The Daily - What the ‘Djokovic Affair’ Revealed About Australia

Episode Date: January 21, 2022

Novak Djokovic, the world No. 1 player in men’s tennis, had a lot at stake going into this year’s Australian Open. A win there would have made him the most decorated male tennis player in history. But he arrived in the country without having had a Covid-19 vaccination, flying in the face of Australia’s rules, and after a court battle he was ultimately deported.In Australia, the “Djokovic affair” has become about a lot more than athletes and vaccines — it has prompted conversations about the country’s aggressive border policy, isolationism and treatment of migrants. Guest: Damien Cave, the Australia bureau chief for The New York Times.Want more from The Daily? For one big idea on the news each week from our team, subscribe to our newsletter. Background reading: Prime Minister Scott Morrison latched on to the Djokovic case. But with an election looming, it’s not clear that it was a political winner.Novak Djokovic lost his bid to stay in Australia to a government determined to make him a symbol of unvaccinated celebrity entitlement; to an immigration law that gives godlike authority to border enforcement; and to a public outcry, in a nation of rule followers.For more information on today’s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily. Transcripts of each episode will be made available by the next workday.

From The New York Times, I'm Annie Correale. This is The Daily. Today, in most places, Australia's decision to deport the world's number one men's tennis player looked like a controversy over athletes and the COVID-19 vaccine. To the people of Australia, it became something different. I spoke with my colleague, Australia Bureau Chief Damien Cave. It's Friday, January 21st. So Damien, over the last few weeks, I saw a lot of headlines about Novak Djokovic and the Australian Open. And to be honest, my initial reaction was, okay, here's another elite athlete whose vaccine status has caused this big commotion.

But I'm hoping you can help me understand the play-by-play. How we got to this point where the tournament is in full swing and Djokovic is not there. He's actually been deported. Yeah, I mean, it's really been quite a dramatic saga. I mean, the Australian Open is the first Grand Slam of the year. It's one of the biggest tennis events in the world. And Novak Djokovic is the number one men's player in the world. And, you know, he planned to come and hopefully win what would be his 21st Grand Slam, which would make him the most winningest male tennis player in history. So for him, there was a lot at stake. But, you know, there's a big challenge for Djokovic, which is that he's coming to Australia, which is a country that has a vaccine mandate for everyone coming in.

So you can't get into Australia unless you're vaccinated. And he hadn't really been very clear about his vaccination status. He was pretty cagey about it. And then at the last second or pretty close to when he arrives, he says, oh, I got an exemption to the mandate based on the fact that he said he had COVID in mid-December and thus didn't need to be vaccinated for six months. And there were rules in place that did say that he could get a medical exemption if he'd had COVID recently. I see. So he wasn't vaccinated, but it seemed like he was going to be allowed to play because of this exemption. Yeah, that's right. And then that all changed when he got to the airport. So he gets to the airport and the border officials, who are federal officials, say to him,

well, wait a second, who gave you this exemption? The rules say that you need to be vaccinated. And on your form here, it says you're not vaccinated. So he was confused. The border officials were confused. And what turned out to be the problem is that the exemption that he had was actually from the state government of Victoria, where the open is hosted. And so, you know, this was a kind of confusing problem because the federal government handles border control, but public health is handled at the state hosted. And so, you know, this was a kind of confusing problem because the federal government handles border control, but public health is handled at the state level. And so there was basically, you know, not a whole lot of great communication

between state and federal officials, which you would think would have been, you know, resolved before the world's best male tennis player shows up at the airport. But in fact, it wasn't. But in fact, it wasn't. But wait, that's a pretty big breakdown in communication. And it can't be the first time this has come up.

How has Australia been dealing with travelers up until now? Well, that's the thing. They really haven't been. I mean, Australia shut down its borders completely because of COVID and only recently started letting people come in as long as they follow the rules and are fully vaccinated. There's like a small window of exemptions for people who have medical issues that would prevent them from vaccination. But that's it. And so, you know, really, the country hasn't had to deal with this issue of having people come in and dealing with exemptions until very, very recently. Uh-huh. So what happens to Djokovic then?

