Integrity Code consultation

Part 4 sets out principles that we, organisations, and disciplinary panels need to consider when deciding remedies and sanctions.

These are intended to guide decision makers and encourage consistency across the sector.

The principles include:

• the seriousness of the breach and the harm caused by it
• the vulnerability of participants to whom the matter relates
• any power imbalance
• remorse expressed or attempts to make amends, including the outcome of any restorative process, tikanga-based process, or other cultural process
• available precedents that help to guide a proportionate outcome
• cultural considerations.

An organisation may be found to have breached the Integrity Code if we are satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the organisation:

• has no or inadequate policies in place to implement the minimum standards
• doesn’t adhere to its policies that implement the minimum standards
• fails, without reasonable excuse, to implement minimum standards 5–6 or to enforce a sanction imposed by our disciplinary panel
• retaliates against a participant who makes complaint or provides us with information.

In essence, this means that if an organisation takes no action to implement the requirements of the Integrity Code, or does so in a way that is inconsistent with the required policies, then it may be found in breach.

If an organisation breaches the Integrity Code, we may require them to take steps to make things right. We call this remedial action. The remedial actions listed in the Integrity Code include:

• issuing an apology
• engaging in dispute resolution
• requiring people undergo training
• amending relevant policies
• recommending (but not requiring) the payment of compensation.

We would be responsible for determining this requirement. It does not need to be imposed by a disciplinary panel or an external body like the Sports Tribunal.

A participant may be sanctioned under the Integrity Code if they:

• breach the Integrity Code by failing without reasonable excuse to:
  • provide us with information or cooperate with an investigation
  • abide by a sanction imposed on them under the Integrity Code
• breach a policy an organisation has giving effect to the Integrity Code (eg, by engaging in a prohibited behaviour under minimum standard 1) or
• victimise someone (eg, because they complain to us).

There are sanctions ranging from a warning to a ban. The Act requires that these sanctions relate to the conditions of a person’s participation and so they do not, for example, include criminal or monetary penalties.

The sanctions may be imposed by either the organisation or by a disciplinary panel established by the Commission (see below for more detail). We cannot directly impose a sanction on a participant.

The Integrity Code enables mutual recognition of sanctions between organisations

Organisations must impose a sanction imposed by a disciplinary panel. This is similar to when a sanction is imposed by the Sports Tribunal for an Anti-Doping Rule Violation.

We will take into account rights of privacy, confidentiality, and any other relevant considerations relating to participants or organisations when deciding whether to publish details of a sanction. We will publish sanctions on our website. 

The Integrity Code also empowers organisations to recognise sanctions that another organisation imposes in accordance with the Integrity Code. This addresses a situation of “code hopping” where, for example, a person is excluded from a sport for serious sexual misconduct and tries to coach in another activity bound by the Integrity Code.

Mutually recognising sanctions between organisations is not stated as a requirement - organisations can choose whether or not they want to recognise sanctions imposed in another sport or activity. This is because there may be concerns among organisations about the adequacy of another organisation’s disciplinary process.