- Banned
- #14,326
Hello, Scrag. What was, effectively, the Full Court of the Federal Court has settled the extent of the Minister's discretion. Djokovic can still take it to the High Court.C'mon, Mr. Mitchell. Surely Norm's ancestors weren't even around when the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) was written. If they were able to have an opinion on it, then who is to say they wouldn't agree that it grants too much power to the minister? Opinions will differ over in-force legislation. Nothing wrong with that.
(a) claim I deleted it; or
(b) admit it doesn't exist and apologise ?
I'll take your failure to respond to be an admission that there is no such post, that you just made it up and won't object when I add that fact to any post I make that refers to you.risis
Apols, again, Scragg, an over reaction. The Migration Act and Regulations made under the Act set out the conditions of immigration. As with every other piece of legislation, the Government, through the Minister, retains a discretion to accommodate unusual circumstances and ensure that the intention of the legislation is realised. The discretion is not absolute, the Minister isn't a dictator. Djokovic hadn't complied with the rules, there was a confusion, well, to me anyway, about how policy was administered. Hawke achieved what the legislation set out to achieve, exclusion of the non vaccinated, that's why the discretion is available, that's what happened. Djokovic isn't a victim, he should never have been given a visa in the first place. Big tick for the Minister's discretion. Good guys and guys ? I'd have thought that Hawke was the good guy.
Last edited: