Renata Voracova Deportation vs. Djokovic Non-Deportation

[Kralingen]

There seems to be a very obvious inconsistency in the treatment of the two unvaccinated athletes attempting to gain entry to Australia.

Facts:
Both players were granted valid medical exemptions from Victoria and Tennis Australia’s medical panels, issued visas in 2021
Both players are currently unvaccinated but have had COVID in the last 6 months

Entry to Australia:
Voracova was granted entry to Australia, her visa approved, and played in a warm-up tournament, with no issues
Djokovic’s visa was cancelled but then re-instated on appeal and now approved again

So, in objective legal terms, Novak Djokovic’s legal presence in Australia is exactly the same as Renata Voracova’s was before her deportation.

He took the long route to get there, but he is now legally in Australia with an approved visa based upon a medical exemption from vaccination.

Next Steps:
for Voracova, immigration minister Alex Hawke ordered her immediate deportation from Australia on the basis that she was unvaccinated. Being vaccinated is a federal requirement to entry, and crucially, the ABF does not accept 6 months prior COVID infection as a valid medical exemption from being vaccinated. ABF said this verbatim: “All travellers who enter Australia must do so in accordance with our strict laws and entry requirements, regardless of their status or their reasons for entering the country”

Djokovic is now in exactly the same legal standing as Voracova on Thursday before her deportation - in the country but unvaccinated, and not in compliance with Federal ABF entry requirements as a result.

Remember that the verdict of the court case did not rule that Djokovic can legally enter the country because a 6 month prior COVID test was a medical exemption. It simply ruled that Djokovic was mistreated by ABF officials and the cancellation of his visa was technically incorrect.

So, TTW, explain this to me: if Alex Hawke chose to deport Renata Voracova from Australia even though she had her visa approved, had the same medical exemption Djokovic has, and was already in Australia competing.

then why will he not deport Novak Djokovic on the same grounds of being unvaccinated?

TL;DR : Djokovic and Voracova have the exact same legal basis for being in Australia. One was deported even after being granted entry and visa approval, however most believe that the other will not be deported despite the precedent set with Voracova.

What is the legal difference between the presence of Renata Voracova and Novak Djokovic in Australia?

 

[PrinceMoron]

Alex Hawkeye will be calling him out with no possibility of appeal.

 

[vive le beau jeu !]

There seems to be a very obvious inconsistency in the treatment of the two unvaccinated athletes attempting to gain entry to Australia.

Facts:
Both players were granted valid medical exemptions from Victoria and Tennis Australia’s medical panels, issued visas in 2021
Both players are currently unvaccinated but have had COVID in the last 6 months

Entry to Australia:
Voracova was granted entry to Australia, her visa approved, and played in a warm-up tournament, with no issues
Djokovic’s visa was cancelled but then re-instated on appeal and now approved again

So, in objective legal terms, Novak Djokovic’s legal presence in Australia is exactly the same as Renata Voracova’s was before her deportation.

He took the long route to get there, but he is now legally in Australia with an approved visa based upon a medical exemption from vaccination.

Next Steps:
for Voracova, immigration minister Alex Hawke ordered her immediate deportation from Australia on the basis that she was unvaccinated. Being vaccinated is a federal requirement to entry, and crucially, the ABF does not accept 6 months prior COVID infection as a valid medical exemption from being vaccinated. ABF said this verbatim: “All travellers who enter Australia must do so in accordance with our strict laws and entry requirements, regardless of their status or their reasons for entering the country”

Djokovic is now in exactly the same legal standing as Voracova on Thursday before her deportation - in the country but unvaccinated, and not in compliance with Federal ABF entry requirements as a result.

Remember that the verdict of the court case did not rule that Djokovic can legally enter the country because a 6 month prior COVID test was a medical exemption. It simply ruled that Djokovic was mistreated by ABF officials and the cancellation of his visa was technically incorrect.

So, TTW, explain this to me: if Alex Hawke chose to deport Renata Voracova from Australia even though she had her visa approved, had the same medical exemption Djokovic has, and was already in Australia competing.

then why will he not deport Novak Djokovic on the same grounds of being unvaccinated?

TL;DR : Djokovic and Voracova have the exact same legal basis for being in Australia. One was deported even after being granted entry and visa approval, however most believe that the other will not be deported despite the precedent set with Voracova.

What is the legal difference between the presence of Renata Voracova and Novak Djokovic in Australia?

 

[aldeayeah]

Victoria meekly bowed out while Djokovic litigated. Otherwise they'd both be at home now.

