The Boot
The Boot
Djokovic refused entry to Australia amid a bizarre 48 hours for tennis
One of the weirder 48 hours in tennis history.
If you’re already familiar with what’s happened feel free to skip to the line divider further down.
For those that have somehow avoided the news, Djokovic, seeking to enter Melbourne airport to begin his Australian Open preparations, spent eight hours holed up in discussions with border security over his documentation, resultantly had his visa cancelled, and was then sent to immigration detention in Melbourne awaiting deportation. Djokovic’s lawyers subsequently secured an interim injunction that prevents Australian authorities deporting him until Monday, when a more substantive hearing is scheduled in the Federal Circuit Court.
This bizarre series of events all focuses around Djokovic’s attempt to enter Australia with an exemption from vaccination, widely speculated to centre around Djokovic having potentially contracted COVID in the past six months (a fairly common exemption criteria for many countries and the most common exemption reason for incoming Australian travellers). The other available criteria for exemptions are an inflammatory cardiac issue, recent or upcoming major surgery, or a previous adverse reaction to a COVID-19 vaccine.
Djokovic was told by Tennis Australia, and the two separate independent panels of medical experts who review exemption applications, that he had the green light to travel to Melbourne. Upon arrival however, the green light immediately turned red. Firstly we heard that Tennis Australia health officials had admitted that the ‘expert panels’ who grant the exemptions do not look at the origin or veracity of the health documents supporting the exemption. And finally, the Australian Health Minister, Greg Hunt, provided the definitive reason for the visa being cancelled as Djokovic failing to provide 'appropriate standards of proof' to enter the country. In response, ‘sources close to’ Tennis Australia suggested that this was a politically motivated decision, declaring that multiple other players had already been let in to the country under similar visas and exemption criteria:
“I don’t know how the feds will [address the fact that] several tennis players are already in the country with the same exemption granted to Novak. This looks to us like the feds are responding to the media by letting some players in but not the world No.1.”
In response to this, Home Affairs Minister Karen Andrews confirmed that Border Force was now investigating the other exempted players that had already been let through:
“I’m aware of those allegations, and I can assure you that the Australian Border Force is investigating that now. ABF needs the opportunity to be able to conduct its investigation. But if the evidence is not there, then they will take the appropriate action (deportation).”
The Age however reported the following:
Three sources familiar with Djokovic’s paperwork on arrival, speaking anonymously to detail confidential documentation, said evidence to support the player’s exemption was “minimal” and was only supported by one doctor. They said it was far less substantive than that of the other player and official who entered the country with the same vaccine exemption. The other player and the official had more than one doctor supporting their claims of prior COVID infection, while one source said most of Djokovic’s paperwork was on a Tennis Australia letterhead. When border officials asked him and the Victorian government to supply more documentation, none was produced.
And a senior commonwealth source added:
“It was totally insufficient and he (Djokovic) couldn’t produce anything new. What else were we meant to do in the situation?”
The crux of the problem seems to lie in a miscommunication between Tennis Australia alongside the Victoria government and the Federal government alongside border control. I have no doubt that both Tennis Australia and Djokovic believed his entry was already secured. But Home Affairs Minister Karen Andrews disagreed:
“While the Victorian government and Tennis Australia may permit a non-vaccinated player to compete in the Australian Open, it is the Commonwealth government that will enforce our requirements at the Australian border. If an arriving individual is not vaccinated, they must provide acceptable proof that they cannot be vaccinated for medical reasons to be able to access the same travel arrangement as fully vaccinated travellers.”
Further muddying the waters were previous communications, over a month prior, between Health Minster Greg Hunt and Tennis Australia CEO Craig Tiley stating that:
“In relation to your specific questions, I can confirm that people who contracted Covid-19 within the past six months and seek to enter Australia from overseas, and have not received two doses of a Therapeutic Goods Administration-approved or recognised vaccine, are not considered fully vaccinated.'
Further communication between Tiley and Australia’s COVID task-force noted:
“ATAGI notes that natural immunity from past infection is recognised in several countries, however ATAGI also notes the challenge of confirming past infection and uncertainties of the duration of protection. While evidence suggests past infection reduces the risk of reinfection for at least six months (and thus may be regarded as a temporary exemption for vaccination for a maximum of six months), ATAGI advises that two doses of a COVID-19 vaccine (or one dose of the Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine) according to a recommended schedule is required in order to be considered fully vaccinated.
