Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I do not like the handling of it either, and the rules should have been clearer before he came, but I can tell you there was joy among people we know when he got on that plane to Dubai. And we actually are all keen followers of tennis, unlike many of the people who are getting into the argument. My parents met playing tennis and my kids and grandkids all play.
We have personally been in a situation where overseas celebrities have been able to stay in a location where we have a holiday apartment in Queensland but we were not able to go there, as it was across a closed state border. I do not object to people being there with business interests but the point is that we have all been subjected to the rules and inconveniences of this pandemic. We do not like to see rules not consistently applied.
If a certain number of people decline to come here as tourists because of this situation, so be it. The Asian tourist market is our major one and I hardly think your average Chinese tourist will be declining to come as a result.
I completely understand and am empathetic regarding the inconvenience and rules the Australian people have had to endure during the pandemic , but should this be the primary basis for kicking someone out of the country when he apparently only entered in good faith after being told he could enter? Sometimes difficult decisions have to be made that the public doesn’t support, but I understand this can be very difficult for government leaders when they lack public support. I’m fine with a penalty, but kicking the reigning Australian Open champion out of the country was far too severe. I believe they could have found another way around this, if they so desired. It is really unfortunate for tennis, Novak, the Australian Open, and especially Australia.
My understanding is Novak had a medical exemption since he had Covid in December OR was the minister not willing to count his previous Covid diagnosis? Tennis Australia and the Victorian government thought this was sufficient, and it is my understanding communicated this and although they didn’t have the final say, this should have been taken into consideration by the Australian minister.
The federal department of health and the health minister both sent letters to Tennis Australia saying in no uncertain terms that prior infection would not be accepted by the ABF as a vaccination exemption.
The federal department of health and the health minister both sent letters to Tennis Australia saying in no uncertain terms that prior infection would not be accepted by the ABF as a vaccination exemption.
Novak apparently only decided to come to Australia after he had been told his December Covid diagnosis allowed him to enter. If he had come without being told he could legally enter, the severe penalty of deportation might be justified. I strongly believe the government minister could have found a more acceptable solution regarding the 9 time and defending Australian Open champion, if he had desired to do so.
My understanding is Novak had a medical exemption since he had Covid in December OR was the minister not willing to count his previous Covid diagnosis? Tennis Australia and the Victorian government thought this was sufficient, and it is my understanding communicated this and although they didn’t have the final say, this should have been taken into consideration by the Australian minister.[/b]
It was, the exact reason for Djokovic's deportation given by the minster , was that " his presence may pose a health risk to the Australian community because it may foster anti-vaccination sentiment”.
The minster actually stated the he has been to Australia many times, has an extensive compliance history, and personally made no attempt to contravene Australian Law.
It was, the exact reason for Djokovic's deportation given by the minster , was that " his presence may pose a health risk to the Australian community because it may foster anti-vaccination sentiment”.
The minster actually stated the he has been to Australia many times, has an extensive compliance history, and personally made no attempt to contravene Australian Law.
This is my entire point, This was one man’s opinion, whether it was on point or not. It appears his opinion was final, with little or no oversight. Ironically, there’s an excellent chance that his deportation may lead to even more anti-vaccine resistance.
This is my entire point, This was one man’s opinion, whether it was on point or not. Evidently, his opinion is final, with little or no oversight. Ironically, there’s an excellent chance that his deportation may lead to even more anti-vaccine resistance.
Once again their was lots oversight, i don't know how many times it needs to be said. Using your logic I could say the US is a dictatorship because the of the lack of oversight on the president, no single person in Australia has anywhere near the powers of the US president.
The second part I 100% agree with, and it was among the first questions the PM answered when the decision was made.
Once again their was lots oversight, i don't know how many times it needs to be said. Using your logic I could say the US is a dictatorship because the of the lack of oversight on the president, no single person in Australia has anywhere near the powers of the US president.
The second part I 100% agree with, and it was among the first questions the PM answered when the decision was made.
Not sure how you figure there was much oversight. My understanding is the 3 federal judges made their ruling since they felt the minister had sole authority to make the decision he made. Completely agree about our previous president. Unilateral decisions were made that most people didn’t know a U.S. president could make by himself.
Not sure how you figure there was much oversight. My understanding is the 3 federal judges made their ruling since they felt the minister had sole authority to make the decision he made. Completely agree about our previous president. Unilateral decisions were made that most people didn’t know a U.S. president could make by himself.
Djokovic took the federal government to court to challenge the ministers decision. That is what the second hearing was about, the court went through all the legal statutes and relevant case law, and confirmed that the minister had indeed acted correctly within the provisions of the immigration act under which Djokovic was deported.
Here is a 32 pages of submission that were made by the government (Respondent), citing all the relevant case law and grounds upon which the deportation order was made.
Novak apparently only decided to come to Australia after he had been told his December Covid diagnosis allowed him to enter. If he had come without being told he could legally enter, the severe penalty of deportation might be justified. I strongly believe the government minister could have found a more acceptable solution regarding the 9 time and defending Australian Open champion, if he had desired to do so.
AP reported this:
Quote:
Australian medical authorities have ruled that people who have been infected with COVID-19 within six months can receive a temporary exemption to the vaccination rule.
So if he really has proof that he had covid he should be allowed to play.
There you go.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
