The respondent's application for interim orders was dismissed in its entirety; the Tribunal declined to exclude from evidence the expert committee's report and related documents under s 75 of the Health Act 1993, and declined to limit the scope of review to the CEO's decision notice and statement of reasons alone. Applying Frugtniet v Australian Securities and Investments Commission [2019] HCA 16, the Tribunal held that s 75's evidentiary exclusion does not operate in ACAT administrative review proceedings under s 130 of the Health Act, because the Tribunal must stand in the shoes of the primary decision-maker and have access to the same material; displacing that principle requires clearly expressed legislative intent, which s 75 does not provide. The Tribunal further held that merits review of a CEO's decision under s 70 necessarily extends to examining the reasoning and, where relevant, the processes of the scope of clinical practice committee whose recommendations the CEO was required to consider, applying established principles from Shi v Migration Agents Registration Authority [2008] HCA 31 and the expert evidence requirements from Makita (Australia) Pty Ltd v Sprowles [2001] NSWCA 35.
The full text is available to signed-in members.