Andrew Southcott (Boothby, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment Participation, Training and Sport) Share this | Hansard source

I would like to speak on the amendments in this Australian Citizenship Amendment (Citizenship Test Review and Other Measures) Bill 2009 relating to elite athletes. Nine years ago Sydney was the Olympic city and on 25 September 2000 all of Australia watched one of the great nights for Australian sport. We watched Cathy Freeman win the women’s 400 metres in athletics and Tatiana Grigorieva win the silver medal in the pole vault. That night gave enormous pride to Australians. It spoke very powerfully of the way we see ourselves, and the way we would like others to see us, as a country. It spoke very powerfully of the opportunities that are here and it was with Cathy Freeman, an Indigenous Australian, and Tatiana Grigorieva, a very recent arrival. So, in terms of gauging the community’s opinion about recent arrivals who take on the Australian colours, I think it is a positive one. Tatiana Grigorieva’s story is worth reflecting on. She and Dmitri Markov came to Australia in 1996. Dmitri Markov was a pole vaulter and she was a 400 metres hurdler. They came in order to follow their coach and they came under the old rules, which meant that you could qualify for citizenship after two years. Dmitri and Tatiana achieved their citizenship at a citizenship ceremony in my electorate—in the city of Marion. They did it in the normal way and they did it with members from their community.

One of the disappointing things about the amendment which relates to elite athletes is the way that the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship has completely bungled this. He has taken an issue on which there would be enormous goodwill in the Australian community and caused enormous resentment by the way he has created this special category. It is also disappointing that the government has been aware of this for some time. Both Tennis Australia and the Australian Olympic Committee have identified this as a problem with the government for some time and yet it has chosen only now to act. The opposition understands that Olympic athletes and potential Olympic athletes spend a considerable amount of time training outside Australia. We understand that this makes it difficult for a non-citizen athlete to satisfy the residency requirements under the current Australian Citizenship Act. From a sports point of view, there is definitely a case for some changes to the current laws. But, while recognising that, we do not want to start trading citizenship for gold medals. Even the immigration minister has backed away from his early comments when he said that this will lead to more gold medals for Australia.

Under the government’s proposed changes, international athletes who wish to become Australian citizens will need to be a permanent resident for just two years, be present in Australia for a total of at least six months during those two years and be present in Australia for at least three months in the year immediately before their application. The opposition believes it is far better to reintroduce ministerial discretion, which will allow for a variation in citizenship requirements for noncitizens if the minister is satisfied that granting Australian citizenship to the person would be in the Australian public interest because of exceptional circumstances relating to the applicant. This will protect the integrity of Australian citizenship while also providing an avenue for elite athletes, such as Tatiana Borodulina, who find themselves unable to satisfy residency requirements.

Most disappointing about this debate is that the government has known about this issue for a while. In fact, Tennis Australia director Craig Tiley said, according to the Australian Financial Review, that Tennis Australia had been in regular discussion with the government on this issue for the last couple of years. I also believe the Australian Olympic Committee has been in discussion with the government relating to Tatiana Borodulina’s case for some time. But the government has decided to act only now. The government could easily have proposed changes to the Australian Citizenship Act to assist sporting athletes such as Tatiana Borodulina when this bill was first introduced in June. This issue could have then been debated when the bill was referred to a committee. It could have produced a better proposal that was acceptable to both sides of the House. The government has rushed this when it did not need to. It would have been aware of this as an issue for the whole period that it has been in government. In relation to the specific case, I understand that the date for Ms Borodulina to achieve her citizenship is 22 September. As I said in my remarks, I believe that there was a much better way that this could have been done by the minister—a way that would have achieved community support and would not have been setting up one special category.

See this speech in context