ATAGI is not responsible for border control issues, however the Australian Border Force has advised that people must meet the fully vaccinated definition set by ATAGI to gain quarantine-free entry into Australia. This means that people who fall into any of the above three (exemption) categories will not necessarily be approved for quarantine-free entry, regardless of whether they have received foreign vaccination exemptions.
Confusingly, in the official ATAGI (Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation) documentation, recent COVID infection is clearly listed as grounds for exemption.
The simplest explanation here is that the exemption was applied for and approved prior to travel, leading both Tennis Australia and Djokovic to believe he had a right to enter the country, but that discretion to actually process and accept that exemption was then a separate procedure while trying to cross the border into Australia. The listed exemptions above aren’t guidelines to be able to enter Australia unvaccinated. They’re merely the rules for a medical exemption to be recorded in the Australian Immunisation Register. The latter usually enables the former, but it still appears to be discretionary.
This leaves the following two options. Either Djokovic’s documentation proving why he was eligible to be exempt was truly unsatisfactory, or Djokovic was a victim of a politicisation of his attempt to enter Australia. If the latter is true, then Djokovic, aside from deserving sympathy for being used as a political pawn, will be regretting the rather odd social media post loudly declaring his medical exemption just before he got on the plane, which was the initial catalyst for the flurry of raging headlines surrounding his arrival in Australia. Scott Morrison’s contradictory comments and tweets over the past two days certainly suggest an element of political point-playing. It may not be a coincidence that the other players who made it into Australia with exemptions did so extremely quietly.
Of course this entire saga could have been avoided had Djokovic been vaccinated like the other 95% of the top 100 ATP players, as Nadal noted earlier today. But two things can be true simultaneously: if Djokovic had no good reason to avoid vaccination over the past year, then he’s responsible for risking the more difficult route of exemption based travel, and its potential pitfalls compared to the smoother travel process of a vaccinated player. But Djokovic also does have grounds to feel mistreated. Short of vaccination there’s not much more Djokovic could have done if he was assured by Tennis Australia that his entry into the country was secured with completed paperwork (considering all of Djokovic’s entrance documents are reported to have been on Tennis Australia letterheads, it’s likely that Tennis Australia filled out most of the documentation themselves).
The fallout
After all of this unfolded, compounding waves of reactions crashed as news of what had happened went mainstream around the world. The incident became a diplomatic incident when Serbian President Aleksandar Vučić claimed that Australian officials were ‘harassing’ Djokovic and that ‘Serbia will fight for Novak Djokovic, for justice and truth.’ Djokovic’s father managed to surpass his own track record of vicarious God complexes by claiming that “Jesus was crucified... and he is still alive among us. They try to crucify Novak in the same way: to belittle him, to throw him to his knees, to do everything to him...but he'll bear it." The hotel where Djokovic is being held in immigration detention has seen protesters with Serbian flags outside, however the hotel also happens to contain actual refugees, some of which have reportedly been detained for thousands of days. Bizarre scenes include Djokovic fans holding candlelight vigils, outside what has been dubbed ‘Park Prison’, to support their favourite player who has been detained for less than a day, whilst being side-eyed by those supporting the release of refugees in dire straits:
All of this is frankly insane.
You can certainly debate the efficacy of vaccine mandates that have partially framed this situation, especially in light of recent epidemiology that notes there isn’t as much difference in transmissibility of the virus between unvaccinated and vaccinated people as originally thought. But considering Australia is currently dealing with a spike in COVID cases, its people have endured extremely strict lockdowns for much of the past year, and reducing strain on hospitals (which house far more unvaccinated than vaccinated patients) is of paramount importance, one can completely understand why Australians don’t seem to like the idea of a famous tennis player publicly touting a vaccination exemption on the way into their country. It’s simply bad messaging against the current backdrop of a pandemic, regardless of whether Novak presents an increased risk to the people of Australia or not. As has happened many times in Djokovic’s career, a failure of basic PR has compounded the situation. There is no doubt Djokovic has received myriad unfair reporting and bias over the years, but his unwillingness to mitigate any of it with basic communication strategy has only made it, and instances like this, far worse. His father likening his son’s immigration troubles to Jesus being crucified is unlikely to garner much sympathy. But then again, perhaps the world No.1 values the lack of a polished PR facade more than he suffers the fallout of instances like this. After all, he’s certainly been more interesting and earnest to listen to than many other players over recent years.
