Critical incident declared after former Greens candidate Hannah Thomas injured at Sydney protest
A state police watchdog will oversee a probe into a violent arrest at a pro-Palestine rally that left allegedly seriously injured a one-time federal Greens candidate.
The decision on Monday ends days of NSW Police refusals to declare the wounding of Hannah Thomas a critical incident, requiring a full investigation with independent oversight.
WATCH THE VIDEO ABOVE: Probe called into violent arrest at pro-Palestine rally.
The 35-year-old was among five people arrested in Sydney on Friday outside an Australian firm reportedly linked to the manufacture of components for Israeli Defence Force fighter jets.
Police have faced scrutiny over the arrest after Thomas said the action could result in permanent vision loss in her right eye.
On Monday afternoon, NSW Police said a critical incident investigation had been declared after a review of her medical records, which showed her injury was serious enough to warrant the decision.
'NSW Police had sought medical information from the 35-year-old woman, on multiple occasions, since the incident to determine if her injuries had met the critical incident threshold,' a statement said.
A team of officers from another command would investigate the incident, with internal review by professional standards and external oversight from police watchdog the Law Enforcement Conduct Commission.
Earlier, NSW Police Assistant Commissioner Brett McFadden said he had not seen any misconduct on body-worn camera footage of the incident and all officers involved remained on duty.
But lawyer Peter O'Brien, representing Thomas, said he had grave concerns over the force's actions and suggested police felt emboldened to shut down protests after a recent crackdown.
'The recordings demonstrate that there was a fundamental misunderstanding as to the extent of the police officer's powers to give directions leading up to the arrests which ensued,' he said.
'Hannah Thomas has sustained a serious and potentially life-altering injury as a result of her interaction with police at the protest.'
Posting on social media from her hospital bed, Thomas said 'Draconian' anti-protest laws had given police a licence 'to crack down on peaceful protest in extremely violent, brutal ways'.
'I'm five-foot-one, I weigh about 45kg, I was engaged in peaceful protest,' she said.
Premier Chris Minns refused to criticise police conduct until further information came to light, underlining a balance of enforcing the law and allowing freedom of political expression.
The protesters accused a southwest Sydney business of making parts for Israel fighter jets, a claim the firm denies.
Minns denied controversial protest laws passed in February were used by police to move on the demonstrators on Friday morning, as claimed by Greens MPs, or that the laws had emboldened police to act more forcefully.
Police said the protest was unauthorised and blocked access to the Belmore business.
'A scuffle ensued between police and protesters' during attempts to arrest the protesters for not complying with move-on directions, they said.
A video of the incident showed police dragging one of the protesters as onlookers repeatedly shouted 'get off her' and 'let go of her'.
Thomas, who ran second to Prime Minister Anthony Albanese in the inner-west Sydney seat of Grayndler in the federal election in May, was charged with hindering or resisting police and not following a move-on direction.
She is set to appear at Bankstown Local Court in August.
Footage of Ms Thomas circulating online showed her eye swollen shut and with blood on her face before she was taken to hospital.