 

[Kralingen]

Victoria meekly bowed out while Djokovic litigated. Otherwise they'd both be at home now.

But his litigation victory was solely focused on the fact that ABF denied him rights and unlawfully cancelled his visa the first time around.

Now he has an approved visa, and Voracova also had an approved visa. The court did not touch whether the 6 month COVID infection was a valid medical exemption from an unvaccinated player entering Australia. Currently, federal entry requirements stipulate vaccination and do not accept the 6 month COVID as an exemption.

So, I am assuming that the basis for Voracova’s deportation should apply equally to Djokovic currently, now that his visa has been re approved.

If not, why was Voracova deported for not meeting federal entry requirements? Djokovic also currently does not meet those exact federal entry requirements.

 

[MurraysMetalHip]

The big difference between the two is £££££££££££$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

 

[Cupcake]

She voluntarily stopped fighting it and freely left. He had the money to hire good lawyers and stayed for the appeal.

 

[Milanez82]

Hawke has to decide is Djokovic a health threat to the public and is it in public interest to deport him.

Its a really simple decision.

Renata forego her right to appeal when she saw the hotel.

 

[GameSetDjokovic]

Hawke has to decide is Djokovic a health threat to the public and is it in public interest to deport him.

Its a really simple decision.

Renata forego her right to appeal when she saw the hotel.

Healthy individual is a health threat to the public.

 

[Kralingen]

Hawke has to decide is Djokovic a health threat to the public and is it in public interest to deport him.

Its a really simple decision.

Renata forego her right to appeal when she saw the hotel.

Let me put it as simply as possible:

Hawke has ALREADY DETERMINED that not being vaccinated is a health threat to the public in his decision to deport Voracova. The reason she was deported was not meeting the federal entry requirement of vaccination.

Hawke has already ruled on this. Why would he depart from his previous ruling, and choose not to deport Djokovic for the exact same reason?

 

[ibbi]

The answer, obviously, is that by the letter of the law neither of them should be in the country, but he currently remains because he has the means with which to wield power (money, popularity, friends in high places) where she did not (sounds like she got a little but not much help from the Czech embassy who probably didn’t deem her worthy of creating international incident over). Whether he remains at this point will be down to what kind of game those in charge deem it in their own best interests to play.

The more interesting, funnier question to me is how she (and the other non-player to whom these circumstances apply) waltzed in to the country in the first place, while he had such trouble. Likely, what caused him to remain and her to go is what caused her to get in and him to not. Probably nobody looked twice at her paperwork upon arrival whereas with him they knew he was coming, they were ready and waiting, and still publicly screwing around while the guy was in the air.

Living life in the spotlight may yet get Novak out of all this crap, but it’s almost surely what got him into it all in the first place too. He’d never make a politician.

 

[Milanez82]

Let me put it as simply as possible:

Hawke has ALREADY DETERMINED that not being vaccinated is a health threat to the public in his decision to deport Voracova. The reason she was deported was not meeting the federal entry requirement of vaccination.

Hawke has already ruled on this. Why would he depart from his previous ruling, and choose not to deport Djokovic for the exact same reason?

Because he is afraid Djokovic hits a lucky slapshot back.

 

[Bartelby]

The big difference is that Voracova was allowed into the country without hindrance. She was deported to make their legal case look better, but that didn't really work.

 

[Sudacafan]

Seems Djokovic father and son invented the mistreatment by the ABF officials to justify the technicality by which they won the case. The only way possible. It worked.

 

[FedrMatt]

Hawke has to decide is Djokovic a health threat to the public and is it in public interest to deport him.

Its a really simple decision.

Renata forego her right to appeal when she saw the hotel.

It’ll be a serious joke if Djokovic is deemed a “health threat” after governments around Australia gave the all-clear to vaccinated workers who test positive to continue working without isolation.

The government is fighting Novak so hard because his success destroys their whole narrative for the past 2 years.

 

[Milanez82]

Seems Djokovic father and son invented the mistreatment by the ABF officials to justify the technicality by which they won the case. The only way possible. It worked.

You ever been held at the border for 10 hours or whatever?

 

[NonP]

What is the legal difference between the presence of Renata Voracova and Novak Djokovic in Australia?

Novak is by far the bigger star so he was given multiple assurances about his (non-)exemption/visa and could afford an expensive legal team. Of course that also meant he came with greater political baggage, hence the flip-flop on Morrison's part in response to public discontent.

