Integrity Code consultation
Disciplinary panels
The Integrity Sport and Recreation Act enables us to establish independent disciplinary panels to decide whether an individual has breached the Integrity Code and how they should be sanctioned. Disciplinary panels are already commonplace in the sector, particularly in sport, to deal with both on-field and off-field breaches of the sport’s rules or policies. Disciplinary panels are generally a panel of people who decide whether the rules or policies have been breached and what sanctions should be applied.
It was included in the Act to ensure there are strong accountability mechanisms in place and integrity issues can be addressed appropriately. It also provides a practical solution when an organisation doesn’t have the capability to run a disciplinary process (eg, a complex disciplinary matter), or where there are actual or perceived conflicts of interest associated with the organisation’s disciplinary process.
It is still expected that organisations will be mostly responsible for disciplining members that breach the Integrity Code. However, any independent disciplinary panel established by the Commission is available where it may not be practical or appropriate for the organisation to run the disciplinary process.
Schedule 3 of the Integrity Code establishes the disciplinary panel and provides detail on its composition, the referral process, and how the panel runs.
We appoint the panel but it operates independently
The Integrity Code enables us to appoint panel members. We anticipate there will be approximately 12 panel members. The panel must have a chair and may have one or more deputy chairs.
To be eligible for appointment, a person must:
- be of good standing in the community
- have knowledge and experience relevant to the disciplinary panel (eg, experience in law, tikanga Māori or disciplinary processes).
The disciplinary panel membership should also reflect the diversity of the sport and recreation sector (eg, women, Māori, Pacific peoples, disabled people, and rainbow people).
The disciplinary panels must operate independently. The members are not Commission staff and cannot be directed by the Chief Executive or the board. This is because we may be the one referring the matter to the disciplinary panel. It would be unfair to participants if the disciplinary panel did not operate independently from the people who investigate the matter.
Referrals to a disciplinary panel
Schedule 3 of the Integrity Code sets out when a referral may be made to a disciplinary panel for a hearing. These are where:
- we have investigated the matter under section 31 of the Act
- an organisation or a participant has requested that a matter be referred.
Before making a referral, we need to consider several factors, such as the steps that have been taken to investigate the matter or the capacity of the organisation to offer a fair, impartial and timely process.
If we don’t refer the matter to our disciplinary panel, the organisation will need to undertake its own disciplinary process.
The Integrity Code sets out the disciplinary panel procedure
When a matter is referred to the disciplinary panel, the Chair or a Deputy Chair convenes a hearing. They determine how many panel members are necessary.
The Integrity Code sets out procedural requirements including pre-hearing steps and what happens after a determination is reached. These will likely be added to by the disciplinary panel as it develops its processes. We expect the disciplinary panel will makes its processes publicly available for the benefit of parties to a hearing.
The Integrity Code requires that disciplinary panel proceedings are confidential until it makes a decision. Once the decision is made, copies must be provided to the relevant people, including us, and the decision published, subject to any reasonable redactions (eg, to protect privacy).
In addition to not being able to impose monetary fines, the disciplinary panel can’t order costs as this power is not included under the Act.
Example of an investigation and disciplinary process
Daniel is a national-level athlete. He is knowledgeable about his sport and has good friends across the competition.
Daniel started gambling a few years ago. Recently, this has become more of a problem and he started betting on his own competition. This is prohibited under the Integrity Code and by the rules of his sport.
His national sport organisation become aware of this and notifies the Commission - it is required to do this by the Integrity Code (minimum standard 4). After consulting with everyone involved, including Daniel, the national sport organisation, and the Police, we decide to investigate the alleged breach of the Integrity Code.
The investigation concludes that Daniel has betted on his own games and other games in his competition. This breaches the Integrity Code. We decide to refer Daniel to our independent disciplinary panel. The national sport organisation is supportive of this.
The disciplinary panel considers our investigation report and other information provided by Daniel and the national sport organisation. It concludes that Daniel has breached the Integrity Code and imposes a sanction to ban him from participating for a period of time.
During his ban, Daniel tries to register to play in another sport which has also adopted the Integrity Code. The sport does not let Daniel register. This is because it has decided to recognise sanctions imposed by other sports under the Integrity Code.