So these guards basically said to him, OK, well, we need to look into this. And then they left him in this room in the airport for a few hours. They kept going in and out. And then suddenly, without a whole lot of warning, they come in and say, actually, you know what? Too bad. We're in charge of border enforcement. The border rules say you've got to be vaccinated. Your visa has been canceled and you have to go. But Djokovic, who's always been a pretty strong-willed player and, of course, has a ton riding on this tournament, decides he's going to stay and fight this in court. And so they detain him and he ends up in a detention center, which actually turns out to be a hotel in Melbourne called the Park Hotel. to be a hotel in Melbourne called the Park Hotel.

The back and forth down under that right now has the world's top-ranked tennis player confined to a hotel. Right, and I feel like that's when a lot of people started paying attention to this story. Yeah, it's pretty remarkable. We want Melvin Djokovic to play! Let him play! Let him play! We've seen protesters take to the streets outside the hotel. People are very upset.

Anger, frustration, shock even. What a convoluted and confusing situation that Djokovic finds himself in. He apparently got an exemption from... I mean, I think all of Australia and the world really is trying to figure out what on earth is going on in Australia. Entry with a visa requires double vaccination Australia and the world really is trying to figure out what on earth is going on in Australia. Entry with a visa requires double vaccination or a medical exemption. And Australia's Prime Minister, Scott Morrison, comes out and says very forcefully that rules are rules.

Rules are rules. And there are no special cases. And even Djokovic has to abide by them. That's the policy of the government and has been our government's strong border protection policies and particularly in relation to the pandemic and I want to thank the Australian border force officers for doing their job. So no special treatment for Djokovic. He's now stuck in this hotel until his case is resolved but it turns out he's not the only one being detained there.

But it turns out he's not the only one being detained there. What do you mean? It's not just about Novak Djokovic. There are refugees and asylum seekers in that building, some of whom who have been there for years waiting. Unlike Djokovic, who's there temporarily and whose situation is being closely watched by people all over the world, there's another group of people, around 30 refugees and asylum seekers, who have been held for years by the Australian government

and haven't gotten nearly the same amount of attention. They haven't committed any crime or had their visa cancelled, they've been detained for over nine years. They are fearing persecution, they can't go home. These are people who are fleeing war, fleeing all kinds of political problems in the countries where they left. And they're trying to live a new life in Australia and they're stuck under the same roof as Novak Djokovic.

And so human rights advocates see this opportunity to draw attention to the way that Australia treats people and the way that Australia deals with its border security. Free, free the refugees. Free, free the refugees! So there's dozens of protesters outside holding signs that say things like, free them all or free the refugees, abolish detention centers. My name is Joy. I am a refugee from Bangladesh.

I am one of 33 men living in this park prison torture center. Well, 34 now because on Thursday, Novak Djokovic came to join us in our prison. He is just a human being like us. And so suddenly this hotel that, you know, people have been walking by for months without really noticing becomes the center of protest and debate over Australia's border enforcement and detainment policies. I see. So these protesters are hoping to take this situation and make it more about people like those few dozen asylum seekers than about an international celebrity athlete. Yeah, that's exactly right. And I think part of the reason that they identify this as a real opportunity is because people know that in Australia, sport is life. is because people know that in Australia, sport is life.

There's this famous book about Australia called The Lucky Country, and it has this quote, sport to many Australians is life and the rest a shadow. It's the place where Australians build their national character. And so I think if you're someone who's trying to draw attention to the immigration system, here you have this opportunity with sport, with the world's greatest tennis player, to say, hey, listen, we know you're going to be paying attention to this. Let's think beyond the tenets. Let's think about the country as a whole, because this is the realm where we often decide what kind of country we want to be. Got it. So, Damien, it seems clear from what you're telling me that Australia takes a tough

stance on people trying to get into the country, whether they're visitors or immigrants. And that's what people are trying to draw attention to. Where does that tough stance come from? Why does Australia take such an aggressive approach? You have to go back pretty far, actually, to understand how Australia thinks about its borders. It was settled by the British in 1788 and became a Western country by any meaningful definition. But then you also have to consider its geographic location, right? It's in the middle of the ocean, but it's this enormous, sparsely populated island in fairly close proximity to countries with large populations like Indonesia and China. And that's contributed to a lot of xenophobia and fear of migration,

especially Asian migration. There's just this fear of being overrun that is part of the historical record in Australia that's really influenced immigration policy for, you know, much of the country's history. So at its most extreme, they had what was known as a white Australia policy, which basically meant that if you were not white and Christian, you couldn't move here. That is pretty extreme. It is. And that started to change after World War II, when Australia realized that its own policies were out of step with the rest of the world and what its own economy needed. So it started welcoming refugees from World War II

and people from a wider range of places like Southern and Eastern Europe. And eventually, Australia decides to just throw open its doors, but with limits on humanitarian visas and a skilled migration system that's pretty strict. So if you're a doctor or an engineer or an investor, you can get in, but you have to follow certain rules and procedures. And there are some pretty strict kind of limitations. So if you're a skilled migrant, for example, and your child has autism, even now, you're probably not going to be allowed into Australia as a family. And if you don't qualify for any other reason and don't follow every rule to a T, you just can't get in, or there's a real risk of being deported if you do something wrong.

So you have this combination of opening up to the world and becoming more multicultural, but also wanting to maintain strict control over who's allowed in. And that means giving vast powers to the immigration authorities to make those decisions. And the undercurrent of all this is really just fear, parochialism, and this desire for rules and rule following to provide some kind of comfort for historic insecurity. But if I'm not mistaken, Damien, that focus on borders has become the case in a lot of countries in recent decades because of mass migration. Yeah, that's definitely true. But even compared to

other countries, Australia is still pretty unique. As one lawyer told me, the system has pretty much been stripped of all its human rights protections. And so Australians have gotten really used to being quite severe with people who are arriving and not waiting in line, as they might say, or following the procedures. People who just try to show up or have some kind of perceived imperfection that might not let them in. Right. Including the type of people who are detained in the hotel with Djokovic. Yeah, that's right. I mean, they're victims of a pretty major change in Australia, where over the last two decades, the whole system has just become harsher and much more difficult. The country does still have a formal program for people to apply for asylum outside the country,

and they've settled hundreds of thousands of refugees over the years. But whenever groups of asylum seekers just show up and try to rush through the door without following the process, the government basically just slams it shut without even assessing their claims. They're pretty much treated as criminals. lambs that shut without even assessing their claims. They're pretty much treated as criminals. What could have been an international humanitarian issue instead became an Australian security crisis. So starting in August of 2001,

there was this group of around 300 asylum seekers trying to make their way to Australia when their boat was damaged and this Norwegian freighter called the Tampa picked them up. And the captain of the ship tried to bring them to Australia to get medical care and the government just flat out said, no, no way, we will not take them. No one could have predicted the dramatic sea change ahead. And that decision played out really well in Australia.

It was super popular at the polls because just a few weeks after the boat situation... The tragic events of the 11th of September have changed our lives. 9-11 happened. That was an attack on Australia as much as it was an attack on the United States. And all of a sudden, there was this real tangible fear over letting anyone in, or anyone who they might not recognize or come from a place that they might not feel is safe. National security is therefore about a proper response to terrorism. And it just reinforced Australia's really deep-seated instincts,

this idea that Australians could only be comfortable and safe with very, very strict border security. We have a proud record of welcoming people from 140 different nations, but we will decide who comes to this country and the circumstances in which they come. And then it just kept intensifying over the years, especially again around 2012-2013. Two people are dead after a fishing boat carrying nearly 100 refugees capsized in the waters just north of Christmas Island.

Survivors apparently said there were Muslims from near the border between Myanmar and Bangladesh. Yeah, this is when we're hearing about all these people on boats fleeing Syria and other places. That's right. There's boats of asylum seekers trying to arrive almost daily on Australia's shores. They were hoping to seek asylum in Australia. More than 18,000 asylum seekers have arrived in Australia so far this year.

And again, it's stoking this mix of anger, because Australians are saying, well, hey, who are these people who won't wait and follow the process? But also this fear about who might be coming in. And the government, led by the immigration minister at the time, Scott Morrison, and he's now the prime minister, had to decide what to do with all these people. Those seeking to come on boats will not be getting what they have come for.