You could say that's a rich guy enjoying unearned privilege, but the thing is, we actually understand that stars deserve certain privileges. We just don't like to acknowledge it for obvious reasons, and while no one should be above (or below) the law it's also true that Novak attracted more attention than a relative nobody like Renata precisely because of his star power/economic value. And based on the (incorrect) info he'd been given he did follow the rules for entry, so the judge ruled that Novak had been improperly stripped of his rights to present/defend his case, hence his release.

In short Novak's public status worked for and against him. Yes, he should've been denied an exemption in the first place, but no, he wouldn't have been targeted were he if a minor celebrity of Voracova's standing. In the end the good and the bad canceled each other out... so far.

 

[jm1980]

But his litigation victory was solely focused on the fact that ABF denied him rights and unlawfully cancelled his visa the first time around.

Now he has an approved visa, and Voracova also had an approved visa. The court did not touch whether the 6 month COVID infection was a valid medical exemption from an unvaccinated player entering Australia. Currently, federal entry requirements stipulate vaccination and do not accept the 6 month COVID as an exemption.

The entry requirements are, the traveller must be vaccinated unless they have a medical exemption, such as a contraindication to COVID-19 vaccines. I hope this is agreed upon by all parties

What if I told you ATAGI (Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation) specifically and unequivocally lists a previous COVID-19 infection as a valid temporary exemption? And don't take my word for it, it is all here:

Temporary exemptions

Valid reasons for a temporary exemption include:

• For all COVID-19 vaccines:
  • Acute major medical condition (e.g. undergoing major surgery or hospital admission for a serious illness). Typically, these are time-limited conditions (or the medical treatment for them is time limited).
  • PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, where vaccination can be deferred until 6 months after the infection. Vaccination should be deferred for 90 days in people who have received anti-SARS-CoV-2 monoclonal antibody or convalescent plasma therapy.
  • Any serious adverse event attributed to a previous dose of a COVID-19 vaccine, without another cause identified, and with no acceptable alternative vaccine available. For example a person <60 years of age, contraindicated to receive Pfizer vaccine and in whom the risks do not outweigh the benefits for receipt of AstraZeneca vaccine, is eligible for a temporary exemption.

ATAGI Expanded Guidance on temporary medical exemptions for COVID-19 vaccines

The Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation (ATAGI) have developed guidance for providers on acute major medical conditions that warrant a temporary medical exemption relevant for COVID-19 vaccines.

www.health.gov.au

 

[jeroenn]

The entry requirements are, the traveller must be vaccinated unless they have a medical exemption, such as a contraindication to COVID-19 vaccines. I hope this is agreed upon by all parties

What if I told you ATAGI (Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation) specifically and unequivocally lists a previous COVID-19 infection as a valid temporary exemption? And don't take my word for it, it is all here:

Temporary exemptions

Valid reasons for a temporary exemption include:

• For all COVID-19 vaccines:
  • Acute major medical condition (e.g. undergoing major surgery or hospital admission for a serious illness). Typically, these are time-limited conditions (or the medical treatment for them is time limited).
  • PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, where vaccination can be deferred until 6 months after the infection. Vaccination should be deferred for 90 days in people who have received anti-SARS-CoV-2 monoclonal antibody or convalescent plasma therapy.
  • Any serious adverse event attributed to a previous dose of a COVID-19 vaccine, without another cause identified, and with no acceptable alternative vaccine available. For example a person <60 years of age, contraindicated to receive Pfizer vaccine and in whom the risks do not outweigh the benefits for receipt of AstraZeneca vaccine, is eligible for a temporary exemption.

ATAGI Expanded Guidance on temporary medical exemptions for COVID-19 vaccines

The Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation (ATAGI) have developed guidance for providers on acute major medical conditions that warrant a temporary medical exemption relevant for COVID-19 vaccines.

www.health.gov.au

Those are for the natives. Not for foreigners seeking visas for which there are more strickt rules.

 

[tudwell]

It is a bit ironic: at the beginning, it seemed like Novak was being uniquely and unfairly targeted in being detained. Now he's been uniquely and unfairly (to Renata, at least) favored in being allowed to stay.

If the government were truly committed to the principle that recent prior infection is not a valid exemption to quarantine-free entry, Novak would not be at Melbourne Park right now. Of course, a politician sticking to principle would be about the most shocking development yet in this whole incident.

