The Australian Open main tournament began on Monday, 10 January, 2022. Being the world no. 1, Serbian player Novak Djokovic would not have had to play in qualifiers in order to play in the main draw.

An unforseen obstacle, however, proved a stubborn hindrance to him. That was, upon arrival in Australia on Wednesday, 5 January, he was denied entry by immigration officials at Melbourne Airport, taken for questioning throughout the night, and had his visa cancelled in the span of 24 hours.

Source: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Novak_Djokovic_Queen%27s_Club_2018.jpg

Djokovic is the World No. 1

A number of things are not clear. Firstly, that Tennis Australia wanted Djokovic to play. A massive drawcard needed to revitalise Australian Open revenue. Tennis Australia, led by Craig Tiley, who one would mistake as a household name through the media’s reporting of his leadership (ironically, given the lack of an introduction on my part), has been by Djokovic’s side through the affair. Fair enough. They are responsible for running a tournament successfully. Djokovic would categorically add value to the Australian Open.

The State Government has been relatively quiet on this issue. Wisely, given that they are probably the third wheel in the affair. Granted, they were responsible for the independent medical board for assessing vaccine exemptions, but they don’t actually issue visas.

That’s the Federal Government’s responsibility. Borders, stopping the boats, immigration, is, in general, a federal issue. Hotel Quarantine? Maybe. But without a doubt, granting entry into the country is the responsibility of the Department of Immigration and Border Patrol.

But sure. Of course each party has its interests. I’m not going to get into whether I agree with the decision or not. In the end, it’s a loss for the AO, but it will go on nevertheless. Organisers will be keen to get the saga behind them.

Australia’s reputation - depends on who you ask? Personally, I don’t think it’s taken a hit. It’s a sports tournament - important, but not that important. It’s not submarines, or wars, and it’s fair enough that if someone is not following the rules that allow you to entry to a country, they be ejected from the country. As long as the rules are reasonable, which they are (at least in the current climate - imagine if all these rules had been issued pre-pandemic), they won’t spark outrage internationally. A country’s right to sovereign borders must be respected.

The State Government definitely dodged the media bullet. No coverage is good coverage, and in our case, the spotlight was focussed on the Federal Government, specifically Immigration Minister Alex Hawke. He took his time to eject Djokovic, prompting politicians to complain about how long it was taking.

Nevertheless, the Federal Government made the popular decision. Was it an epidemiologically significant one? 1 summer ago, perhaps a covid-positive tennis player would have made a dent in local COVID cases, but in January 2022, in Melbourne, we are getting 10s of thousands of cases every day. While not directly correlated, that Djokovic could provoke anti-vaccination sentiment, the reason given by Minister Hawke for the visa cancellation, is valid, in my opinion, supported by the fact that he was already being seen as a martyr for those against mandatory vaccination. Compounded with the fact that Djokovic was technically against the rules for entry into Australia (even though the Victorian government medical boards had deemed his exemption valid), the whole affair magnifies the fact that health advice is not based purely on science. Nor that it should be, though, honestly. There is no such thing as ‘best possible heatlh advice’ during an unprecendented pandemic. Why did outbreak responses fall along party lines, among the state and territory governments of Australia? The virus certainly has no political affiliation. You could say the Federal Government’s decision is political and that the anti-vaccination-stoking reason for kicking out Djokovic is an excuse - which is fair enough.

Letting him in after claiming to be strong on borders, after Australians couldn’t leave or enter the country during the pandemic, after Australians’ vaccination efforts, would be unpopular with people on all sides of the political spectrum. In fact, it has been described as such, and has also been described as a source of nationalist pride for Australians. A commentator comically described the affair as something that would be short-lived, and that the government would need another incident to uphold it for the future weeks and months.

In my opinion, though, the saddest thing is how much the whole affair was hung out to dry on local, national and international outlets over the next few days. I’m a subscriber of The Age. I was getting updates every day, and they also did a live blog of the Court proceedings. (Funnily enough, the Court proceedings were at the top of YouTube Trending videos in Australia.) It was either the main or second news story for the TV media outlets - the ABC, SBS and the commercial channels, for a couple of days straight.

News Corp’s News.com.au had this article on it, claiming that Health panels set up by Tennis Australia and the Victorian government granted Djokovic an exemption to play in the tournament, sparking widespread public backlash. I’m not sure this is really true. The public didn’t really know about the exemptions process until Djokovic’s visa was cancelled the first time, and whether the public backlash was ‘widespread’ is certainly unsubstantiated. As always, there can be a vocal minority with opinions on inflammatory issues - as this one was. That doesn’t mean most people care, but it does mean that the media can seize upon the loud opinions of a few, turn it into a bigger story than it is, which in turn provokes more people to read about the story and have opinions on it.

Anyway, enough ranting about the Djokovic saga. I’m off to watch the ‘Special K’s’, as they have described, as well as newly crowned Australian of the Year Dylan Alcott, at Rod Laver Arena tomorrow, January 27.