We will be doing things differently. And so he responds by doubling down. It will be a tougher approach. He's a former marketing executive, and he leads the country towards the zero tolerance approach with the slogan. Stop the boats. Stop the boats. And then they send out the Navy out on the high seas to basically scare these smugglers and boats full of migrants to turn around. The whole thing was super secretive, and it's still going on now. And so what happens to the people on the boats who can't get in? Well, thousands of them were turned back and sent back to the countries where they came from.

And then a bunch of them were also detained in these offshore detention centers in places like Nauru, which is this remote Pacific island, or on Manus, which is another island in Papua New Guinea. And they're held there without any real recourse or ability to kind of figure out how to get out of there. What they're told, though, again and again, is you will not come to Australia no matter what. So they're keeping people detained on these remote islands in the Pacific. That's right. They'd signed deals with a bunch of these countries to basically prevent them from having to process them on Australian soil. You know, the United Nations argued it's a violation of international law. You're supposed to assess these people's claims. They have a right to at least try to become refugees and prove that they deserve refugee status. And Australia sidestepped

that by creating these offshore detention centers. You know, Damien, as a reporter for The Times, I've covered immigration in the U.S. for a while, and a lot of what you're describing about Australia's border policies does sound a little bit familiar. For example, the U.S. recently has had a policy where people who want to apply for asylum have to wait in camps in Mexico, and the conditions there are also pretty horrible. So I guess I'm struck by the similarities. Yeah, that's right. I mean, it's pretty interesting because during the Trump presidency, there was a lot of kind of mutual affection between Morrison and President Trump. President Trump spoke a lot about Australia's immigration policy and basically praised it as a model. And, you know, now that idea has kind of appeared not just in the United States, but

Europe too. And so the reality is that Australia went first. They were among the first to really do this kind of thing. Interesting. And what are these island detention centers like? What are the conditions like for people being held there? Well, they're pretty devastating. And for that reason, access to them is really, really strictly limited. But I did actually get into one on Manus Island a few years back. Really? And who did you meet there? Well, many of the men I met inside were fleeing places like Afghanistan or Iran. They seemed to have pretty strong cases for asylum, frankly. And yet they'd been stuck in this remote no man's land. A few had tried to commit suicide. A guard had been accused of murdering one of them. Hundreds of them had never even had their refugee claims assessed. And they'd been there for years. And, you know, the damage that had been done to them over that

time was really quite visible. A lot of them were struggling to get, you know, mental health medication that they needed. They were struggling to just figure out what their future was. And these camps were basically in other countries, but run with Australian tax dollars. You know, the bill was really, really high for Australian taxpayers, but the Australian government basically felt like it was worth it because in their view, this was a deterrent. It would convince people, you know, trying to jump on a smuggler's boat in Indonesia or anywhere else, that if they tried to come to Australia, they would never get in. And to some degree, if you look at the number of boats that came after that, there's some truth to that. The traffic did

decline. In fact, it declined quite a bit. The problem is that for those who were caught up in the system, there was a ton of suffering. And so going back to the people in the hotel in Melbourne, they're among the migrants who for years and years have tried to get into the country and stay and failed. They got caught up in those longstanding border policies that you've described. Well, yes, but more specifically, these people needed medical attention and they were brought to the hotel in 2019 for that purpose. But the conditions in this hotel are really tough and they're meant to be their own form of deterrence. The detainees in there are not allowed outside except for medical appointments, and some of them even say that the windows are nailed shut.

A few of the people inside have even posted pictures on social media of food with maggots all over it. It's meant to be tough so that it's not seen as this luxurious location for anyone who's trying to get into the country. The whole point is to be difficult so that other people won't do it. Right. It's about the message of deterrence that you told us about. That's right. The main focus for the Australian government

is to use this migration system to signal to the rest of the world, hey, we're not going to accept you if you try to come here without going through the usual process. Don't just show up because we're going to send you back or we're going to put you

in mandatory detention indefinitely. And that's just how the system works. And what really drives those strict border policies is a tendency for Australians to trust their government, to basically expect that their leaders will make reasonable rules that everyone will want to follow, to protect them against anything they're afraid of, whether it's migrants or something else. And now the latest threat is COVID. We'll be right back. So Damien, what happens in Australia when COVID hits? You mentioned the government had completely closed the borders, and it wasn't until recently that they even began considering letting people in, like Djokovic.

