Replies

We are talking about a perfectly healthy tennis player. One person.

The problem is, that doesn't really matter. One case can set dangerous precedents.

At the moment we have a situation where this one person is in Australia without having met the requirements for entry laid down in federal law. That, by itself, is a fairly minor problem.

But one of the reasons the judge allowed it is because he had a document from the government of the state of Victoria exempting him from their internal state based vaccine mandate. The Victorian government did not intend this document to be used for entry to Australia.

The problem for border security is, by doing that, the Judge has allowed a state government to set entry requirements to all of Australia. That is unconstitutional, but it is also dangerous because of the way the Victorian government operates - Victoria has a hard left socialist government that is extremely close to China in a lot of ways - it tried to use Chinese government money to build critical infrastructure in Victoria, over the objection of the federal government, until the federal government was able to overrule that - using what is called the external affairs power in the constitution. This decision actually has the potential to overturn the external affairs power, but more significantly could also allow a Chinese friendly state government to allow entry to certain people from China, that the federal government has good reason to keep out of Australia, given current relations between our countries.

These complexities generally aren't clear to most people but they do matter.