· web views80 the bill also provides the option for the establishment of an advisory committee to...

Controlled Sports Bill 2018

REGULATORY IMPACT STATEMENT

This Regulatory Impact Statement relates to the Controlled Sports Bill 2018 (“the Bill”). It has been prepared in order to assist the reader of the Bill and to help inform debate on it. It does not form part of the Bill and has not been endorsed by the Legislative Assembly. The statement is to be read in conjunction with the Bill. It is not, and is not meant to be, a comprehensive description of the Bill.

1. Problem Identification

Combat sports have developed significantly over the 15 years. With the growth of participation in full contact combat sports like Mixed Martial Arts and Muay Thai in Australia, the ACT’s approach to regulating combat sports no longer reflects the diverse forms of combat sports within the industry.

A legal review of the existing Boxing Control Act 1993 in December 2016 resulted in a wider interpretation being applied due to the ACT’s linkage with NSW legislation (the Combat Sports Act 2013 (NSW)). This extended the operation of the Act from boxing and kickboxing to full contact combat sports including Muay Thai, Mixed Martial Arts (MMA) and other combat sports with similar risk profiles. In 2017, the ACT processed applications for 16 events, totalling around 160 contestants under the new interpretation.

Specifically, the existing Boxing Control Act does not have effective oversight of the safety and integrity aspects of full contact combat sports events operating within the ACT. The existing arrangements provide only for a number of pre-contest conditions to be met under the existing Act. Ensuring that the rules of the combat sport listed in an approval, including appropriate safety and medical protocols, and no illegal gambling, is currently without compliance and enforcement arrangements. The occurrence of these types of activities in the ACT is therefore unknown and potentially pose a risk to participant safety. This is not consistent with the legislative approaches in most other Australian jurisdictions.

Combat sports present a number of public safety risks, from physical harm to contestants through to public safety in the conduct of events and the potential for exploitation given the value of rewards being offered for particular contests. Consultation and research have highlighted the potential for criminal associations within some parts of the industry. This has also been confirmed through consultations.

2. Objectives

The objectives of the Government in relation to combat sports are to:

support the health and safety of contestants;

promote the integrity of contests and events; and

minimise harm and promote benefits to the community from the conduct of combat sports events.

1Controlled Sports Bill 2018 – Regulatory Impact Statement – Consultation Draft

These objectives make clear that the Government’s intentions to focus on the safety and integrity aspects identified through consultation and research.

3. Background

Existing ACT regulation

The existing Boxing Control Act 1993 does not adequately deal with the Government’s objectives. While this legislation was last updated in 2010, it does not adequately reflect community and industry expectations for the effective management of combat sports events in the ACT.

It provides for:

procedures for approval of contests; circumstances where approval may be cancelled; approval and offences for officials, professional boxers, and amateur boxers; approval of certain bodies; special arrangements for professional female boxing contests; powers for the Minister to establish a code of practice; and determination of fees.

Under the existing arrangements, the ACT relies on NSW to register professional contestants, promoters and officials, and conduct relevant security and medical checks. Due to these arrangements the ACT is restricted in the activities it can regulate by virtue of a legislative connection to NSW. It also means that the ACT’s human rights protections are not taken into consideration with any changes to the NSW law, which can directly impact on residents of the ACT.

Other jurisdictions

There is no uniform approach to combat sports regulation in Australia. Some jurisdictions do not regulate at all (namely Queensland and the Northern Territory). The Queensland Parliament held an injury in 2016 to determine how to manage ‘high risk and amateur’ combat sports contests in Queensland. The majority of the committee members concluded that “there is no demonstrated need for this inquiry at this time and the committee has resolved to take no further action on this inquiry”. A dissenting report was also tabled recommending the Government regulate combat sports in Queensland. No further action has been taken at the time of writing this Regulatory Impact Statement.

Jurisdictions that do not regulate at all present a challenge for regulating jurisdictions, as they do not meet the minimum standards set to ensure the sports are operating under the objectives (contestant safety, integrity and harm minimisation). Of options two, three and four detailed in this Regulatory Impact Statement (see sections 4 and 5 below), the ACT would require those contestants to be either registered in the ACT or another regulating jurisdiction in Australia.

Western Australia, New South Wales and Victoria each have a stand-alone body to regulate combat sports. Victoria does not regulate amateur contests, whereas New South Wales and Western Australia do. Combat sports in Tasmania and South Australia are regulated by government departments, with Tasmania having standards for contests and minimal oversight.

