• Thomas Faunce.
• ANU College of Law and Medical School, The Australian National University.
• J Law Med. 2008 Aug 1; 16 (1): 36-48.

AbstractSelim v Lele (2008) 167 FCR 61; [2008] FCAFC 13 was a decision of the Federal Court which interpreted s 51(xxiiiA) of the Australian Constitution. This section accords the federal government, among other things, power to make laws with respect to the provision of "medical and dental services (but not so as to authorise any form of civil conscription)". The Federal Court decided that the phrase "civil conscription" was analogous to "industrial conscription". In that sense the Federal Court held that the prohibition was designed to preserve the employment autonomy of Australian medical practitioners or dentists, preventing federal laws that required them, either expressly or by practical compulsion, to work for the federal government or any industrial employer nominated or permitted by the federal government. The specific question in Selim v Lele was whether the imposition of standards and prohibition of "inappropriate practice" under the Health Insurance Act 1973 (Cth), ss 10, 20, 20A and Pt VAA, amounted to civil conscription. The court held they did not. The Federal Court also discussed in that context the sufficiency of "practical compulsion" in relation to the s 51(xxxiiiA) prohibition, The constitutional prohibition on "any form" of civil conscription provides one of the few rights protections in the Australian Constitution and may have an important role to play in shaping the limits of health care system privatisation in Australia.

8 keywords...

hide…