Dear Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency,

I am requesting access to documents under the Freedom of Information Act 1982.

Information Requested

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

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.

The release of this information is in the public interest, as it concerns patient safety and regulatory transparency for a high-risk area of medical practice.

Please provide the documents in an electronic format.

Yours faithfully,

Zack

Dear Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of the decision made by Ms. Katie Burns, Senior Freedom of Information Officer, dated 17 September 2025, regarding my FOI request (Ref: FOI54284).

I seek this review under section 54 of the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth).

I believe the decision to refuse access under section 24A(1), on the basis that a document cannot be created under section 17, is incorrect. The reasons for my application are detailed below.

1. Incorrect Application of Section 17
The decision to refuse my request rests on the finding that Ahpra is not required to produce a document under section 17. The decision-maker claims that producing the requested report would require "significant manual intervention" and is not achievable using a computer in a way that is "ordinarily available" to Ahpra.

I submit that this interpretation is flawed and is directly contradicted by information provided in the decision letter itself.

The agency's computer system is clearly capable of producing the data.
The decision letter voluntarily provides statistical information of the exact type I requested. For example, the letter states:

"Between 1 July 2019 and 30 June 2025... [Ahpra] had received 523 notifications..."

"387 (75.0%) about medical practitioners"

"157 (30.5%) were received in 2023-24"

"As at 31 December 2024, 56 practitioners... had action taken..."

To generate these specific numbers, an Ahpra officer must have used a computer system to query, retrieve, and collate stored information. This action proves that the agency's computer system is "ordinarily available" and "capable of functioning... to collate or retrieve stored information" as described in section 17(1)(c)(i).

Creating "sorting rules" is a standard part of database retrieval.
The decision claims that creating "sorting rules" and "compil[ing] a new document" falls outside the scope of section 17. This is an incorrect reading of the Act. The very purpose of s 17(1)(c)(i) is to allow for the retrieval and collation of information. Running a database query (i.e., "creating sorting rules") to extract specific data points is the standard, ordinary method for collating stored information. It is not some extraordinary act beyond the computer's normal function.

The agency's claim that its system "is not capable of functioning independently" is fundamentally undermined by the fact that it did function to produce the partial data included in the decision. The refusal under section 17(1) is therefore incorrect.

2. Failure to Consider Section 17(2) or Practical Refusal Provisions
The decision-maker's reasoning confuses the capability of the system (s 17(1)) with the resources required to use it (s 17(2)).

The decision states the task would require "significant manual intervention," "manual inspection," and "manual validation." These arguments relate to the diversion of resources, not the capability of the computer.

If the true reason for refusal is that the request "would substantially and unreasonably divert the resources of the agency from its other operations" (s 17(2), or a practical refusal reason under s 24), the FOI Act imposes a clear obligation on the agency.

Under section 24AA, Ahpra was required to contact me and commence a "request consultation process" to see if the scope of my request could be modified.

At no point did Ahpra contact me to discuss the scope.

The agency did not provide an estimate of the hours required.

The agency did not give me an opportunity to revise my request to reduce the workload (e.g., by narrowing the date range or limiting the request to only the statistical totals).

Instead, the agency issued a blanket refusal based on a flawed application of s 17(1). This is contrary to the procedural requirements of the Act.

Requested Outcome
I request that the original decision be set aside.

I ask the internal reviewer to find that:

Ahpra holds the requested information in a computer database.

The agency is capable of retrieving and collating this information using its ordinarily available equipment, as required by section 17(1).

The agency failed to meet its obligation to consult under section 24AA if a practical refusal reason (such as resource diversion under s 17(2)) was believed to exist.

I request that the agency process my request. I remain willing to consult with Ahpra to revise the scope of the request if it is necessary to avoid a substantial and unreasonable diversion of resources.

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: http://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/da...

Yours faithfully,

Zack