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.
It seems like this is on Tennis Australia and the Victorian body who issued him the exemption, even though BF advised them he still needed to qualify with immigration policy on vaccination. TA's exemption would be to play in the tournament, and the VA body's exemption would be to enter the state, but neither can give him permission to enter the country, they don't have that authority, that ALWAYS rests with the federal government.
A visa only gives you the right to present yourself at the border to request permission to enter, it does not guarantee entry. It says, on the face of it, this person is eligible to apply to enter the country, but you still have to demonstrate actual compliance with immigration regulations once you get off the plane. Border Patrol has always had the final say at the point of entry, it's the same for every non=citizen trying to enter another country, plenty of people with visas get turned around at borders every day - because they don't have enough money, they look like they're there to work not on vacation, risk of overstaying, etc.
There's a "Go on, I dare you to turn him away" element to this. Does anyone have details about the reasons why the other players received exemptions? Maybe they had adverse reactions to previous vaccinations, which would qualify them for a valid immigration exception on medical grounds.
I'm also a bit surprised the airline didn't push him a bit harder before letting him on the plane. They could potentially be fined and have to bear the cost of his outward flight.
From the Home Affairs site:
"If you are coming to Australia and have a medical contraindication recorded in the Australian Immunisation Register (AIR) you can show an Australian COVID-19 digital certificate to airline staff. You can otherwise show your immunisation history statement.
If you do not have your medical contraindication recorded in the AIR you will need to show airline staff a medical certificate that indicates you are unable to be vaccinated with a COVID-19 vaccine because of a medical condition. The medical certificate must be in English and include the following information:
your name (this must match your travel identification documents)
date of medical consultation and details of your medical practitioner
details that clearly acknowledge that you have a medical condition which means you cannot receive a COVID-19 vaccination (vaccination is contraindicated).
Airlines are responsible for ensuring your proof meets these requirements."
No hes breaking the law and deserves all he gets..
He broke no law as he was issued a visa. Government on back foot being responsive to present situation rather than setting the agenda in the first place. ScoMo of course will use the opportunity to appear tough and win votes. He's well aware from his spell in immigration the potential to win votes on such matters.
At least it has cast a light, however small on Australia's appalling handling of the refugees/asylum seekers .
Last edited by the troubadour; 01-09-2022 at 04:34 PM..
Good on him, though I fail to see what any of this has to do with political point scoring. It's about the legal interpretation of newly endorsed laws.
It's up to the minister to make a final decision, and which ever way that goes he is going to upset a portion of the voter base, the government will not win anything from the whole debacle.
Good on him, though I fail to see what any of this has to do with political point scoring. It's about the legal interpretation of newly endorsed laws.
It's not even that. It was quashed on the procedural fairness angle – and if you read the transcript of the record of interview the ABF is laughably incompetent. The judge didn't even get to the substantive matter of whether or not he was allowed to enter unvaccinated.
The government is going to need some sort of compromise because they are in a really tight spot. The ABF does not allow unvaccinated foreigners using past infection to enter Australia. So now we have the bizarre scenario where a wealthy tennis player has broken those rules and remains in the country. Given all that's happened regarding the border and stranded families etc it's going to be very difficult to explain why the rules don't apply to Djokovic.
It's not even that. It was quashed on the procedural fairness angle – and if you read the transcript of the record of interview the ABF is laughably incompetent. The judge didn't even get to the substantive matter of whether or not he was allowed to enter unvaccinated.
The government is going to need some sort of compromise because they are in a really tight spot. The ABF does not allow unvaccinated foreigners using past infection to enter Australia. So now we have the bizarre scenario where a wealthy tennis player has broken those rules and remains in the country. Given all that's happened regarding the border and stranded families etc it's going to be very difficult to explain why the rules don't apply to Djokovic.
Of course, I have not read the full details of the actual court hearing, you have a very good point regarding been in a tight spot, which was very much how I was thinking, what are the legal implications of this going to be going forward?
The other really tight spot for the government, is the far right we have up here in QLD, what you folks down south might call "Loony Parties" or something similar (Palmer, Katter and One Nation), are uniformly campaigning against mandatory vaccinations, and vaccine passports etc. Its difficult to say how those people will respond to the end decision. I have no time to look, but I would dare suggest your typical anti vaxer also leans conservative.
I have a good friend who is both an anti vaxter and deeply conservative.
Last edited by danielsa1775; 01-10-2022 at 04:52 AM..
Quite frankly, I'm not sure how one can oppose Djokovic's entry but be in favor of the Australian Open being played at all. The latter is 100% more likely to affect the infection numbers in Victoria than Djokovic's presence in Australia.
I don't know how that can even be disputed. It seems to me that barring Djokovic is just a gesture designed to symbolically punish all unvaccinated folks i.e. a classic case of scapegoating. And as an arrogant, rich guy playing a rich man's sport, he of course makes an easy scapegoat.
Quite frankly, I'm not sure how one can oppose Djokovic's entry but be in favor of the Australian Open being played at all. The latter is 100% more likely to affect the infection numbers in Victoria than Djokovic's presence in Australia.
I don't know how that can even be disputed. It seems to me that barring Djokovic is just a gesture designed to symbolically punish all unvaccinated folks i.e. a classic case of scapegoating. And as an arrogant, rich guy playing a rich man's sport, he of course makes an easy scapegoat.
Spot on.
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.
(Palmer, Katter and One Nation), are uniformly campaigning against mandatory vaccinations, and vaccine passports etc. Its difficult to say how those people will respond to the end decision. I have no time to look, but I would dare suggest your typical anti vaxer also leans conservative. 
