Investigation of Dr Norman Swan conflict of interest- Chemist 2U
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
Good evening (Not the real) Bob Neil
ABC FOI 202526-029
We refer to your email below. Would you kindly provide some more information about this to allow searches to be conducted? For example, do you have links to any news coverage about the scope of your request.
The FOI team is not familiar with the matter you describe below and we have not been able to locate any information online about the alleged conflict you have described.
Many thanks,
ABC FOI team
We acknowledge Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Australians
and Traditional Custodians of the lands where we live, learn and work.
This email, including any attachments, is intended only for the addressee. It is confidential and may contain privileged information. You should not read, copy, use or disclose it, or take any other action in reliance of the information contained in this email, without authorisation. If you have received the email in error, please immediately let the sender know by separate email or telephone and delete the email from your system.
-----Original Message-----
From: (Not the real) Bob Neil <[FOI #13580 email]>
Sent: Wednesday, 3 September 2025 11:08 PM
To: FOI ABC <[ABC request email]>
Subject: Freedom of Information request - Investigation of Dr Norman Swan conflict of interest- Chemist 2U
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
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Please use this email address for all replies to this request:
[FOI #13580 email]
Is [ABC request email] the wrong address for Freedom of Information requests to Australian Broadcasting Corporation? If so, please contact us using this form:
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www....
This request has been made by an individual using Right to Know. This message and any reply that you make will be published on the internet. More information on how Right to Know works can be found at:
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www....
Please note that in some cases publication of requests and responses will be delayed.
If you find this service useful as an FOI officer, please ask your web manager to link to us from your organisation's FOI page.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
The information contained in this email and any attachment is confidential and may contain legally privileged or copyright material. It is intended only for the use of the addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient of this email, you are not permitted to disseminate, distribute or copy this email or any attachments. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete this email from your system. The ABC does not represent or warrant that this transmission is secure or virus free. Before opening any attachment you should check for viruses. The ABC's liability is limited to resupplying any email and attachments.
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
ABC FOI 202526-029
Good evening (Not the real) Bob Neil
The ABC referes to your email sent on Wed 3 September 2025, seeking access to:
...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.
We note you have not mentioned you are making a request under the Commonwealth FOI Act, kindly confirm this is a formal FOI request?
At this stage, a relevant staff member has been uncontactable and we need their response in order to progress searches. The ABC would be grateful if you would consider granting an extension of time under s 15AA of the Commonwelath FOI Act, a maximum of 30 days can be agreed. This would mean the decision would fall due on 3 November 2025. If possible, please reply by Thursday 2 October if you are happy to grant more time for processing. This would mean the ABC could issue a valid decision otherwise it becomes a deemed refusal when the initial processing period lapses. The FOI Act requires this agreement be documented by email.
By making a FOI request, you are providing personal information to the ABC. The ABC manages personal information in accordance with its Privacy Policy - available at https://help.abc.net.au/hc/en-us/article.... Personal information may be disclosed in the course of processing this request, such as for the purposes of consultation or internal reporting.
We will come back to you if we need clarification of any part your request once searches are completed. Thank you for your consideration.
Many thanks,
ABC FOI team
13 9994
We acknowledge Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Australians
and Traditional Custodians of the lands where we live, learn and work.
This email, including any attachments, is intended only for the addressee. It is confidential and may contain privileged information. You should not read, copy, use or disclose it, or take any other action in reliance of the information contained in this email, without authorisation. If you have received the email in error, please immediately let the sender know by separate email or telephone and delete the email from your system.
-----Original Message-----
From: (Not the real) Bob Neil <[FOI #13580 email]>
Sent: Monday, 15 September 2025 9:59 PM
To: FOI ABC <[ABC request email]>
Subject: Re: FOI 029 - Qu for applicant - pls respond
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
-----Original Message-----
Good evening (Not the real) Bob Neil
ABC FOI 202526-029
We refer to your email below. Would you kindly provide some more information about this to allow searches to be conducted? For example, do you have links to any news coverage about the scope of your request.