New South Wales has extensive regulation for combat sports. This includes a comprehensive registration process for officials and contestants that involves police screening, comprehensive


medical checks, and inspectors at each event. Despite this, the death of boxer David Browne in 2015 after a professional boxing event has led to a further review of the NSW Combat Sports Act 2013 to examine better ways to manage head injuries, evacuation procedures, and the different rules of the many varied organisations operating in the combat sports sector.

International contestants are a common occurrence in combat sports, and are often flown into the country by promoters to compete as main contest attractions. Given that these contestants can typically not meet full registration requirements (such as security screening), regulating jurisdictions typically require a full medical clearance conducted by an Australian doctor within 48 hours of the contest. As some contestants come from high risk countries for blood borne viruses (for example, many reside in South-East Asia), particularly Hepatitis B, serology screening is a particularly important element of screening international contestants.

4. Options

The options considered herein varying from maintaining current arrangements, revising regulation through to deregulation:

Option One: Maintain status quo Option Two: Adopt NSW approach Option Three: Controlled Sports Bill with Professional and Amateur separation Option Four: Controlled Sports Bill with Registered and Non-Registered Events Option Five: Repeal current Act and do not regulate

Existing Legislative Framework

Option One: Maintain status quo

This option would see the existing Boxing Control Act 1993 remain in place and the most recent ‘interim measures’ to remain in force. This includes an updated Boxing Control (Combat Sports) Code of Practice 2018 (No 1), and the Boxing Control Regulation 2018 (No 1) that defines what is not a ‘boxing contest’.

The new Code of Practice provides for: a 28 day cut off on event permit applications, more clearly identifies promoter responsibilities, and introduced a new safety regulation of a minimum of two exits for caged enclosures.

New Legislative Frameworks

Option Two: Adopt NSW approach

NSW currently regulates combat sports under the Combat Sports Act 2013. Under this framework, both professional and amateur events are regulated. NSW processes and monitors around 150 events per year.

Following the death of boxer David Browne in NSW in 2015 and subsequent coronial findings, NSW has brought its statutory review of its legislation forward to address a number of recommendations made by the coroner that may have reduced the likelihood of a death in the sport, including:

a) better clarity regarding the operating rules; b) obligations of officials to stop a contest;


c) better management of concussions and head injuries; and d) provision of adequate medical equipment and appropriate evacuation plans.

This option would require waiting for NSW to finalise their review and regulatory changes, before the ACT could develop legislation that mirrors and links to the NSW legislation. As NSW is still finalising the review of its Act, this option would not permit updated regulation of combat sports in the ACT in the short term.

Option Three: Legislation framework with professional and amateur separation

This option will allow the Government to regulate only professional combat sports events, with oversight of amateur combat sports events left to Approved Amateur Bodies (to be defined under Regulation). Rules and an approval process would need to be developed to define an Approved Amateur Body. Safety and integrity measures under the legislation would only apply to professional events. This differs from option 2 in that it does not wait for the NSW approach to be implemented, and enacts ACT-based independent legislation that does not have a statutory link to NSW.

Option Four: Legislation with registered and non-registered events

This regulatory option provides for a specified set of criteria for which an event becomes a registered event (such as operating in a casino, prize money being offered, gambling on contests, and public admission for a fee).

Other events fall into the non-registered category but may still need to meet certain safety conditions (such as those specified in a Code of Practice), and notification requirements. Demonstration activities that are not contests are not covered at all. See Attachment B for a visual representation.

This option differs from option 3 in that it captures events through definition of their commercial purpose, as opposed to amateur and professional status.

Self-Regulation

Option Five: Repeal current Act and industry self-regulates

Option five would repeal the existing Boxing Control Act 1993 and have no Government regulations in place for combat sports, as is currently the case for Queensland and the Northern Territory.

Under this option, it is expected that industry would act to self-regulate. Various sporting organisations already exist and apply their own range of requirements for the conduct of combat sports events. Through more general legal requirements, commercial and association arrangements parties would accrue responsibilities and liabilities which they would need to address in order to operate.

5. Analysis of the impact of each option


Existing Legislative Framework

Option One: Maintain status quo

This is the simplest option as it requires no further changes to legislation, yet does not commit to improving the safety and integrity of combat sports in the ACT. It would instead rely on the industry to implement and monitor its own safety standards.

Evidence of effective harm minimisation approaches, particularly in relation to safety in combat sports is developing all the time. In practice, this knowledge may lead to a change in rules and approaches to combat sports contests that overall improve the safety for contestants. The timeframe for these changes is therefore out of the Government’s control and increases the risk of a serious injury or death occurring in the ACT.

Integrity measures are more difficult to implement under this option as the existing Boxing Control Act does not have any provision for inspectorate functions.

