But would Djokovic know the difference between the two before he got on the plane?
If I wanted to visit an event or a company in Australia I would presumably get a piece of paper with a crown at the top saying something to the effect of, "You're good to go, mate." Nobody's going to look past that piece of paper.
If one of the state governments is issuing pieces of paper on its own, then that looks like a real problem for the federal government to hash out with that state government.
If you want to make it the responsibility of every visitor to Australia to make the long distance phone calls to the authorities or to hire an immigration lawyer to study a piece of paper to ensure that it's legit, well, you're going to watch tourism to your country collapse overnight. Any internecine conflicts between the federal and state level simply can't be the problem of someone coming to your country to spend money (or in Djokovic's case, help raise it).
As I've said, I've come to accept that his conclusions weren't unreasonable.
But, having said that, considering how often he's visited Australia (I've no idea of the total number of times, but he's won nine Australian Opens, so it is at least nine times), I honestly would expect him to understand the difference between the Victorian and Australian governments. And certainly, he should have people working for him, who do.
If I wanted to visit an event or a company in Australia I would presumably get a piece of paper with a crown at the top saying something to the effect of, "You're good to go, mate." Nobody's going to look past that piece of paper.
If I was travelling to America and I had a piece of paper issued by Iowa, I wouldn't assume it was an entry permit to the United States.
If one of the state governments is issuing pieces of paper on its own, then that looks like a real problem for the federal government to hash out with that state government.
Yes, it is. But we did not know this was a problem until a few days ago. And, to be fair, I don't think the Victorian government actually intended anybody to think they were giving such permission. They've actually been quite clear that the intent of the documents they produced was only to ensure Djokovic was unrestricted once he entered Victoria - they didn't intend for it to be treated as a border permit. Personally, I'd love to believe they were being deliberately duplicitous on that basis, but I honestly do not think they were. I'm less sure about what Tennis Australia intended - but there's no constitutional implications flowing from what they did.
If you want to make it the responsibility of every visitor to Australia to make the long distance phone calls to the authorities or to hire an immigration lawyer to study a piece of paper to ensure that it's legit, well, you're going to watch tourism to your country collapse overnight. Any internecine conflicts between the federal and state level simply can't be the problem of someone coming to your country to spend money (or in Djokovic's case, help raise it).
It wasn't necessary to make phone calls or hire an immigration lawyer. The statement that double vaccination was a requirement to enter Australia and that having COVID within the last six months was not an exemption for the purpose of entering Australia was stated quite clearly on information published by the Commonwealth government. Moreover Tennis Australia was explicitly told this numerous times and seems to have ignored it - I'm waiting to see what develops there.