The FOI team is not familiar with the matter you describe below and we have not been able to locate any information online about the alleged conflict you have described.
Many thanks,
ABC FOI team
We acknowledge Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Australians and Traditional Custodians of the lands where we live, learn and work.
This email, including any attachments, is intended only for the addressee. It is confidential and may contain privileged information. You should not read, copy, use or disclose it, or take any other action in reliance of the information contained in this email, without authorisation. If you have received the email in error, please immediately let the sender know by separate email or telephone and delete the email from your system.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Please use this email address for all replies to this request:
[FOI #13580 email]
This request has been made by an individual using Right to Know. This message and any reply that you make will be published on the internet. More information on how Right to Know works can be found at:
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www....
Please note that in some cases publication of requests and responses will be delayed.
If you find this service useful as an FOI officer, please ask your web manager to link to us from your organisation's FOI page.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
The information contained in this email and any attachment is confidential and may contain legally privileged or copyright material. It is intended only for the use of the addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient of this email, you are not permitted to disseminate, distribute or copy this email or any attachments. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete this email from your system. The ABC does not represent or warrant that this transmission is secure or virus free. Before opening any attachment you should check for viruses. The ABC's liability is limited to resupplying any email and attachments.
Dear FOI ABC,
I consent to the extension of time proposed.
Yours sincerely,
(Not the real) Bob Neil
ABC FOI 202526-029
Good evening
The ABC is required to consult with an affected third party. As such the
timeframe for processing your request is automatically extended by 30 days
under s 15(6) of the FOI Act
A decision on your request is due to be made by Wednesday 3 December 2025.
The ABC will aim to issue its decision sooner than that.
Many thanks,
ABC FOI team
13 9994
This email, including any attachments, is intended only for the addressee.
It is confidential and may contain privileged information. You should not
read, copy, use or disclose it, or take any other action in reliance of
the information contained in this email, without authorisation. If you
have received the email in error, please immediately let the sender know
by separate email or telephone and delete the email from your system.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
The information contained in this email and any attachment is confidential
and may contain legally privileged or copyright material. It is intended
only for the use of the addressee(s). If you are not the intended
recipient of this email, you are not permitted to disseminate, distribute
or copy this email or any attachments. If you have received this message
in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete this email from
your system. The ABC does not represent or warrant that this transmission
is secure or virus free. Before opening any attachment you should check
for viruses. The ABC's liability is limited to resupplying any email and
attachments.
Dear FOI ABC,
I am not sure that I fully understand your last email, regarding the extension of the processing time by another 30 days in order to consult with a third party.
I submitted this request on 3 September 2025. I have already agreed to one 30-day extension of time. The due date for this request was therefore 3 November 2025.
Your reference to s. 15(6) of the FOI Act as 'automatically' extending the timeframe for a decision by a further 30 days, due to third party consultation is, with respect, somewhat misleading. Such an extension of time can only be made on specific grounds, and requires a decision in writing by the agency or responsible Minister. That is not 'automatic'. The ABC is also required to promptly inform the applicant (i.e. me) if such a decision to extend the time has been made.
The significance of the expiry of the allotted time period is a deemed refusal of access, which, as you would know, has ramifications for the timing of any application for review of the 'decision', to the extent that this may be necessary.
I would therefore be grateful to receive a copy of the written decision by the agency or Minister to extend the timeframe under s.15(6) of the FOI Act, so as to confirm the basis for the extension of time.
Yours sincerely,
(Not the real) Bob Neil
ABC FOI 202526-029
Thank you for your email.
The statutory deadline for a decision to be issued to you is 3 December 2025 as notified.
The FOI Act allows 90 days where there is an agreed 30 day extension, the original 30 days, and the automatic 30 days for consultation. The latter does not require a formal decision letter, it is an email notification.
The decision to extend the time was notified to you by email, on time, which is the required process under the Commonwealth FOI Act.
Our team is processing a high volume of requests, we thank you for your patience. Should you be unhappy with the final decision letter once issued to you, you may exercise your review rights.
