AP Explains: What's next for Novak Djokovic, who faces the powerful Australian immigration minister as the top-ranked tennis star seeks to remain in the country and defend his Australian Open title despite being unvaccinated against COVID-19.
Unlike the decision of a government underling, the “rules of natural justice do not apply” to a minister’s decision. That means the minister did not have to tell Djokovic he was planning to deport him.
Djokovic’s lawyers provided evidence for why he was entitled to keep his visa and be allowed to defend his Australian Open title in the days before the minister acted. “It’s not something that he can have a one-liner saying: ‘Dear Mr. Djokovic, your visa is canceled.’ He can’t have a bureaucrat or a staffer write a decision for him, look at it for two minutes and sign off on it,” Bone added.Because the minister’s power is so broad and discretionary, grounds for appeal are potentially fewer than they are for a decision of a public servant acting on a minister’s authority. But courts have overturned ministers’ decisions in the past.
“It’s inevitable that political considerations would form part of the decision because that concept of public interest is so broad that it allows a minister to effectively take into account political considerations, even though theoretically that ought not be done,” Barnes added. Djokovic’s lawyers don’t accept that those sentiments are a legitimate reason to deny the sporting star an attempt at a record 21 Grand Slam titles.