While there have been plenty of observers decrying the loss of personal freedoms, it should be restated that Djokovic is currently free to live without vaccination. He is merely encouraged to get vaccinated in order to easily travel and play international tennis for a living. Two other players who didn’t want to be vaccinated, Pierre-Hugues Herbert and Tennys Sandgren, both decided against travelling to Australia for this exact reason. There’s a chance that COVID vaccination may end up as more of a choice to specifically protect the individual rather than the wider population, at least when health systems aren’t in a state of being overwhelmed, but for now, against the inevitable backdrop of concern on the back of two years of a once-in-a-lifetime pandemic, getting vaccinated in order to be able to travel smoothly doesn’t seem like a sufficiently arduous roadblock for tennis players unless they have legitimate medical conditions.
Should Djokovic have been better advised of the communications between Tennis Australia and the Australian Health Department? Yes. Is it unfair if other players made it through the border with similar exemptions to Novak? Yes. But is coming to a country on the back of loud social media post which was inevitably politicised, and having to rely on multiple bureaucratic agencies communicating smoothly, a risk? Also yes. There have been conspiracy theories abound about why all this unfolded the way it did, but when considering the options of bureaucratic failure and basic human error or wild conspiracy theories, the former is usually the safer default. People get stuff wrong, miscommunication happens, humans are dumb.
I still feel bad for Djokovic, especially as his intentions were almost certainly pure on the back of assurances made by Tennis Australia. It’s not unreasonable for him to have assumed a smooth entry into Melbourne considering precedent, and the last 24 hours of detention must have certainly felt like an injustice. I also still think there’s a decent chance the Serb will end up being able to play the Australian Open given the visible path of allowing other travellers in who have qualified for the 6-month-COVID infection exemption (unless something has gone wrong with his proof of prior infection). But looking forward the professional tennis tour is going to be a tough place for unvaccinated players in 2022, and lord knows no one wants a repeat of this in Paris or New York (Wimbledon is unlikely to find similar issues with exempted players).
Most fans would like to see as strong a field as possible play the Australian Open and for Djokovic to be able to attempt to defend his title. No one has come out ahead after the last two days, not the seemingly muddled Australian authorities, and not the rather laissez-faire approach of Djokovic while entering a pandemic scarred country.
Tennis remains a deeply odd sport at the moment, after all this is the anniversary of a similar sized PR shitstorm around the Australian Open at the start of last year. But, to zoom out, we’re still in the midst of a deeply odd and unusual time for all of humanity, let alone sport.
And so, oddness compounds. React accordingly.
— MW
Twitter: @mattracquet
I’ll see paid subscribers on Sunday for ATP Cup final analysis.
The Racquet goes out twice a week, a (free) piece every Thursday and a (paid) analysis piece every Sunday/Monday. You can subscribe here:
Bottom: Darrian Traynor/Getty
// Looking for more?
Most recent:
Djokovic certainly bears some blame for being a complete fruitcake, however I think the lion's share belongs with Tennis Australia. Why? Because TA clearly told Djoker, "she'll be right," assuming that his star power would be enough to smooth over any issues - despite the crystal clear advice they had to the contrary.
I understand why that would assume that. Djokovic and other star players for example did not have to deal with the same quarantine issues other players had last year. More damningly, my government has a solid track record of making special exemptions for rich/connected folk throughout the pandemic, with a cavalcade of celebrities and millionaires experiencing only minimal difficulty travelling during the lockdown both interstate and internationally. This was at a time when I, as a citizen, was essentially blocked from going home, mind you.
But TA didn't bargain on Novak's silly insta post, the skyrocketing cases and consequent fury of the public, and finally the desperation of a deeply unpopular federal government to latch onto something - anything - to take attention away from their shambolic handling of the virus.
Craig Tiley should be resigning, imho.
Bye bye Joker 🃏!!