All five protesters arrested during the scuffle were granted bail and four will appear in Bankstown Local Court on July 15.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Advertiser
18 minutes ago
- The Advertiser
Australians are crying out for a fairer system. Luckily, the road map is right here
Today comes (without much fanfare) the completion of the greatest policy advance for the prosperity and wellbeing of Australia and its people since the nation's inception. After nearly 33 years, the Keating-inspired Superannuation Guarantee Contribution has reached its original proposed maximum of 12 per cent of wages and salaries - the level which will provide dignified retirement for the broad mass of working people. The scheme underpinned by the tax system has built up a massive ($4.1 trillion) investment portfolio. It should reduce the taxpayers' burden on providing retirement income. The Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, Medibank-Medicare, the National Disability Insurance Scheme, the GST, and gun control are equally landmark, but none of those provides so much benefit on both sides of the ledger as the superannuation scheme. The way the scheme was developed and put into effect exemplify many of the obstacles now facing Treasurer Jim Chalmers and his quest for greater productivity and a fairer tax system. As a Keating biographer he should grasp the lessons. Trade-offs. Any reform, most of all tax, requires trade-offs. In 1992, the superannuation proposal came with the first 2 per cent coming from a trade-off with lower wage rises. Indeed, the whole Hawke-Keating economic reform agenda - freer trade, the deregulated financial sector, lower income-tax rates, franking credits, and privatisation - was put into effect with a series of trade-offs. Superannuation and Medicare were essential parts. John Howard's assertions that it was only his agreement that allowed it to happen is not quite right. The Coalition only agreed to the parts that benefited business and the well-off: lower taxes and lower tariffs and deregulating the financial system. It vigorously fought Medicare, superannuation and other worker benefits, without which no Labor caucus would have agreed to many of the financial changes. So, any increases to consumption taxes must be traded for significant reductions in tax on lower incomes and significant increases in pensions and welfare. Gradualism: The distant future is the reformer's friend. If changes are legislated to come in at a future date, the heat goes off. People in favour of change are often only lukewarm about it, whereas those against it are usually vehemently against. This is because potential losers see immediate loss and potential winners are sceptical of future gains until they actually get them. The support, even if lukewarm, of potential winners remains unchanged if the winning is to come much later. The heat of the opposition, however, cools if the changes are seen as a long way off. So, any changes to taxing capital should be staged. Opposition: Expect the Coalition and the Greens to oppose and cherry-pick as they have done the past. Any proposal for tax changes will be met with the Coalition supporting the lower-taxing bits and opposing tax increases that affect the well-off. And the Greens will seek higher taxes and a greater government role. The Greens are notorious for allowing the pursuit of their idea of the perfect defeat what most people would see as the good. The Coalition will oppose anything that puts the collective over the individual. At present, the Government needs either the support of the Greens or the support of the Coalition to get anything through the Senate. But there is a way through this which was deliciously illustrated by the history of the stage three tax cuts. When faced with the prospect of enacted law delivering something the Greens opposed, they joined with Labor to at least water it down rather than let it remain, even if they did not get everything they demand. Thus, the unfair stage three tax cuts were changed. This could work with the Coalition as well. Take the superannuation changes, for example. Say the Greens demand a $2 million threshold for the higher tax rate rather than the $3 million the Government proposes. And the Coalition opposes the $3 million threshold outright. The government's proposed new super tax would face defeat. But if, instead of walking away, the government agreed to legislate the Greens demands, it could then turn to the Coalition and say: "Would you like to amend this enacted legislation back to Labor's $3 million threshold, or would you like to be blamed for hitting your wealthy constituency with more super tax than they need have." Bingo, the Coalition would agree to the $3 million threshold, and it would become law rather than allowing the Greens and the Coalition to gang up to defeat reform from the extremes. Playing off and bluffing the Greens and Coalition like this may look cynical but will become a necessary part of getting much needed reform through. Australia must tax capital and consumption more and income less. We are taxing people whose earnings put them below the poverty line. We are allowing people on million-dollar incomes to pay no income tax and to pay consumption tax at 10 per cent or zero on a lot of things to which the GST should apply: school fees, health products, and fresh food. We are taxing employment with payroll tax and efficient use of housing through stamp duties. Expect white-anting and be prepared to reverse the changes. The Coalition has white-anted Medicare and superannuation from the get-go - age penalties, tax-deductible private insurance, age penalties, SMSFs, dental and housing withdrawals from super and so on. None has been reversed. The lot should go. READ MORE CRISPIN HULL: Unforeseen consequences. Every tax change will be met with a change in behaviour. The combination of cash franking credits; capital-gains discounts; trusts; negative gearing; and self-managed superannuation has led to the flocking to these avoidance devices