Steve Irons (Swan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority Amendment Bill 2014. In Australia and throughout the world athletes are placed on a pedestal, often unwittingly, and are held not only to society's highest expectations in terms of performance levels but also to our highest moral standards. No person in this place, or outside, can claim to be perfect—as much as we all like to think we are. Although we all make mistakes, the reasons behind them do not excuse us from their repercussions and nor should they.

The Australian Sports Commission Code of Conduct aims to protect all athletes from competing on an unlevel playing field and provides a mechanism for reviewing and imposing penalties in those instances where conduct within a professional sporting organisation is unbecoming on or off the field.

The Australian government has been proactive in the fight against drugs in sport. In 1990, it established an independent statutory agency, the Australian Sports Drug Agency—ASDA—to deal with drug testing and drug education. However, as ASDA was not empowered to deal with issues relating to possession or trafficking in prohibited substances or methods, in 2006 it was replaced by the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority, or ASADA, which was given more power to deal with drugs used in sport. In the past two years we have seen Australian society's respect for our athletes and sporting bodies hit its lowest level, with alleged performance enhancing drug scandals with two high-profile sporting clubs hitting the media spotlight. A dark cloud now rests over these teams specifically, but its ripple effect has been felt by all manner of professional sporting organisations, with society now questioning whether this slap in the face to our sporting code is more widespread than those instances currently identified. The concept of fair play is a key foundation of amateur and professional sport in Australia, and any threat to Australia's reputation and integrity, both domestically and internationally, cannot be taken lightly.

By way of background, these instances of alleged drug use and the claim that a much more widespread culture of doping exists to enhance athletes' performances was identified by the Australian Crime Commission in its February 2013 report, Organised crime and drugs in sport. The report was released following a 12-month investigation by the ACC and was supported by ASADA and the Therapeutic Goods Administration. This led to ASADA investigating a team's 2011 squad after an internal investigation found that the players were treated with peptide injections, creams and tablets over an 11-week period. The NRL imposed a $1 million sanction on that club—$400,000 of which was suspended—stood down the coach for 12 months and cancelled the former strength and conditioning coach's registration over the club's part in the supplements' scandal. Most recently, ASADA issued 17 show-cause notices on former and current players, with 12 players accepting a 12-month suspension, backdated to 23 November 2014. This ban was offered by ASADA to recognise that, although prohibited substances were taken, players were misled about the nature of those substances being administered to them.

The NRL and the AFL did, however, have markedly different investigative approaches to their respective drug scandals, with the AFL club self-reporting to ASADA and the AFL, asking the league to investigate concerns about the potential inappropriate use of supplements during the 2012 season. That AFL club was disqualified from the 2013 finals and fined $2 million by the AFL. The coach had a 12-month ban imposed, and his replacement was fined. Formal allegations of possible antidoping rule violations were also reissued to 34 current and former players from that particular team on 17 October, with the AFL Players Association last week confirming that the notices would not be contested.

These investigations have identified serious fractures in our sporting industry's ability to identify antidoping violations and a concern that although these substances are being used by professional athletes, they are being facilitated by sports scientists, coaches and sports staff.

As a former footballer in the WAFL and a former director of junior development for Perth Football Club, I know from firsthand experience that, in sporting environments, various treatments in the form of creams, tablets and injections are used by sports staff to ease pain and assist with muscle recovery and that these treatments are within the scope of approved ASADA substances. Trust is afforded between players, coaches and sporting staff in these cases, and it is unlikely that questions would be asked as to the nature of the substance. Although these scandals may change that assertion and more questions will be, and should be, asked routinely by players and staff in an environment where injuries are common. Quorum formed) The opposition obviously do not want to hear what I am saying on this particular bill, and they will probably continue to call quorums, but that is their choice. I will continue where I left off. As I said before, questions should be asked on a regular basis by players and staff in an environment where injuries are common. I have to say that it is my view that these practices are unlikely to change on a day-to-day basis in the short or long term.

The concept of a supplements program should, however, start to ring some alarm bells. It is important to note that the overwhelming majority of players not only do the right thing and uphold the integrity of their team, and their sporting organisation more generally; they are also great community ambassadors. In Western Australia, players from both the West Coast Eagles and the Fremantle Dockers often attend Auskick games to inspire and encourage the youth of today, and are actively involved in many charitable organisations that promote health and wellbeing, something that is common amongst AFL teams and the wider sporting industry of Australia.

Government Members:

Government members interjecting—

Steve Irons (Swan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And I hear support from my colleagues on that. As the ACC report noted, these players 'do not deserve to be under a cloud of speculation'; however, that is exactly what has happened. There needs to be some certainty as to what these players can expect or an end date to what is going on.

