have approached tennis australia about comments but we have not had a response yet. is there a sense in which scott morrison the prime minister think there is election coming and my people have gone under private nations under the last two years, isimply private nations under the last two years, i simply cannot hear where someone, whatever the circumstances, is look to have been given some kind of exemptionjust is look to have been given some kind of exemption just because he is famous and high profile? h0. of exemption just because he is famous and high-profile? no, that is exactly right- famous and high-profile? no, that is exactly right- of famous and high-profile? no, that is exactly right. of course famous and high-profile? no, that is exactly right. of course the - exactly right. of course the decision is not being made for political reasons. this is the law. there is no way the prime minister or senior ministers could grant an exemption for a tennis player albeit the world
faith, having been told he was exempt. there had been two independent panels of doctors who had looked at the the case for the australian tennis authority and said he could go. now, even though other players disagree with the fact he is not vaccinated, the fact he was told he could get there and now the court has made this ruling should mean he gets to play. the has made this ruling should mean he gets to play- gets to play. the ruling of the court, gets to play. the ruling of the court. and gets to play. the ruling of the court. and i gets to play. the ruling of the court, and i do gets to play. the ruling of the court, and i do not gets to play. the ruling of the court, and i do not think- gets to play. the ruling of the court, and i do not think your| court, and i do not think your correspondent is quite accurate from melbourne. the court ruling is that he should be released from detention. the court does not decide whether he plays in the australian open or not, nor the