and a massive bleeding of the tax base which has compromised the way the government can deliver services. It will be difficult, but Australians are waiting for a fairer system, and the lessons from superannuation show the way. Today comes (without much fanfare) the completion of the greatest policy advance for the prosperity and wellbeing of Australia and its people since the nation's inception. After nearly 33 years, the Keating-inspired Superannuation Guarantee Contribution has reached its original proposed maximum of 12 per cent of wages and salaries - the level which will provide dignified retirement for the broad mass of working people. The scheme underpinned by the tax system has built up a massive ($4.1 trillion) investment portfolio. It should reduce the taxpayers' burden on providing retirement income. The Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, Medibank-Medicare, the National Disability Insurance Scheme, the GST, and gun control are equally landmark, but none of those provides so much benefit on both sides of the ledger as the superannuation scheme. The way the scheme was developed and put into effect exemplify many of the obstacles now facing Treasurer Jim Chalmers and his quest for greater productivity and a fairer tax system. As a Keating biographer he should grasp the lessons. Trade-offs. Any reform, most of all tax, requires trade-offs. In 1992, the superannuation proposal came with the first 2 per cent coming from a trade-off with lower wage rises. Indeed, the whole Hawke-Keating economic reform agenda - freer trade, the deregulated financial sector, lower income-tax rates, franking credits, and privatisation - was put into effect with a series of trade-offs. Superannuation and Medicare were essential parts. John Howard's assertions that it was only his agreement that allowed it to happen is not quite right. The Coalition only agreed to the parts that benefited business and the well-off: lower taxes and lower tariffs and deregulating the financial system. It vigorously fought Medicare, superannuation and other worker benefits, without which no Labor caucus would have agreed to many of the financial changes. So, any increases to consumption taxes must be traded for significant reductions in tax on lower incomes and significant increases in pensions and welfare. Gradualism: The distant future is the reformer's friend. If changes are legislated to come in at a future date, the heat goes off. People in favour of change are often only lukewarm about it, whereas those against it are usually vehemently against. This is because potential losers see immediate loss and potential winners are sceptical of future gains until they actually get them. The support, even if lukewarm, of potential winners remains unchanged if the winning is to come much later. The heat of the opposition, however, cools if the changes are seen as a long way off. So, any changes to taxing capital should be staged. Opposition: Expect the Coalition and the Greens to oppose and cherry-pick as they have done the past. Any proposal for tax changes will be met with the Coalition supporting the lower-taxing bits and opposing tax increases that affect the well-off. And the Greens will seek higher taxes and a greater government role. The Greens are notorious for allowing the pursuit of their idea of the perfect defeat what most people would see as the good. The Coalition will oppose anything that puts the collective over the individual. At present, the Government needs either the support of the Greens or the support of the Coalition to get anything through the Senate. But there is a way through this which was deliciously illustrated by the history of the stage three tax cuts. When faced with the prospect of enacted law delivering something the Greens opposed, they joined with Labor to at least water it down rather than let it remain, even if they did not get everything they demand. Thus, the unfair stage three tax cuts were changed. This could work with the Coalition as well. Take the superannuation changes, for example. Say the Greens demand a $2 million threshold for the higher tax rate rather than the $3 million the Government proposes. And the Coalition opposes the $3 million threshold outright. The government's proposed new super tax would face defeat. But if, instead of walking away, the government agreed to legislate the Greens demands, it could then turn to the Coalition and say: "Would you like to amend this enacted legislation back to Labor's $3 million threshold, or would you like to be blamed for hitting your wealthy constituency with more super tax than they need have." Bingo, the Coalition would agree to the $3 million threshold, and it would become law rather than allowing the Greens and the Coalition to gang up to defeat reform from the extremes. Playing off and bluffing the Greens and Coalition like this may look cynical but will become a necessary part of getting much needed reform through. Australia must tax capital and consumption more and income less. We are taxing people whose earnings put them below the poverty line. We are allowing people on million-dollar incomes to pay no income tax and to pay consumption tax at 10 per cent or zero on a lot of things to which the GST should apply: school fees, health products, and fresh food. We are taxing employment with payroll tax and efficient use of housing through stamp duties. Expect white-anting and be prepared to reverse the changes. The Coalition has white-anted Medicare and superannuation from the get-go - age penalties, tax-deductible private insurance, age penalties, SMSFs, dental and housing withdrawals from super and so on. None has been reversed. The lot should go. READ MORE CRISPIN HULL: Unforeseen consequences. Every tax change will be met with a change in behaviour. The combination of cash franking credits; capital-gains discounts; trusts; negative gearing; and self-managed superannuation has led to the flocking to these avoidance devices and a massive bleeding of the tax base which has compromised the way the