Renata Voracova Deportation vs. Djokovic Non-Deportation

[jm1980]

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.

Most of this is fluff. The bottom line is Australian citizens and foreigners alike are entitled to medical exemptions to the vaccination requirements. There are multiple ATAGI resources stating a prior infection in the last 6 months is a valid exemption, just like a severe allergic reaction to the vaccines. None of these resources differentiate foreigners and Australians. Private correspondence to Craig Tiley is also not a publicly available official resource

What he did or didn't do in Serbia is for Serbia to decide what civil or criminal penalties apply. That has no bearing on his Australian visa

 

[Bubcay]

Two of my former teammates from my college tennis team are Australians and live there now.

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

Yes they are. There is no doubt that majority of Australians blame Djokovic for a lot of things, many having nothing to do with him, but everything to do with frustration experienced during the past few years and the way state and federal governments have handled the situation with the pandemic. Djokovic is an easily identifiable target and people see him as an arch nemesis, although a lot of that rage should be pointed at the government... Djokovic did not help his case by his position on vaccination. If it turns out that he knew he was positive on the 17-th and 18-th of December and still attended those events in Serbia, his achievements and legacy will be tarnished forever. He needs to speak out and explain ASAP...

 

[ihitlikeagirl]

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?

Thanks for this! I know Australians as well that have had to postpone weddings and been unable to cross state lines to see family at times during this pandemic and just know so many that I would be surprised that the average and majority of people (not fanatics, Djokovic fans, antivaxx or Serbian heritage people) would be happy about how this decision has gone as of yesterday.

I think actually his lawyers were very smart to put almost all (all?) the emphasis on the procedural stuff.. They were able to skirt the issue of the the actual validity of the exemption and how effectively he didn't meet the criteria for entrance--but instead kept the focus on that he did as he was told/did his best with the information he was given. I missed what Tran said because it was offline when I was trying to hear his part but maybe it seems like he didn't address the bigger picture much or fight that part. By keeping it contained to the procedural part, I can actually see that Djokovic's lawyers were making a decent case to win (not that it should have gone down like that but if you keep it just on those issues, you don't open up the other problematic ones where i doubt it would have gone so well).

I suppose that hawke will decide today, right? I can't see them dragging it out because that wouldn't be good for anyone. Though not sure how long it would take to prepare the case/paperwork to deport him. His lawyers are probably 10 steps ahead already. I think it's highly unfair to the Czech player as well as the other person (gonna assume it was an official like an umpire). Both of which probably really need this tournament to ACTUALLY make their living. So unfair.

 

[Permitlady]

Goes to show you. It's all bullying. Stand up to the bully and nothing happens

 

[Visionary]

Djokovic is now in exactly the same legal standing as Voracova

Now, he is one step further as he has won his case in the courtroom which she hasn't attempted to follow up on. To my knowledge, there've been 26 exemptions that mostly seem to be quiet. Voracova and those other ones in the same situation as Novak should put a lot of pressure on the Australian authorities now. More than that, those young talented kids which have been unfairly brushed off to play in the junior AO 2022 should file their legal actions against the farce Australian government for being denied their chances too. In some nations, there's not been the vaccine for underaged prior to the filings of their AO participation.

 

[Visionary]

Currently, federal entry requirements stipulate vaccination and do not accept the 6 month COVID as an exemption.

Rules keep changing; of course, the dangers to public may change as well. What also may change is the amounts of vials in government fridges that have the expiry date on them. Do you think any of those jabs are against the Omicron?

 

[NaomiKonjuhPotapova]

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.

he shouldn't deport him because it will be clearly political move.

 

[Dolgopolov85]

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.

There is a massive shortage of hands which may possibly explain the caving in of the govt on that issue. And outside the small echelon of people who have continuously enjoyed WFH through the pandemic, it's been a brutal time for everyone in the workforce. Many people have thrown up their hands and left jobs as a result. I have joined that group very recently, for reasons not entirely to do with how my workplace handled the pandemic situation but certainly a lot to do with it. For, I would have never got covid had I not been forced back into office when it was way too soon.

 

[Ledigs]

If applying for a covid infection medical exemption is only open to Australian Open tennis players and not to all travelers, then it’s fundamentally unfair

 

[jmnk]

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.

the above is _also_ true. I say also because there's this document https://www.health.gov.au/sites/def...-medical-exemptions-for-covid-19-vaccines.pdf that seems to say that having COVID-19 in last 6 months _is_ in fact a valid exemption. And that document does not differentiate between Australian citizens returning from overseas vs foreigners coming to Australia.
"
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.
"
Disclaimer. this is a document dated 11/26/2021, perhaps there's a newer doc stating otherwise.