Stakeholders would likely not support this approach, as many have consistently raised the need for regulatory reform for combat sports in the ACT as the current Act is ‘not fit for purpose’. This has a broad reaching impact on all stakeholders that either compete or promote events in the ACT. While many of these stakeholders reside in the ACT, many are also from interstate and are familiar with stricter regulations such as those in NSW. This can create confusion about the application of rules, and the potential to exploit a more lenient approach in the ACT. For advocates of the affected sports, this would be a disappointing outcome.

From an administrative perspective within Government, this option does not require any changes to the current approach.

Option One: Benefits and Costs

Benefits Costs

Allows for self-regulation of sport Allows sporting bodies to effectively self-regulate without government intervention.

No additional legislation or regulatory costsThe Government would not need to develop and implement new legislation for combat sports in the ACT. Combat sports will continue to be monitored through existing processes through Sport and Recreation in CMTEDD.

Regulation ineffectiveAs identified earlier, the existing Act does not reflect the diverse range of combat sports undertaken in the ACT or elsewhere. For example, the current Act has no inspectorate powers, which presents significant safety risks to contestants and the public given the lack of oversight and in some cases, organised crime connections within the sports.

Smaller sporting clubs and promotions may struggle to implement safety protocols without government supportSmaller sporting clubs and promotions may prefer stricter regulations that provide clarity as they do not have the resources to manage this themselves.

Relies on inconsistent industry outcomes 5

Controlled Sports Bill 2018 – Regulatory Impact Statement – Consultation Draft

While some combat sports organisations are well progressed in managing safety and integrity issues, others are not. This promotes inconsistency in the application rules within combat sports which was reported as an issue that contributed to the death of David Browne in NSW (Coronial findings, boxing death in 2015).

Stakeholders would likely not be satisfied with this approach. Many stakeholders have provided input over many years as to the changes required.

Failure to deliver on Government commitment to reform The Government has committed to reforming combat sports legislation in a number of public statements.

New Legislative Frameworks

Option Two: Adopt NSW approach

This option would allow the ACT Government to effectively ‘outsource’ regulation of combat sports to NSW by ensuring that ACT legislation refers to the NSW Act for all regulatory requirements. This approach would still require legislative reform in the ACT, and the benefit of a close relationship with NSW, of which the ACT is closely linked. It would however mean that reforms within the ACT would be further delayed as NSW undertakes its own review. This delay could possibly be another 12–18 months to fully implement new legislation both in NSW and the ACT.

This option would need to be negotiated with NSW as it would create a further impost on the administration of their legislation as they would be required to work more closely with the ACT. Adaptations would need to be made within ACT Government to allow for the administration of such requirements to sit with another jurisdictions. Related costs are not able to be determined.

All organisations, officials and contestants participating in the ACT would be impacted by this decision, yet the impost on compliance would be no more difficult than if similar legislation existed in a stand-alone form in the ACT.

Option Two: Benefits and Costs

Benefits Costs Utilises the expertise and resources in NSW Government This option allows the ACT to outsource the development of the content of the reform to a better resourced government (in terms of its size and expertise in combat sports).

Better linkages between the jurisdictions

Further delay in reformReform will be delayed by the NSW review of their Combat Sports Act 2013 which is currently underway. Reforms by NSW will then need to be reflected in ACT legislation, further delaying reform.

Uncertainty 6

Controlled Sports Bill 2018 – Regulatory Impact Statement – Consultation Draft

This will mean that events are able to easily follow the consistent rules of both jurisdictions potentially bringing more promotions to the ACT.

As the reform will be out of the control of the ACT Government, there is a level of uncertainty as to the approach that will be taken in NSW and if this will be suitable in the ACT context.

NSW is not a human rights jurisdictionNSW does not have human rights legislation, meaning these matters may not considered as an essential requirement for scrutiny purposes. Given the uncertainty as to the approach being taken, it is difficult to determine if any new legislation would meet human rights obligations in the ACT (for instance, compulsory serology testing and exclusion based on HIV positive status, and considerations on reformed criminals and their participation in the sports as a contestant or official).

Cost is unknown The cost of implementing the reform is unknown but could be significant for both Government and industry. For example, based on current costs bringing NSW inspectors to the ACT is likely to be in the order of $4,000 per event. Such costs would need to be recognised in any regulatory fee structure.

Option Three: Professional and Amateur separation

This option would see the ACT Government separate events into amateur and professional divisions.

Amateur sporting organisations would effectively self-manage events under their own rules and governance protocols.

Professional events would require an event permit, and all officials and contestants would need to be registered with the ACT Government (or mutually recognised jurisdiction) in order to participate. This would include medical screening and fit and proper person/ criminal background checks for certain individuals. This is an evolution of the current model, however removing the requirement for registration in NSW and having a system established in the ACT. The existing link with NSW would not be maintained, unlike options 1 and 2.

