SPORT INTEGRITY REVIEW SUMMARY OF SUBMISSIONS SEPTEMBER 2019 01 INTRODUCTION 02 CONTENTS ORGANISATIONAL CULTURE, 03 WHISTLEBLOWING, AND THE INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS 01 FOR SPORT INTEGRITY MEMBER PROTECTION 23 02 INTEGRITY ISSUES IN 73 03 CHILDREN’S SPORT ANTI-DOPING 129 04 PROTECTING AGAINST 151 05 CORRUPTION PROTECTING AGAINST 165 06 MATCH-FIXING SPORT NEW ZEALAND 02 INTRODUCTION 1. “Sport integrity” refers to the aspects of sport that allow those involved to have confidence in the outcomes or events, and to feel they are safe and being treated fairly. Threats to sport integrity: a. undermine confidence in outcomes or events by unfairly skewing the playing field, e.g. through doping, match-fixing or corruption b. discourage participation by creating threats to participants or their enjoyment of sport, e.g. through environments that unduly endanger mental or physical health and safety. 2. Sport makes a vital contribution to human and social capital, and thereby a vital contribution to the living standards of New Zealanders. It is important that integrity issues do not discourage New Zealanders from accessing the many benefits that participation in sport can provide. 3. Sport NZ, as the lead Government agency for sport and recreation, has launched a broad review of New Zealand’s sport integrity arrangements. The review is proactive and forward looking rather than responding to any known systemic issues. This is the first time Sport NZ has undertaken such a review. While New Zealand has a number of protections in place, concerning developments overseas suggest it is timely to review our arrangements for sport integrity. 4. As part of the review, Sport NZ released the Sport Integrity Review Discussion Document in October 2018.1 We received 330 submissions including: a. 296 through the survey tool b. 34 through email, post or hand delivery. 5. This document summarises the submissions received. It does not suggest findings or make recommendations. Submissions are presented without commentary, even if they are, in our view, inaccurate or raise matters outside of scope (e.g. relating to the racing industry, or to diversity and inclusion which are outside the terms of reference for this review). 6. Submissions are generally summarised in two parts: (i) survey submissions and (ii) submissions received from other sources. This is for two main reasons: a. Survey submitters faced closed questions, where their answers were selected from multi-choice options, often with an additional opportunity to comment on their answers. Other submitters were not limited by this format and could thereby provide more nuanced answers. b. Submitters through other means were more identifiable and included significant actors in the sport system. For example, the email submission from 24 national sports organisations (NSOs) and Paralympics NZ carries particular weight.2 7. Readers can be assured that all comments were carefully considered and should understand that, as this is a summary, by necessity not every comment made will be reflected here. 8. We have generally anonymised individuals or organisations that are the targets of accusations as we do not want to disparage parties without giving them an opportunity to defend themselves. 9. Percentages have been rounded. The sum of rounded percentages may not add to 100. 1 https://sportnz.org.nz/assets/Sport-Integrity-Review/Sport-Integrity-Review-Discussion-Document-30-October-2018.pdf 2 The 24 NSOs were: NZ Golf, Yachting NZ, NZ Rugby, NZ Rugby League, Triathlon NZ, Squash NZ, Tennis NZ, Swimming NZ, Rowing NZ, Surf Lifesaving NZ, Basketball NZ, NZ Football, Netball NZ, Softball NZ, Athletics NZ, Snow Sports NZ, Hockey NZ, Gymnastics NZ, Bowls NZ, NZ Cricket, Touch NZ, Canoe Racing NZ, NZ Equestrian, and Waka Ama NZ. Yachting NZ, NZ Rugby, NZ Football, Athletics NZ, and Netball NZ also submitted separately. SPORT INTEGRITY REVIEW 03 ORGANISATIONAL CULTURE, WHISTLEBLOWING, AND THE 01INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS FOR SPORT INTEGRITY SPORT NEW ZEALAND 04 1. We received 151 submissions on this chapter including: a. 137 through the survey tool b. 14 from other sources. Demographic questions 2. Three demographic questions were asked, relating to gender, ethnicity, and sexual orientation, within this section of the survey. The tables below show the results. Please note that six of those who completed the demographic questions did not complete this section of the survey. Similar analysis has not been done for the submissions from other sources. TABLE 1: Option Female Male Prefer not Another Total WHAT IS YOUR to answer gender GENDER? Number of survey 58 76 7 2 143 respondents Percentage of survey 40.6 53.1 4.9 1.4 100 respondents TABLE 2: Ethnicity Number of submitters Ethnicity Number of submitters WHAT IS YOUR New Zealand European 111 Tongan 1 ETHNICITY? Other European 1 Indian 1 Māori 9 African 2 Samoan 2 Prefer not to answer 7 Cook Island Māori 1 Another ethnicity 8 Total Responses: 143 3. No submitters identified as Niuean, Tokelauan, Fijian, South East Asian, Chinese, Middle Eastern, or Latin American. 