The successful legal case to have Novak Djokovic deported from Australia over his anti-vaccination stance has sparked fears among human rights groups that anyone with 'undesirable' political views could be booted out of the country.
The tennis star lost his final bid to stay in Melbourne and compete in the Australian Open on Sunday after three federal court judges ruled he did not have grounds to dispute Immigration Minister Alex Hawke's visa cancellation.
Exercising his ministerial discretionary powers, Mr Hawke said the decision was based on 'health and good order grounds, on the basis that it was in the public interest to do so'.
But civil right advocates say one of the reasons tendered by Mr Hawke's lawyers during the landmark court ruling was weak and paves the way for the government to ban travellers who pose no real risk to the community - as well as showing the broad and sweeping nature of the Migration Act.
Novak Djokovic will be deported from Australia after three federal court judges ruled he did not have grounds to dispute Immigration Minister's deportation order. The tennis star is pictured arriving at his lawyer's office to view the court case on Sunday
Citing comments made by Djovokic in April 2020, federal lawyers said the tennis star expressed he was 'opposed to vaccination' but was 'no expert'.
In the statement, made prior to the advent of Covid vaccines, the tennis champion added he had an 'open mind' and wanted 'an option to choose what’s best for my bod'.
The government’s barrister, Stephen Lloyd, SC, argued Djokovic's views were 'widely understood' and he had become an 'icon' for anti-vaxxers, and his past statements - along with his public image - may encourage people to refrain from vaccination.
But Pauline Wright, president of the NSW Council for Civil Liberties, said although his fame and views may reasonably influence others, Djokovic's past statements do not render him a public health risk.
'Do the comments in 2020 disentitle him from playing a tennis game in Australia in 2022?' she told The Age.
'Does that really pose such a threat to public health in a situation where we’ve got 95 per cent of the adult population vaccinated?'
Michael Stanton, a barrister and the president of Liberty Victoria, said the emphasis on how Djokavic's views may be perceived was 'particularly unfair' as it sets an 'impossible standard for that person to meet'.
Civil rights advocates say discretionary powers given to the Immigration Minister (Alex Hawke pictured) to block travellers for 'public risk' reasons is dangerous for democracy
In court documents filed late on Saturday, the Minister argued his decision to cancel Djokovic's visa had little to do with concern about him infecting others with Covid (pictured, the star on Sunday)
Mr Stanton said the focus should have instead been on the seriousness of what he has actually said, and the circumstances were very different from denying someone a visa for saying something inciting violence or encouraging unrest.
He added the situation was ironic given the government's move to remove the tennis player had put his anti-vaccination views in the international spotlight for the past week.
Ms Wright and Mr Stanton said the case calls to attention the dangers of the Immigration Minister's ability to make 'arbitrary decisions' to cancel someone's visa if they believe the person may risk public health or good order.
Australian Lawyers Alliance spokesman Greg Barns, SC, echoed their views, arguing Djokovic was a tennis player - not someone travelling to the country to spruik anti-vaccination.
He said the case could set a precedent for anyone to be blocked from entering the country for holding views deemed to be against Australia's interest.
For example, Mr Barns said, a musician who opposed the US-Australia alliance could be denied a visa on the basis they may reduce public support for a Australian foreign policy and national security measure.
'While we understand the importance of public health … it’s dangerous in a democracy to refuse entry to an individual who happens to have views contrary to government policy, particularly when the person is coming to Australia for a purpose that is unrelated to those views,' he said.
Djokovic supporters waved the Serbian flags as they gathered in front of Federal Court buildings in Melbourne on Sunday
Chief Justice James Allsop, Justice Anthony Besanko and Justice David O'Callaghan unanimous ruled unanimously against the tennis world No.1 in his bid to have his visa reinstated on Sunday evening.
Dozens of demonstrators have since gathered outside Melbourne's federal court buildings to protest the decision, which costs Djokovic the chance of securing a record 21st grand slam win.
The world No.1 was required to prove to the court that Mr Hawke acted irrationally or legally unreasonably in choosing to use his discretionary powers.
The superstar athlete had been set to launch the defence of his Australian Open title in the competition's opening round on Monday, but is instead facing ejection from the nation.
The 34-year-old Serb may also face a three-year ban on re-entering the country and has also been ordered to pay the federal government's legal costs.
Djokovic said in a statement that he was 'extremely disappointed' with the court's decision to dismiss his application but that he respected its ruling.
