might be a risk to the health or otherwise of the population. novak djokovic s infection was not a medical contraindication for vaccination, so what it comes down to is a very simple visa cancellation procedure that happens every day, and what is important to remember is there is a difference between a visa in a travel exemption. at the outset, the visa itself is a separate animal to the travel exemption. the travel exemption is an additional layer of democracy which was imposed because of the pandemic. so over the last 20 months, i myself have had many clients who have held visas but have been stuck overseas including in the uk because they couldn t get a travel exemption to get back in. from the 15th of december, certain visa holders with the same as mr
djokovic could enter australia without a travel exemption provided they were fully vaccinated. mr djokovic, as we know, is not fully vaccinated, therefore he needed a travel exemption and as we know from the court documents he didn t have it. what this case highlights the complexity of the framework. he has got a tennis australia exemption which is not a federal exemption, but i can see why he thought he was allowed to enter. he was granted a visa and he has a document saying he has been assessed. but at the end of the day, is he a risk to the community? the community is probably more a risk to him being unvaccinated, but that wasn t the government s view, and that is why they decided to cancel his visa. so thatis they decided to cancel his visa. so that is a summary of what happened. what is fascinating because the way you lay it out there makes it sound actually quite straightforward. what everyone thinks of the rules, everyone thinks of the rules, everyone listening to that gets wha
the travel exemption is an additional layer of democracy which was imposed because of the pandemic. and the response to the minister which has come through now shows an extraordinary doubling down on this, and it makes it very clear that the minister for home affairs does not want mr djokovic in the country. and from your perspective, is that a political stance? that is about saying, we ve all had such privations in this country for two years, we can t have someone coming in apparentlyjust because they re famous or high or important to a particular tournament? i don t think it is a political stance. simply it is a legal argument which is basically saying what mr djokovic s lawyers are trying to do it right inadmissible in engage and having another go at the case, and that is not what the court case is about.