Experts question why we would bother banning Novak Djokovic from the Australian Open

Australia could still deport Novak Djokovic for not being vaccinated but experts have questioned why authorities would bother.

Now that Novak Djokovic’s visa cancellation has been overturned, many are wondering whether Australia’s Immigration Minister will use his “personal power” to boot the tennis player out of the country.

Djokovic’s attendance at the Australian Open has mainly been controversial due to the player’s views on vaccination. He has not been jabbed and was granted a vaccine exemption by the Victorian Government only because he says he was infected with Covid in December.

However, with cases in Australia skyrocketing since the emergence of the Omicron variant, some may wonder why a prior Covid infection is not good enough to qualify Djokovic for an exemption and why the Federal Government cancelled his visa in the first place.

Infectious diseases expert Professor Peter Collignon of Australian National University said if Djokovic did actually get infected with Covid in December then he likely did not pose a higher risk of spreading the virus than others who had been vaccinated.

“Immunity from infection probably does last for a period of time,” Prof Collignon told news.com.au.

However, he said there could be a public health risk in allowing someone who was vocally opposed to vaccination into the country.

“I think there could be a public health risk but not because of the risk of spreading it but from the messaging they (the public) get from that,” he said.

Epidemiologist Associate Professor Hassan Vally of Deakin University also pointed out that the main reason for exemptions is to accommodate those who have not been able to get fully vaccinated for medical or health reasons.

If Novak Djokovic has been infected with Covid then he probably does not pose a greater risk than someone who is vaccinated. Picture: William West/AFP

In an article for The Age, Prof Vally wrote that Djokovic was not in this category and has also been a vocal supporter of the idea the immune system can build up resistance to infection, an idea that he called “irresponsible” and “dangerous in the extreme”.

“This clearly does not fit into the spirit with which these medical exemptions are meant to operate,” Prof Vally wrote.

“So, as one of the most privileged human beings on the planet who has ignored the science and refused to be vaccinated I think an incredibly strong message could have been sent by upholding Djokovic’s visa cancellation,” he wrote.

“The message being that the rules apply to everyone equally.”

However, with 92.1 per cent of Australians over the age of 16 years old now fully vaccinated with both doses, vaccination uptake expert Professor Julie Leask of Sydney University says she doubts banning Djokovic will make a difference.

“The vast majority of people aged 12 and over in Australia have already been vaccinated and so they’ve already overcome any of their own potential hesitancy,” Prof Leask told news.com.au.

“To remain unvaccinated against Covid in Australia means that you are likely to have some strong beliefs about health and medicine, about Covid vaccine safety, and lower levels of trust in government.

“The beliefs of a high profile tennis player are unlikely to shift people in the context of these bigger influences.

“If anything, it reinforces just how inconvenient life can become for the unvaccinated at present.

“I doubt this will change the resolve of most people now.”

One tennis player’s views on vaccination may not be that influential in a country where almost 95 per cent of adults are vaccinated. Picture: Nicki Connolly

Other experts have also suggested that Australia needs to re-engage with the world.

Infectious diseases physician at St Vincent’s Hospital, Scientia Professor Gregory Dore of the University of NSW, tweeted that Delta had ended Australia’s elimination strategy and “Omicron should end international border restrictions”, although Covid tests on entry could continue.

Prof Collignon was also open to this, saying transmission rates in places like the United States were not that different to those in Australia, despite them being in winter.

“We do need to have restrictions proportionate to the risk at the time,” he said.

Prof Collignon said people would be more likely to get Omicron by going into a crowded bar in Australia than if they were coming back from the US.

As long as authorities were monitoring for new variants, Prof Collignon believes Australia can afford to relax its restrictions on overseas travellers.

“We can’t use the rules of six months ago and think they are appropriate now,” he said.

Meanwhile the Federal Government is still considering whether to allow Djokovic to remain in the country.

Government lawyer Christopher Tran had flagged with the court on Monday that Immigration Minister Alex Hawke could consider whether to exercise “the personal power of cancellation” — which could mean Djokovic would be unable to return to Australia for three years.

Immigration Minister Alex Hawke could still decide to deport Novak Djokovic. Picture: NCA NewsWire / Martin Ollman

The Herald Sun also reports Australian Border Force officials are investigating if the tennis star lied on his entry form to come into Australia.

If this turns out to be true, it could provide a more compelling reason for authorities to act.

Meanwhile Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews is leaving the decision to the Commonwealth, saying whether Djokovic should be allowed to play in the Open was “a matter for the federal government”.

“The issue of who gets into the country and their vaccination status is not an issue for state governments,” the Premier responded, when asked if he stood by his statement last year that anyone who wanted to come to Australia as part of the tournament should be fully vaccinated.

“I don’t issue visas, the Commonwealth Government does that. There’s a court ruling, whether that’s appealed is a matter for the Commonwealth Government. If the Immigration Minister wants to use his extraordinary powers, that’s a matter for him.

“I don’t want to offer comment on that. I stand by our comments. We have not sought to, in fact quite the opposite, we have not sought to convince the Commonwealth Government to allow anyone else. Quite the opposite.”