link to page 1 link to page 1 link to page 1
17 September 2025
Private and Confidential
Zack
By email only: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxx.xx
Dear Zack
Decision about your request for documents
I am writing about your request for documents
1 which we received on 18 August 2025.
As an authorised decision maker,
2 this letter sets out a summary of my decision and outlines:
3
• a summary of your request
• a list of the materials used to reach the decision
• the reasons for the decision, and
• information about your review rights.
The detail of my reasons is set out in this letter.
Your request
As you’l know, we wrote to you on 1 September 2025 to provide you with information about the FOI
process and acknowledge that we would consider your request for the fol owing:
For the period from 1 November 2016 to the present, I request the following information
regarding medical practitioners and the prescribing of Schedule 8 medicinal cannabis:
The total number of notifications (complaints) received.
The total number of investigations commenced.
The total number of matters that resulted in regulatory action.
A de-identified list of all regulatory actions taken, specifying for each matter:
a. The conduct (e.g., inadequate patient assessment, inappropriate prescribing).
b. The penalty or outcome (e.g., caution, conditions imposed, suspension).
Scope of Request
1 Made under under the
Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth).
2 Under section 23 of the
Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth).
3 In accordance with section 26 of the
Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth).
Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency | National Boards
GPO Box 9958 Melbourne VIC 3001 Ahpra.gov.au 1300 419 495
Ahpra and the National Boards regulate these registered health professions: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health practice, Chinese
medicine, chiropractic, dental, medical, medical radiation practice, midwifery, nursing, occupational therapy, optometry, osteopathy,
paramedicine, pharmacy, physiotherapy, podiatry and psychology.
This request specifically includes actions taken in relation to business models of concern,
including:
"Prescription Channelling": Practices that improperly direct patients to a specific pharmacy,
limiting patient choice.
"Closed-Loop Prescribing": Models where the prescriber and supplier are not independent,
creating a conflict of interest.
In our letter, we explained that we are legally required to make a decision about your request by
today,
17 September 2025.
How I made my decision
In reaching my decision I referred to:
• the terms of your request
• searches conducted in relation to your request
• internal consultation with relevant business units
• the FOI Act
• the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law, as enforced in each state and territory (the
National Law)
• FOI Guidelines issued by the Australian Information Commissioner
Decision
Primarily, the FOI Act regulates requests to access information contained within a discrete document
that already exists within the control of possession of an agency. It does not generally require
agencies to create a new document or provide bespoke information except where it could be easily
produced through computerised means, such as by generating a pre-programmed report.
Under section 24A(1) of the FOI Act, an agency may refuse a request for access to a document if al
reasonable steps have been taken to find the document and the agency is satisfied that the
document does not exist or cannot be located.
In response to your request, I have conducted a search of Ahpra’s information holdings and
conducted internal consultation with relevant subject matter experts. The outcome of these searches
and inquiries is that Ahpra does not hold a discrete document which would meet the terms of your
request.
As all reasonable searches have been conducted by Ahpra and no discrete document which meets
the scope of your request can be located, it is my decision to refuse access under section 24A(1) of
the FOI Act.
Although a discrete document within the scope of your request does not exist, or cannot otherwise be
reasonably located, I am also required to consider whether a document could be produced by Ahpra
in accordance with section 17 of the FOI Act:
17 Requests involving use of computers etc.
(1) Where:
(a) a request (including a request in relation to which a practical refusal reason exists)
is made in accordance with the requirements of subsection 15(2) to an agency;
(b) it appears from the request that the desire of the applicant is for information that is
not available in discrete form in written documents of the agency; and
(ba) it does not appear from the request that the applicant wishes to be provided with a
computer tape or computer disk on which the information is recorded; and
(c) the agency could produce a written document containing the information in discrete
form by:
(i) the use of a computer or other equipment that is ordinarily available to the
agency for retrieving or collating stored information; or
Page 2 of 5
link to page 3 link to page 3 link to page 3 link to page 3
(ii) the making of a transcript from a sound recording held in the agency;
the agency shall deal with the request as if it were a request for access to a written
document so produced and containing that information and, for that purpose, this Act
applies as if the agency had such a document in its possession.
(2) An agency is not required to comply with subsection (1) if compliance would substantially
and unreasonably divert the resources of the agency from its other operations.
Production of a document under section 17 is dependent on an agency being able to produce a written
document containing the requested information in discrete form by using a computer in a manner that
is ‘ordinarily available’ to it to retrieve or collate stored information. In
Col ection Point Pty Ltd v
Commissioner of Taxation4 (referenced in the Australian Information Commissioner’s FOI Guidelines),
5
the Ful Federal Court of Australia held that the reference in section 17(1)(c)(i) to a ‘computer or other
equipment that is ordinarily available’ means:
6
‘a functioning computer system including software, that can produce the requested document
without the aid of additional components which are not themselves ordinarily available … [T]he
computer or other equipment … must be capable of functioning independently to col ate or
retrieve stored information and to produce the requested document.’
In that case, the Court found that this wil be a question of fact in the individual case and may require
consideration of ‘the agency’s ordinary or usual conduct and operations’.
