提高医疗服务的可及性、质量和效率的联邦权力:宪法第51条(xxiiiA)是否限制了当今政治上可行的卫生政策选择?

Q3 Social Sciences Federal Law Review Pub Date : 2023-04-06 DOI:10.1177/0067205X231165872
F. McDonald, S. Duckett, Emma Campbell
{"title":"提高医疗服务的可及性、质量和效率的联邦权力:宪法第51条(xxiiiA)是否限制了当今政治上可行的卫生政策选择?","authors":"F. McDonald, S. Duckett, Emma Campbell","doi":"10.1177/0067205X231165872","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Legal and political battles about health policy in the immediate post-war years have cast a long shadow in Australia. The ‘civil conscription’ sub-provision in s 51(xxiiiA) (health and welfare power) of the Australian Constitution is still cited as a major barrier to developing health policy. But long after the High Court moved on from a very restrictive interpretation of Commonwealth powers, policymakers appear to be cautious about testing whether the Commonwealth has power to make laws about medical services to pursue a bold agenda about access, quality, and efficiency of medical care. In this article we will first describe the origin and phrasing of s 51(xxiiiA), the main head of power, then trace the development of the interpretation of the civil conscription sub-provision, and finally discuss whether politically realistic policy options are likely to founder on the shoals of High Court interpretation. We argue that the civil conscription limitation in s 51 (xxiiiA) in the Constitution looms larger as a policy constraint on regulation of health care by the Commonwealth government in the minds of decision-makers, and as a weapon in the hands of stakeholders, than contemporary analysis of it warrants.","PeriodicalId":37273,"journal":{"name":"Federal Law Review","volume":"51 1","pages":"232 - 256"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Commonwealth Power to Improve Access, Quality, and Efficiency of Medical Care: Does section 51 (xxiiiA) of the Constitution Limit Politically Feasible Health Policy Options Today?\",\"authors\":\"F. McDonald, S. Duckett, Emma Campbell\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/0067205X231165872\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Legal and political battles about health policy in the immediate post-war years have cast a long shadow in Australia. The ‘civil conscription’ sub-provision in s 51(xxiiiA) (health and welfare power) of the Australian Constitution is still cited as a major barrier to developing health policy. But long after the High Court moved on from a very restrictive interpretation of Commonwealth powers, policymakers appear to be cautious about testing whether the Commonwealth has power to make laws about medical services to pursue a bold agenda about access, quality, and efficiency of medical care. In this article we will first describe the origin and phrasing of s 51(xxiiiA), the main head of power, then trace the development of the interpretation of the civil conscription sub-provision, and finally discuss whether politically realistic policy options are likely to founder on the shoals of High Court interpretation. We argue that the civil conscription limitation in s 51 (xxiiiA) in the Constitution looms larger as a policy constraint on regulation of health care by the Commonwealth government in the minds of decision-makers, and as a weapon in the hands of stakeholders, than contemporary analysis of it warrants.\",\"PeriodicalId\":37273,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Federal Law Review\",\"volume\":\"51 1\",\"pages\":\"232 - 256\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-04-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Federal Law Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/0067205X231165872\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Federal Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0067205X231165872","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

战后几年关于卫生政策的法律和政治斗争给澳大利亚蒙上了很长的阴影。《澳大利亚宪法》第51(xxiiiA)条(健康和福利权力)中的“民事征兵”子条款仍然被认为是制定卫生政策的主要障碍。但在高等法院改变了对英联邦权力的限制性解释很久之后,政策制定者似乎对测试英联邦是否有权制定有关医疗服务的法律持谨慎态度,以追求有关医疗服务获取、质量和效率的大胆议程。在这篇文章中,我们将首先描述主要权力首脑s 51(xxiiiA)的起源和措辞,然后追溯民事征兵子条款解释的发展,最后讨论政治现实的政策选择是否可能建立在高等法院解释的基础上。我们认为,宪法第51条(xxiiiA)中的民事征兵限制在决策者心目中是对联邦政府医疗保健监管的政策约束,在利益相关者手中是一种武器,比当代对其的分析更为重要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Commonwealth Power to Improve Access, Quality, and Efficiency of Medical Care: Does section 51 (xxiiiA) of the Constitution Limit Politically Feasible Health Policy Options Today?
Legal and political battles about health policy in the immediate post-war years have cast a long shadow in Australia. The ‘civil conscription’ sub-provision in s 51(xxiiiA) (health and welfare power) of the Australian Constitution is still cited as a major barrier to developing health policy. But long after the High Court moved on from a very restrictive interpretation of Commonwealth powers, policymakers appear to be cautious about testing whether the Commonwealth has power to make laws about medical services to pursue a bold agenda about access, quality, and efficiency of medical care. In this article we will first describe the origin and phrasing of s 51(xxiiiA), the main head of power, then trace the development of the interpretation of the civil conscription sub-provision, and finally discuss whether politically realistic policy options are likely to founder on the shoals of High Court interpretation. We argue that the civil conscription limitation in s 51 (xxiiiA) in the Constitution looms larger as a policy constraint on regulation of health care by the Commonwealth government in the minds of decision-makers, and as a weapon in the hands of stakeholders, than contemporary analysis of it warrants.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Federal Law Review
Federal Law Review Social Sciences-Law
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
27
期刊最新文献
No Place Like Home? Alienage, Popular Sovereignty and an Implied Freedom of Entry into Australia Under the Constitution Traversing Uncharted Territory? The Legislative and Regulatory Landscape of Heritable Human Genome Editing in Australia Foreign Interference and the Incremental Chilling of Free Speech Reviewing Review: Administrative Justice and the Immigration Assessment Authority Managing Ownership of Copyright in Research Publications to Increase the Public Benefits from Research
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1