It is also important to take this time to highlight that Australia is not alone in identifying doping within sporting organisations. I am sure those in this place have already drawn parallels between what is currently being seen in Australian sport and what was identified by the US Anti-Doping Agency's investigation into American cyclist Lance Armstrong, who was stripped of his seven Tour de France titles and banned from professional sports for life after admitting to using performance enhancing drugs throughout his career.

It is a simple fact that all professional athletes are under pressure to perform. As I said earlier, this may be their reason for using banned substances, but it does not excuse them from facing imposed penalties for their actions. It is, however, important to note that, despite the media spotlight that has been placed on the AFL due to last year's alleged drug scandal, only one AFL player has been listed on ASADA's current list of findings which dates back to 2009. This is compared to bodybuilding, which has been listed on ASADA's top three sports for 'most cited incidences' every year since 2006; or Rugby League, which has been listed in the top three every year since 2006-07. The list of most cited substances has also been similar each year, with the highest rate of violations since 2005-06 being for the use of anabolic agents and steroids, with 75 violations; closely followed by stimulants, which had 69 violations since this time.

The core focus of the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority Amendment Bill 2014 is 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. This followed a comprehensive review by the World Anti-Doping Agency, whose revisions to the code were adopted by the international antidoping community at the World Conference on Doping in Sport in Johannesburg, South Africa, on 15 November 2013. As a member of the UNESCO International Convention Against Doping in Sport, Australia has an obligation to ensure that our standards are consistent with this code.

The bill before the House will revise the ASADA Act by clarifying or extending the framework of the current provisions. This includes a new prohibited association antidoping rule violation, or ADRV, called 'prohibited association'. The aim of this additional violation is to prevent athletes from associating with any athlete support person who has a proven record of violating doping regulations or similar activities that would constitute a violation.

Currently, action on a possible ADRV must be commenced within eight years from the date the violation is asserted to have occurred. An additional amendment to the code will increase this time frame to 10 years to improve ASADA's ability to uncover doping programs and retrospectively analyse athletes' stored samples as new technologies for doping identification are developed.

Additional amendments to the code will also require ASADA to maintain a public record of violations, to be known as the 'violations list', which will include information such as the name of the athlete or athlete support person, date of birth, relevant sport, team, nature of the violation, date when the violation was determined and the period of ineligibility and any other consequences imposed. This will expand ASADA's current requirement to report on its website the details of an ADRV once a matter is finalised.

As mentioned earlier, ASADA currently lists reported violations on its register of findings. There has, however, been confusion with how these violations are listed, with the Anti-Doping Rule Violation Panel currently being required to enter details of a possible violation onto the register. This entry is not confirmation that a violation has taken place; it is simply a notation to state that it is a possibility. To reflect this public confusion, the legislation before the House proposes that the concept of a register is removed, with the panel instead making an assertion to ASADA's CEO that, based on reviewed evidence, the panel believes a violation may have occurred.

In the wake of significant advancements to the media industry and its online presence and immediacy, amendments to the code are also proposed in regards to the public disclosure of information. These amendments will introduce an exception to current legislation, which prevents public comment by ASADA on specific facts of a pending case. The exception will allow ASADA to publicly comment to correct or clarify facts where an athlete or their representative initiates discussion publicly about his or her case.

This bill goes a long way to sorting out a few issues that need to be sorted out so there is clarity and surety for athletes in Australia and in our national sporting bodies, and to bring us into line with the world antidoping agencies.

I commend the bill to the House.

Bernie Ripoll (Oxley, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Leader for Small Business) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

While it is pleasure to speak on the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority Amendment Bill 2014, it was unexpected that I would be doing so at this exact moment in time. It is normally the courtesy and the processes of the House that the government inform the opposition if they are going to gag the debate or knock off their own speakers in terms of a particular bill, to ensure the good running and order of the House and, as we just saw a moment earlier, to make sure that people are appropriately ready to come in here to speak on particular bills—which we always are, but occasionally you have to get from point A to point B to get here if a stunt is pulled. I just wanted to state that so the people looking at this can see why it is that Mr Irons spoke on this bill ahead of me when I was on the paper to speak next. I will not go on about it, but it is annoying. I would actually add a word of thanks. I know it is not the member for Swan's fault or responsibility that this happened in the House.

Nick Champion (Wakefield, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It must be someone's responsibility.

Bernie Ripoll (Oxley, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Leader for Small Business) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Obviously it is somebody's responsibility—that is right. Anyway, it was not his fault.

The Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority Amendment Bill 2014 is not a controversial bill. It is a bill that does a range of things. It aligns Australia's antidoping legislation with the revised World Anti-Doping Code and international standards that come into force on 1 January 2015. It is important that we align our codes with the international standard. It is to make sure that it is a 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. Australia is a signatory to UNESCO convention, so the Australian government is also obliged to amend its antidoping arrangements to align with the principles of the code. In that sense there is nothing overly interesting about this particular amendment.

Labor supports the bill and unequivocally supports the fight against doping in sport. In recent times there has been much controversy and debate across a whole range of areas in this respect. Doping is plainly and simply cheating. It is using banned substances and practices to gain an unfair advantage over a rival. Doping can and does cause serious long-term health problems for athletes. Australians, quite rightly, have an expectation and demand that our athletes are doping free.

To give some sort of historical context to this, the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority Amendment Bill 2014 aligns with the World Anti-Doping Code. Australia's antidoping legislation gives effect to the international obligations under the UNESCO convention. The international sporting community, including the International Olympic Committee and international federations who are signatories to the code are committed to updating their antidoping policies to reflect the revised code. At the same time, the 176 governments who have ratified the UNESCO convention, such as the Australian government, are obliged to align their arrangements with the principles of the revised code.

Within Australia, ASADA implements code compliant programs and activities that encompass deterrence, detection and enforcement. ASADA works closely with Australia's national sporting organisations in implementing these arrangements. All of these NSOs' antidoping policies replicate the essential parts of the code. This includes the provisions for the sanctioning of athletes who are found to have committed an antidoping rule violation, an ADRV. In late 2011 the, WADA, initiated a comprehensive review of the code. 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, South Africa 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; a relaxation of the rules surrounding the requirements for specific athletes to provide ongoing notification of their whereabouts to facilitate testing—known as the whereabouts requirements—which have been criticised in the past as being unfair and harsh; systems to provide 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 a new requirement on sporting organisations that coaches and support staff do not use prohibited substances themselves.

Further, to ensure the 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. As I explained earlier, Australia, as a signatory to the UNESCO convention, is also obliged to amend its antidoping arrangements to align with the principles of the code. This is what this bill seeks to do and Labor is happy to support it.

There are serious implications for noncompliance or failing to enforce the WADC. All national Olympic committees and international sports federations are required, by the IOC, to sign the WADC. Sporting codes or countries that fail to sign up to and/or enforce the WADC risk exclusion of their athletes from the Olympics and/or other key sporting events—and, of course, Australia does not want this to happen to our athletes. For national sporting organisations the consequence at a local level of noncompliance or failing to enforce the WADC 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 NSO and all its athletes and officials would be excluded from major international events such as the Olympics and most world championships conducted by a relevant international federation. The consequences of noncompliance for Australia more broadly range from having individual sports excluded from international competition through to Australia as a whole being excluded from the Olympic Games and other top-level sporting events. This would include Australian athletes being ineligible to compete as well as Australian cities being ineligible to bid for hosting or actually hosting key events. So these are pretty serious consequences if Australia were not to align its code, and hence why it is important that this comes before the parliament; it is important that it gets parliamentary support, which it does; and it is important that we implement this alignment fully.

The bill also 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. This includes a new violation called prohibited association. 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 crime or sanctioned for professional misconduct for activity that would otherwise 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 systemic doping programs.

The Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee inquiry into this bill heard concerns about the practical implications of this new prohibited association violation. The Department of Health has explained that these concerns seem to relate to a lack of detail in the bill and explanatory memorandum. While we are comfortable with the department's explanation, Labor looks forward to seeing the extra detail being provided in the associated regulations to be presented soon.

Further, 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 within which to commence action. This change improves the scope for antidoping agencies to uncover sophisticated doping programs and provides greater scope for retrospective analysis of stored samples as new technologies to identify prohibited substances are developed.

The bill also seeks to make changes to the operation of the Australian Sports Drug Medical Advisory Committee, the ASDMAC. The committee is responsible for considering applications by athletes for the legitimate therapeutic use of prohibited substances or methods through the granting of therapeutic use exceptions—TUEs. The TUE process aims to ensure that athletes can obtain legitimate medical treatment without committing an offence—an ADRV. Under the revised code antidoping organisations are explicitly required to provide for reviews of decisions on TUEs. So while currently there is a clear authority for the ASDMAC to approve TUE applications in Australia, the only mechanism available to athletes to appeal decisions of the committee, if unsuccessful, is to challenge such a decision with WADA. The bill will allow the minister to appoint three people for the sole function of reviewing ASDMAC decisions in the first instance. While these people are ASDMAC members, they will be 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 that it is important that the needs of athletes with impairment are considered at all stages of this process.

