COVID-19 and Tennis

[HappyFlyerFamily]

'What more could this man have done?' judge asks​

Judge Anthony Kelly says "a professor and an eminently qualified physician have produced and provided to the applicant a medical exemption".

"Further to that, that medical exemption and the basis on which it was given was separately given by a further independent expert specialist panel, established by the Victorian state government. And that document was in the hands of the delegate

"And the point I'm somewhat agitated about is, was what more could this man have done?"

 

[Lynda2475]

"And the point I'm somewhat agitated about is, was what more could this man have done?"

Got vaccinated months ago and avoided all this.

If he wasn't an anti-vaxer, got jabbed in one of the many countries he has visited in the last 12 months offering free jabs he would have been welcomed hassle free.

 

[dajop]

This whole thing is a debacle of incompetence by all involved.

We have a serial pest, in the form of Novax, who pushes envelopes all the time. Any wonder there are doubts of veracity of his documentation.

But we have TA who seems to have thought they knew what they were doing but didn't.

We have reports of conflicting advice from the federal government and does it surprise anyone that right now, or indeed at any point in history of the federal government (under either ALP or LNP) there could be conflicting advice coming from the behemoth that is the bureaucracy of the federal government?

Who knows what the Vic government role in all this is.

It's funny I was reading a comment somewhere about the Serbian government becoming involved, and the commenter made the point "would Australians expect the Australian government to stand by if it were Ash Barty trying to get into say Serbia ... no of course Australians would be outraged". My thoughts on this were a) Ash Barty perhaps mightn't get herself into the situation and if she did, might not be so dogmatic and b) if it were Nick Kyrgious, not Ash Barty, perhaps most Australians would be cheering the foreign government on

 

[Lynda2475]

Ash Barty perhaps mightn't get herself into the situation

We she is fully vaxed like a sensible person and doesn't generally take a platform in media on non tennis propaganda.

Personally unless our govt would do the same for any non-celebrity citizen, they shouldn't be going out of their way to help spoilt sport brats either. Kyrgious is a tool, few would care if he affected, its not like he is likely to win a title.

 

[HappyFlyerFamily]

This whole thing is a debacle of incompetence by all involved.

We have a serial pest, in the form of Novax, who pushes envelopes all the time. Any wonder there are doubts of veracity of his documentation.

But we have TA who seems to have thought they knew what they were doing but didn't.

We have reports of conflicting advice from the federal government and does it surprise anyone that right now, or indeed at any point in history of the federal government (under either ALP or LNP) there could be conflicting advice coming from the behemoth that is the bureaucracy of the federal government?

Who knows what the Vic government role in all this is.

It's funny I was reading a comment somewhere about the Serbian government becoming involved, and the commenter made the point "would Australians expect the Australian government to stand by if it were Ash Barty trying to get into say Serbia ... no of course Australians would be outraged". My thoughts on this were a) Ash Barty perhaps mightn't get herself into the situation and if she did, might not be so dogmatic and b) if it were Nick Kyrgious, not Ash Barty, perhaps most Australians would be cheering the foreign government on

Hasn't Kyrgios been a 'role model' for a period of time?

 

[Anna]

The mysterious hearing held at 6pm on Sunday resulted in an order that Novax is allowed to be at his solicitors' offices for the length of the hearing including if it doesn't finish today, and when the judgment is delivered.

 

[HappyFlyerFamily]

The mysterious hearing held at 6pm on Sunday resulted in an order that Novax is allowed to be at his solicitors' offices for the length of the hearing including if it doesn't finish today, and when the judgment is delivered.

Does this means he needs to return to the Park Hotel every night?

 

[Anna]

Karen Andrews filing further submissions at 3pm so don’t expect a result until later today.

Agree re not expecting a result too soon today (or maybe at all today) but I think the judge's direction was for oral submissions on behalf of the Minister at 3pm, not filed submissions, and also he left room for her to ask again for an adjournment at the end of Novax's submissions.

