how this pay 'increase' will impact on me and my family.

            One day of leave is worth about $250 to me. The leave day they want to take is over Christmas. If I do not have the leave, I can buy it or I would need to put my children in care. I have three children. My two boys would be in out-of-school holiday program at $55 per day per child, My daughter is in day-care at $90 per day. This totals $200, so I am working for $50.

            That is the pay side of it; let's look at the family and social impact.

            Our family is in Western Australia and we are in Townsville. Christmas every second year is when we can afford to travel over to see them and one less day means we need to come home a week early as that stand down day is between Christmas and New Year. My husband and I are both serving so when we come home we have to work. That is one less day to spend with our children, considering my husband is away with work 4-5 months of a year. We cherish each and every day.

            We live in a married quarter and every time we have a pay increase, we also get a rental increase. However, those increases are in line with CPI, unlike this very low pay increase. So with this, I truly hope you stand your ground and block whatever you can until they listen. I think you will face backlash from your party. Let's face it, it will not be a party for long and Clive is a whack job. So go for it alone, go independent, and you will achieve so much more.

            Email No. 10—

            Photo of Richard Di NataleRichard Di Natale (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | | Hansard source

            I had to step outside for a brief moment. I have lost track of proceedings. I thought we were doing the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority Amendment Bill 2014.

            Photo of Cory BernardiCory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | | Hansard source

            Are you drawing a point of order on relevance, Senator Di Natale?

            Photo of Richard Di NataleRichard Di Natale (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | | Hansard source

            Are we still on that bill?

            Photo of Cory BernardiCory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | | Hansard source

            Indeed, we are.

            Photo of Richard Di NataleRichard Di Natale (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | | Hansard source

            I would like to draw a point of order on relevance.

            Photo of Cory BernardiCory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | | Hansard source

            Thank you. I agree with you. I have already asked Senator Lambie to return to the substance of the bill. Senator Lambie, I must insist that you address the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority Amendment Bill 2014.

            Photo of Jacqui LambieJacqui Lambie (Tasmania, Palmer United Party) Share this | | Hansard source

            I have finished with that bill. Thank you.

            1:01 pm

            Photo of Fiona NashFiona Nash (NSW, National Party, Assistant Minister for Health) Share this | | Hansard source

            I thank senators for their contributions to the debate on this bill. The debate has shown that we recognise it is essential that Australia is committed through action to protect clean athletes and the integrity of sport through internationally harmonised anti-doping principles. It is important for Australian and world sport that athletes, regardless of where they compete and in what sport, are protected by the same anti-doping rules globally. We want our athletes to compete with integrity on a level playing field and we are committed to ensuring that Australian athletes have the same responsibilities.

            The objective of this bill is to adjust Australia's anti-doping arrangements so they align with the revised World Anti-Doping Code, due to come into force on 1 January 2015. The revisions to the code were developed through an extensive two-year consultation process involving all stakeholders, including athletes, sports administrators, anti-doping officials and governments. This process provided a comprehensive review of the current arrangements and a broad consensus on how to best deal with the future threats that doping poses. International sporting federations are expecting their member national sporting organisations to have code-compliant anti-doping policies in place by 1 January 2015.

            If these amendments are not passed, Australia's anti-doping legislation will to varying degrees fall out of step with the anti-doping arrangements under which our national sporting organisations operate. This would create a confusing scenario where our sporting organisations would simultaneously face differing anti-doping requirements between their international federation counterparts and ASADA. This would mean the potential for different violations, sanctions and athlete reporting requirements. The changes to the code target the more serious doping practices, place greater scrutiny on athlete support persons involved in doping, recognise the growing importance of investigations in the detection of doping and facilitate smarter, targeted testing regimes.

            At the same time, the changes are designed to promote the rights of athletes and ensure adherence to procedural fairness in doping matters. The proposed amendments embody these principles. It is entirely appropriate that people who cheat can no longer be able to compete in the very sports that they have tarnished. Clean athletes deserve better, sports deserve better and the public should have faith in the athletes and competitions they follow.

            It is also appropriate to make additional administrative changes at this time. With investigations and intelligence gathering now forming an integral element of any strategy for detecting doping, ASADA's capacity to undertake these activities in partnership with key stakeholders is enhanced by proposed amendments to the management of information. However, these amendments include appropriate protections. Another example is the streamlining of the independent Anti-Doping Rule Violation Panel process to ensure that it is clear that findings are, and will continue to be, made by sporting tribunals.

            The struggle to rid sport of doping and ensure our athletes compete on a level playing field requires a coordinated, consistent and harmonised global effort. This bill ensures Australia is fulfilling its role as part of that global effort to protect the rights and wellbeing of clean athletes, while improving the ability to detect and sanction intentional doping cheats.

            Question agreed to.

            Bill read a second time.