Posted on 01/10/2022 6:44:51 PM PST by naturalman1975
Because when you apply for a Visa to Australia, you are sometimes to make a declaration if certain things are true, and the Visa is issued on a conditional basis, based on the assumption you have told the truth, and that will be verified on arrival on Australia.
When it comes to something like a vaccination exemption, you are not asked to provide it until you arrive. The alternative would be to require people to visit an Australian embassy or consulate before a visa was issued, which would impose a major inconvenience on people.
This is not an unusual system. Most countries use a system like this.
And it works - because well over 99% of people do not lie on their application and so when they arrive in Australia they simply show the document they claimed to have then, and are passed through border security. It's rare for somebody to actually turn up without the documents they claimed.
In Djokovic's case, that did happen. At this point, I accept that he wasn't intending to deceive over his vaccination status - he genuinely believed he did have an exemption. But it's a rare situation.
Then start sliding and wheedling when the political climate turned against the Prime Minister?
That isn't what happened. Djokovic announced on the internet that he had a vaccination exemption and was getting on a plane to Australia. The media picked this up. At that point, people in Border Force started asking "How did he get this?" given that whether or not he was going to be allowed to come and play had been a fairly major news story over the last few weeks in Australia and up until he posted this story, all indications were that he was not likely to be able to come in. Exemptions to the double vaccination rule for entry into Australia is rare - it would have been a news story of its own if an exemption had been issued. For this reason, they started looking into what had happened while he was in the air, and could find nothing to explain how he might have got an exemption - because he hadn't. And that's also why they checked his papers carefully when he arrived. I suspect if he hadn't made that internet post, he'd have simply rocked up at Border Security, shown his bits of paper that said he had a vaccine exemption and Border Security would have waved him through - but because he'd given them time and caused confusion, they'd very carefully checked exactly what the rules were.
This had nothing to do with the Prime Minister. In fact, politically speaking, Djokovic being allowed in would have been very good news for the Prime Minister at the time - because it would have pointed out the hypocrisy of the socialist Victorian government in refusing to allow millions of Victorians to work if they are unvaccinated, but allowing a foreign millionaire superstar special treatment.
You have state governments determining immigration?
We didn't until Monday. Unfortunately the court case involving Djokovic has changed that. The Judge has let him stay based on a document issued by the Victorian government, and ignored the fact that under Commonwealth law, he didn't have a right to enter. Victoria did not intend to issue any type of entry permit - Djokovic misunderstood the document - but that is basically what has happened now. Whether you think Djokovic should have been allowed in or not, the way the Judge has done it is terrible in terms of Australian constitutional law. He has let somebody into Australia whose entry was not authorised by the Commonwealth government, on the basis of a document issued by a state. People outside Australia seem to think this whole case is somehow scoring points with COVID. It isn't. It's about border security and the right of the Australian government to set rules that determine who is allowed into Australia.
Do they decide on wars too?
No. At least not until some other Judge decides to ignore the constitution.
What does the federal government do then?
I'm going to give you a serious answer. Australia's constitution deliberately makes the Commonwealth government pretty weak and the state governments pretty strong. Why? Because the state governments wrote the Constitution - in the 1890s when the six Australian self-governing, semi-sovereign, almost independent from Britain (Britain still controlled defence and foreign affairs - but everything else had been handed to the six separate colonies at various times over the 19th century) were considering federating into a single country, delegates from each of the colonies (now the six states of Australia) met in constitutional convention and wrote the constitution. They deliberately wrote it to protect their interests - they did not want to give up their powers in a wide range of areas to a new federal government.
Section 51 of the Constitution they wrote is an explicit and limited list of the powers the Commonwealth was given by the states. The Commonwealth only has power in those specific areas. Everything else remains entirely in the power of the States.
I won't list everything in Section 51 - but you can look it up if you want. Briefly, the powers they placed in the hands of the new federal government were those relating to international trade, laws relating to foreign corporations in Australia, banking, external affairs (basically foreign relations - but I'll mention a bit more of that in a moment), taxation, overseas quarantine, currency, postal and telegraph (and related areas) services, immigration, and copyrights. Powers to create a welfare and to fund (but not run) a public health care system were added by constitutional amendment in the 1940s, and national defence (again, I'll mention a bit more about that below). All others areas remained in the total control of the states - the states do have the power to ask the Commonwealth government to temporarily take over other areas, but that doesn't happen very often at all.
