Dear Australian Broadcasting Corporation,

Please provide records of any inquiry or investigation of the conduct of Dr Norman Swan in relation to the potential conflict of interest associated with his personal pecuniary interest in the 'Chemist 2 U' prescription home delivery service.

Yours faithfully,

(Not the real) Bob Neil

Dear FOI ABC,
I am happy to assist by pointing you in the appropriate direction.
In March 2020, Swan and his business partner Matthew Cullen launched a new business called Chemist 2U, which provides home delivery of chemist prescriptions and other pharmacy products. The launch of their home delivery chemist and prescription service coincided perfectly with the start of the Covid pandemic state of emergency, during which the citizens of our fair nation spent extended periods (a) in lockdown at home and (b) requiring and seeking medicine and chemist items. Their timing was extraordinarily fortuitous, certainly, and perhaps only the clinically perspicacious would say, suspiciously so. The ongoing and unprecedented public health restrictions provided a supercharged springboard for Chemist 2U, which may have otherwise struggled to generate demand.
Meanwhile, Swan was the ABC's 'voice of Covid', via his Covid-cast, sharing his views with the nation about the usual bug-bears of public health :- lockdowns (more and longer please, preferably forever), the dreaded lurgy (Hasta La Vista Nanny), masks (it's your duty - buy now), cough drops (strongly recommended and cheaper in bulk), and eucalyptus inhalers (only $3.99 or two for $10). Media observers who are in the know, including Paul Barry on Media Watch, observed that Swan was using his platform at the ABC to press for longer, harder lockdowns, leading some to wonder whether such vociferous advocacy might be influencing public health officials. Others just thanked their lucky stars that Aunty was blessed with a public health pundit capable of providing reliable, credible, and most importantly, independent expert opinion about the government policies that were making his side hustle go completely gangbusters. In short, Swan and the ABC could have protected the national broadcaster's editorial integrity by declaring Swan's personal pecuniary interest in relation to the subject matter of his expert opinion. But they didn't.

Certain precepts in the ABC Editorial Policy do appear to be somewhat relevant in this regard:
1.1 Maintain the independence and integrity of the ABC.
1.2 Exercise ABC editorial control over the content the ABC broadcasts or publishes.
1.3 Ensure that editorial decisions are not improperly influenced by political, sectional, commercial or personal interests.
1.4 External activities of individuals undertaking work for the ABC must not undermine the independence and integrity of the ABC’s editorial content.

That should explain the context for you. In terms of the potential sources for documents within the ABC, I do not wish to limit your enquiries, and you will know better than I where documents of the sort that I have requested would usually reside, May I suggest that you might start with the ABC Ombudsman's office, and Jonathan Webb, the Science Editor. You could also ask the person called Sally Jackson, whose name appeared at the bottom of a PR release entitled 'ABC Statement on Norman Swan' dated 20 April 2020.

To be clear, Swan and Cullen set up the company Tonic Media some years ago, and Chemist 2 U was set up as a subsidiary of Tonic Media. I gather that Chemist 2 U has since attracted substantial private equity funding from which Swan or his associates stood to gain a massive benefit.

Kind regards
Bob's FOI Team