1. The Tribunal does not have a general power to review decisions. It can only review a decision if an Act or other legislative instrument states that the Tribunal can review the decision.
2. The Health Practitioner Regulation National Law Act 2009 (National Law) as in force in each state and territory establishes the National Registration and Accreditation Scheme (National Scheme) to provide for the regulation of health professionals.[2]
3. The National Law establishes the Ahpra, the Ahpra Board and National Boards.[3]
4. Ahpra manages the FOI functions on behalf of the CEO of Ahpra and the Chairpersons of the Ahpra Board and each National Board under authorised decision-making arrangements within the meaning of the FOI Act.[4]
5. Section 215 of the National Law provides that the FOI Act applies as a law of a participating jurisdiction for the purposes of the National Scheme.
6. Section 215 (2) of the National Law provides:

_For the purposes of subsection (1), the FOI Act applies - _ > > (a) as if a reference to the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner were a reference to the Office of the National Health Practitioner Privacy Commissioner; and > > (b) as if a reference to the Information Commissioner were a reference to the National Health Practitioner Privacy Commissioner; and > > (c) with any other modifications made by the regulations.

7. Part 4 of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law Regulation 2018 (NSW) (NSW Regulations) sets out the modifications of the FOI Act as it applies in that jurisdiction.
8. Regulation 17 of the NSW Regulations contains modifications relating to the Tribunal. It modifies the FOI Act to provide that a reference to the 'Administrative Appeals Tribunal' was a reference to a relevant tribunal and that a provision of the 'Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth)' does not apply.
9. Regulation 3 defines 'relevant tribunal' as relevantly for this matter as the Civil and Administrative Tribunal of New South Wales established under the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) of New South Wales.
10. I find that the Commissioner was correct to conclude that the correct body to apply for a review of Ahpra's decision dated 21 October 2024 is the Civil and Administrative Tribunal of New South Wales (NCAT).
11. In coming to this conclusion, I was required to consider the impact of the failure to update the references in the NSW Regulations to the Administrative Review Tribunal (ART).
12. Section 4 of the Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 1) Act 2024 (Transitional Provisions Act) provides that on or after the commencement of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (ART Act), if another Act refers to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975; a provision of that Act; or the Administrative Appeals Tribunal; or the Registrar of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, the reference is taken, on and after that commencement, to be a reference to the ART Act; an equivalent, or nearly equivalent, provision of that Act; and the ART.
13. The question is whether s 4 of the Transitional Provisions Act can be construed as capturing state and territory Acts. There is a real doubt about the ability for Commonwealth legislation to modify the interpretation of an Act passed by a state or territory Parliament without making an intention to expressly do this. Section 4 does not contain an expressed intention. Further, by applying the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth), where references to 'an Act' are clearly intended to capture Commonwealth Acts only, the preferable position is that the use of the term 'another Act' in s 4 would be read as referring only to another Commonwealth Act. On that basis, the reference to the Tribunal in the NSW Regulations has not been updated.
14. However, the Tribunal's jurisdiction is only engaged if there is a 'reviewable decision' as defined under the ART Act. Section 12 provides that a reviewable decision is one where an Act or a legislative instrument provides for an application to be made to the Tribunal for review of the decision. This reference is likewise limited to only Commonwealth Acts or legislative instruments and would not extend to circumstances where a failure to update a reference to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal would confer jurisdiction on the ART in circumstances where this was not intended by the relevant state or territory legislation.
15. The Tribunal is only conferred with review jurisdiction under s 57A or s 89N of the FOI Act.
16. Section 57A provides that an application may be made to the Tribunal for review of a decision of the Information Commissioner (IC) under s 55K on an IC review; and if the IC makes a decision under s 54W(b) - the IC reviewable decision in relation to which the IC makes the decision. Section 89N provides that an application may be made to the Tribunal for review of a decision under s 89K in relation to the making of a vexatious applicant declaration.

1. As such, the avenues for review at the Tribunal are quite narrow. I therefore dismiss the application under s 97 of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 as I am satisfied that the decision is not reviewable by the Tribunal.

[1] Decision of National Health Practitioner Privacy Commissioner, page 2.

[2] Ahpra and National Boards, Freedom of Information, Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency - Freedom of Information, accessed 16 July 2025.