Critically during the pandemic, the states have had nearly all the powers in Australia to deal with 'public health' issues, which is why every state has handled the pandemic differently, and pretty much totally ignored what the commonwealth government wanted them to do (the Commonwealth opposes most vaccine mandates, most lockdowns, and all border closures - yet, because the states have the power, we've had all of those to varying degrees across the country).
I said I'd get back to foreign affairs and defence - as I mentioned earlier, in the 19th century, while Britain handed over self government to the Australian colonies on most matters, they maintained control over foreign affairs and defence. And that remained the case even after federation - the Commonwealth government (the name used for the new Australian government) only had very limited powers over foreign affairs (there were no Australian embassies anywhere in the world, for example) and defence (Australia's military was considered part of the British military and subject to its orders). It wasn't until the 1920s that Britain decided to allow the 'Dominions' (Australia, Canada, New Zealand, South Africa, Ireland (technically speaking), and Newfoundland (separate from Canada at that stage) the right to take control over foreign affairs and defence, and Australia didn't actually do it until 1940 (when it became clear that if a war in the Pacific broke out, we wouldn't be able to rely on support from Britain because it was committed in Europe, Africa, and the Atlantic). At that point, the Commonwealth got full control of foreign relations and defence (although even as late as 1951, the only way Australia could promote its most senior General from the Second World War to Field Marshal (Five Star rank) was from him to also be promoted to Field Marshal in the British Army - Britain still had a residual military control. Hell, Australian warships at the start of the Vietnam War were still sailing under British flags until Britain asked us not to, as they weren't actually fighting in that war...)
I've strayed a bit - the point is that Australia's commonwealth government actually has control over only a limited range of areas. The states have control everywhere else. Entry to Australia is one of the areas that is supposed to be solely under Commonwealth control, but the Judge's verdict on Monday puts that principle at serious risk. The High Court is probably going to have to intervene on that one - but luckily for Djokovic, they'll take months to decide whether to intervene (they will, but it's still a slow process).
Sorry. I'm an historian (a military historian, nonetheless) so if you ask me a question like this, you're going to get the correct answer, not the grossly oversimplified incorrect one.
First of all, the British also used to deport their dangerous criminals to America and leave them there. The main reason the British decided to found a colony on the continent then known as New Holland (now known as Australia) in 1788 was because they could no longer send them to the American colonies, because they no longer had the American colonies to send them to.
Secondly, only some of the colonies founded in Australia ever had prisoners sent to them. New South Wales and Tasmania (originally Van Diemans land) were founded as prison colonies. Victoria, South Australia, and Queensland were never penal colonies. And Western Australia started out as a free colony, but eventually asked for some convicts as cheap labour. Most of Australia wasn't any sort of penal colony.
And most convicts weren't sent here for life - the normal sentence was seven years. Admittedly, most stayed after that partly because it was very expensive to get back to Britain, but also because a freed convict here generally had all of their rights restored, where in Britain, they'd still be a convicted felon. It was much better to gain your freedom, get a grant of land to farm, and with hard work, build a decent life, rather than go to back to the slums of England, that most of these criminals came from. Not all made good, but the ones who really had just turned to crime out of desperation caused by abject poverty in a time when there was nothing like a real welfare system - those who were willing to work hard when given the chance - they tended to stay and prosper.
And most of them weren't dangerous criminals - dangerous criminals got hanged (there were over two hundred capital crimes in Britain at the time), they weren't generally given the second chance that transportation created (even though giving people a second chance, was not really the point, it did become understood that is what happened - transportation pretty much ended when people started committing crimes because they wanted to get to the Australian colonies, especially once the gold rush began).
Actually the Prime Minister has opposed nearly every single lockdown in Australia. And he's a Christian conservative, not the least bit 'woke'.
This is a near perfect example of how Americans have been utterly mislead about Australia during this pandemic.
The Prime Minister hasn't imposed a single lockdown. Besides the fact that he opposes them, he doesn't even have the power to do it.
Those decisions were taken by state Premiers - mostly hard left socialist state Premiers who generally could be described as 'woke'. Not by the Prime Minister who is as far away from woke and just about any political leader I can think of. I'm a conservative traditional Catholic and he's both more conservative than I am, and more openly Christian that I am.
He has been allowed into Australia without a valid visa, on the strength of a document issued by a state government which has no constitutional power to authorise entry to Australia.
Is Djokovic a terrorist? Nope.