When we consider that the ASADA CEO recently stated that positive blood or your own tests detects 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. The bill enhances and simplifies the information-sharing provisions in the ASADA Act to improve the exchange of information between relevant stakeholders that would assist in identifying and substantiating doping violations.

The bill seeks to repeal the current sanctions of the ASADA Act which distinguish between national antidoping scheme personal information, national antidoping scheme contract personal information, and protected Customs information, and restructure the information-sharing provisions around a single concept of protected information. 'Protected information' will be defined as information obtained under, or for the purposes of, the ASADA Act or legislative instrument made under the ASADA Act that relate to the affairs of a person and could be used to identify that person.

It will be an offence to disclose that information unless it is an authorised disclosure. Authorised disclosures will be described in the ASADA Act and ASADA Regulations. 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 a violation once the matter is finalised.

This bill, to be consistent with article 14 of the code, will propose that ASADA be now required to maintain a public record of ADRVs to be known as the violations list. The violations list will include information such as the name of an athlete or athlete support person, date of birth, relevant sport, team, nature of the violation, date when the ADRV was determined and the period of ineligibility and any 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 years where the need for confidentiality for an underaged person outweighs the need for transparency.

The high-profile ASADA investigations that have dominated news in AFL and NRL over the past two years have taught us there is significant public interest in antidoping and significant pressure on persons involved to make public comment.

The new code provides that no antidoping organisations 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 by ASADA on specific facts of a pending case it does not recognise expressly 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 clarify facts where an athlete or their representative initiates discussion publicly about his or her case.

There are also a number of minor or 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 definitions of 'international standard' and 'registered medical practitioner' have been updated and reference to 'safety checking service' has been removed to better reflect current practice.

This bill contains one measure that is not required for consistency with the new WADC. Currently, the operation of the Register of Findings midway through the ADRV process creates complexity and confusion, leading some people to assume that the Anti-doping Rule Violation Panel is the final hearing body for an ADRV. This is not the case. The purpose of the ADRVP is to review the evidence collected by ASADA. An entry on the Register of Findings after the ADRVP review only indicates that, based on the evidence the ADRVP has reviewed, it is possible that the violation has taken 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.

I conclude by reiterating Labor's strong support for the antidoping measures. As parliamentarians we must do whatever is possible to protect the integrity of Australian sport and of Australian athletes and the codes we hold dear in this country. Labor believes this bill does that, and I commend the bill to the House.

Jane Prentice (Ryan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A peak sportswoman or -man who has devoted their life to their sport, who has made sacrifices in their social life and family life to dedicate time to their sport does not want to come second to someone who has enhanced their performance with drugs. Many and varied substances have been used to enhance athletic performance for literally centuries. Most sports introduced some form of drug testing during the 1970s to attempt to combat substance abuse in the modern sporting environment. However, testing regimes to identify drugs have consistently lagged behind (Quorum formed) the development and introduction of new substances such as anabolic steroids. During the 1990s, governments and international authorities considered various policies and actions to combat the increasing use of drugs in sport, but a major problem appeared to be that these efforts were uncoordinated.

In an effort to rectify the situation, in 1999 the International Olympic Committee convened a world conference on sports doping. As a result of this conference, the World Anti-Doping Agency was established later that year. WADA developed the World Anti-Doping Code, which applies to all athletes and to all those who assist athletes in their preparation for international sporting participation. All national Olympic committees and international sports federations are required to sign this code. As governments were not bound by the WADC, in October 2005 the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization adopted the International Convention against Doping in Sport. Parties to this convention, to which Australia was an early signatory, are required to implement the WADC. The WADC applies to anyone who participates in sport at the international or national level, or at lower levels of competition, as well as to athlete support persons including coaches, agents, managers and medical personnel. This bill amends the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority Act 2006 to align that act with the revised World Anti-Doping Code and international standards that will come into force on 1 January 2015.

The revisions have been based on a number of themes. This bill specifically addresses the targeting of athlete support personnel who are involved in doping, the imposition of longer periods of ineligibility and the placing of additional emphasis on information management to accommodate WADA's move towards the greater use of investigation and information-gathering in the detection of drug cheats.

The Australian government has been proactive in the fight against drugs in sport. In 1990 it established an independent statutory agency, the Australian Sports Drug Agency or ASDA, to deal with drug testing and drug education. However, as ASDA was not empowered to deal with issues relating to possession of, or trafficking in, prohibited substances or methods, it was replaced in 2006 by the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority, or ASADA, and that body was given more power to deal with drug use in sport.