All organisations, officials and contestants participating in the ACT would be impacted by this decision, yet the impost on compliance is similar to that in other jurisdictions, namely Victoria. The main result would be an additional registration upon commencement of the legislation, but is otherwise very similar to the current arrangement, where all professional contestants and officials must be registered in NSW, yet the event permit would be issued through application and consideration by the ACT Government.


Promoters of professional events would be required to seek approval through an application (as is currently the case in the ACT) and provide full details of the promotion as specified in the Bill. These details are essential as they allow the Government to check contestant’s medical and conduct records held with the ACT Government and other regulating jurisdictions, and their registration status to ensure contestants are fit to compete (pending a pre-fight medical clearance). It also allows the ACT Police to undertake intelligence checks and determine if the event should go ahead, and if so, if police attendance is warranted. This helps to address integrity issues within combat sports.

This would allow the ACT Government the opportunity to recoup some of the costs associated with hosting events in the ACT. It would however mean that amateur events that cross into the commercial space are not captured by the event approval process. Given the identified higher risk with commercial events, this may present some issues in the application of the legislation and the fairness of the approach.

This option would still allow for inspectors to attend amateur events, for random or targeted checks to ensure that minimum safety standards are being met.

Option Three: Benefits and Costs

Benefits Costs

Focuses effort on the higher risk, professional space The limited resources within ACT Government will be focused on events that have been deemed higher risk for integrity breaches.

Compliance and enforcement activity supported Random or targeted inspections of amateur events can still occur under the legislation to monitor safety compliance.

Allows ‘sport to run sport’ in amateur space Amateur sporting organisations have been designed specifically for the progression of the sport, and can therefore be left to self-govern. Reducing government intervention and potential administrative cost.

Consistency This model is similar to the existing system operating in the ACT; the only exception being that registration for professional contestants and officials would move from NSW to the ACT.

Cost recovery for Government The ACT Government will be able to recoup some of the costs associated with

Does not capture amateur events that cross into commercial space The main risk with this approach is that it does not capture amateur events that are inherently commercial in nature, potentially leaving certain events exposed to integrity and safety issues (for instance, pressure to win a fight for prize money leads to higher risk taking behaviour from contestants and officials). Further, it is a loophole that may be exploited by unscrupulous operators that seek to be labelled as amateur events but have professional contestants on the fight card (this has been an issue in Victoria).

Inspectorate cost There will be a cost to employ and undertake inspections of events.

Higher start-up costs A registration system will need to be designed, and the initial registration process for officials and contestants.


administering combat sports in the ACT through registrations and event permits.

Option Four: Registered and non-registered events

This option provides for a risk-based regulatory framework that clearly defines risk and harms with the conduct of controlled sports events and provides actions to mitigate those matters. It does not rely on a singular distinction of reward (as with professional and amateur) for the operation of regulatory requirements but can be multifaceted to accommodate a range of different factors.

This option means that all events would be registered or non-registered. Non-registered event status would apply where the event is run by a National Sporting Organisation (Australian Sports Commission approved) or their state/territory affiliates, or approved sporting organisation, or where contestants do not earn a valuable reward or taxable income from the event. The matrix at Attachment B explains this in more detail.

The existing link with NSW would not be maintained, unlike options 1 and 2.

This option means that, unlike option three, ‘amateur’ events that become commercial in nature would require registration, therefore addressing this issue.

All organisations, officials and contestants participating in the ACT would be impacted by this decision, yet the impost for sporting organisations is low as it will only require initial recognition as a sporting organisation (which will be automatic for those already recognised as a National Sporting Organisation by the Australian Sports Commission, or their state/ territory affiliates), and notification of events through the submission of a simple form. Promoters of registered events (i.e. those that are more commercial in nature) would be required to seek approval through an application (as is currently the case in the ACT) and provide full details of the promotion. These details are essential as they allow the Government to check contestant’s medical and conduct records held with the ACT Government and other regulating jurisdictions, and their registration status to ensure contestants are fit to compete (pending a pre-fight medical clearance). It also allows the ACT Police to undertake intelligence checks and determine if the event should go ahead, and if so, if police attendance is warranted. This helps to address integrity issues within combat sports.

Option Four: Benefits and Costs

Benefits Costs

Allows for greater tailoring of responseThe limited resources within ACT Government will be focused on events that have been deemed higher risk for integrity breaches.

Compliance and enforcement activityTargeted risk-based inspections of exempt events can still occur under the legislation to

Inspectorate cost There will be a cost to employ and undertake inspections of events.