 

[Milanez82]

The entry requirements are, the traveller must be vaccinated unless they have a medical exemption, such as a contraindication to COVID-19 vaccines. I hope this is agreed upon by all parties

What if I told you ATAGI (Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation) specifically and unequivocally lists a previous COVID-19 infection as a valid temporary exemption? And don't take my word for it, it is all here:

Temporary exemptions

Valid reasons for a temporary exemption include:

• For all COVID-19 vaccines:
  • Acute major medical condition (e.g. undergoing major surgery or hospital admission for a serious illness). Typically, these are time-limited conditions (or the medical treatment for them is time limited).
  • PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, where vaccination can be deferred until 6 months after the infection. Vaccination should be deferred for 90 days in people who have received anti-SARS-CoV-2 monoclonal antibody or convalescent plasma therapy.
  • Any serious adverse event attributed to a previous dose of a COVID-19 vaccine, without another cause identified, and with no acceptable alternative vaccine available. For example a person <60 years of age, contraindicated to receive Pfizer vaccine and in whom the risks do not outweigh the benefits for receipt of AstraZeneca vaccine, is eligible for a temporary exemption.

ATAGI Expanded Guidance on temporary medical exemptions for COVID-19 vaccines

The Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation (ATAGI) have developed guidance for providers on acute major medical conditions that warrant a temporary medical exemption relevant for COVID-19 vaccines.

www.health.gov.au

Did Novak lawyer touch upon this today?

 

[jm1980]

Those are for the natives. Not for foreigners seeking visas for which there are more strickt rules.

Do you have proof for this claim?

 

[Milanez82]

It is a bit ironic: at the beginning, it seemed like Novak was being uniquely and unfairly targeted in being detained. Now he's been uniquely and unfairly (to Renata, at least) favored in being allowed to stay.

If the government were truly committed to the principle that recent prior infection is not a valid exemption to quarantine-free entry, Novak would not be at Melbourne Park right now. Of course, a politician sticking to principle would be about the most shocking development yet in this whole incident.

Think Hawke has to expel him or make a statement why he chose not to do it

Its possible they were hoping Djokovic bolts out of the country on the first plane to save himself further embarrassment.

 

[aldeayeah]

Did Novak lawyer touch upon this today?

They did, but the ATAGI's guideline isn't binding to the ABF. The guideline quoted is for domestic use.

 

[jeroenn]

Do you have proof for this claim?

Yup. Hunt's letter to TA explaing exactly that:

https://content.api.news/v3/images/bin/c4b0cd9f02f51cba161c27517280fda9

 

[Pandaman]

There seems to be a very obvious inconsistency in the treatment of the two unvaccinated athletes attempting to gain entry to Australia.

Facts:
Both players were granted valid medical exemptions from Victoria and Tennis Australia’s medical panels, issued visas in 2021
Both players are currently unvaccinated but have had COVID in the last 6 months

Entry to Australia:
Voracova was granted entry to Australia, her visa approved, and played in a warm-up tournament, with no issues
Djokovic’s visa was cancelled but then re-instated on appeal and now approved again

So, in objective legal terms, Novak Djokovic’s legal presence in Australia is exactly the same as Renata Voracova’s was before her deportation.

He took the long route to get there, but he is now legally in Australia with an approved visa based upon a medical exemption from vaccination.

Next Steps:
for Voracova, immigration minister Alex Hawke ordered her immediate deportation from Australia on the basis that she was unvaccinated. Being vaccinated is a federal requirement to entry, and crucially, the ABF does not accept 6 months prior COVID infection as a valid medical exemption from being vaccinated. ABF said this verbatim: “All travellers who enter Australia must do so in accordance with our strict laws and entry requirements, regardless of their status or their reasons for entering the country”

Djokovic is now in exactly the same legal standing as Voracova on Thursday before her deportation - in the country but unvaccinated, and not in compliance with Federal ABF entry requirements as a result.

Remember that the verdict of the court case did not rule that Djokovic can legally enter the country because a 6 month prior COVID test was a medical exemption. It simply ruled that Djokovic was mistreated by ABF officials and the cancellation of his visa was technically incorrect.

So, TTW, explain this to me: if Alex Hawke chose to deport Renata Voracova from Australia even though she had her visa approved, had the same medical exemption Djokovic has, and was already in Australia competing.

then why will he not deport Novak Djokovic on the same grounds of being unvaccinated?

TL;DR : Djokovic and Voracova have the exact same legal basis for being in Australia. One was deported even after being granted entry and visa approval, however most believe that the other will not be deported despite the precedent set with Voracova.

What is the legal difference between the presence of Renata Voracova and Novak Djokovic in Australia?