government can deliver services. It will be difficult, but Australians are waiting for a fairer system, and the lessons from superannuation show the way. Today comes (without much fanfare) the completion of the greatest policy advance for the prosperity and wellbeing of Australia and its people since the nation's inception. After nearly 33 years, the Keating-inspired Superannuation Guarantee Contribution has reached its original proposed maximum of 12 per cent of wages and salaries - the level which will provide dignified retirement for the broad mass of working people. The scheme underpinned by the tax system has built up a massive ($4.1 trillion) investment portfolio. It should reduce the taxpayers' burden on providing retirement income. The Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, Medibank-Medicare, the National Disability Insurance Scheme, the GST, and gun control are equally landmark, but none of those provides so much benefit on both sides of the ledger as the superannuation scheme. The way the scheme was developed and put into effect exemplify many of the obstacles now facing Treasurer Jim Chalmers and his quest for greater productivity and a fairer tax system. As a Keating biographer he should grasp the lessons. Trade-offs. Any reform, most of all tax, requires trade-offs. In 1992, the superannuation proposal came with the first 2 per cent coming from a trade-off with lower wage rises. Indeed, the whole Hawke-Keating economic reform agenda - freer trade, the deregulated financial sector, lower income-tax rates, franking credits, and privatisation - was put into effect with a series of trade-offs. Superannuation and Medicare were essential parts. John Howard's assertions that it was only his agreement that allowed it to happen is not quite right. The Coalition only agreed to the parts that benefited business and the well-off: lower taxes and lower tariffs and deregulating the financial system. It vigorously fought Medicare, superannuation and other worker benefits, without which no Labor caucus would have agreed to many of the financial changes. So, any increases to consumption taxes must be traded for significant reductions in tax on lower incomes and significant increases in pensions and welfare. Gradualism: The distant future is the reformer's friend. If changes are legislated to come in at a future date, the heat goes off. People in favour of change are often only lukewarm about it, whereas those against it are usually vehemently against. This is because potential losers see immediate loss and potential winners are sceptical of future gains until they actually get them. The support, even if lukewarm, of potential winners remains unchanged if the winning is to come much later. The heat of the opposition, however, cools if the changes are seen as a long way off. So, any changes to taxing capital should be staged. Opposition: Expect the Coalition and the Greens to oppose and cherry-pick as they have done the past. Any proposal for tax changes will be met with the Coalition supporting the lower-taxing bits and opposing tax increases that affect the well-off. And the Greens will seek higher taxes and a greater government role. The Greens are notorious for allowing the pursuit of their idea of the perfect defeat what most people would see as the good. The Coalition will oppose anything that puts the collective over the individual. At present, the Government needs either the support of the Greens or the support of the Coalition to get anything through the Senate. But there is a way through this which was deliciously illustrated by the history of the stage three tax cuts. When faced with the prospect of enacted law delivering something the Greens opposed, they joined with Labor to at least water it down rather than let it remain, even if they did not get everything they demand. Thus, the unfair stage three tax cuts were changed. This could work with the Coalition as well. Take the superannuation changes, for example. Say the Greens demand a $2 million threshold for the higher tax rate rather than the $3 million the Government proposes. And the Coalition opposes the $3 million threshold outright. The government's proposed new super tax would face defeat. But if, instead of walking away, the government agreed to legislate the Greens demands, it could then turn to the Coalition and say: "Would you like to amend this enacted legislation back to Labor's $3 million threshold, or would you like to be blamed for hitting your wealthy constituency with more super tax than they need have." Bingo, the Coalition would agree to the $3 million threshold, and it would become law rather than allowing the Greens and the Coalition to gang up to defeat reform from the extremes. Playing off and bluffing the Greens and Coalition like this may look cynical but will become a necessary part of getting much needed reform through. Australia must tax capital and consumption more and income less. We are taxing people whose earnings put them below the poverty line. We are allowing people on million-dollar incomes to pay no income tax and to pay consumption tax at 10 per cent or zero on a lot of things to which the GST should apply: school fees, health products, and fresh food. We are taxing employment with payroll tax and efficient use of housing through stamp duties. Expect white-anting and be prepared to reverse the changes. The Coalition has white-anted Medicare and superannuation from the get-go - age penalties, tax-deductible private insurance, age penalties, SMSFs, dental and housing withdrawals from super and so on. None has been reversed. The lot should go. READ MORE CRISPIN HULL: Unforeseen consequences. Every tax change will be met with a change in behaviour. The combination of cash franking credits; capital-gains discounts; trusts; negative gearing; and self-managed superannuation has led to the flocking to these avoidance devices and a massive bleeding of the tax base which has compromised the way the government can deliver services. It will be difficult, but Australians are