Higher start-up costs A registration system will need to be designed, and the initial registration process for officials and contestants. Coverage of additional sports This design will mean that some sports will be covered by regulation that have not been


monitor safety compliance. There are notification requirements in place to inform Government officials of event details.

Allows ‘sport to run sport’ where sporting organisations exist subject to clear benchmarks Sporting organisations have been designed specifically for the progression of the sport, and can therefore be left to self-govern subject to clear Government threshold requirements.

Longevity By focusing on actions and behaviours under a risk-based model, the regulatory framework will be better able to cope with the potential growth in number of styles, complexity and innovation in the sports over time.

covered previously, such as Judo and Taekwondo.

Sports are run by sporting organisations, they are only likely to need initial recognition and to notify of events, so is a fairly light-touch regulatory response. This may be seen as ‘fair’ by other combat sports that have been captured for some time.

Moves away from industry terminology The ACT Government is aware this is also being considered by other jurisdictions and is generally supported within the industry

Self-Regulation

Option Five: Repeal current Act and do not regulate

By repealing the existing Boxing Control Act 1993, the ACT Government would not regulate combat sports at all, and would leave this to the amateur bodies and commercial operations. This is the approach taken in Queensland and the Northern Territory. It is less regulation than currently exists in the ACT now.

This option would impact on all stakeholders conducting combat sports events in the ACT. There would be no Government compliance regime (although some may be governed by internal sporting organisation codes), nor any oversight on safety and integrity by Government. Though some general liabilities under law may apply to the operation of events.

It is not likely to be well received by industry stakeholders that are heavily invested in growing combat sports in Australia and may directly contribute to a reputation of ‘unregulated violence’ in the community.

Benefits Costs

Potential for more events in the ACT Without regulation, it is possible that more events will be held in the ACT instead of regulated jurisdictions.

Cost effective This approach would see the return of funding to the ACT Government Budget, and save on staff resourcing costs. No regulatory costs for industry in the ACT The combat sports sector would have no Government regulatory costs, including

Potential for unscrupulous operators to use the ACT’s unregulated environment to their advantage Due to the lack of regulation, operators that seek to profiteer from extreme activities may operate in the ACT (such as bare-knuckle shows, illegal gambling, inappropriate matches).

Safety risks Without regulation, the safety of contestants may not meet community expectations due


registrations for officials and contestants, as well as for event permits. However, if they are competing or promoting in regulated jurisdictions (such as NSW), they will need to be registered in that jurisdiction.

Reduction in red tape Removing the regulatory impost on participants will reduce the cost of red tape in the ACT.

to an absence or reduced conditions and rules for operation. While many will still operate under sporting organisation rules, others may seek to exploit the lack of regulation and create different rules that generally would not be accepted as safe.

These concerns would extend to children of all ages could compete in combat sports events in front of large audiences and/or for prizes.

Is less regulated than current arrangements Repealing the Act would rewind from a standard the industry has come to accept.

6. Recommended optionOption Four – Registered and non-registered events is the preferred option as it balances the integrity risk of commercial-type events, with the proven ability of sporting organisations to effectively self-regulate. It is in line with community and Government expectations to have effective oversight of the industry through inspectorate functions and provides clear standards for participants and the public. Registration and inspectorate functions would support community confidence in the conduct of the sports.

Costs of administration of these events that have otherwise been partially filtered to other jurisdictions with registration systems would be directly attributable to ACT and recovered appropriately. This can be done, for example, through the fees imposed on promoters for events (for more detail, see fees under Regulations at Attachment A).

Where possible the approach will align with NSW legislation or the proposed reforms being considered. Whilst it is not possible to confirm these changes before the NSW process is complete, it is intended that this approach should mitigate difficulties for administering combat sports policy within the respective jurisdictions. Further, consideration is given to the effective relationship with NSW, given the proximity of the ACT to NSW, and the existing relationship between the sport and recreation services within both jurisdictions. The ACT seeks to maintain an excellent working relationship with the NSW Combat Sports Authority. The delays under option two (NSW approach) are not considered acceptable given the current risks and exposures.

Maintaining the status quo (option one) has been the case for some time in the ACT, and has left the sector exposed to an unacceptable level of risk over the long-term.

Not regulating at all (option five), would see a reversal of the work done to date to manage the risks in combat sports events in the ACT. This would likely not be supported by the community or the industry, particularly sporting organisations that have an interest in the continued growth of the sport.

While option three (professional and amateur separation) is a workable option, it is not recommended as it means that a number of events that are commercial in nature would not


require regulation by virtue of their amateur status. This could be exploited by some. It is therefore recommended that option four is adopted.

