Former immigration minister Alex Hawke cancelled Djokovic’s visa on health and good order grounds, on the basis it was in the public interest to do so.

Djokovic had support from his fans in Serbia, where he is considered a hero and an icon. Serbian state prosecutors rejected accusations that Djokovic used a fake positive test for COVID-19 to try to enter Australia.

Outrage erupted over the fact that Djokovic had originally been given a visa to come to Australia. Outrage also erupted over the detention of Novak for five days in a Melbourne hotel. Lorraine Finlay, human rights commissioner, used the opportunity to state that the human rights and health impacts of hotel detention are serious and well documented.

VIEW ALL

In an interview with The Australian about the possibility of playing in 2023 in Melbourne, Djokovic said that “in terms of the government, yes, I heard the news”.

He said: “But I don’t know anything about whether my visa is going to be reinstated or whether I’m going to be allowed to come back to Australia. I would like to go there and play the Australian Open. I don’t hold any grudges. It was what it was.”

Djokovic said: “If I have an opportunity to go back to Australia and play in a place where I made the biggest success in my career in grand slams, I would love to come back.”

Daniel Estrin, partner at Estrin and Saul, said that the decision to deport Djokovic “didn’t look good for Tennis Australia, which, to the outside world, look like they have bungled the paperwork”.

Questions have been raised about whether a new government under Labor would be conducive to letting Djokovic come to play. 

Mr Estrin said: “I doubt this government would make such draconian decisions [to ban Djokovic from playing]. That is not to say that Labor immigration ministers aren’t tough on immigration (let’s not forget a Labor government brought us mandatory detention and offshore processing), but we’ve just never seen so many visas cancelled as under Dutton, Hawke et al.”

He continued: “I think this new government should heed the words of former (Labor) immigration minister Chris Evans, who said, some 16 years ago, ‘I have formed the view that I have too much power. I think the [Immigration and Citizenship] Act is unlike any other act I have seen in terms of the power given to the minister to make decisions about individual cases. I am uncomfortable with that, not just because of concern about playing God, but also because of the lack of transparency and accountability for those decisions and the lack in some cases of any appeal rights against those decisions’.”

Djokovic would have to go through a number of steps in order to reapply for a visa in Australia.

Mr Estrin said: “Mr Djokovic will have to apply for a subclass 408 visa again, which itself is subject to a three year exclusion period under public interest criterion (PIC) 4013, because of the previous cancellation.

“This criterion can only be waived if there are compelling circumstances affecting the interests of Australia, or an Australian citizen. Policy gives the example of Australia missing out ‘on a significant benefit that the non-citizen could contribute to Australia’s business, economic, cultural or other development (for example, a special skill that is highly sought after in Australia)’.”

Mr Estrin went on: “One would think that having the #1 tennis player play the Australian Open would fit these criteria nicely. Not so the former minister, who, in his cancellation decision, said he did not accept that cancellation would ‘prejudice Australia’s economic interests and jeopardise the viability of Australia’s economic interest’.

“It will be up to a delegate of the minister as to whether to waive (PIC) 4013 and then up to Mr Djokovic whether he decides to come to Australia unvaccinated and comply with quarantine rules, or try the ‘medical contraindication’ strategy again.”

Mr Estrin suggested that steps could have been taken to avoid the high-profile deportation of Djokovic by the previous government. He said that “there were a number of steps the previous government could have taken to avoid the spectacle that ensued”.

“Firstly, it could have simply refused to grant Mr Djokovic a visa under one of the public interest criteria (this would have been less spurious and arguably fairer than cancelling a visa in immigration clearance). Visas are refused for high profile visitors quite frequently (as in the case of Milo [Yiannopoulos]),” he said.

Mr Estrin said: “Secondly, he could have been refused entry onto the plane by one of the Department’s Airline Liaison Officers (ALO) at the port of embarkation. This would arguably have been a much fairer approach than to cancel at the airport after a long flight.” This is an alternative to the embarrassment of Djokovic being turned back at Immigration Detention in Melbourne.

Ultimately, even with a different government, there are not adequate safeguards to make sure similar conflicts do not take place in the future.