|
representatives vote 2019-12-04#8
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2020-01-24 14:53:13
|
Title
Bills — Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority Amendment (Enhancing Australia's Anti-Doping Capability) Bill 2019; Second Reading- Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority Amendment (Enhancing Australia's Anti-Doping Capability) Bill 2019 - Second Reading - Criticism of Government
Description
<p class="speaker">James Stevens</p><p>I thank the House for their support for me to remark on this antidoping bill. In the speaking time left, I might reflect—as it's quite important—on the Labor Party's sorry and sad history on a particular matter of doping. That is the South Australian Labor government's financial support of now disgraced cyclist Lance Armstrong, someone they paid an inordinate amount of money to attract to South Australia and compete in the Tour Down Under—coincidentally, adjacent to an important state election back in 2010.</p><p>We now know, after the expiration of the 10-year gag clause in the contract that the South Australian government and Lance Armstrong signed, that he was paid the princely sum of $1½ million—that's a lot of lycra—to come to Adelaide for six days. That didn't include the first-class airfares and the hotel expenses and all the rest of it. Now that this contract is in the public domain, after 10 years, it's interesting to see what it did and didn't include. It certainly did include the requirement for Lance Armstrong to do press conferences with the Labor Premier and participate in all kinds of public relations exercises. As I said, it was adjacent to a state election. He had to be the Premier's best friend, smile for the cameras and have dinner with him. What wasn't in the contract, interestingly, was any potential to claw back that money if Lance Armstrong brought the Tour Down Under into disrepute—say, I don't know, by being exposed as the leader of one of the greatest drug-doping rings in sports history? That is what Labor were complicit in, and it went on for three years. They weren't interested in the reputation of the Tour Down Under. They weren't interested after it transpired what Lance Armstrong had been associated with. They couldn't exercise a clause saying, 'We want that money back,' because they didn't even put one in the contract.</p>- The majority voted against an amendment to the usual [second reading](https://www.peo.gov.au/understand-our-parliament/how-parliament-works/bills-and-laws/making-a-law-in-the-australian-parliament/) motion, which is that the bill should be read a second time, which is parliamentary jargon for agreeing with the main idea of the bill.
- ### Motion text
- > *That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:*
- >
- > *"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House notes that the Government's revolving door of sports ministers—no less than five (plus a briefly acting minister) in just six years—have made ad hoc, one-off and non-ongoing funding announcements that have made it extremely difficult for national sports organisations, such as the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority, to make detailed plans beyond the constraints of a single budget cycle, including for the enhancement of their own integrity capabilities".*
<p>People like Lance Armstrong are looked up to by young kids, who treat these sportspeople as heroes. It doesn't matter whether it's cycling or cricket or tennis. In our country and in our culture, sport is one of the great pastimes—watching it, participating in it. For young people in particular, it is so very important that there are some things that entertain them that don't involve sitting inside on the couch in front of a television. We want kids to have that passionate interest in sport and being outdoors, exercising their minds and exercising their bodies. Part of their sporting ambition is because they have these heroes that they see on the television competing for our country and competing for their favourite sporting team. So those people have a responsibility to set a very high standard in sportsmanship, which includes, as the member for Bennelong commented, seeking to win but doing it fairly and making sure that people understand that principle, and that that's what they should pursue in their own interest in sport and, frankly, their whole lives—fighting hard and fighting fair.</p><p>ASADA is a very important institution in this country because, of course, it provides integrity around that and confidence around that. I think that, generally speaking, Australian sports men and women have the highest reputation in the world when it comes to fair play and fair conduct, and it's because of organisations like ASADA providing that guarantee. But it is important, obviously, every now and then to change and enhance and improve the processes that are put in place, to anticipate different developments and changes related to those people who do seek to do the wrong thing. It's highly appropriate that the House consider and, hopefully, support this bill this morning, because it will give ASADA the enhanced framework that they need in order to keep up their vigilant work to make sure that Australian sport is clean so that everyone can participate in sporting pursuits in this country with the confidence that the best person on the field, in the pool or on the court is the one that is going to be successful and win out.