The Court of Appeal held that s 156(1)(a) of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law is valid across the full range of its potential operations, including where immediate action burdens a practitioner's political communication, because the combined statutory constraints (reasonable belief of serious risk to persons, necessity to protect public health or safety, expert and independent Board, show cause process, merits review) ensure any burden is reasonably appropriate and adapted to the law's legitimate purpose. The constitutional analysis is therefore complete at the level of the statute, and any challenge to a particular exercise of the s 156(1)(a) power must be brought on administrative law grounds rather than constitutional ones. The Court expressly declined to determine the validity of s 156(1)(e) (the 'public interest' ground), leaving open whether that broader power survives implied freedom scrutiny.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 1 later case that cites this judgment.