The ASADA Act sets out issues that must be addressed in the National Anti-Doping Scheme. This bill will require the scheme to authorise the CEO of ASADA to commence operation of a new antidoping rule violation—the prohibited association violation. This means it will be a violation for an athlete or support person to associate, in a professional or sport related capacity, with a person who is serving a period of ineligibility as the result of a decision by an antidoping organisation such as ASADA. The scheme will be required to authorise the CEO of ASADA to notify the athlete or support person that his or her association with another person may constitute a code violation.

The bill will add to the current practice for ASADA to report on its website the details of a finalised violation by requiring the CEO of the agency to maintain a public record known as the violations list—basically, naming and shaming. The bill will also provide a domestic means through which an athlete who has been denied access to a therapeutic use exemption—which allows athletes to use essential medical treatment without being guilty of a violation, such as when asthmatics use Ventolin— (Quorum formed) Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker; no thank you to those opposite! The bill will also provide a domestic means through which an athlete who has been denied access to a therapeutic use exception—which allows athletes to use essential medical treatment without being guilty of a violation, such as when asthmatics use Ventolin—to seek a review of a refusal. It basically introduces an appeal process. It is intended that this will occur as the result of the appointment of additional members of the Australian Sports Drug Medical Advisory Committee, whose sole purpose will be to review decisions.

This bill is intended to facilitate better information sharing across relevant authorities while providing certain limitations on the release of information. This will address the issues of proportionality in disclosure and of human rights, which were of concern in drafting the new WADA code.

It is important that Australia maintains its strong stance on antidoping in sport by aligning with the revised international standards. The Australian government understands the importance of protecting the integrity of sport. I commend this bill to the House and wish our athletes at every level the very best for future drug-free success.

Adam Bandt (Melbourne, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I never had a chance of being picked in the AFL draft. I wish I could have been; I think there are many people who wish they could have been, but there are precious few of us who are actually on the list.

But there are some who are on the list and there are some who get picked and they go, when they have the good fortune to be picked, into an AFL club—that being the code of choice in my area and state. When they go into that AFL club, for many of them, it is the dream of a lifetime—something they have been working towards for a very long time. Most of them, when they are picked and go in—or certainly many of them—are teenagers. This may be the first time they have moved away from their home town. It might be the first time that they move out of home. It might be the first thing that would count for them as a full-time job. So they get a gig with an AFL team as a teenager. What could be better? When you are in with that club, which is now effectively run as a big business, as they all are now, you are surrounded by people who you think have your welfare at heart. Those people are going to advise you on all sorts of things. They are going to advise on how to behave in public, how to play on the field and, as we are finding out in Victoria and right around the country, they are going to advise you on what to take. In some cases that advice is not necessarily voluntarily offered and you pretty much have no choice. It is going to be a rare teenager who has just been picked to start their football career in something like the AFL, or it could be any other code, who is going to speak up. You are going to do what you are told. In fact it may even be in your contract that when the people around you tell you to do something you have to do it, otherwise your position at that club might be under threat.

It is those people, the individuals who find themselves at the centre of sport as athletes, who should be our first priority. Maybe after you have been at the club or in the league for five or 10 years you have a bit of bargaining power of your own. But it is the ones who come in, who are there because they are fulfilling the dream of a lifetime but are doing what they are told, who should be our central focus when we are considering this bill. At the end of the day, taking action against doping should be about promoting their welfare first and foremost. Secondly, it is the people around them who may be supplying them and directing them to use illicit substances who should be the ones subject to criminal penalties. In other words, support the welfare of the athletics; and target those who are trying to do things to the athletes that might in fact do them harm.

But that is not what this bill does; it has it the other way around. Although it has the laudable aim that everyone of us in here would support, which is to protect athletes and stop drugs in sport, it does not do that. It increases penalties on the athletes, possibly to the point where for many of them it could be career ending, in situations where parts of the bill are poorly drafted and where we know that ASADA does not have the resources to do its job properly. We should be having the review of ASADA and making sure that it is properly resourced to do its job before we take steps that could end people's careers, when they are the ones that we should be trying to protect.

The thrust of the proposition that was put forward in the committee inquiry process from the Law Institute of Victoria and the Commercial Bar Association was that the bill penalises athletes for their associations. What they said, and what we agree with, is that a more effective way of addressing antidoping violations would be to amend the Crimes Act, as most of the offences involve prohibited substances. Amending the Crimes Act, rather than penalising athletes, would put the pressure back on people who are in effect drug dealers rather than the athletes.

As I mentioned, there are some drafting concerns with this bill. The definition of who constitutes a 'support person', the people who are surrounding the athlete, is vague. It could be, as even people who supported the bill submitted to the inquiry, so broad that it captures family members and innocent people who are surrounding the athlete and trying to support them to do the right thing, especially in situations where they may not have the full information. They may be encouraging them to take the supplement or the drug in question without knowing what it is, but doing it because they feel that it is the right thing to do and that is what the club has told them to do.