</p><p>I'm very proud as the member for Sturt of the excellent sporting pedigree of my electorate. I point out that probably the most famous sportsperson in Australian history is from the electorate of Sturt, Sir Donald Bradman, who was from the Kensington Cricket Club and was a great president of the South Australian Cricket Association. And there are many others. He's the sort of person that's still looked up to by young people in that particular pursuit in my electorate, across the country and across the world, because he was renowned for not only his prowess on the field but his sportsmanship. It's sportspeople like Sir Donald Bradman who have set such a very high standard, and ASADA need changes like those in this bill that we're debating this morning to put them in a position to maintain that reputation well into the future. I commend this bill to the House.</p> <p class="speaker">Kevin Andrews</p><p>The question is that the amendment be agreed to.</p><p class="italic"> <i>A division having been called and the bells being rung—</i></p><p>Sorry, my mistake—the member for Reid was seeking the call. I call the member for Reid.</p> <p class="speaker">Katie Allen</p><p>It could be said that my electorate of Reid is the heart of sport in Sydney. Reid is home to Sydney Olympic Park, where everyone from young soccer players to Olympians train and compete. My electorate has hosted the Sydney Olympics, NRL grand finals—</p> <p class="speaker">Kevin Andrews</p><p>The member for Reid will just resume her seat for the moment. The member for McMahon?</p> <p class="speaker">Chris Bowen</p><p>I don't wish to unnecessarily delay the House, but I do want to clarify, though. The member for Reid may be speaking on the bill which is listed next. I think she may be mistaken about the bill before the House. I don't mean to cause trouble, but I do want to be clear what bill is before the House.</p><p>Government members interjecting—</p><p>It doesn't happen very often.</p> <p class="speaker">Kevin Andrews</p><p>I understand what the member for McMahon has said. However, I've given the call to the member for Reid. If she wishes to continue on this bill, she has the call. No? The question then is that the amendment be agreed to. I call the minister.</p> <p class="speaker">Tony Burke</p><p>The division was called on.</p> <p class="speaker">Kevin Andrews</p><p>No, I had called the member for Reid, I think. I understand what the Manager of Opposition Business is saying. There was some confusion; I missed the fact the member for Reid was seeking the call, and I gave her the call. The division was rescinded, if I can put it that way. I propose to call the minister.</p> <p class="speaker">Tony Burke</p><p>On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker: I heard the call for the division. There are times when divisions, once called by the chair, are called off, but leave is usually sought across both sides of the House for agreement on that. I'm not aware of that having occurred.</p> <p class="speaker">Kevin Andrews</p><p>Yes, Minister?</p> <p class="speaker">David Littleproud</p><p>The member for Reid stood up after the division was terminated by the Deputy Speaker, and then she's sat down. As the minister, I've stood up to do the summing-up speech.</p> <p class="speaker">Tony Burke</p><p>On the point of order, the point goes to when the division was called off. If the division was called off without there being leave sought from the House or agreement from both sides of the House, I'm not sure how a division, once declared by the chair, can be called off.</p> <p class="speaker">Kevin Andrews</p><p>I say to the Manager of Opposition Business that, if there's any mistake here, it's by the chair. I didn't see the member for Reid on her feet; I then gave her the call. The division will still occur. I think it would aid the House if you allow the minister to sum up, and then, obviously, there will be a division.</p><p>An opposition member interjecting—</p> <p class="speaker">David Littleproud</p><p>I can sum it up, and we can get it done. 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 the government's work together to implement harmonised programs that are robust, effective and fair.</p><p>Australia continues to be at the front of the fight against doping in sport. To ensure that we remain there, Australia's antidoping capability needs to be enhanced. We need to streamline the antidoping rule violation process and reinvest those efficiencies back into ASADA and sporting organisations to enhance intelligence and investigation capability and education resources to support athletes across all sports and all levels. This bill amends the ASADA Act to enable key measures to be implemented so that Australia meets its obligations to contribute to a safe and fair sporting environment, safeguards athlete health, and continues to protect the fundamental values of sport. I thank the members for their contributions to the debate on this bill and I commend the bill to the House.</p> <p class="speaker">Tony Smith</p><p>The original question was that this bill be read a second time. To this, the honourable member for Shortland has moved an amendment that all words after 'that' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The immediate question before the House is that the amendment moved by the member for Shortland be agreed to.</p><p>The question now is that the bill be read a second time.</p><p>Question agreed to.</p><p>Bill read a second time.</p>
|