Dr. Martin Jarrett: The Djoković Australia Saga - Legal Issues Behind the Drama

It has been the news story of the year so far: the Djoković-Australia saga.

There are many fascinating elements to this saga, from the vaccination issue to the sporting story, specifically whether Djoković could win his 21st grand slam at the Australian Open. But this saga was fundamentally a legal story. In this video Dr. Martin Jarrett, Senior Researcher at the Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law, gives a comprehensive account of the legal story. It focuses specifically on the difficult legal issues that the Djoković-Australia saga raised.

After looking through the various legal proceedings, a provocative question is considered at the end: what does this saga show about the health of the rule of law in Australia?

Feel free to add your thoughts to this question in the comments below!

00:00 (i) Introduction
00:55 (ii) Backstory
05:10 (iii) First visa cancellation
13:35 (iv) Djo. v Min. For Home Affairs
19:12 (v) Second visa cancellation
25:58 (vi) Djokovic v Min for Immigration
29:47 (vii) Thoughts on Rule of Law in Australia
35:47 (viii) conclusion.

[williamjenkins]

Hello Dr Jarrett, a very well presented video in my opinion which cuts through all the rhetoric of the whole issues. However in your closing comments i would like you to explain what possible political gains you believe were taken advantage of. In my opinion Minister Hawke did the proper and right thing in the public interest of Australian citizens and thats what we expect our politicians to do with fairness and justice. Not for political gains and advancement. I am sure you would agree that elected officials are supposed to be in office to serve the interests of the country where they hold a political office. I look forward to your comments in reply. Thankyou William Jenkins

[lukenottage]

Excellent summary thanks Martin. Unnecessary perhaps to repeat the ad hominem comments from NYT about the Australian PM apparently being often smug and a political opportunist lacking principles / leadership (what about opening up borders internationally and persuading all state premiers except of WA to resume domestic travel now that vaccination rates very high, despite the omicron spread?). Likewise what’s the basis for implying at the end that the PM is just second-rate, like other Australian leaders according to “the lucky country” author two generations ago? Anyway the PM didn’t cancel the visa but the Immigration Minister (although PMs nominate Ministers). The biggest point is indeed that the Act gives huge discretion to the Minister, rubbing up against Rule of Law values, which has or can be used by governments of all political persuasions