The Commercial Bar Association has raised concerns with the term 'support person', pointing out that the broad and vague terms could include parents of young, nonprofessional athletes as well as those involved in deliberate doping. The Australian Athletes Alliance, which represents Australia's eight major player associations and over 3,500 elite athletes in Australia, strongly oppose the bill on a number of grounds—principally, that the bill does not protect the rights of clean athletes who would be subjected to an ineffective antidoping regime.

There is a gulf between the problem of doping and cheating in sport, which we all want to tackle, and the outcomes that this bill claims that it will achieve. One of the things that this bill ignores, sadly, is the role of collective bargaining in allowing codes, leagues, players and clubs themselves to enforce strict obligations to ensure, essentially, that they have a safe workplace. The priority should be that they are entitled to a safe and drug-free workplace. That is how we should be thinking about this—ensuring that the athletes have a drug-free workplace and life. That type of collective bargaining operates elsewhere around the world, but this bill penalises the athletes instead of the targets, which should be those who peddle and promote illegal drugs in sport.

I mentioned before the penalties. The stipulated penalties double, from two to four years, the ban on the athletes. This is important because the principles and the code against which this bill is being assessed were generated in the context of Olympic athletes. That is every four years, but when you are dealing with someone who has a much shorter playing career, where they are required to be there year-in year-out, a four-year ban could be career ending. No justification or evidence was presented to the committee inquiring into this legislation as to why the penalty should be increased to four years. No account was taken of the fact that the code and the principles were developed in a different environment.

As I mentioned, ASADA also needs to be better resourced. Even the World Anti-Doping Agency has been critical of ASADA's time delays and inability to provide speedy resolutions to antidoping cases. As it stands, this bill presents several problems for Australian sports and Australian athletes. What we need is a wide-ranging inquiry into ASADA before this bill is voted on. Given that this bill is designed for Olympic and world-class athletes, given that it will have an incredible impact on people who need our support rather than being penalised and given that it does not penalise the right people but targets the wrong ones, we are not in a position to support this bill as it currently stands.

Tony Zappia (Makin, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Manufacturing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As the member for Oxley, Labor's spokesman for sports, has made clear to the House, we will be supporting this legislation. The bill effectively aligns Australia's anti-doping regime with that of the international scene. I will keep my remarks relatively brief and confine my comments to certain matters.

I come to this debate not only as someone who has been drug tested on several occasions in the course of my competition days but also as someone who has coached several of Australia's champion athletes along the way. It is an area that I think I have had some personal experience with and I can speak on with some authority.

Today, sport is a multibillion dollar industry. It generates huge amounts of money and, as we have seen, big business have gone into sport purely for the purpose of making money out of it. They make money out of it by ensuring that the sports people themselves are star performers. If you are not a star performer, you not only do not make the grade, do not get the billing and do not get the work; you also do not attract the audiences which in turn generates the money for those behind the organisation.

Given the amount of money involved in the sport and the amount of money that some of the top sports performers are earning today, it is not surprising that athletes will do whatever it takes to get to the top of their sporting code. The truth of the matter is that, unless you have exceptional skills, an exceptional ability or even an exceptional training regime and exceptional genetics, you cannot get to the top of your sporting profession today without the additional support that comes from sports enhancement drugs in many cases.

It is not surprising that this has become a major international issue. It was not until the 1980s that sports testing became common in sporting codes around the country and around the world. Prior to that there was little testing. Indeed, because there was little testing, there were athletes who on a regular basis were using drugs and performing with them in order to win championships or to be the best in their profession. When it became clear that athletes were winning or performing well because they were using sports performance-enhancing drugs, the testing regime came in, including here in Australia.

The problems, however, are twofold. It has always been the case, as the member for Herbert alluded to, that the pharmaceutical companies and the coaches are always one step ahead of the testing procedures and the testing processes that are implemented. When testing is carried out it is usually for specific drugs, therefore, the drugs that are not known and are not tested for are not found. There are also other ways, other chemicals and other drugs used to mask the drugs in the testing processes as well. Again, the chemical companies and pharmacists who are one step ahead of the game know what to use and how to use it in order to mask the drugs when athletes are tested. So the testing authorities are always one step behind the game. Indeed, it used to be said that the best athletes in the world are not those with the best training facilities and not those with the best coaches but those with the best pharmacists. That is the first problem.

