One Finite Planet

One Finite Planet

Djokovic: Rescued from PR Disaster By Australian Leader “Scotty from Marketing” Morrison!

Date Published:

A helping hand, but beware of knives.
  • Overview.
  • There are No Heroes: Morrison – Djokovic.
  • The Timeline.


Novak Djokovic had committed a nightmare public relations mistake, appearing to gloat at having managed an exemption from the vaccination requirements for the Australian Open tennis tournament.

Not necessarily a crowd favourite to begin with, Djokovic’s public announcement of the exemption that he had previously requested be a private matter created national outrage in Australia.

Normal citizens were required to be fully vaccinated, so how could this rich entitled sports star be entitled to an exemption?

The scene was set for Djokovic to “booed” during every match of the Australian Open?

So how could the public relations nightmare be defused?

Enter “Scotty from marketing”, the Australian, coal wielding, Prime Mininster with a background in advertising.

The solution, wrongfully detaining Djokovic on entry to Australia, confining him to immigration detention for several days and highlighting Australians shameful record with refugees, was the perfect solution.

Some people will probably still “boo”, but having been through that ordeal, Djokovic has now also gained victim status, and will enjoy support from many who would have never supporting him, not just following his faux pas, but ever before.

Surprising shift amid Djokovic detention ‘farce’ (

There Are No Heroes.

“Scotty From Marketing” Morrison.

The “shoot from the hip” call to act on a hastily discovered technicality, in attempt to act on community outrage, was ill-considered opportunism. Despite my sarcastic comments, it appears Morrison gave no thought as to whether Djokovic deserved the treatment he received. Backtracking from statements earlier the same day that the decision was in the hands of the Victorian government, Morrison announced there were questions raised about the validity of Djokovic’s visa just a few hours later and while Djokovic’s plane was still in the air.

Following on from the AUKUS truth debacle, “ScoMo” is not build the reputation he would desire.


Case for the Defence.

The “up yours” many interpreted Djokovic as signalling in revealing his exemption was very likely just poor judgement on how his smug photo together with written words with ambiguous expression would appear to readers on social media.

The case for Prosecution.

However, it turns out the claimed basis for the exemption is extremely questionable, if not disgraceful.

The claim is that Djokovic was tested on December 16th, and received a positive test result later that day, yet then proceeded to attend public events and pose unmasked with children for selfies the next day is at best problematic. Djokovic has since claimed he was unaware on the 17th of December, but admitted that he on the 18th he travelled and had meetings while knowing he was infected, and in breach of Serbian law requiring him to isolate. However, he did reportedly wear a mask on the 18th.

While he claims he discovered only after the events of the 17th, he did not reveal his infection, nor notify families that their children had been exposed to the virus.

Either the test was not genuine and he knew it, or he chose some mixture of completely ignoring the safety of others, but also taking some steps to show regard for others. It is almost like there is a voice in his ear telling him to do one thing, and another contradictory voice also present.

Djokovic has become a “poster boy” for the unvaccinated, which could completely erase all sympathy generated as a result of immigration detention, unless he suddenly decides to take a passionate interest in refugees, or some other redeeming step.

Here is a very comprehensive newspaper story on the affair.

(more links and more content to be added – including on the knives)

The Timeline.

  • Dec 10th: the deadline for applications for exemptions officially closed.
  • Dec 14th: Djokovic attended a basketball match where several people were infected, and was later notified he was a contact.
  • Dec 16th: As a contact, he had a public recorded PCR test, and states he also did his own rapid antigen test, which was negative. Records show the PCR test results were provided on the evening of the 16th.
  • Dec 17th: Djokovic attended public events without either social distancing or mask wearing. Although he claims he had not yet seem the PCR test result, acting in this manner with the result pending is against official guidelines in Serbia.
  • Dec 18th: The French newspaper L’Équipe said he took part in an interview and its Champion of Champions awards photoshoot in Belgrade. He was photographed without wearing a mask, but reports confirm he did wear a mask at other times. Djokovic admitted knowing he had tested positive, and knowing this attendance was contrary to regulations in Serbia.
    • despite now knowing he had tested positive, he attended his tennis centre in Belgrade to uphold a “long-standing commitment for a L’Equipe interview” because he “felt obliged” to and “didn’t want to let the journalist down”
  • Dec 22: A second PCR test returned a negative result
  • Jan 2: he received a border travel permit from the Victorian government.
  • Jan 4: he flew from Spain to Melbourne via Dubai.
  • Jan 5uary 11.30pm – he arrived in Melbourne.
  • Jan 6: his visa was cancelled
  • Jan 14:
    • 1800: his visa was again cancelled.
    • A late night hearing allowed him to stay out of detention, and meet the next morning.

more to be added

Table of Contents


Flawed Australian voice of Indigenous People referendum: The irony of a voice campaign that failed to listen.

