Re:Novak Djokovic's Visa Cancelled by Australian Minister fo...
by vore on Friday January 14, 2022 @03:30AM
(#29931915)
The Victorian government did in fact grant Djokovic an exemption: https://www.aljazeera.com/sports/2022/1/11/explainer-why-aus...
However, the federal government did not and now there's a lot of finger pointing – the Victorian government then also backtracked on it by refusing to file another exemption for Djokovic: https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/05/novak-djokovics-vaccine-exem...
This is a particularly mind-boggling piece of grandstanding, given that the Victoria government had literally approved an exemption for him before. To make my position clear, I'm not at all a fan of what Djokovic is trying to pull and I think the guy should go and get vaccinated already, but this is a hot mess of the Australian governments trying to attempt some kind of face-saving measure.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Novak Djokovic's Visa Cancelled by Australian Minister fo...
by kzrdude on Friday January 14, 2022 @03:38AM
(#29931985)
Ok, I didn't know that. But still, in what way is Victoria responsible for immigration? Do they normally decide anything about it?
It seems like states can nominate (in other immigration cases) but it's subject to central rules too https://www.migration.sa.gov.au/nomination-process/about-sta...
Re:Novak Djokovic's Visa Cancelled by Australian Minister fo...
by vore on Friday January 14, 2022 @03:46AM
(#29932055)
I'm not sure of the extent of the Victorian government's involvement in this debacle, but it is clear they had expressly gave him their assurance (multiple sources mention both Tennis Australia and the Victorian government gave him their approval, even if the visa was ultimately wrong) and were aware of the circumstances (would be surprising if they weren't attentive to the world's #1 tennis player coming to one of the world's most prestigious tennis tournaments).
Re:Novak Djokovic's Visa Cancelled by Australian Minister fo...
by kzrdude on Friday January 14, 2022 @06:36AM
(#29933214)
I think from his side it's a weak argument to follow but maybe it makes sense in a common law context - whatever instance has given him a go-ahead, he's going to use that and say he had some kind of assurance. It's just not from the right department or level at all, but he can try. He needs a pseudo good faith argument for "I thought I could go", and that's what he's trying to do - that's his foot in the door, then the courts decide.