For example, Judge Kelly (who does look like he's going to take the case on an expedited basis) could issue a bridging visa that allows Djokovic to play and let the actual border security issues be addressed at a later date. I think he could also do this with an injunction but I'm not absolutely sure on that - I am trained in law, but I'm not an actual lawyer and court procedure is complex.
Judge Kelly could also rule, as an example, that the specific rule on no exemption being given for having had COVID is unreasonable, in a way that doesn't deny the general principle that the Commonwealth government has the power to set rules. That one would be problematic in a lot of ways, but it wouldn't actually damage overall border protection law - just one specific regulation.
There may be other mechanisms as well. My point is, there are potential ways of handling this that don't endanger Australian border security law or policy.
But what really irritates me is the people who seem to think this shouldn't be important. Or who are ascribing motives to it that ignore these issues.
NOBODY wants that for any country.
We are talking about a perfectly healthy tennis player. One person.
Your posts make it sound like he’s the equivalent of some Guatemalan who paid a cartel to transport him through Mexico to the U.S. border where he entered our country under a bogus asylum claim and has no intention of ever showing up for his asylum hearing in court.
He is not endangering Australia's border security.
He is not endangering anyone!
The VAX does not stop infection .
Quit being stupid and supporting idiocy!