The second problem concerns me more than any other. Many athletes do turn to taking drugs in order to get to the top of their sporting code or in order to be selected for a team or in the sports they do. I would be very surprised if any experienced coach, team mate, club official or club administrator were not aware of an athlete who is using sports performance-enhancing drugs. The problem that arises is that many of those athletes are sourcing those sports performance-enhancing drugs from unqualified people who know nothing about the chemical effects on the person's body. I have seen many athletes at the end of their career suffer very serious health consequences not as a result of using drugs but as a result of abusing drugs because they were not properly guided by the person who was selling the drugs to them. That is a real concern because for those athletes in many cases it has resulted in their death at an early age.

We seem to ignore that factor. In fact, I am not personally aware of any real studies that have been carried out on athletes subsequent to their performance days to see what their health is like afterwards. I have read many journals from America on this topic and I am yet to see a study carried out on athletes years after they have stopped performing. I can draw my own conclusions and I know many athletes personally, but I would love to see a study. As the member for Melbourne quite rightly said, we should be targeting the people pushing those sports performance-enhancing drugs onto the athletes without any scientific qualifications to do so because they are the ones putting the athletes at real risk.

The second matter that concerns me is that it seems that our authorities are not properly equipped or certainly not resourced enough to target the problem at its source—the suppliers of these products. In some cases products are sourced by people being able to get a false prescription or whatever the case is. In other cases I have no doubt the drugs come through the black market and other sources and it is purely a profit-making opportunity for the pusher, as it is when pushers push any other drugs. Again, our authorities do not appear to be well enough equipped to tackle the problem at its source. So my concern relates to the impact that sports performance-enhancing drugs have on the athletes more so than anything else. They are pushed to excel in their sports and in turn they may well succumb and take sports performance-enhancing drugs and in turn pay for it dearly later on in life. That is where I would like to see the effort and the focus put with respect to this matter.

Nola Marino (Forrest, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Sport, as we all know in this place, is a quintessential part of our Australian way of life. It is part of our national identity and our history. And just think of the Melbourne Cup, due to be run next week—it is the race that stops a nation. Think of the AFL; the agony and the ecstasy of test cricket; the achievement of the Southern Stars, the national women's cricket team; our Diamonds netball team; and how many Australians would not know the immortal Sir Don Bradman or Phar Lap?

As the president of a local footy club for over 10 years, I understand very directly how important sport and sporting clubs are to rural and regional communities. Equally, I understand the passion, the commitment and the hard work, usually for a small number of volunteers who keep these clubs running—clubs across a range of sporting codes that offer opportunities to youth and to people of all ages through sport. Young people in my electorate have gone on to compete at a state, national and international level, and the hopes and dreams of their families and communities go with them. Some of them have come through the excellent programs running at the South West Academy of Sport.

I understand very directly the highs, the lows and perhaps the character-building that go with the challenges of the three knee constructions faced by our current local Harvey AFL player, Anthony Morabito. I also understand the fact that our sporting clubs are often the hub of our communities, that they bring people together. They have a real impact on that local economy as well.

We take great pride in our sporting performance, and even greater pride in a fair go on and off the field, which is what this particular Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority Amendment Bill 2014 is all about. It is perpetuating and protecting the fair go in Australian sport on and off the field. Equally, sport makes a direct contribution to the Australian economy, as well as the intangible value of showcasing Australia on the international stage through events like the Sydney Olympics, through our test matches, the Sydney to Hobart Yacht Race, motorsports and, in my part of the world, the Margaret River Pro, formerly the Margaret River Masters, an international surfing event. ABARE data shows that in 2006—an awfully long time ago—the total annual income generated by sport and the recreation industry in Australia was estimated to be $8.82 billion. It would be much more today.

The legislation before the House amends the ASADA Act so that it aligns with the revised World Anti-Doping Code that comes into effect on 1 January 2015. These changes will ensure that Australia remains code compliant and maintains our commitment to drug-free sport. The code will continue to promote health, fairness and equality for athletes all around the world. The changes will prohibit athletes and support personnel from associating with convicted drug cheats. There are a number of changes to the code that will have the effect of longer bans from sport for people involved in intentional doping, elevating the importance of investigations and use of intelligence in the fight against doping and increasing the focus on athlete support personnel who are involved in doping. It also places more emphasis on smart-test distribution planning and smart-menu for sample analysis, balancing the interests of international federations and national anti-doping organisations.

ASADA will work with Australian sporting organisations to ensure anti-doping policies reflect the new code and legislative framework. When you look at how important this is, ask how betrayed and disappointed do we all feel when someone we regard as a sporting legend is proven to have cheated in this way? Just think about, perhaps, something like the Tour de France and Lance Armstrong. This, as we know now, was a very sophisticated doping program. The US Anti-Doping Agency found overwhelming evidence in that case.

