Page 4272 - Week 14 - Tuesday, 29 November 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Since the introduction of the Bill, the Government has carried out extensive public consultation on issues related to the implementation of drug testing under the proposed legislation in the ACT. An advisory committee established under the Sport and Recreation Council provided a comprehensive report on matters, such as limitations on testing, to be included in the operational agreement with ASDA. The committee also raised concerns relating to the confidentiality provisions and notification procedures. Proposed amendments have been considered to address these concerns, and necessary technical amendments concerning the Administrative Appeals Tribunal appeal provisions have been prepared.
After further discussion with the Sport and Recreation Council on broader issues, such as the definition of the roles and responsibilities of both national and State or Territory sporting organisations and ASDA, and State or Territory governments in the delivery of a consistent and effective program approach across Australia, I proposed to the SRMC that they consider a coordinated national approach to the use of drugs in sport. I wished to avoid the situation of having nine sets of laws that would be allegedly complementary but to differing extents, but none of which exactly mirrored the Commonwealth legislation. While my proposal to the SRMC to use the existing or amended Commonwealth legislation to provide for the testing of athletes competing at the State level was not supported, the SRMC agreed to the establishment of a working party to develop a national response to the issue of drugs in sport. This national protocol will address educational and policy issues as well as consistent State and Territory legislation and the implementation of strategies to allow for the sampling and testing of State level athletes.
The States and the Northern Territory have been progressing their own proposals, with New South Wales and Victoria having prepared draft legislation. A study of the various proposals has clearly indicated that there is a significant lack of consistency, and there is serious doubt that all athletes would be treated equally under differing approaches. Of most concern are provisions relating to the definition of "competitor", which reflects the intention of the testing, the minimum age of athletes to be tested and the need for parental consent of athletes under 18 years of age. I have also recently been advised that the Commonwealth intends to amend its Australian Sports Drug Agency Act 1990 in relation to the sampling and testing procedures to be used by ASDA. Given that work is progressing on the national protocol, that we do not know the substance of proposed Commonwealth amendments and that we will need to amend our Bill to reflect changes that occur, I consider that it is consistent with our position to withdraw the Bill.
Madam Speaker, I believe that the ACT, in putting forward the propositions to the SRMC, was showing national leadership. I also believe that, by not proceeding at this stage, given the comments of the Commonwealth and the discussions that are occurring between the States, we are also showing leadership when we are fully aware that progress is being made on the establishment of a nationally consistent approach. This has been discussed in general terms with ACTSport, the peak body for sport in the ACT, which strongly favours the reintroduction of a new Bill following the finalisation of a national approach. The withdrawal of the Bill will give time for the finalisation of a national approach to the use of drugs in sport and a review of the legislation to provide for consistency of provisions and definitions. I am confident that a new Bill will be prepared and presented in the next Assembly.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .