There’s been some good analysis from experts over the weekend looking at the process of what’s happening.

Sangeetha Pillai,a senior research associate at the Kaldor Centre for International Refugee Law,UNSW,argues inthis piece that it would have been much better if there had been clarity of the ground rules between the federal government and tournament organisers.

She also points out Djokovic faces a tough road to success.

If Djokovic loses,he faces deportation. But even if he wins,his path to the Open may not be clear. If the decision to cancel his visa is found invalid,the Minister for Home Affairs will be able to use any powers available under the Migration Act to cancel the visa again. This is effectively a second bite at the cherry. If a second attempt at cancellation is made without error,Djokovic will face deportation. To be truly safe,he needs to show there was no rational basis in the circumstances for a cancellation decision to be made at all.

This is much harder,because of the sheer breadth of the Minister’s visa cancellation powers. Section 116(e),for instance,allows the Minister to cancel a person’s visa if their presence “might be” a risk to “the health,safety or good order of the Australian community”. The fact that Djokovic does not have proof of vaccination might be enough to enable his visa to be cancelled under this power.

She also argues that the saga has highlighted flaws in our immigration system more broadly.

Whatever happens in the case,the events of the last few days highlight important questions about what good migration process and policy looks like,in a COVID context and beyond. Travellers to Australia should expect clarity about whether they are allowed to enter before they board a plane. People should be entitled to legal advice before they are detained or deported,and should not be pressured out of receiving it.

You can read thefull piece here.