Criminal? Nope
Illegal immigrant? Nope. He had a Visa
Again, not a valid visa. He had a conditional visa, that was conditional upon him providing a vaccine exemption that met the standards required by Australian law on arrival. He did not have such an exemption, so his visa was not valid.
Djokovic has won the Australian Open a massive NINE times beating all records. And went back home every time.
He has no interest in living in Australia.
Border Security isn't just about keeping out people who want to live him permanently. It's also about securing the borders against people who only want to come here temporarily.
I don't believe any of the hijackers on 9/11 had any sort of permanent right to stay in America - did they? So why do people on Freerepublic think border security is only about permanent immigration. It isn't.
Nor is it, in this case, about whether or not Djokovic is some sort of threat. It's about whether or not the rules set by the Australian government on entry to Australia are actually rules or not.
The cornerstone of Australia's border security policy is this - we decide who comes here and on what terms. It's that simple.
The Australian government can set any rule it likes on who is allowed into Australia - and nobody else gets to tell them differently.
It's that basic. It's that simple. Because it's that important.
He had a valid visa, which was then withdrawn when he tried to enter the country.
The valid visa was restored by the judge who heard the case, including everything the federal government had to say.
Again, not a valid visa. He had a conditional visa, that was conditional upon him providing a vaccine exemption that met the standards required by Australian law on arrival. He did not have such an exemption, so his visa was not valid
The court totally disagrees with you. A good thing you are not the judge.
Border Security isn't just about keeping out people who want to live him permanently. It's also about securing the borders against people who only want to come here temporarily.
Securing the country from a fine, upstanding man gwith no criminal record, who's been to Australia about 15 times, the greatest tennis player ever, who's had a covid infection, recovered and acquired natural immunity?
Puleeze!
He had a valid visa, which was then withdrawn when he tried to enter the country.
The valid visa was restored by the judge who heard the case, including everything the federal government had to say.
Again, not a valid visa. He had a conditional visa, that was conditional upon him providing a vaccine exemption that met the standards required by Australian law on arrival. He did not have such an exemption, so his visa was not valid
The court totally disagrees with you. A good thing you are not the judge.
Border Security isn't just about keeping out people who want to live him permanently. It's also about securing the borders against people who only want to come here temporarily.
Securing the country from a fine, upstanding man gwith no criminal record, who's been to Australia about 15 times, the greatest tennis player ever, who's had a covid infection, recovered and acquired natural immunity?
Puleeze!
The Judge is wrong. He's ignored the constitution.
No, I'm not a judge. I am considered an expert on constitutional law, but I'm not a Judge. Unfortunately too many of our Judges now treat the constitution as something less important than their own opinions.
Securing the country from a fine, upstanding man gwith no criminal record, who's been to Australia about 15 times, the greatest tennis player ever, who's had a covid infection, recovered and acquired natural immunity?
Against anybody. Rules are only rules if they apply to everybody equally. The fact he's a good tennis player doesn't entitle him to special treatment. But that is what has happened.
I can't understand people who think we should make exceptions to our border laws because they like the guy. That isn't how it should work. The rules should apply to everybody without fear or favour.
So what? The establishment lies to us all the time.
Again you are not the judge. The case was not brought before you or argued in front of you so what you think is irrelevant.
The duly appointed judge heard the case in full and made his decision based on the law. Live with it.
Against anybody. Rules are only rules if they apply to everybody equally. The fact he's a good tennis player doesn't entitle him to special treatment. But that is what has happened.
Nobody has argued in court or over here that Djokovic should get special treatment. The judge did not mention special treatment in his ruling.
You are the one that keeps bringing up special treatment because you lost in court.
You keep talking about “rules are rules” but then refuse to accept a court's ruling based on rules and the law, when it goes against you.
Djokovic has had special treatment. The fact the Judge didn't say this just reflects the fact that the Judge didn't follow the law.
There were clear rules that having COVID in the last six months was not a valid exemption to the vaccine mandate for entering Australia. This is a simple fact.
The fact his exemption was based on that invalidated his conditional visa as a matter of simple law.
The Judge utterly ignored that and relied on the fact that Djokovic had a document from Tennis Australia based on a ruling by the Victorian government that gave him an exception to move around Victoria and to play in the tournament - documents that had no relevance to permission to enter Australia but which could only apply once somebody had crossed the border, and treated those as if they somehow gave him permission to enter the country.