7. Consultation The ACT Government has engaged key industry stakeholders (sporting organisations and promoters) about the regulation of combat sports in the Territory over an extended period. During its review of combat sports regulation in the ACT, Active Canberra undertook two periods of consultation (totalling 10 weeks) in 2012. The Bill was subsequently delayed due to competing priorities.

In 2015-2016, Active Canberra released a community discussion paper regarding regulation for the industry. Feedback was generally supportive of improved regulation of combat sports. The key issues raised include the risks associated with neurological injuries, blood-borne virus transmission and criminal influence. Stakeholders were also consulted on a range of interim measures under the existing Act, notably the introduction of a refined Code of Practice, and Boxing Control Regulation that defines routine training and demonstration events to provide clarity on what activities are and are not covered under the Act. It is expected that these interim measures will form the basis of some of the subordinate legislation under this Bill.

The following Government directorates were consulted – Chief Minister, Treasury and Economic Development; Health Directorate; and Justice and Community Safety Directorate. Further, extensive consultation has also taken place with other sport and recreation services in other jurisdictions in Australia, a number of academics, as well as the Australian Institute of Sport and their Chief Medical Officer, the Australian Sports Commission, and Sports Medicine Australia. ACT Policing has assisted with the development of screening and enforcement measures.

A Bill and accompanying documents, including this draft of the Regulatory Impact Statement, detailing Option Four were released for community consultation purposes. Further consultation with external stakeholders will take place with regard to specific policy issues as they are being resolved during the drafting of subordinate legislation.

One group that has not previously been engaged are the sporting organisations that will be captured by the registered, and non-registered events approach (Option Four). As this option evolved to ensure that the most risky techniques were captured, these stakeholders are being engaged as part of a Bill consultation process.

8. Strategy to implement and review The design of the Controlled Sports Bill 2018 addresses these areas of exposure, but also allows for an appropriate level of self-regulation for sporting organisations that have a proven record of good governance principles. It also allows the ACT to monitor compliance through inspectorate functions.

Events that are more commercial in their nature will be monitored closely in the first years of implementation to ensure compliance with the new regulation and to build a knowledge base of the sector within government. This will be managed through a thorough application and approval process, compliance monitoring through inspectorate attendance at events, and


notification to ACT Policing for criminal intelligence purposes. Where these organisations demonstrate commitment to compliance with legislation, monitoring will be administered on a random basis only.

The legislation has been designed to include combat sports as one type of controlled sport that can be regulated, but allows for other types of high-risk activities to be regulated at a future date if needed. This may include events with clear and identified risks to the community, and sports that are yet to be invented (including other combat sports).

While the ‘controlled sports’ approach has not been undertaken by any other Australian jurisdictions, there is some evidence of a broad approach to the health and safety aspects of high risk activities in the USA, where legislation on concussion management for instance, covers a broad range of sports and activities for young people (known as the Zackery Lystedt law). This makes the ACT a leader in implementing a broad approach to high risk activities in Australia, covering combat sports in the first instance.

Principally, the Bill provides for a tiered regulatory approach to the regulation of contests and provides ACT Government with the legislative power to intervene in a random or targeted manner where a real or perceived risk to safety or integrity exists. Self-regulation is supported for approved sporting bodies where they are either recognised by the Australian Sports Commission as a National Sporting Body (or state/territory affiliate), or have met the requirements detailed in the regulation (see Attachment A) to become an Approved Sporting Organisation under the Act. Generally, this means they have met certain governance principles that enable them to effectively operate and administer combat sports events in the ACT.

The approach taken specifically intends to be a flexible regulatory framework that will have the capacity to be adaptable as changes occur within the industry. This will help to minimise the risk of the legislation becoming unworkable in later years, as has been the case with the Boxing Control Act 1993.

The Bill outlines that a promoter, or person organising or running an event, has the ultimate responsibility for the safe and professional conduct of that event. It places a greater focus on the responsibilities of certain individuals and organisations that, through the virtue of their own experience with combat sports, are considered competent and capable of making sound decisions regarding the safety of contestants and the integrity of events and/ or particular contests.

This Bill addresses direct contestant health risks through a series of medical clearances, including a risk-based approach to serology screening. The approach considers vaccination against Hepatitis B as an important element of managing the risk of blood borne virus transmission through combat sports. The risk has been identified as low, providing proper blood management protocols are in place. Security screening for international contestants is not considered an issue given the immigration requirements imposed on those entering the country and character requirements before obtaining immigration clearance and/or a Temporary Activity Visa (subclass 408).