Many thanks,
ABC FOI team
We acknowledge Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Australians
and Traditional Custodians of the lands where we live, learn and work.
This email, including any attachments, is intended only for the addressee. It is confidential and may contain privileged information. You should not read, copy, use or disclose it, or take any other action in reliance of the information contained in this email, without authorisation. If you have received the email in error, please immediately let the sender know by separate email or telephone and delete the email from your system.
-----Original Message-----
From: (Not the real) Bob Neil <[FOI #13580 email]>
Sent: Tuesday, 11 November 2025 5:28 AM
To: FOI ABC <[ABC request email]>
Subject: Re: FOI 029 - s 27 EOT
Dear FOI ABC,
I am not sure that I fully understand your last email, regarding the extension of the processing time by another 30 days in order to consult with a third party.
I submitted this request on 3 September 2025. I have already agreed to one 30-day extension of time. The due date for this request was therefore 3 November 2025.
Your reference to s. 15(6) of the FOI Act as 'automatically' extending the timeframe for a decision by a further 30 days, due to third party consultation is, with respect, somewhat misleading. Such an extension of time can only be made on specific grounds, and requires a decision in writing by the agency or responsible Minister. That is not 'automatic'. The ABC is also required to promptly inform the applicant (i.e. me) if such a decision to extend the time has been made.
The significance of the expiry of the allotted time period is a deemed refusal of access, which, as you would know, has ramifications for the timing of any application for review of the 'decision', to the extent that this may be necessary.
I would therefore be grateful to receive a copy of the written decision by the agency or Minister to extend the timeframe under s.15(6) of the FOI Act, so as to confirm the basis for the extension of time.
Yours sincerely,
(Not the real) Bob Neil
-----Original Message-----
ABC FOI 202526-029
Good evening
The ABC is required to consult with an affected third party. As such the timeframe for processing your request is automatically extended by 30 days under s 15(6) of the FOI Act
A decision on your request is due to be made by Wednesday 3 December 2025.
The ABC will aim to issue its decision sooner than that.
Many thanks,
ABC FOI team
13 9994
This email, including any attachments, is intended only for the addressee.
It is confidential and may contain privileged information. You should not read, copy, use or disclose it, or take any other action in reliance of the information contained in this email, without authorisation. If you have received the email in error, please immediately let the sender know by separate email or telephone and delete the email from your system.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Please use this email address for all replies to this request:
[FOI #13580 email]
This request has been made by an individual using Right to Know. This message and any reply that you make will be published on the internet. More information on how Right to Know works can be found at:
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www....
Please note that in some cases publication of requests and responses will be delayed.
If you find this service useful as an FOI officer, please ask your web manager to link to us from your organisation's FOI page.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
The information contained in this email and any attachment is confidential and may contain legally privileged or copyright material. It is intended only for the use of the addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient of this email, you are not permitted to disseminate, distribute or copy this email or any attachments. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete this email from your system. The ABC does not represent or warrant that this transmission is secure or virus free. Before opening any attachment you should check for viruses. The ABC's liability is limited to resupplying any email and attachments.
Dear FOI ABC,
The FOI Act states, in s. 15(6):
(6) Where, in relation to a request, the agency or Minister determines in writing that the requirements of section 26A, 27 or 27A make it appropriate to extend the period referred to in paragraph (5)(b):
(a) the period is extended by a further period of 30 days; and
(b) the agency or Minister must, as soon as practicable, inform the applicant that the period has been so extended.
The FOI Act requires a determination in writing that the requirements of one of the named sections make it appropriate to extend. I did not ask for a 'formal decision letter', as you suggested in your email. I asked for a copy of the determination in writing that is a pre-requisite for the extension of time for consultation. The validity of this extension is contingent upon the determination in writing of it being appropriate.
As this determination in writing must already exist, I respectfully request a copy, as a statement of reasons for the decision under s 13 of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977. This course is open to me, as confirmed by the FOI Guidelines issued by the OAIC, see. page 62 of Part 3 therein.
Yours sincerely,
(Not the real) Bob Neil