1. For the reasons I gave concerning Document 2, Document 10, a note made by a PRBV officer is exempt under section 36(1). It is part of PRBV's thinking process and so should not be disclosed as that would be contrary to the public interest.

Document 11 - Internal e-mail regarding notification

1. This is a short unimportant e-mail between PRBV officers which identifies the Notifier and names others. The names are exempt under section 41(1). Apart from the Notifier, it seemingly identifies relatively then junior staff of PBV. It is unreasonable to release such names from long ago.
2. Once the names are redacted, what is left behind is meaningless and should not be released.

1. Disclosure of Document 12 would disclose matter relating to PRBV's deliberative processes and is therefore within the ambit of section 36(1)(a). For the reasons I gave concerning Document 2, disclosure would be contrary to the public interest as so Document 12 is exempt under section 36(1).

1. Document 13 records communications being a letter from the PRBV to Victoria Police. AHPRA has released it, apart from one redacted paragraph, claiming it as exempt under sections 37(1)(d) and 40(1)d.
2. Concerning section 37(1)(d), AHPRA submits, release might prejudice the effectiveness of AHPRA's ongoing working relationship with Victoria Police and impede the free flow of information from Victoria Police to AHPRA. This would prejudice AHPRA's notifications process and the enforcement of the national scheme for the protection of the public by ensuring that only health practitioners who are suitably trained and qualified to practice in a competent and ethical manner are registered to do so.
3. In my view, the paragraph is not exempt under section 37(1)(d). I am not satisfied disclosure could or would reasonably be expected to prejudice the maintenance or enforcement of lawful methods for the protection of public safety. Given I must not in these decisions disclose the content of the paragraph, the most I can say is that the content of the paragraph in the context of Ms Bondar's evidence does not lead me to that satisfaction. That said, if I had regarded the content of the paragraph as of the more sensitive nature, I would have regarded is exempt from release for the reasons AHPRA submits.
4. However, the paragraph is exempt under section 40(1)(d), because it quotes information provided by the Notifier. The nature of the information may allow identification of the Notifier to be gleaned and detail of the notification. My reasons with respect to Document 3 apply.

1. For the reasons I gave concerning Document 2, Document 14 is exempt under section 36(1). The note is part of PRBV's thinking process and so should not be disclosed as that would be contrary to the public interest.

Document 15 - Telephone note between PRVB and Victoria Police

1. In this document, a PRBV officer records the substance of the conversation with a police officer. This is exempt under section 37(2)(c) is in my view disclosure could reasonably be expected to prejudice the maintenance and enforcement of lawful methods for the protection of the public safety. I accept Ms Bondar's evidence on this point, in the context of the law as described above. As already stated, the PRBV investigation processes, including the involvement of Victoria Police, involve methods for the protection of the public safety.

Document 16 - Telephone note of call between PRBV and Victoria Police

1. This document is exempt on the same grounds as Document 15.

Document 17 - Copy of the letter from PRVB to Victoria Police with handwritten notes

1. Document 17 is a copy of Document 13. As with Document 13, AHPRA has released it with the same paragraph redacted. For the reasons I gave concerning Document 13, the paragraph is exempt under section 40(1)(d).

Document 18 - Letter from Victoria Police to PRVB with attachments

1. Document 18 is a letter to which is attached letters provided by the Notifier to the PRBV. I have dealt with the attachments under Document 5. APHPRA has released the actual letter, apart from a paragraph.
2. Unlike Documents 13 and 17, here in my view this different paragraph is of a sensitive nature. In the context of Ms Bondar's evidence, I accept AHPRA's submissions that it is exempt under sections 37(1)(d) and 40(1)d. A relevant consideration is these are the words of Victoria Police to AHPRA.

1. For the reasons I gave concerning Document 2, Document 19 is exempt under section 36(1). The note is part of PRBV's thinking process and so should not be disclosed as that would be contrary to the public interest.

1. Document 20 is a letter to the Notifier from PRVB which advises the Notifier of the outcome of the investigation. The information in the letter which identifies the Notifier is exempt under section 41(1) (as AHPRA submits). I do not regard the balance of the letter is exempt. I understand AHPRA has provided a copy of the letter to Dr Hanes on that basis.

Document 21 - Extract of letter to Victoria Police from PRVB

1. Document 21 is also a copy of Document 13. As with Document 13, AHPRA has released it with the same paragraph redacted. For the reasons I gave concerning Document 13, in my view the paragraph is not exempt.