The Australian Crime Commission report, Organised crime and drugs in sport, said that available data—including border seizures of performance and image-enhancing drugs, national arrests for steroids and drug-injecting data—all suggest that this market is expanding considerably in Australia, with organised crime engaged in what is clearly a highly-profitable market, delivering a 150 per cent mark-up on peptides and hormones.

I think that a lot of us here are very concerned about what we see in our communities. I would have to touch on the issue of what I see and what we all see as the 'preloading'. I refer to the people who we see interesting in some form a dangerous cocktail of excessive amounts of caffeine-booster drinks— (Quorum formed)

I am delighted that my colleagues chose to join me. Thank you. I wanted to talk about the dangerous cocktail of excessive amounts of caffeine-boosted drinks; the extensive use of supplements that can go with this; steroids; add the odd recreational drug, perhaps like ecstasy; and all topped off by alcohol, before some people go out for the night. It is no wonder in this environment that we have such problems on our streets and in our venues as well as rising individual physical and mental health problems.

It was brought to my attention that there are a range of sports in this country that we focus on. I want to focus on one particular source of illegal drugs: those that are being bought online via the deep web—the online black markets. As people in this place know, I have given over 200 cyber-safety presentations to schools, to parents, to teachers and to community and business groups. I ask parents, 'When your children are online, where are they, who are they with, and what are they doing?' Most parents I speak to, honestly, cannot answer the question. Why is this so important? This is one of the reasons: relevant to this debate is the fact that this is where young people are buying illicit drugs and illegal pharmaceuticals, with very tragic results.

Preston Bridge was a teenager out celebrating with his school mates. One of them gave him a tablet, a drug a friend had bought online on Silk Road—an anonymous online website. It was bought for less than $10 a gram. Of course, no one knows what is actually in these substances. The effects are totally unpredictable, but they can include hallucinations, trying to fly, vomiting, aggression, paranoia and suicidal thoughts. Online, there is one after the other of these seemingly anonymous sites, based in Australia and overseas, that should be concerning all of us. The Silk Road website is just one example—a site that was shut down by the FBI. However, I understand that at least 10 alternative websites were operating very quickly. These online sellers often use general mail to post drugs to buyers. Clearly the network of individuals and companies is highly organised and the internet provides an ideal platform for their activities. And the online buyer also believes that they are anonymous and, in their view, can safely buy a range of illegal substances from performance enhancing drugs to narcotics. This perception of safety can come at a very high personal, physical and mental health cost. Online buyers have absolutely no idea of what they are buying. These are unregulated products. People have no idea what is actually in them, what they are ingesting or taking, or where these products were sourced. Many are not listed by the Therapeutic Goods Administration.

It can also be risky buying legal drugs online. Again, claims are made about the ingredients or composition of these; however, buyers can often not be certain about the contents. Online sites make some incredible claims about their products—all designed to lure the gullible buyer into parting with their money. However, they may not part only with their money; they may well part with their physical and mental health as well.

There has been a steep increase in the number of Australians searching online for peptides and hormones. There is evidence of the popularity of online stores for peptides and hormones. The Australian Crime Commission say that there has been a 255 per cent increase in border detections of hormones between 2009-10 and 2010-11. At the same time, the number of permits issued by TGA for lawful importation is very low—a dangerous and potentially lethal combination. At the same time, risks exist for those who buy from organised criminal sources.

I encourage parents, when I do these sessions, to know what their children are doing online and to be part of dealing with the issues and challenges young people face. This is their highway. Online drug access is just one reason for parents to be pro-technology and discuss what is happening online with their children. I am glad that the Standing Committee on Infrastructure and Communications has an inquiry underway looking at the use of the Telecommunications Act by various agencies involved in the disruption of illegal online services—which, of course, includes this particular issue of illegal drugs online.

I am very committed to AFL football and have a history One of my colleagues was very concerned, when I mentioned the various sporting codes and other sporting teams, that I did not mention—and I apologise to the member for Hasluck—West Coast Eagles in Western Australia.

I want to talk briefly again about the online issues and I want to encourage every parent who may be watching tonight and following this debate: your children will use the internet forever. It is their highway—in the same way the highway was for you when you got your driver's license. There are a range of challenges and they are going to need your help. Be the friend and the person they can go to with whatever challenges they face online. There will be a number of them, and they will need your help. So be part of the discussion when you buy that first piece of technology. Discuss it with your children and talk about how you, as a family, are going to use this piece of technology. Discuss what its security strengths and weaknesses are, and discuss what sites they are visiting and what they are doing. Help them out as much as you can. Young people need people who will help them in this space. I hope it is their parents that help them; but, unfortunately, so often these young people tell me that it is not their parents that they can go to when they have a problem online. So it is important that we all understand the technology—

Debate interrupted.