I just wrote an opinion piece for @smh on tomorrow’s #djokovic case & some broader systemic questions. If you’d like to read it it’s here: smh.com.au/national/djoko…
I won’t be able to read & respond to all comments, but some note that ND isn’t a migrant. It slipped my mind when writing that it might not be clear to people that temporary entry & ‘migration’ both fall within immigration law & the same 1000+ page Act. Many common powers apply.
Broad visa cancellation powers can be used against people like Djokovic, people trying to migrate, and people who have lived here most of their lives on permanent residency visas. It is counterintuitive, I know! There’s room for systemic reform across all these areas, and others.
The language of law can be really alienating to non-lawyers. I really try to break that down & make legal things as accessible as I can, but there is always scope to do better. If you’re ever confused by something I’ve said, you can always ask me & I’ll try again 😊
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
It’s a super hard time just to try to exist, and if you aren’t saving your deepest sympathies for a crazy rich tennis star who has publicly opposed vaccination, well friends I very much get it.
Two medical panels via a blind process administered by Tennis Australia and the Victorian govt granted Djokovic a vaccine exemption. This exemption allows him to play in the Australian Open; it had nothing to do with his visa. But the two things are being conflated *everywhere*.
Amongst those conflating the right to enter and the right to play is the PM, who a day before Djokovic’s visa was cancelled told the media that he was able to come because the Victorian Government had ‘provided him with an exemption to come to Australia’: bit.ly/34u59LN
Federal court hearing on the legality of the India travel ban kicking off now, before Thawley J. If you’re interested you can watch for yourself here: secure.quickchannel.com/qc/create/main…
The plaintiff is Gary Newman - a 73 y.o. man who has been in Bangalore India since March 2020. He is in a vulnerable category and wants to return to Australia as soon as possible in the circumstances, but says he has been unable to do so.
Today the court will hear arguments about whether a fundamental common law right allowing citizens to enter Australia, or other factors, mean that the travel ban could not be made under the Biosecurity Act.