Performative politics has once again taken Australia by storm, with Novak Djokovic’s deportation centre stage. The world number one men's tennis player was embroiled in national controversy ahead of the Australian Open after entering the country unvaccinated to play in the competition, in breach of the national immigration regulations. All of this after Australia faced some of the harshest lockdowns in the world to try and extinguish the Covid-19 virus. 

HISTORY OF HARD-LINE IMMIGRATION POLICIES

The Hunger Games-esque publicity for the reality show of politics is not a new occurrence in Australia. Similar events have publicly called attention to the country’s immigration policies, after the deportation of Julian Blanc, a US “pick-up artist,” who taught how to pick up women using force and emotional abuse, or, Katie Hopkins, far-right British commentator who was deported over breached Covid regulations. Lastly, who could forget the threat to kill Johnny Depp’s dogs after he failed to declare them to Australian customs. 

The government used these public frenzies as moments to try and reinstate their tough stance on immigration, on the basis that it was for the greater good. However, this type of performative politics has also been a way to detract attention from the government’s more sinister choices. This method of distraction has generally worked in the past.

INCONSISTENT IMMIGRATION POLICIES

The Novak Djokovic controversy has been more about Australia’s public manoeuvring of political issues than about the unvaccinated sports star. The Australian government demonstrates this type of morality theatre in a bid to earn the unwavering trust of the public, and to reassure them that it can in fact make responsible decisions regarding the safety of the country.  

Unfortunately, this hard-line approach to immigration more often extends to migrants and asylum seekers. While it's no secret that Australia’s approach to asylum seekers and human rights has had damaging effects on migrants, particularly in detention centres like Manus Island, there seems to have been few consequences for the sovereign state. Anna Neistat, senior director for research at Amnesty International stated that “Australia’s policy of exiling asylum seekers who arrive by boat is cruel in the extreme” in response to Australia’s inability to address the serious abuses that result from harmful policy making.

It is in this background that the irony of Djokovic’s twice cancelled visa and subsequent detainment can be fully recognised. He was held in the same hotel as 32 refugees who have been imprisoned by Australia for over nine years. 

The refugees had previously been held in detention camps, until the Papua New Guinea government deemed that this detention was unconstitutional, and Australia was forced to relocate the men remaining in the camps. The Australian government has utilised the tactic of out of sight, out of mind, when it comes to those fleeing persecution. 

HISTORY OF DETENTION OF MIGRANTS AND ASYLUM SEEKERS

Australia is no stranger to the detention of migrants, with the country’s entire existence built on the incarceration of British convicts and the subsequent enslavement of the Aboriginal people. Mandatory detention has also been pivotal to Australian migration management since 1992. However, more severe migration policies surfaced post 9/11. 

A critical situation arose in 2001 that highlighted how the government’s response and inaction resulted in cruel and inhuman punishment towards refugees, which would become a key component of Australia’s immigration policies. On August 26, 2001, the infamous Tampa Crisis saw a stand-off between the Liberal Howard government and a Norwegian freighter carrying 433 Afghan asylum seekers that were rescued at sea. The freighter attempted to land and drop the asylum seekers on Australian shores, but entry to the country was refused by the Australian government. A struggle between Australia and Indonesia ensued, as neither country wanted to take responsibility for the asylum seekers looking for refuge - despite Australia’s international obligations under the 1951 Refugee Convention. The impasse reached crisis level onboard the freighter, as the vessel lacked the resources and capacity for such a number of people to remain onboard for a prolonged period of time. 

With the Australian government's refusal to allow these refugees to land on its shores, despite being highly contested by the international community, the creation of offshore processing was enacted, on 1st September 2001. The Pacific Solution saw the transfer of asylum seekers attempting to reach Australia to neighbouring island territories that were within the Australian migration zone. This practice incited deep moral and political debate about the abuses of human rights, particularly given Article 14 in the Declaration of Human Rights which provides the right of individuals to seek asylum. 

An eventual and costly end to the standoff saw the transfer of the Afghan refugees to the neighbouring island Nauru, as well as a small population of 132 being resettled in New Zealand. The timing of the Tampa Crisis indicated a strengthening of hard-line policies after the events of 9/11.  The global paralysis and panic following 9/11 allowed the Australian government to bolster the narrative of securitisation to subvert terrorist attacks, leading to the eventual expansion of offshore processing in Papua New Guinea. 

The immigration camp in Papua New Guinea was finally terminated, which resulted in the remaining 32 refugees being relocated to the Melbourne Park Hotel, sharing the same space with Djokovic. Except the 32 refugees remain indefinitely detained in the hotel.

UNCERTAIN FUTURE FOR AUSTRALIAN HUMAN RIGHTS POLICIES

Despite the consequences of Australian policies for Djokovic, he will get to return home. He will also be allowed to return to Australia (after his three-year ban), despite lying on his travel documents and choosing to remain unvaccinated. What will not heal is the indelible stain on Australia’s human rights record caused by horrid migration policies that do not seem to have an end in sight. We are left to question what the next high-profile scandal will be that will once again highlight the plight of refugees on Australian shores. We also question when, and if, there will be accountability for the gross human rights abuses of refugees entering Australia.

Kaytlin is a current Masters student in Migration Studies at the University of San Francisco. Originally from Australia, but now residing in the United States, Kaytlin is intrigued by all things immigration and border related and is currently writing her thesis on deterrence policies in the US and Australia.

Linkedin