waiting for a fairer system, and the lessons from superannuation show the way. Today comes (without much fanfare) the completion of the greatest policy advance for the prosperity and wellbeing of Australia and its people since the nation's inception. After nearly 33 years, the Keating-inspired Superannuation Guarantee Contribution has reached its original proposed maximum of 12 per cent of wages and salaries - the level which will provide dignified retirement for the broad mass of working people. The scheme underpinned by the tax system has built up a massive ($4.1 trillion) investment portfolio. It should reduce the taxpayers' burden on providing retirement income. The Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, Medibank-Medicare, the National Disability Insurance Scheme, the GST, and gun control are equally landmark, but none of those provides so much benefit on both sides of the ledger as the superannuation scheme. The way the scheme was developed and put into effect exemplify many of the obstacles now facing Treasurer Jim Chalmers and his quest for greater productivity and a fairer tax system. As a Keating biographer he should grasp the lessons. Trade-offs. Any reform, most of all tax, requires trade-offs. In 1992, the superannuation proposal came with the first 2 per cent coming from a trade-off with lower wage rises. Indeed, the whole Hawke-Keating economic reform agenda - freer trade, the deregulated financial sector, lower income-tax rates, franking credits, and privatisation - was put into effect with a series of trade-offs. Superannuation and Medicare were essential parts. John Howard's assertions that it was only his agreement that allowed it to happen is not quite right. The Coalition only agreed to the parts that benefited business and the well-off: lower taxes and lower tariffs and deregulating the financial system. It vigorously fought Medicare, superannuation and other worker benefits, without which no Labor caucus would have agreed to many of the financial changes. So, any increases to consumption taxes must be traded for significant reductions in tax on lower incomes and significant increases in pensions and welfare. Gradualism: The distant future is the reformer's friend. If changes are legislated to come in at a future date, the heat goes off. People in favour of change are often only lukewarm about it, whereas those against it are usually vehemently against. This is because potential losers see immediate loss and potential winners are sceptical of future gains until they actually get them. The support, even if lukewarm, of potential winners remains unchanged if the winning is to come much later. The heat of the opposition, however, cools if the changes are seen as a long way off. So, any changes to taxing capital should be staged. Opposition: Expect the Coalition and the Greens to oppose and cherry-pick as they have done the past. Any proposal for tax changes will be met with the Coalition supporting the lower-taxing bits and opposing tax increases that affect the well-off. And the Greens will seek higher taxes and a greater government role. The Greens are notorious for allowing the pursuit of their idea of the perfect defeat what most people would see as the good. The Coalition will oppose anything that puts the collective over the individual. At present, the Government needs either the support of the Greens or the support of the Coalition to get anything through the Senate. But there is a way through this which was deliciously illustrated by the history of the stage three tax cuts. When faced with the prospect of enacted law delivering something the Greens opposed, they joined with Labor to at least water it down rather than let it remain, even if they did not get everything they demand. Thus, the unfair stage three tax cuts were changed. This could work with the Coalition as well. Take the superannuation changes, for example. Say the Greens demand a $2 million threshold for the higher tax rate rather than the $3 million the Government proposes. And the Coalition opposes the $3 million threshold outright. The government's proposed new super tax would face defeat. But if, instead of walking away, the government agreed to legislate the Greens demands, it could then turn to the Coalition and say: "Would you like to amend this enacted legislation back to Labor's $3 million threshold, or would you like to be blamed for hitting your wealthy constituency with more super tax than they need have." Bingo, the Coalition would agree to the $3 million threshold, and it would become law rather than allowing the Greens and the Coalition to gang up to defeat reform from the extremes. Playing off and bluffing the Greens and Coalition like this may look cynical but will become a necessary part of getting much needed reform through. Australia must tax capital and consumption more and income less. We are taxing people whose earnings put them below the poverty line. We are allowing people on million-dollar incomes to pay no income tax and to pay consumption tax at 10 per cent or zero on a lot of things to which the GST should apply: school fees, health products, and fresh food. We are taxing employment with payroll tax and efficient use of housing through stamp duties. Expect white-anting and be prepared to reverse the changes. The Coalition has white-anted Medicare and superannuation from the get-go - age penalties, tax-deductible private insurance, age penalties, SMSFs, dental and housing withdrawals from super and so on. None has been reversed. The lot should go. READ MORE CRISPIN HULL: Unforeseen consequences. Every tax change will be met with a change in behaviour. The combination of cash franking credits; capital-gains discounts; trusts; negative gearing; and self-managed superannuation has led to the flocking to these avoidance devices and a massive bleeding of the tax base which has compromised the way the government can deliver services. It will be difficult, but Australians are waiting for a fairer system, and the lessons from superannuation show the way.