But I also know a number of countries imposed really strict restrictions and basically tried to seal their borders during the pandemic to try to keep the virus out. So how is it different there? Australia's COVID border restrictions were more intense than just about every other country in the world, maybe with the exception of China. Australian citizens, for example, if they were out of the country when the border was closed and shut down, they weren't allowed to come back in. Tens of thousands of them were stranded. People who were here even had to get permission from the government to leave Australia, and a lot of them were rejected. There were also really strict state border restrictions. You had to do 14 days of quarantine, even moving between major cities.

And a lot of families who live across state lines have gone years without seeing each other. But it was all supported, at least at first, because it really helped. Australia's COVID death rates are still some of the lowest in the world. So I think in a lot of ways, COVID really exacerbated a lot of the issues we've been talking about. Using the border as a form of security, psychologically and in terms of policy, the sense of trying to protect this safe country from outsiders. COVID really returned Australia to the isolationism that defined this place for so much of its early history. And so how does that play into what ultimately happens to Djokovic? Well, Djokovic basically arrives in a country that's still

working out how careful it wants to be with foreign arrivals. So while he'd initially been granted this exemption from being vaccinated and a judge at first said that he could stay, a lot of information came to light after that, which showed him basically just flouting COVID rules. So in the weeks leading up to the Australian Open, it looked like he just wasn't really taking COVID seriously. And some people were even calling into question whether he had COVID in the first place or just had his test doctored so he could get the exemption. And even if he did have COVID, like he said he did, people wanted to know why he'd been photographed at all these events in Serbia around the same time, usually with crowds and often without a mask.

It just looked to a lot of people like he was acting really irresponsibly. And so the immigration minister comes out after seeing all of that and says he's made this evaluation that Djokovic is a risk to public health and order. And so he cancels his visa. And eventually a panel of judges, this is kind of Djokovic's final appeal, says the immigration minister was within his legal rights to cancel Djokovic's visa. And within a few hours, he says he's going to comply, and he's on a plane, and he heads back to Serbia. So he's gone. He's out of the tournament. He's out of the country. But I'm struck by the language

that you said the immigration minister used, that Djokovic was a, quote, risk to public health and order. Is that truly a public health determination or is that about something else? No one is saying he's a one man super spreader event. He did say he had COVID. And if that's the case, he wouldn't be infectious anymore. But what the immigration minister basically said is that here's this really high-profile figure who has the potential to influence a lot of people to just reject the rules in general, especially young people who might idolize him. And the law basically says that the immigration minister can deport just about anyone, and that's what a court basically said, is that he has the power to do that.

And what kind of message do you think the government is sending to the Australian people? Well, I think in a lot of ways, it's about kind of standing in solidarity with Australians in the midst of this pandemic who have really, you know, dealt with a lot and followed the rules in general. And in COVID, for example, you know, there were very few protests about vaccination mandates.

During lockdowns, people mostly just obeyed. As soon as there were vaccinations available, people rushed out to get them. And so Djokovic, who's openly flouting all these rules, seems to be disrespecting the Australian people. At least that's the perception. And so I think the politicians, in a lot of ways, are saying, hey, listen,

we recognize the sacrifices you make, and we're not gonna let this guy who's this rich, famous tennis celebrity break the rules that you guys all abided by. You know, this was the place where they were going to draw the line and say, OK, enough is enough. You got to get vaccinated or you can't come in. Honestly, Damian, after everything you've told me, it seems like given Australia's strict border policy, whether it's because of COVID or boats arriving filled with migrants, it was sort of inevitable that Djokovic would get deported at the end of

all of this. Yeah, looking back, I suppose it does. I mean, here's this foreign tennis player who thought he didn't have to follow the rules or the vaccination mandate, arriving in a country that loves rules and a long history of really strict border enforcement. So, you know, maybe it's not surprising that he ends up getting kicked out. I suppose the surprise might be that he even tried to come. And so how has this entire saga gone over with Australians who have spent the last two years abiding by these rules? Well, you know, Australians, I think, were pretty torn for this whole week as the saga was playing out. They love having international athletes come and play tennis or pretty much any sport here. But they also expect rules to be followed. And they hate anyone