A tragic lost opportunity. Why didn’t those proposing the voice make changes to remove ambiguity and eliminated enough of the negative perception to win over enough support instead of simply declaring” “No, if that is how you see it you are either racist or stupid!” Was it just that there was no willingness to listen?

Australians had an opportunity in a constitutional referendum to righteously shout loudly “I am not a racist” by voting for a proposition that, at its core, could be seen as fundamentally flawed, divisive and even potentially racist, in the hope even a risk of moving in the direction of apartheid is still better than nothing.

The referendum resulted in a huge setback for action on indigenous disadvantage and while it did seem unlikely to do anything to unify Australians and offer more than some possible affirmative action, the division resulted with even sometimes “yes” voters being encouraged to also be racist.

This is a deeper look trying to see each side from the perspective of the other, with the reality that both sides had a point, and a vast majority of people do want equality and unity.

Perhaps it little more work could bring things together and offer a fresh enough perspective to move beyond just another well-intentioned patronising racism failure like the stolen generations?

Read More »

Crime: A litmus test for inequality?

Around the world, many countries have both a battle with equality for some racial groups and minorities and also a battle with crime-rates within and by those same groups.

Should we consider crime rates the real sentinels of problems and a solution require focusing on factors behind crime rates? Or is the correct response to rising crime rates or crime rates within specific groups an adoption of being “tough on crime”, thus increasing rates of incarceration and even deaths in custody for oppressed minorities and racial groups?

This is an exploration of not adjusting the level of penalties and instead focusing on the core issues and inequalities behind crime-rates. It is clear that it is “damaged people” in general rather than specific racial groups that correlate with elevated crime rates, so why not use crime rates to identify who is facing inequality?

Read More »

Influence: There’s no free lunch and they use your data to make you pay.

It can seem all those tech companies are so dumb giving away services for free.

I recently read another comment containing the “I don’t want Google getting more of my data to sell” and it reminded me of the question, ‘why is your data valuable?’ people too rarely ask. The common myth is that Facebook and Google etc want your data so they can sell it, but even with companies that do sell your data, it still requires someone to turn data into money, and enough money to fund the “free” services of the tech companies and allow them enough spare to make profits beyond anything seen in the world previously. So how does the data turn into so much money?

There is no such thing as a free lunch. Google and Facebook etc make their money from advertising, not from selling data, and unless they use can the data to persuade you to buy products at prices inflated by advertisers paying part of the sale price to Facebook/Google etc, they would lose money.

Your data is used to inflate the cost of living and earn votes for politicians with an agenda that gives them a budget to spend. They (Google/Facebook etc) don’t want to sell your data, but the reality, is more sinister: they use it to have to change your thinking, so more of your money will go to make them richer.

Read More »

The Power struggle in Australia.

From “the biggest corruption scandal ever” in Brazil, problems in Venezuela, human rights in Saudi Arabia and Iran, to the problems caused by lobbyists against action on climate change, an abundance of fossil fuels is a source of political power, yet rarely force for good, and Australia, with a wealth of coal and gas, is not spared.

The current crisis in Ukraine not only drives up energy prices globally, but it also creates a dilemma for gas producing nations.

Read More »

Fragile Democracy: Was Scott ‘Scomo’ Morrison autocrat of Australia?

Democracy collapses when a leader, who is able to bypass the checks and balances, uses their position to retain power.

Steps by recent leaders Scott Morrison and Australia and Donald Trump in the USA, raise questions as to whether current reliance on conventions and constitutions reliably protects democracy.

China, Russia and even North Korea are all technically democracies, and all proof of how technically being a democracy does not necessarily deliver real democracy.

Read More »