7
Following my enquiries into the practicality of producing a document in accordance with section 17, I
understand that the system which houses the relevant data is set up in a way that to produce a report
or other discrete document detailing the information you seek would not be practicable without
significant manual intervention and data validation. There is no automated or otherwise pre-
programmed way to col ate the information that you have requested. Such a task would require one or
more Ahpra officers to create sorting rules and manual y inspect the data and compile a new document
in a way that would be capable of being understood. Additionally, a manual validation process would
be required to ensure the information was accurate. Consequently, I find that the system is not capable
of functioning independently to collate or retrieve the stored information or produce the requested
document. Production of a document in the terms you have requested would require manual
intervention in a manner which, under the FOI Act, constitutes use of a computer in a way that is not
ordinarily available to Ahpra and is outside of Ahpra’s ordinary or usual conduct and operations.
Accordingly, I find that section 17(1) does not apply to your request and the FOI Act does not require
the creation of a new document. As all reasonable searches have been conducted, and no discrete
documents within the scope of your request can be located, it is my decision to refuse access under
section 24A(1) of the FOI Act.
Information to assist you
While I have determined that the creation of a document containing the particular information that you
have requested is not required under the FOI Act, Ahpra periodically produces information of a similar
nature. The information below regarding medicinal cannabis was current at 30 June 2025.
Between 1 July 2019 and 30 June 2025, Ahpra and our co-regulator in Queensland had received 523
notifications relating to the prescribing and dispensing of medicinal cannabis, including:
•
387 (75.0%) about medical practitioners
•
104 (20.2%) notifications about pharmacists and
•
23 (4.5%) notifications about nurses.
A further two (0.3%) related to practitioners that could not be identified based on the information
provided.
4
Collection Point Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation [2013] FCAFC 67.
5 Australian Information Commissioner,
FOI Guidelines (combined June 2020) 3.212-3.214
6
Collection Point Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation [2013] FCAFC 67 [43]-[44].
7
Collection Point Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation [2013] FCAFC 67 [48].
Page 3 of 5
link to page 4 link to page 4
Of the notifications received:
•
157 (30.5%) were received in 2023-24, and
•
170 (33.0%) were received in 2024-25.
Slightly under half (49.6%) of al concerns received were related to events arising in Queensland.
Concerns raised by patients mostly relate to access to medication, fees and costs, and being
prescribed lower doses than they have requested. Concerns raised by other practitioners include
inadequate or inappropriate history or exam, over prescribing or prescribing without authority.
After investigation, most notifications have led to no regulatory action due to steps taken by the
practitioner. As at 31 December 2024, 56 practitioners (39 medical practitioners, 13 pharmacists and
four nurses) had action taken by a Board (cautioned, had conditions imposed, or had an undertaking
accepted by the Board), and one medical practitioner has been referred to the responsible tribunal.
Charges
No charges have been imposed for processing your request.
Review rights
If you disagree with my decision, you can ask for the decision to be reviewed.
You may apply to Ahpra for a review of this decision.
8 Your application must be made by whichever
date is the later between:
• 30 days of you receiving this notice, or
• 15 days of you receiving the documents to which you have been granted access.
This review would not be conducted by me. To apply, it would help your case to explain why you
believe the original decision is not correct.
An application for a review of the decision should be addressed to:
Mailing address:
The Proper Officer
Ahpra
GPO Box 9958
MELBOURNE VIC 3001
Email address:
xxx@xxxxx.xxx.xx
If you choose to seek a review and disagree with that decision, you would subsequently have a right
to apply to the National Health Practitioner Privacy Commissioner (the Commissioner) for a review of
our decision. However, if you wish, you may choose to instead apply directly for review of this
decision to the Commissioner, as I describe below.
You can apply to the Commissioner to review an FOI decision made by Ahpra.
9 Your application
must be made within 60 days of receiving our decision.
The Commissioner is an independent office holder who may review decisions of Ahpra under the FOI
Act. You can contact them to seek review of this decision at the details listed below. An FOI review
application form is available on the National Health Practitioner Ombudsman (the Ombudsman)
website:
https://nhpo.gov.au/
8 Under section 54 of the
Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth).
9 Under section 54L of the
Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth).
Page 4 of 5
Complaints about the way we’ve managed your matter
If you want to provide feedback or make a complaint about Ahpra or a National Board then you can
contact our Complaints and Feedback team. Information about how to do this can be found on our
website:
https://www.ahpra.gov.au/About-AHPRA/Complaints.aspx
If you’re unhappy with our response to your complaint, you can contact the Ombudsman. Their
details are:
Mailing address:
National Health Practitioner Ombudsman
GPO Box 2630
MELBOURNE VIC 3001
Email address:
xxxxxxxxxx@xxxx.xxx.xx
Telephone enquiries: 1300 795 265
Contact
If you have any questions about anything in this letter, please contact me at
xxx@xxxxx.xxx.xx. If you
do this, please tel me the reference number below.
Yours sincerely
Katie Burns
Senior Freedom of Information Officer
National Information Release Unit
Reference Number:
FOI54284
Page 5 of 5