Which is why this is all so convoluted - these documents published by various Australia government entities are not exactly in sync 100%. The above doc was one of Djokovic's case filings, and the government in its response to Djokovic's case sort of did not address that directly (I think at least).
cc @jm1980

 

[Clay lover]

Novak should protest to allow her back in.

That's another way

 

[Jack the Hack]

the above is _also_ true. I say also because there's this document https://www.health.gov.au/sites/def...-medical-exemptions-for-covid-19-vaccines.pdf that seems to say that having COVID-19 in last 6 months _is_ in fact a valid exemption. And that document does not differentiate between Australian citizens returning from overseas vs foreigners coming to Australia.
"
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.
"
Disclaimer. this is a document dated 11/26/2021, perhaps there's a newer doc stating otherwise.

Which is why this is all so convoluted - these documents published by various Australia government entities are not exactly in sync 100%. The above doc was one of Djokovic's case filings, and the government in its response to Djokovic's case sort of did not address that directly (I think at least).
cc @jm1980

The beginning of the document you cited says:

"The below guidance is prepared to support completion of the Australian Immunisation Register immunisation medical exemption (IM011) form, Guidelines for immunisation medical exemption."

The Australian Immunisation Register is the national database that officially records vaccines given to all people in Australia. It does not pertain to foreign nationals that are trying to enter Australia via the visa process. Rather, this guidance is for Australian citizens and permanent residents in Australia that are trying to prove their vaccination status and may require a medical exemption if they can't take the vaccine for health reasons. It is not relative to Djokovic's case because he is not Australian and not part of the AIR database.

What the Australian Immunisation Register is - Australian Immunisation Register - Services Australia

The Australian Immunisation Register (AIR) is a national register that records vaccines given to all people in Australia.

www.servicesaustralia.gov.au

 

[Arak]

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.

Kudos to Djokovic for persevering despite the abysmal lodging conditions. I would have done like Renata to be honest.

 

[aldeayeah]

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.

This is correct, but isn't an issue unless one of the interested parties brings it to justice, and that doesn't seem like it's going to happen.

 

[Krish872007]

Taking a step back for a second (not really related to this) - other than Australian citizens, and permanent residents, who can actually enter Australia right now?

 

[tex123]

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?

He will deport him. But, he's consulting every possible scenario because Djokovic has an army of fans, lawyers, money, power and fame to challenge the government. Voracova is an ordinary citizen like us.

 

[Bartelby]

The Government has all the power and money and Voracova supports Djokovic.

 

[tex123]

The government has to consider:

- Political fallout - is it worth going after or let it go?
- Relations with Serbia
- Elections
- Whether he broke the law and telling the truth about his PCR test and his travel to countries
- Implications for Australian Open
- Wrath of Djokovic's fans vs wrath of Australian citizens
- Djokovic's legal avenues and probability of winning
- Whether Alex Hawke's powers will be construed as overreach.
- Australia's image as a sporting nation vs Djokovic's image
- Setting a precedent - if Djokovic is allowed in unvaccinated, others will come flooding in.
- Implications for battle against the virus and vaccination efforts as he's the poster boy for anti-vaxxers. If he's granted legitimacy, the movement will only grow.
- Pressure from other nations like USA and UK. I'm sure they are talking as it affects them as well with anti-vaxxers.
- If he's allowed to stay and Renata was deported - it will be seen as rich getting away with anything.

A lot to think about before a deportation call is made.

 

[jmnk]

The beginning of the document you cited says:

"The below guidance is prepared to support completion of the Australian Immunisation Register immunisation medical exemption (IM011) form, Guidelines for immunisation medical exemption."

The Australian Immunisation Register is the national database that officially records vaccines given to all people in Australia. It does not pertain to foreign nationals that are trying to enter Australia via the visa process. Rather, this guidance is for Australian citizens and permanent residents in Australia that are trying to prove their vaccination status and may require a medical exemption if they can't take the vaccine for health reasons. It is not relative to Djokovic's case because he is not Australian and not part of the AIR database.

What the Australian Immunisation Register is - Australian Immunisation Register - Services Australia

The Australian Immunisation Register (AIR) is a national register that records vaccines given to all people in Australia.

www.servicesaustralia.gov.au

yes, one could indeed interpret that document that way, that it only applies to people that are in The Australian Immunisation Register. But if we do so then there's no other document (I think?) that would define what the valid exemptions for people NOT in that register are. So we would be in a pickle - the law does say that _anyone_ (citizen or not) may have a valid exemption, and yet it defines what such exemptions could be _only_ for citizens. If so one could argue that for non-citizens _any doctor from any country could define any such exemption_, and have that presented to a border official, and have that border official make a decision on the spot. Not sure what that decision would be based on since there would be no government guidelines he could rely on. Could get even more complicated.