 

[Anna]

Does this means he needs to return to the Park Hotel every night?

See para 2 of the order:

https://www.fcfcoa.gov.au/sites/default/files/2022-01/Order%20Djokovic%20v%20Minister%20MLG35%20of%202022_0901222.pdf

 

[jakeseven7]

Father is not in Australia and hence not subject to any visa conditions

Pity

 

[MARTINE]

The mysterious hearing held at 6pm on Sunday resulted in an order that Novax is allowed to be at his solicitors' offices for the length of the hearing including if it doesn't finish today, and when the judgment is delivered.

Complete w in-house corporate catering and special bed?

 

[antycbr]

So what’s the consensus on how it’s looking so far?

Funny as you can tell which media outlets have not been able to get back into the virtual room… The Guardian seems to be back in, but the Oz, 9/Fairfax and ABC are all locked out.

In future they need an accredited stream.

 

[HappyFlyerFamily]

So what’s the consensus on how it’s looking so far?

Apparently livestream is down and Djokovic's lawyer still giving submissions.......I personally think Advantage Djokovic. But more likely no decision today.

 

[antycbr]

Apparently livestream is down and Djokovic's lawyer still giving submissions.......I personally think Advantage Djokovic. But more likely no decision today.

The Guardian live blog is working, other outlets locked out

 

[MARTINE]

So what’s the consensus on how it’s looking so far?

I don’t like what I’m hearing ‘what more could he do..respected physician … the panels..?’ Never mind ATAGI was all about how to get a vax if you have a medically necessary exemption temporarily with the expectation that you do and how - not abuse the system.

 

[antycbr]

I don’t like what I’m hearing ‘what more could he do..respected physician … the panels..?’ Never mind ATAGI was all about how to get a vax if you have a medically necessary exemption temporarily with the expectation that you do and how - not abuse the system.

This is where the Federal Government has been lazy. If they wanted to make it crystal clear who was allowed in they could have passed legislation/regulations to make it very clear exactly what their intent was, instead of pointing at a morass of health documentation written for a different purpose. So this is kind of a mess of their own making IMO.

 

[Must...Fly!]

It's all moot, obviously the case as presented by Djokovic lawyers are going to benefit his side of the story.

 

[antycbr]

It's all moot, obviously the case as presented by Djokovic lawyers are going to benefit his side of the story.

As will the Government's case. They're about to return serve now.

However the judge's comments aren't exactly moot.

 

[MARTINE]

I don’t like what I’m hearing ‘what more could he do..respected physician … the panels..?’ Never mind ATAGI was all about how to get a vax if you have a medically necessary exemption temporarily with the expectation that you do and how - not abuse the system.

As will the Government's case. They're about to return serve now.

However the judge's comments aren't exactly moot.

Would his ’post infectious behaviour ‘ from 16/12 be evidence of risk to safety and ‘undesirable’ (or whatever the legal term aka Katie Hopkins )??

 

[antycbr]

Would his ’post infectious behaviour ‘ from 16/12 be evidence of risk to safety and ‘undesirable’ (or whatever the legal term aka Katie Hopkins )??

Those were not the grounds the Government used to cancel his visa. If the court makes orders to allow him in, the Government may well cancel that visa on what could broadly be called "character" - in fact they've hinted as much in their submission to the FCFCOA already.

77. "...That may involve the delegate deciding whether to make another cancellation decision, but there are also other powers in the Act, as the Court would be aware. Or, indeed, no power may be exercised. It is sufficient for the Court to quash the decision. From the time those orders are made, the respondent will act on the basis that the applicant’s visa has not been cancelled. "

https://www.fcfcoa.gov.au/sites/default/files/2022-01/MLG%2035%20of%202022%20Submissions%209%20Jan%202022.pdf

i.e. another cancellation decision, or maybe not depending on how the politics look