The Bill will be supported by the development of a number of pieces of subordinate legislation that will be developed during the second half of 2018 in consultation with stakeholders. Details of these regulations is at Attachment A. The design of the Bill allows these pieces of subordinate legislation to be updated to more readily adapt as the landscape of combat sports changes.


The legislation has a proposed commencement date of 4 February 2019. This will allow for subordinate legislation to be developed and an industry transition period to take place. This will be supported through education campaigns and information sessions with the industry to familiarise them with the new regime.

The Bill also provides the option for the establishment of an Advisory Committee to advise the Minister about controlled sports. Membership of this committee could consist of persons with an interest in combat sports (such as industry stakeholders), medical professionals, and academics. This will enable the ACT Government to access valuable, independent information throughout the application of this legislation.

The legislation will also be evaluated five years from its commencement date to ensure it is operating effectively (in 2024). This evaluation may result in some changes if considered necessary.


ATTACHMENT A

REGULATIONS UNDER THE CONTROLLED SPORTS BILL 2018

This attachment details the subordinate legislation to be developed under the Controlled Sports Bill 2018. While some items are listed individually in this attachment, that may be merged into a larger piece of regulation to reduce the administrative burden and complexity of the reform.

Code of Practice (Division 4.1) – disallowable instrument:

The Code of Practice will provide the requirements in which a controlled sport contest must be operated and forms part of the conditions for approval under Section 44 of the Bill. The Bill details the contents of the Code of Practice, such as requirements for medical examinations and treatment of injured contestants, requirements for officials and medical practitioners, venue requirements and personal protective equipment.

The Code of Practice will be developed in consultation with industry stakeholders, such as those engaged for the development of the Boxing Control (Combat Sports) Code of Practice 2018 (No 1) which will be revoked once new legislation commences. Other stakeholders that will be engaged include medical professionals, national sporting bodies, and academic researchers.

In terms of its regulatory impact, the Code of Practice is considered a necessity to set the expectations and responsibilities of certain people involved in controlled sports events. This removes any uncertainty within the industry regarding specific requirements designed to minimise harm to contestants, clearly meeting the objectives outlined in the Act. It continues an arrangement and expectation that has been in place since the previous Act’s inception in 1993.

Compliance with the Code of Practice will need to be monitored by inspectors and has been incorporated into the costing of this component of the legislation.

Registration of controlled sports officials – S12 (1) (d)

This subordinate legislation will detail the specific requirements for registration of controlled sports officials. This includes specific requirements for certain officials, such as promoters and medical professionals. Medical professionals for instance, will be required to be registered as a medical practitioner with the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency. Promoters may have additional screening requirements, such as ‘fit and proper’ person screening through police to determine if they are a suitable person to hold registration.

The regulatory impact of this piece of subordinate legislation has been considered in the development of the Act. While there is an impost on persons seeking to register as a controlled sports official, it is similar to the registration most would already comply with in other jurisdictions, and therefore not considered burdensome. There will be a cost to the Government to establish a registration system, however costs will be offset through a registration fee that will be designed to cover the costs associated with processing a registration application. It is proposed however, that medical practitioner registration will be free of charge so as to not discourage medical practitioners from attending the events as there are a limited number in the ACT that undertake this type of work.


Application for registration as controlled sports contestants – S20; corresponding law S22

This subordinate legislation will detail the specific requirements for registration of controlled sports contestants. This includes specific medical and screening requirements. This regulation will also detail which jurisdictions are mutually recognised for registration purposes.

The regulation will also detail medical record keeping requirements (known as ‘Blue Book’ records), and requirements for medical examinations.

The regulatory impact of this piece of subordinate legislation has been considered in the development of the Act. While there is an impost on persons seeking to register as a controlled sports contestants, it is similar to the registration most would already comply with in other jurisdictions, and therefore not considered burdensome. Further, by allowing recognition through corresponding laws, also reduces the impost. It is also necessary to enable the safe monitoring of contestants that may travel to other jurisdictions to take part in additional contests where it is not safe to do so. Registration enables the Government to share this information with other jurisdictions (for instance, win or loss of contest, injuries sustained, and any medical or conduct suspensions) to ensure contestant safety is maintained. There will be a cost to the Government to establish a registration system, however costs will be offset through a registration fee that will be designed to cover the costs associated with processing a registration application.

Application for controlled sports event S28

This regulation will detail the requirements for application to hold a controlled sports event. It will detail the inclusions required in the application (for example: venue details, seating capacity, whether an employer-employee relationship exists with any of the officials or contestants, fee paid). It will also detail the policy for withdrawing an event application and the instances where a full or partial refund or credit will be given (for example, the acceptable time period for cancelling an application to receive a refund or credit).

