Rex Patrick (SA, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

Thank you. I might just add that I actually think the lease arrangements for the Port of Darwin were tabled or provided to the Senate committee looking into the FIRB that specifically looked at that. I just have a feeling about that. People may want to look at that as I move my amendment. I seek leave to move amendments (1) to (8) on sheet 1061 revised together.

Leave granted.

I move:

(1) Clause 3, page 3 (line 2), after "These are arrangements between particular kinds of State and Territory entities", insert ", including the Australian Olympic Committee,".

(2) Clause 3, page 3 (after line 17), after the paragraph beginning "A State/Territory entity is required to notify the Minister", insert:

Consistent with the object of protecting and managing Australia's foreign relations, this Act also deals with arrangements between the Australian Olympic Committee and foreign entities, including foreign Olympic bodies which include the International Olympic Committee, national Olympic Committees of countries other than Australia, and Organising Committees of Olympic Games in countries other than Australia. Each of these foreign Olympic bodies is a "foreign entity".

(3) Clause 4, page 4 (line 24) to page 7 (line 16), insert:

Australian Olympic Committee means the Australian Olympic Committee Incorporated, being an association incorporated on 24 June 1991 under the Corporations Act 2001.

foreign Olympic body: see section 8A.

International Olympic Committee means the organisation created by the Congress of Paris on 23 June 1894, being the organisation entrusted with the control and development of the modern Olympic Games.

(4) Clause 7, page 9 (after line 7), after paragraph 7(e), insert:

(ea) the Australian Olympic Committee;

(5) Clause 8, page 10 (after line 4), after paragraph 8(1) (i), insert:

(ia) a foreign Olympic body;

(6) Page 11 (after line 3), after clause 8, insert:

8A Meaning of foreign Olympic body

A foreign entity is a foreign Olympic body if the entity is one of the following:

(a) the International Olympic Committee;

(b) the Executive Board of the International Olympic Committee;

(c) a commission established by the President of the International Olympic Committee;

(d) the national Olympic committee of a country other than Australia;

(e) the organising committee for the Olympic Games in a country other than Australia.

(7) Clause 10, page 11 (line 27), omit "or (c)", substitute ", (c) or (ea)".

(8) Clause 10, page 12 (line 1), omit "or (c)", substitute ", (c) or (ia)".

Just so everyone understands, what these amendments seek to do is to bring within the scope of the bill both the Australian Olympic Committee and foreign Olympic committees—so that could be some foreign Olympic body or, indeed, the International Olympic Committee. I'm going to start off by telling you my motivation for this. All laws are generally designed to deal with controversy, so I just want to give you an example of the controversy that caused me to propose this amendment. It relates to the Beijing 2022 Olympic Winter Games. These winter games will occur in Beijing, and there is no question that the Olympics are the international event. They are used by governments of all types to promote national pride. They're used as a propaganda tool. We here in Australia used the Sydney Olympics as a promotional tool for Australia. In the case of the Beijing Olympics, unfortunately, those Olympics will be run in the shadow of a range of human rights abuses. I will name just a few of those. For example, of course, we have the Uighurs in western China who are being subjected to genocide, to use the words of Mr Joe Biden. We've got the crackdown on freedoms in Hong Kong—and, indeed, right across China. That's another issue that must be of concern to all Australians. We've had the arbitrary detention of foreigners in China, and, indeed, we know that just recently some Australian journalists were harassed, I might say, prior to leaving China.

We cannot stand by and simply observe what is happening and then basically allow the Chinese government to promote their nation to try to improve their national standing by using something like the Olympics. I know some people would say that sports and politics should never be mixed, but the reality is that they are inextricably linked and there is no question that they are. That is seen in the way in which countries promote their nations or their cities in the competitions that lead up to the selection processes and the fact that all of the athletes who attend the Beijing Olympics will have come from places like the Australian Institute of Sport or other organisations that are funded by taxpayers. Mr John Coates wrote to the committee that examined these bills and basically said that we've got to keep politics out of the Olympics. In some sense that's a farcical statement, because, whilst Mr John Coates is the chair of the Australian Olympic Committee, you'll see that the Chinese Olympic committee is stacked with CCP members—indeed, the head of their committee is, in fact, the Chinese minister for sport. To try to suggest that the Olympic arrangements are pure and divorced from any politics is just ridiculous. It is a huge business.

Some people may have a different opinion. They might say, 'I think you're wrong, Rex, and we should attend the Beijing 2022 Olympics.' I want to make it very clear that my amendments do not invoke a boycott of the Beijing 2022 Olympics. My amendments bring together those bodies within the scope of the bill so that the government, should it wish to, can initiate a boycott. It simply puts a card into the minister's back pocket for when we get to the point where others recognise what is happening in China. The British Foreign Secretary has raised concerns about participation in the Olympics, and I think that movement will grow stronger and stronger as we approach the Beijing 2022 Olympics. It would be good if the minister were able to exercise a power at government level to have Australia boycott the games.

We do not want to leave the decision on boycotting the Beijing 2022 Olympics to the athletes. That puts incredible pressure on those athletes, and that's not an acceptable outcome. We saw that taking place with the Moscow Olympics back in 1936, and we want to make sure that if a decision is made that it's not appropriate to attend the Beijing Olympics—and that's my strong view, because it's not appropriate to feed the Chinese propaganda machine—then that decision can be made by government. That could potentially invoke a range of different measures to compensate athletes, who devote their lives to preparing to attend these sorts of things. I want to be very clear that these amendments do not invoke a boycott; they simply give government an option to call for a boycott.

As I didn't make a contribution to the second reading debate, I might just say that I do support the bills. I support the intent of the bills, but I do have some concerns in relation to granting an executive power without an appropriately balanced judicial review of decisions. In that sense, I may well support some of the amendments and I'll deal with those as they pop up. But, in principle, these bills should, at the final instance, be supported.