I am glad you're bringing this up. This is horrible. If Novak doesn't address screwing her over, I'm going to be pissed. He better wire her 1M.

 

[Kralingen]

I guess what the question boils down to is: if Renata’s deportation was legally valid, then is Hawke obligated to also deport Novak, which would have equal legal validity?

The way I see it the two situations cannot coexist.

Either Renata was wrongly deported or Novak is being wrongly allowed to stay. The legal basis for both are the EXACT SAME.

 

[jm1980]

Yup. Hunt's letter to TA explaing exactly that:

https://content.api.news/v3/images/bin/c4b0cd9f02f51cba161c27517280fda9

This, is again, contradicted by ATAGI's own documents - this one on the definition of "fully vaccinated":

Recommendations for people who arrive in Australia and are not considered fully vaccinated

Past SARS-CoV-2 infection

COVID-19 vaccination in people who have had PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection can be deferred for a maximum of six months after the acute illness, as a temporary exemption due to acute major medical illness.

Source:

https://www.health.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/2021/12/atagi-advice-on-the-definition-of-fully-vaccinated.pdf

Also note that nowhere does it differentiate between foreigners or Australian citizens coming into the country from overseas

 

[Oval_Solid]

one possible reason could be a generous donation by the djovakic group to a charity that took place behind closed doors

 

[wangs78]

The government can’t afford another embarrassment, that’s why. But who knows, maybe as we speak they are devising a strategy that will be unveiled in the coming days to finish what they started (get Novak to leave the country).

 

[Sudacafan]

You ever been held at the border for 10 hours or whatever?

No. But Srdjan mentioned “torture”, didn’t he?

 

[Bartelby]

The judge was also clearly appalled by both the lies and physical mistreatment of Djokovic.

 

[Bartelby]

If the government moves against Djokovic he will take them to court to get an injunction allowing him to play while the matter is decided in the courts.

In short, Djokovic will not be detained and deported because the government would lose even more face going down that futile route.

 

[accidental]

He could do that, but he would essentially be making a mockery of the judicial system. In the long run it would be a terrible move for his department as every judge in every future case will not be sympathetic

 

[helterskelter]

I guess what the question boils down to is: if Renata’s deportation was legally valid, then is Hawke obligated to also deport Novak, which would have equal legal validity?

The way I see it the two situations cannot coexist.

Either Renata was wrongly deported or Novak is being wrongly allowed to stay. The legal basis for both are the EXACT SAME.

Hawke can do what he wants. As I keep saying, border decisions are discretionary and can’t be appealed to a court. So, him deporting Renata means that he can deport Djokovic, but not that he has to do so.

 

[Jack the Hack]

This, is again, contradicted by ATAGI's own documents - this one on the definition of "fully vaccinated":

Recommendations for people who arrive in Australia and are not considered fully vaccinated

Past SARS-CoV-2 infection

COVID-19 vaccination in people who have had PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection can be deferred for a maximum of six months after the acute illness, as a temporary exemption due to acute major medical illness.

Source:

https://www.health.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/2021/12/atagi-advice-on-the-definition-of-fully-vaccinated.pdf

Also note that nowhere does it differentiate between foreigners or Australian citizens coming into the country from overseas

The opening sentence of the document you are referencing says:

"The Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation (ATAGI) have advised that for the purposes of people returning from overseas travel, those individuals who are considered fully vaccinated against COVID19 are those who..."

People "returning to Australia" from overseas travel = Australian citizens and residents. In other words, this ATAGI guidance is in context of Australian citizens and residents that are trying to get back home in Australia, not foreigners that require a visa to enter the country. Furthermore, as it says in the letter to Craig Tiley that @jeroenn posted above from November 29th, 2021:

"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 (TGA)-approved or TGA-recognised vaccine (or one dose of the Johnson and Johnson COVID-19 vaccine), are not considered fully vaccinated."

Based on this, neither Djokovic or Voracova should have been allowed in the country. Their vaccination status is the same, so they theoretically should be treated equally. However, it's clear that money and politics are falling in Djokovic's favor. That said, given the hard feelings on this from much of the Australian public, plus the over-the-top support that Novak gets from Serbian locals, if he gets to play this year's AO, I expect there to be a lot of booing and fights in the crowd. I suspect that this will likely become the harshest crowd environment he's ever faced anywhere, let alone in Australia.

 

[Bartelby]

They may be discretionary, and you may have no chance, but they can be appealed if you are in the country. And he would get an injunction from the court while the matter is heard.