4. Of the eight submitters who self-identified with an unlisted ethnicity, three identified as New Zealanders, and the following ethnicities were identified by one person each: Australian, Kiwi, Pākehā, South African, and South American/West Indian. SPORT INTEGRITY REVIEW 05 TABLE 3: Option Heterosexual Homosexual, Bisexual Prefer not to Another Total WHAT IS YOUR SEXUAL or straight gay or lesbian answer orientation Responses ORIENTATION? Number 125 2 1 9 6 143 Percentage 87.4 1.4 0.7 6.3 4.2 100 Organisational culture 5. Questions OV1 – OV3 relate to organisational culture. OV1a: To what extent is organisational culture undermining integrity in the sport organisations you are involved with? 6. Results from the survey to this question are presented below. Results from other submissions are considered below, under OV1b. TABLE 4: Option A great deal A lot A moderate A little Not at all Total SURVEY RESPONSES amount Reponses TO OV1a Number 44 24 23 21 24 136 Percentage 32.4 17.6 16.9 15.4 17.6 100 OV1b: Please explain your answer. Comments from survey submitters 7. Survey submitters made multiple points in their comments about the extent to which organisational culture is undermining sport integrity in their sport organisations. 8. Most comments related to negative organisational culture and the following themes: a. A lack of accountability in the actions of leaders within sports organisations b. The prevalence of organisational cultures that facilitated bullying c. The presence of nepotism in some organisations d. General comments about the link between negative culture and negative sporting outcomes. 9. A range of incidents and traits of particular organisations were also described to us. 10. Eight submitters who had responded ‘not at all’ about the extent to which organisational culture was undermining sport integrity in their sport organisations also commented on their answers, noting integrity was embedded in the values or culture of their organisations, or that they were unaware of any issues. SPORT NEW ZEALAND 06 Comments from submissions from other sources Organisational culture can undermine integrity in sport 11. One regional sports trust (RST) said they had seen “many examples” of integrity risked by fulltime, paid CEOs “capturing” volunteer boards, thereby reducing the boards’ role in strategy, policy setting and decision making. This creates a risk of conflicts of interest not being overseen which, in turn, can compromise integrity. 12. Another RST made a similar point, i.e. that the volunteer nature of boards meant poor behaviour and conflicts of interest were occurring. 13. The submission from 24 NSOs and Paralympics NZ drew a link between culture and the short-term funding model previously employed by High Performance Sport New Zealand (HPSNZ) which creates a sense of instability, limits staff retention and encourages risk taking (e.g. supplement use to get results). The submission also noted that geographical disparity in training and competition created challenges to culture. A submission from Yachting NZ supported this position. 14. NZ Football submitted that “the approach to integrity in sport needs to shift to a cultural exercise” rather than a mitigation approach. 15. One experienced sports administrator said there was “little doubt” organisational culture framed the management of integrity issues. The submitter suggested the review of Cricket Australia showed poor organisational culture can influence integrity on the field. 16. Non-governmental organisation, Multicultural New Zealand submitted that organisational culture contributed to the barriers to ethnic communities participating in organised competition. 17. Two individual submitters had very significant problems with the culture of their sports. One described their sport as having a culture of “self-interest first” and lacking in “impartiality and transparency due to failed human relationships”. Another described a “culture of abuse”. 18. Drug Free Sport New Zealand (DFSNZ) submitted that organisational culture underpins the values, attitudes and behaviours of those within an organisation. DFSNZ submitted that it appears that sports are taking individual approaches to integrity rather than a unified, consistent approach. Therefore, it is unclear whether lessons learnt in one sport are applied in others. Some sports submitted they had a healthy organisational culture 19. Netball NZ submitted that they are not aware of organisational