If the minister decides who is a threat, that might be acceptable, but the minister deciding what is a threat as well is a conflict. You cant be judge, jury and executioner. this is why we have separation of powers. You cant be deciding who, what, where and when in the same breath on a discretionary basis. Especially since you dont have your own procedures and communication in order.
1. There was no gravity measure, 2 The minister was not impartial and the decision was made at the 11th hour so Djokovic had no time to prepare counter defense. Its dirty and unconscionable. 3 It was engineered to save face. 4 The crown asked for more time to prepare. Wouldn't a threat be so obvious?
What is a substantial threat. Who decides what is a substantial threat. Who exercises the discretion to act.
Why didn't they use the entry card as a measure? Why did they give him a visa in the first place if they saw him as a threat? Why didn't they use the same reasoning when he first arrived?
Penalty? Is it mandatory to send someone home? How is sending him home going to change his public influence considering he is a public figure? How was he influencing the public in Australia considering he was silent since he arrived? When he arrived there were no anti vax support for him. The threat is a hypothetical fantasy that has been created by an embarrassed government.