 

[jm1980]

The opening sentence of the document you are referencing says:

"The Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation (ATAGI) have advised that for the purposes of people returning from overseas travel, those individuals who are considered fully vaccinated against COVID19 are those who..."

People "returning to Australia" from overseas travel = Australian citizens and residents. In other words, this ATAGI guidance is in context of Australian citizens and residents that are trying to get back home in Australia, not foreigners that require a visa to enter the country. Furthermore, as it says in the letter to Craig Tiley that @jeroenn posted above from November 29th, 2021:

"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 (TGA)-approved or TGA-recognised vaccine (or one dose of the Johnson and Johnson COVID-19 vaccine), are not considered fully vaccinated."

Based on this, neither Djokovic or Voracova should have been allowed in the country. Their vaccination status is the same, so they theoretically should be treated equally. However, it's clear that money and politics are falling in Djokovic's favor. That said, given the hard feelings on this from much of the Australian public, plus the over-the-top support that Novak gets from Serbian locals, if he gets to play this year's AO, I expect there to be a lot of booing and fights in the crowd. I suspect that this will likely become the harshest crowd environment he's ever faced anywhere, let alone in Australia.

Okay then, if there are additional requirements on foreign travellers, where is the documentation?

Preferably, such documentation should come in the form of officially published documents or websites, not private communications with Craig Tiley, or what anonymous border agents said

If you put yourself in a tennis player's shoes, and you're trying to gain entry into Australia, where would you find publicly available information on vax requirements and exemptions?

 

[helterskelter]

It’ll be a serious joke if Djokovic is deemed a “health threat” after governments around Australia gave the all-clear to vaccinated workers who test positive to continue working without isolation.

I didn’t know they had done that. What a crazy decision. Then again the UK government just ended pre-arrival testing and so a bunch of people are flying internationally untested and someone asked me today whether she could test positive and fly across the Atlantic two days later. (Truth is, she probably can). And two-thirds of people I saw on public transport in London today were unmasked even though there are signs all over it saying masking is mandatory.

In a world in which Covid-positive people are going to work or flying internationally and nobody bothers to mask, vaccines aren’t enough. We need vaccines+ but we’re getting vaccines-. Maybe Omicron will burn itself out of its own accord eventually but in the meantime there are going to be A LOT of hospitalizations.

 

[Blahovic]

The other thing to bear in mind is that Djokovic has 'won', but it was not a simple and easy process -- and the end result is still not clear cut. He was paraded around in the media and is still at risk of deportation. It's not been the most pleasant 'win' for Djokovic.

Voracova said she talked with Czech lawyers and it basically wasn't worth the risk and the hassle to contest her deportation.

Djokovic, as we already knew and are seeing, had/has more resources, more at stake (he is actually likely to win the tournament if he manages to play it), and is absolutely insanely stubborn.

 

[PilotPete]

Novak should protest to allow her back in.

 

[insideguy]

I tried to post something on this. But I don't think anybody not an Aussie citizen can go there unvaxed. I know none of us would be allowed there.

 

[NonP]

I guess what the question boils down to is: if Renata’s deportation was legally valid, then is Hawke obligated to also deport Novak, which would have equal legal validity?

The way I see it the two situations cannot coexist.

Either Renata was wrongly deported or Novak is being wrongly allowed to stay. The legal basis for both are the EXACT SAME.

But their situations aren't the same. In terms of deportation, yes, because Hawke retains the power to deport anyone for whatever discretionary reason, but the fact of the matter is that Renata was allowed through while Novak was held in detention. And the court has determined that Novak was denied proper legal representation and thus to be released.

If you're saying both Renata and Novak should have been deported or allowed in, yes I agree, but in reality they were given different treatment and the law took that into account. I personally think it'd be too petty and draconian to cancel Novak's visa now, but I also understand leaving him alone might set a bad precedent and/or be a political liability. That's where the "discretion" comes in.

I didn’t know they had done that. What a crazy decision. Then again the UK government just ended pre-arrival testing and so a bunch of people are flying internationally untested and someone asked me today whether she could test positive and fly across the Atlantic two days later. (Truth is, she probably can). And two-thirds of people I saw on public transport in London today were unmasked even though there are signs all over it saying masking is mandatory.

In a world in which Covid-positive people are going to work or flying internationally and nobody bothers to mask, vaccines aren’t enough. We need vaccines+ but we’re getting vaccines-. Maybe Omicron will burn itself out of its own accord eventually but in the meantime there are going to be A LOT of hospitalizations.

