5 ms·

The Victorian government did in fact grant Djokovic an exemption: https://www.aljazeera.com/sports/2022/1/11/explainer-why-australia-faces-a-tough-call-on-djoko

by vore 5y ago

The Victorian government did in fact grant Djokovic an exemption: https://www.aljazeera.com/sports/2022/1/11/explainer-why-australia-faces-a-tough-call-on-djokovic https://www.aljazeera.com/sports/2022/1/11/explainer-why-aus... Medical panels established by Tennis Australia and the Victoria government granted Djokovic exemption from vaccination to play at the Australian Open on that basis. Djokovic’s lawyers argued that he had every reason to believe the same standard applied at the border. 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-exemption-entry-into-australia-delayed-.html https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/05/novak-djokovics-vaccine-exem... The Serbian arrived in Melbourne on Wednesday evening local time, but faced trouble at the border, with Acting Sports Minister Jaala Pulford confirming that the state government was not supporting his visa application to compete in the Australian Open. She tweeted: “The Federal Government has asked if we will support Novak Djokovic’s visa application to enter Australia. “We will not be providing Novak Djokovic with individual visa application support to participate in the 2022 Australian Open Grand Slam. “We’ve always been clear on two points: visa approvals are a matter for the Federal Government, and medical exemptions are a matter for doctors.” 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.

kzrdude 5y ago
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-state-nomination https://www.migration.sa.gov.au/nomination-process/about-sta...
- vore 5y ago
  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).
  - kzrdude 5y ago
    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.

by vore 5y ago

kzrdude 5y ago

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-state-nomination https://www.migration.sa.gov.au/nomination-process/about-sta...

vore 5y ago
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).
- kzrdude 5y ago
  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.