I watched the court proceedings - at least as much as were broadcast due to technical issues. I spent hours watching them. I'm not relying on the tiny little snippets of information that journalists who generally don't understand the most basic facts about the law or the constitution have put in the one paragraph summaries of upwards of five hours of court time. And I am trained in law.
We should hold government to high standards.
And I believe ourselves to even higher ones.
Throw sand in the gears, expose the duplicitousness and special dealing. Job done here.
Take a look at the case of Cardinal Pell and tell me that we should just live with the decisions of judges in Victoria.
If we'd done that, a completely innocent man would still be in prison, the victim of a witch hunt by the socialist government of Victoria.
Judges do not always get it right, and it is the absolutely duty of any freedom loving person to speak up when they know a Judge has got it wrong.
It amazes me - it really does - that so-called American conservatives are attacking Australia for supposedly turning fascist - but are now telling us that we should just accept and support decisions taken by the actual socialist state government that caused nearly all of the rights violations in Australia over the last two years.
Because that is what you are actually doing. I don't think you understand enough our system of government to understand that - but you won't listen to those of us who do.
I don't actually want Djokovic deported. But a situation has been created now by a Victorian judge (albeit one who is supposed to serve the federal system) that has just taken power away from the conservative federal government and put it in the hands of the autocratic and dictatorial Victorian government. That isn't something to celebrate.
I don't want the federal Minister is going to do. He can either concede a core power of the Commonwealth to a socialist dictator like Daniel Andrews. Or deport a man who really hasn't knowingly done anything wrong (even if he did lie about his travels, that would normally be a minor issue) and people outside Australia who don't understand the issue, will ascribe that decision to completely wrong motives, and their ignorance will underservedly damage Australia's reputation. And at this point, I'm not sure which is more damaging.
Ha! Enjoy your delusional state.
According to you.
Not even the Australian federal government has made such an outlandish claim.
The fact the Judge didn't say this just reflects the fact that the Judge didn't follow the law.
That makes about as much sense as saying 2 + 2 = 9.
I watched the court proceedings - at least as much as were broadcast due to technical issues. I spent hours watching them
Again you are not the judge. You don't get to make the ruling. There is only one judge,not a thousand judges all making decisions on just one case. Just deal with it.
Chinese Propaganda
Of course they don't. But they usually get it right most of the time.
Do you get everything right in your life?
and it is the absolutely duty of any freedom loving person to speak up when they know a Judge has got it wrong.
Speak up all you want.
Again you are not the judge so you don't get to make the ruling.
The federal government wants to give this as little oxygen as possible, because it's now in a lose-lose situation.
That makes about as much sense as saying 2 + 2 = 9.
That is pretty much the legal equivalent of what the Judge has done. The ruling does not make legal or constitutional sense. I'm not going to lie and say it does when it doesn't.
Again you are not the judge. You don't get to make the ruling. There is only one judge,not a thousand judges all making decisions on just one case. Just deal with it.
Judges can make mistakes. Judges do make mistakes. That's why appeals processes exist. Unfortunately in this case, there isn't time for an appeal - it would only happen after the Open is well and truly over.
Being able and willing to say that a Judge has made a mistake is a critical part of defending freedom.
Same applies to you.
Being able and willing to say that a Judge has made a mistake is a critical part of defending freedom.
Yes.
At the same time, we learn to accept court rulings even when they go against us or against our thinking. Otherwise rule of law just breaks down.
Yes, it does. But I know the law and I know the constitution and I am confident I am not wrong on this. You, on the other hand, likely have no knowledge of Australian law or of the Australian constitution, so I'm really not sure why you feel you can tell me I'm wrong about something I know about and you don't.
At the same time, we learn to accept court rulings even when they go against us or against our thinking. Otherwise rule of law just breaks down.
I have accepted the ruling in the sense that I am not calling for Djokovic to still be in custody, or to be deported on the grounds that the court ruled on (I don't want him deported at all, but if it does happen, it must happen on other grounds, and if those grounds are specifically and clearly intended to take back control of our borders, it might be the lesser of evils). I do hope the ruling is eventually overturned by the High Court but for the moment, the ruling does stand, whether or not it's wrong in law. But I am not going to say it's right, and I am not going to not talk about the very well dangers it poses for Australia's border security laws, and more broadly what it does in terms of its potential precedent for putting even more power in the hands of the already overly powerful, autocratic, and dictatorial socialist government of Victoria under Premier Daniel Andrews.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.