Even through delta the world shouldn't have let its guard down. I mean just get your damn shots, keep your masks on and avoid large crowds until this thing passes. What's the BFD?!

 

[Bubcay]

There seems to be a very obvious inconsistency in the treatment of the two unvaccinated athletes attempting to gain entry to Australia.

Facts:
Both players were granted valid medical exemptions from Victoria and Tennis Australia’s medical panels, issued visas in 2021
Both players are currently unvaccinated but have had COVID in the last 6 months

Entry to Australia:
Voracova was granted entry to Australia, her visa approved, and played in a warm-up tournament, with no issues
Djokovic’s visa was cancelled but then re-instated on appeal and now approved again

So, in objective legal terms, Novak Djokovic’s legal presence in Australia is exactly the same as Renata Voracova’s was before her deportation.

He took the long route to get there, but he is now legally in Australia with an approved visa based upon a medical exemption from vaccination.

Next Steps:
for Voracova, immigration minister Alex Hawke ordered her immediate deportation from Australia on the basis that she was unvaccinated. Being vaccinated is a federal requirement to entry, and crucially, the ABF does not accept 6 months prior COVID infection as a valid medical exemption from being vaccinated. ABF said this verbatim: “All travellers who enter Australia must do so in accordance with our strict laws and entry requirements, regardless of their status or their reasons for entering the country”

Djokovic is now in exactly the same legal standing as Voracova on Thursday before her deportation - in the country but unvaccinated, and not in compliance with Federal ABF entry requirements as a result.

Remember that the verdict of the court case did not rule that Djokovic can legally enter the country because a 6 month prior COVID test was a medical exemption. It simply ruled that Djokovic was mistreated by ABF officials and the cancellation of his visa was technically incorrect.

So, TTW, explain this to me: if Alex Hawke chose to deport Renata Voracova from Australia even though she had her visa approved, had the same medical exemption Djokovic has, and was already in Australia competing.

then why will he not deport Novak Djokovic on the same grounds of being unvaccinated?

TL;DR : Djokovic and Voracova have the exact same legal basis for being in Australia. One was deported even after being granted entry and visa approval, however most believe that the other will not be deported despite the precedent set with Voracova.

What is the legal difference between the presence of Renata Voracova and Novak Djokovic in Australia?

I do not think there is any difference from a legal point of view. Djokovic challenged it, Renata did not. In any case this has all been a political power-play anyway, so legality unfortunately did not play a major role here. If Novak stays, Renata should be able to return too. However, I have a strange feeling that the government has bought itself time to build a case against Djokovic by not re-detaining him after the judge ruling, as in that case they would have needed to make a decision about deportation withing 4 hours. By letting Djokovic walk, they do not have that time burden and can build a case whenever it suits them. I think at the end they will re-apprehend him and try to deport him again. Either way, they are politically tarnished locally and internationally.

 

[The Fedfather]

The public's opinion is key. Djokovic most probably didn't charm the Minister by putting Australia's border laws and officers on the spot like that, but if a significant number of people express being in favor of Djokovic staying, they probably won't risk another scandal.
If those who support Novak's right to stay are not loud enough, then the Minister will likely wave Djokovic goodbye, citing the same reasoning that was used for those other two visa cancellations.

 

[ihitlikeagirl]

Which is more embarrassing to the border control and Hawke? To let him stay and do nothing, allow the inconsistencies and anger the majority of Australians (from what I can see) or deport him after all that?

Serious question...especially for the Aussies that live there.

 

[Jack the Hack]

Okay then, if there are additional requirements on foreign travellers, where is the documentation?

Preferably, such documentation should come in the form of officially published documents or websites, not private communications with Craig Tiley, or what anonymous border agents said

If you put yourself in a tennis player's shoes, and you're trying to gain entry into Australia, where would you find publicly available information on vax requirements and exemptions?

Department of Home Affairs Website

Home Affairs brings together Australia's federal law enforcement, national and transport security, criminal justice, emergency management, multicultural affairs, settlement services and immigration and border-related functions, working together to keep Australia safe.

covid19.homeaffairs.gov.au

Department of Home Affairs Website

Home Affairs brings together Australia's federal law enforcement, national and transport security, criminal justice, emergency management, multicultural affairs, settlement services and immigration and border-related functions, working together to keep Australia safe.

covid19.homeaffairs.gov.au

The information in the links clearly says that anyone other than Australian citizens and permanent residents must apply for a travel exemption to enter Australia. To be granted a travel exemption, you must be fully vaccinated via one of the accepted methods, or have a valid documented reason why you can not be vaccinated due to medical reasons. Here's what its says about the medical reasons opt out:

"Proof that you cannot be vaccinated for medical reasons when coming to Australia
If you are coming to Australia and have a medical contraindication recorded in the Australian Immunisation Register (AIR) you can show an Australian COVID-19 digital certificate to airline staff. You can otherwise show your immunisation history statement.