There is no additional regulatory impost from this regulation as this process already exists under the existing Boxing Control Act, however there will be additional fees that are reflective of the current processing and monitoring costs.

Pre-Event medical – S51

This regulation will prescribe the requirements for a pre-event medical for contestants to ensure that they are fit to compete. These requirements will include a check of medical records and suspensions for injuries, review of head injury status, and consideration of any potential issues related to weight cutting such as chronic dehydration, and any other matters to be raised between the practitioner and contestant. The regulation is not intended to preclude any matters from a pre-event medical, but set in place minimum requirements to ensure that a harm minimisation approach is followed, and that contestant safety is wholly considered before a contest takes place. Medical practitioners will be obliged to undertake these checks and record them in the specified location in order to meet the regulatory requirements. The promoter is responsible for ensuring that all checks are carried out properly in consultation with the attending medical practitioner/s.

The burden of this regulation is considered essential for ensuring that contestants are able to compete as safely as possible, and will also ensure that any ambiguities are recorded should an incident occur at or after the event that is medical in nature. It is similar to the requirements currently stipulated in the existing legislation and Boxing Control (Combat Sports) Code of Practice 2018 (No 1).


Reporting requirements for medical practitioners - S51 (f)

Medical practitioners present at events will have certain reporting requirements to complete to ensure that contestants are competing as safely as possible. This includes pre and post-fight medicals, and any medical suspensions imposed due to an injury caused during the contest. This information is essential for ensuring that the contestant receives the appropriate medical care and obtains further medical clearances (where required) before competing in another contest.

The burden of this regulation is considered essential for ensuring that contestants are able to compete as safely as possible, and will also ensure that any ambiguities are recorded should an incident occur at or after the event that is medical in nature.

Minimum age – S31 and S60

This regulation will prescribe the minimum age for contestants to compete in combat sports events. In order to compete in a caged enclosure, all contestants must be a minimum of 18 years old given the nature of the events being held. Further, given the nature of combat sports, it pertinent for Government to consider implementing a minimum age for contests that involve the techniques listed in the legislation (throwing, striking, kicking, hitting, grappling, throwing or punching another person/s).

The Register – S41

This regulation will prescribe the requirements for the register of each registrable event. This information will be held by the ACT Government. It will also detail which information will be publicly available (for example, where suspensions are imposed, details of the suspension will be made available online for other jurisdictions. This information will include the suspended person’s name, reason for suspension, and the period of suspension). Published information will ensure that all jurisdictions are able to cross-check the information supplied for events to ensure that contestants are competing without restrictions. This procedure is followed in Western Australia. Whilst this is an additional record-keeping step for ACT Government officials, it is considered minimal given the positive benefits of maintaining a register and can be managed within existing resources.

Establishment of advisory committee – S80

The Bill also provides the option for the establishment of an advisory committee to advise the Minister about controlled sports. Membership of this committee could consist of persons with an interest in combat sports (such as industry stakeholders), medical professionals, law enforcement and academics. The committee will be a valuable support to the ACT Government particularly during implementation stages, where new research and or proposed processes emerge, and particularly where matters present relating to specific events or individuals.

Secretariat functions for the advisory committee is an additional regulatory impost on ACT Government officials, but can be managed within existing resources.

Determination of fees – S83 – Disallowable Instrument

This regulation will set the fees for registration of officials and contestants, and for event permits. In general, the principle followed for the setting of fees will be on a cost-recovery basis only, so as not to prohibit individuals, small businesses or small sporting organisations from participating. Fee structure for officials and contestants will consider the cost of identity and background checking. Fee structure for events will consider the size of the event (based on venue seating requirements) and proposed a tiered structure so as to enable small events to run without prohibitive costs. The


current fees set out in the Boxing Control Act 1993 do not adequately reflect the cost to Government for processing event permits. Stakeholders will be consulted on fee structure and considerations of the models in other jurisdictions also taken into consideration. Fee setting regulation will also allow for an increase each year (if considered necessary) in line with CPI.

Application for registration as a controlled sports contestant S20 (3) (e)

This regulation would cover any requirements for registration as a contestant, such as detailed certificate of fitness requirements (3) (b).

Requirements to become an approved controlled sports body and declaration of approved controlled sports body S57 (3) (b) and (4)

The Government may prescribe the requirements to become an approved controlled sports body where automatic recognition does not exist. This may include details of sporting styles and techniques covered, organisation and leadership details, governance requirements, and rules for sporting styles.

A declaration will list which bodies are approved controlled sports bodies in a Notifiable Instrument.


ATTACHMENT B OPTION FOUR – REGISTERED EVENTS DECISION MATRIX


· web views80 the bill also provides the option for the establishment of an advisory committee to...

Documents