INTERNATIONAL: The decision to cancel tennis superstar Novak Djokovic's visa reveals the broad, 'god-like power' Australia's immigration minister wields, a spokesperson for the Australian Lawyers Alliance have said on Thursday ,January 20, after an Australian court released its reasons for dismissing the player's challenge to his visa cancellation.

The Federal Court has said Immigration Minister Alex Hawke who revoked Djokovic's visa reasonably believed the star, who is not vaccinated against COVID-19, may be a risk to the community. It also rejected the argument there was no evidence that Djokovic had ever urged anyone not to get vaccinated, saying it was open to infer that the public would perceive that he was opposed to vaccinations, since he said he had not been vaccinated.

Barrister and spokesperson for the Australian Lawyers Alliance, Greg Barns says; "The judges are not saying 'we agree with Minister Hawke, we agree with his reasons.' As the court points out, they're not considering the merits or the wisdom of the decision or seeking to impose their own decision. Their role was to rule on the lawfulness or the legality of the decision. And what they were being asked to do was to find that the decision was irrational or unreasonable and in essence, what they've said is that whilst other people and other ministers and someone else in Minster Hawke's shoes might have taken a different view of it, their view was that his decision was within the law."

The case shows that Australian visa holders are vulnerable to ministerial power.

The world number one was deported from Australia on Sunday night,January 16, just hours after the court has dismissed his effort to stay in the country to play at the Australian Open, where he hoped to win a record 21st major title. That followed an 11-day rollercoaster involving two visa cancellations, two court challenges and five nights in two stints at an immigration detention hotel where asylum seekers are held.

Barns has added; "That (minister's power) is an enormous power to be exercised personally. Too broad, we would say, because it can lead to a dangerous consequence, a consequence that, and I think the issue in the Djokovic case which makes it different to cases, for example, where a person's visa is cancelled if they come to Australia for the purpose, for example, of inciting terrorism, or they come to Australia to incite violence and their well-known racist views and that's what they're coming to Australia for. Here, Mr. Djokovic was coming to Australia to play tennis, not to do a whole bunch of anti-vax rallies. And so, this is no criticism of the federal court because it has explained its relatively limited role. But you could get a case where a person has particular views about a matter of controversy that the Australian government doesn't like, if that person is opposed to government policy, if they've got a track record of speaking about that issue. A minister could say well that person may be or might be a risk to the health, safety and good order of the Australian community. It's a very low threshold."

The Australian Lawyers Alliance were not surprised because the minister has this god-like power and because it's so broad. So the decision of the federal court, for them is fairly straightforward. It points to the dangerous precedent value of the case. And secondly, what it shows is that when it comes to visa holders, they are vulnerable to a minister exercising their powers personally. This is the same with refugees, same with people with criminal records, particularly in the last 10 to 15 years ministers increasingly using these personal powers to cancel people's visas.