If you do not have your medical contraindication recorded in the AIR you will need to show airline staff a medical certificate that indicates you are unable to be vaccinated with a COVID-19 vaccine because of a medical condition. The medical certificate must be in English and include the following information:

your name (this must match your travel identification documents)
date of medical consultation and details of your medical practitioner
details that clearly acknowledge that you have a medical condition which means you cannot receive a COVID-19 vaccination (vaccination is contraindicated).
Airlines are responsible for ensuring your proof meets these requirements.

People who have received non-TGA approved or recognised vaccines should not be certified in this category and cannot be treated as vaccinated for the purposes of their travel.

You should check any requirements, particularly quarantine and post-arrival testing requirements, in the state or territory to which you are travelling as this will impact your travel arrangements.

If you are planning on traveling onwards to or through a different state or territory when you arrive in Australia, you need to check domestic travel restrictions. States and territories can apply their own travel restrictions.

You are responsible for complying with travel restrictions and requirements that apply to you. Please note: proof that you cannot be vaccinated for medical reasons is separate to a Commissioner’s travel exemption."

In November, Craig Tiley and Tennis Australia were trying to get clarification from the government that having a positive COVID-19 test within the past 6 months would be considered a valid medical reason to not get vaccinated, and the answer from the government was no, as documented in that letter that was posted. Tiley and Tennis Australia were responsible for passing this information on to the players, but they were clearly looking for shortcuts knowing that Djokovic was not vaccinated. Furthermore, it seems dubious that a world class athlete like Djokovic is too unhealthy to become vaccinated. For example, if you are severely immunocompromised, are allergic to some ingredients in the vaccines (like Polyethylene Glycol or Polysorbate), or have experienced anaphylaxis to any prior vaccine or injectable medication, you probably shouldn't get the COVID-19 vaccination. If Djokovic had any of these conditions, he could have easily documented this to show why he can't be vaccinated. However, that is not what he is doing. Rather, he is claiming (rather dubiously in my opinion, given the circumstances) that he tested positive for COVID-19 on December 16th and that he doesn't need to be vaccinated because of this. That might work for Australian nationals returning to the country that don't need a travel exemption, but not for someone like him who is only visiting Australia. Plus, the evidence that Djokovic was prancing around in public events in the days directly after his supposed positive test result was known is very suspicious and uncaring at best, and fraudulent at worst.

 

[Midaso240]

The public's opinion is key. Djokovic most probably didn't charm the Minister by putting Australia's border laws and officers on the spot like that, but if a significant number of people express being in favor of Djokovic staying, they probably won't risk another scandal.
If those who support Novak's right to stay are not loud enough, then the Minister will likely wave Djokovic goodbye, citing the same reasoning that was used for those other two visa cancellations.

It's overwhelmingly against him, take no notice of a place like TTW which has a lot of Djokovic supporters. Believe me, in the general public, he has few supporters

 

[Jack the Hack]

Which is more embarrassing to the border control and Hawke? To let him stay and do nothing, allow the inconsistencies and anger the majority of Australians (from what I can see) or deport him after all that?

Serious question...especially for the Aussies that live there.

Two of my former teammates from my college tennis team are Australians and live there now. Both are huge tennis fans and used to like Djokovic. While they acknowledge some embarrassment with the bumbling of their government on this one, both are livid that Djokovic was allowed into the country unvaccinated when they have had family members and friends face severe travel restrictions over the past two years due to the pandemic. Basically, they don't understand why Novak can be so selfish and uncaring about the health of people around him that he would forgo vaccination and be so reckless in his behavior (both in the Adria Tour debacle and now with the post-positive test activities in December).

But hey... maybe they are not representative of the majority of the Australian population?

 

[The Fedfather]

It's overwhelmingly against him, take no notice of a place like TTW which has a lot of Djokovic supporters. Believe me, in the general public, he has few supporters

Then, I guess, we'll see him go. I wonder though if perhaps the TA are working overtime now, negotiating with the Minister(s).