who thinks that they're superior, too good to do what everyone else does. So on one hand, I think a lot of Australians will tell you that they're proud that the rule of law was upheld and Djokovic received a dose of equal justice. After all, he was held in that same dank hotel as everyone else, and he did ultimately get deported. But they're also left with a pretty bad taste in their mouth because the truth is their government looked pretty incompetent with all the back and forth over his case. And Djokovic was treated differently. Unlike the asylum seekers, he was given the opportunity to appeal his case in court multipleokovic was treated differently. Unlike the asylum seekers, he was given the opportunity to appeal his case in court multiple times, and it was resolved pretty quickly. Right.

Lots of people were invested in the outcome, whereas for these refugees and asylum seekers, these truly vulnerable people, they're still stuck and pretty much forgotten. And so I think all of that has led Australians to think a lot more deeply about their border policies in a way that they really haven't for a very long time. I mean, this is a country that's become fatigued with the refugee and asylum seeker debate. And Djokovic somehow reignited, I think, a degree of reflection for Australians to really think about, well, gosh, if this is how our border policy works for someone who's a star celebrity, how does it work for people who are more vulnerable and who don't have the kind of

power and money that he has? Right. And it reminds me of that line you quoted earlier, Damien, that in Australia, sport is life. It's the place where Australians build their character. It seems to me like this could have just been another tennis tournament, but it actually prompted this soul searching. It's prompted Australians to hold a mirror up to themselves. I think that's the case. And I think a lot of Australians hope that's the case. You know, this is a country that's, I think, really trying to figure out both how COVID has changed this country and the whole identity of the country and how this 20-year period of extreme border enforcement has also affected them. But beyond that, I think, you know, Australians may be reconsidering their whole relationship to the world. You know, after a lot of years of really

focusing on border security, COVID has made them kind of misconnecting with the world. They're rule followers, but they also like to travel. They like to have people coming in. And there are a whole bunch of families that I think, you know, are hungry to be reconnected with their relatives and with people in other countries. So, you know, I think Australia is really trying to figure out what country do we want to be? Do we want to be a place that has strict border security and that's what defines us? Or do we also want to be a place that is open and has some common sense and reasonableness and fairness in the way we treat people? Not just tennis stars, but everyone who wants to come to Australia. And meanwhile, while all of this plays out, I'm assuming it doesn't necessarily mean much for the refugees who are still in the hotel where Djokovic was being held?

No, unfortunately, you know, they're still stuck there and are likely to be stuck there for a while. You know, I think for Australia, this whole period is almost like a wound that they just haven't quite healed or figured out how to solve. And so, you know, they're just hoping that eventually the problem will go away. Maybe some of these folks will land in other countries. But in the meantime, most of them are just going to be stuck there indefinitely. Well, thank you so much, Damian. It was really a pleasure speaking with you. Thank you. We'll be right back. Here's what else you need to know today. On Thursday, Congressional Democrats urged President Biden to reform his counterterrorism strategy, saying it was resulting in repeated civilian casualties from drone strikes. In a letter, the 50 lawmakers cited the U.S. airstrike in Kabul over the summer that The New York Times revealed had killed 10 innocent civilians, including children.

That strike, the Democrats said, was, quote, emblematic of systemic failure. The letter reached Biden a day after The Times revealed yet another questionable U.S. airstrike, this one against a major dam in Syria in 2017. The U.S. military had warned that the dam was not to be targeted because damage to it might cause a flood that could kill tens of thousands of civilians. But members of an American special operations unit bombed it anyway. Today's episode was produced by Rachel Quester, Michael Simon-Johnson, Eric Krupke, and Austin Mitchell, with help from Robert Jimison. It was edited by Liz O. Balin, featuring original music by Brad Fisher, Dan Powell, and Marian Lozano, and was engineered

by Brad Fisher. Our theme music is by Jim Brunberg and Ben Landsberg of Wonderly. That's it for The Daily. I'm Annie Correale. See you on Monday.