ABC News
32 minutes ago
- ABC News
YouGov poll has Labor ahead of Liberals in Tasmania but well short of majority
Early election campaign opinion polling suggests Tasmania is on track for another minority government which could be even further in minority than the previous government. A YouGov poll of 1,287 Tasmanian voters from June 12 to 24 put Labor on 34 per cent of the statewide first preference vote, the Liberals on 31 per cent, independents on 18 per cent and the Greens at 13 per cent. It's one of the first surveys of voting intention to be released during the state election campaign. The result has Labor up 5 per cent from last year's state election, the Liberals down 5.7 per cent, and the Greens relatively steady. The independent vote is 8.4 per cent higher than at the last election, but the poll does not measure support for individual candidates as it was conducted before nominations closed, with respondents indicating support for a generic independent. YouGov's Paul Smith said if the result was replicated at the election, Labor could end up with one or two seats more than the Liberals. "It's early days in this election, but I would see Labor as getting around 14 seats, and the Liberals 12 to 13, and the rest spread across the Greens and independents," he said. Statewide, the difference between the two major parties was less than the poll's 3.4 per cent margin of error. Parties need 18 seats to reach majority in the 35-seat lower house, with seven MPs elected in each of the five electorates under the Hare-Clark voting system. The Liberals have governed with 14 seats since the last election, with confidence and supply agreements in place with crossbenchers, some of whom are progressive. The poll shows the Liberals ahead in Bass and marginally leading in Braddon, the parties polled evenly in Lyons, while Labor has significantly more support in Franklin and Clark. The gap between the parties was similar to an EMRS poll from mid-May, before the election was called, which had Labor on 31 per cent, the Liberals on 29, independents on 17 and the Greens on 14. That poll included the Jacqui Lambie Network (JLN) on 6 per cent, but the party is not running candidates in this election. YouGov also asked voters to rank their top three issues at the election, with 22 per cent listing 'investing more in health' as their number one issue, followed by 14 per cent wanting more public housing. The 'pro' and 'anti' Macquarie Point stadium answers were listed separately, but when combined as a single issue, they reached 21 per cent. This showed 12 per cent of respondents listing opposition to the stadium as their main issue, and 9 per cent listing their support for the stadium. Mr Smith said the poll showed the majority of Tasmanians wanted the parties to focus on other issues. "[They] provide opportunities for parties and candidates to campaign on those issues and win more votes." Polling analyst Kevin Bonham said the figures showed Labor would get one more seat than the Liberals, and possibly two. But he said it was still a wide-open race. "At the time of this poll, it doesn't show a big clamour towards either side," Dr Bonham said. "It doesn't show anyone looking like having an easy path to forming government. "Labor could be five seats short on those numbers, although it might come up a bit when you account for independents being overestimated." The shape of the crossbench will be a critical factor for the next government. The last parliament included three progressive independents, and three JLN MPs, two of whom later sat as independents. All six are running again — two of the former JLN MPs running for the Nationals, and one as an independent. Anti-salmon farm campaigner Peter George is also running as an independent in Franklin. He received 21.7 per cent of the first preference vote in the federal election.
Sydney Morning Herald
38 minutes ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
This tennis star almost gave up hope of becoming an Australian. Then came a ‘fairytale'
It took a second secret meeting to kickstart Kasatkina's move. Morris made another attempt during this year's Australian Open in January. This time, there was nothing casual about it. After the second approach from Kasatkina's management, Tiley and co. agreed to help make the switch happen, and to do the heavy lifting with the Department of Home Affairs. They supplied her with a letter supporting her application 'for people who have an internationally recognised record of exceptional and outstanding achievement in an eligible area', which includes sport. It's not unusual for athletes to switch allegiances and play for Australia. Kasatkina is not the first athlete, nor even the first tennis player, to do so. But TA remains tight-lipped about the specifics of its involvement in her case, and the Department of Home Affairs does not comment on individual cases. However, a spokesperson told this masthead in April that there was 'no general power to waive or vary the eligibility requirements for Australian citizenship'. Even as the wheels clicked into motion this January, Kasatkina did not find out that TA would support her application until after her tight fourth-round defeat to Emma Navarro, to avoid distraction. 'Australia is one of the best places I've been, honestly,' Kasatkina told this masthead as she prepares to compete at Wimbledon for the first time as an Australian. Loading 'I was going there only for the Aussie swing, but I was always amazed by the level of happiness there, and I was jealous of the people who live there because I have, let's say, [contrasting] examples to compare. This is a fairytale, for sure.' Everything went at warp speed from there. In March, Kasatkina announced that she had gained permanent residency in Australia and would represent her new country from then on. Kasatkina plans to call Melbourne home, and will make the almost 24-hour trip from London to her new city after Wimbledon to, in her words, 'activate' her residency and get the wheels in motion to become a citizen. Of most interest now is when the world No.16 and 2022 Roland-Garros semi-finalist, who has won eight WTA singles titles and $US13.6 million prizemoney, will be able to compete for Australia in the Billie Jean King Cup. A source familiar with the situation, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, told this masthead there was an outside chance that Kasatkina could make her debut for Australia in the BJK Cup playoff in Hobart in November – but there is still great uncertainty. The International Tennis Federation, which does not comment on individual cases, changed the rules from January 1, 2015 to stop players from representing more than one country in the BJK Cup or Davis Cup, but players and/or federations can request an exemption. In Kasatkina's favour is that Russian athletes remain 'stateless' due to the ongoing war in Ukraine. She represented Russia as a junior and won the BJK Cup title as a professional in 2021. Ajla Tomljanovic, who switched allegiances from Croatia to Australia, successfully appealed the rule change on the basis she applied for an Australian passport before it was implemented. However, five years passed between her gaining residency in 2014 and the ITF letting her represent Australia in the BJK Cup. She became a citizen in 2018. Kasatkina has not set foot in Russia since the interview in which she announced her sexuality and revealed that she was in a relationship with champion figure skater Zabiiako, who travels everywhere with her. The pair recently announced their engagement. She is hopeful of being allowed to represent Australia in November. 'But you never know. We cannot say yes, or no. We're in the process, and let's see how it's going to turn out, if it's going to be that quick. I mean, it's sort of a miracle, but I'm a kid [at heart], so I believe in miracles.' If that does not eventuate, Kasatkina's first chance to compete in front of her new fans will be at next year's Australian Open, a prospect she has already thought about. 'It's a bit stressful. Honestly, I never experienced that amount of support for me,' she said. 'Coming to the slams and seeing how they treat the locals, in terms of support, I always wondered how I would feel to have a home slam and a home crowd. I never thought it was going to happen … but it's going to be big – a huge, massive motivation, and it can only bring you up.' Loading Being Australian marks a new beginning and has already brought experiences she never had before, from increased media attention to a fresh legion of fans and importantly, freedom to be open about her relationship. At the same time, Kasatkina conceded it was heartbreaking to officially break ties with Russia. Last year, she told CBS News that she worried about her parents, who decided to stay in Russia. Three of her brothers have left the country. She said she hoped they would not suffer reprisals over her actions. Aside from worry for her family, it's also difficult for her to leave the land of her birth. 'Growing up there, and now saying bye to this part, it's very difficult,' Kasatkina said. 'But life gives you challenges, and here I am. I found my family on my own, and I found my place on my own. I'm just happy this place [Australia] is accepting others and in harmony with everyone. 'I think that's actually what amazed me the most in Australia – the Australian mentality that everyone is accepted, and everyone knows how to communicate with each other. Of course, it's tough, but after a night, there's always a sunrise.'
