RTI Decisions since 2016

Right to Information Decision Bulletin

Would you like to be notified each month of the Ombudsman's latest external review decisions under the Right to Information Act 2009?  Send your name and email address to rti@ombudsman.tas.gov.au to subscribe to the Right to Information Decision Bulletin.

Decisions by year

Decisions by section of the Right to Information Act 2009

    Section 6 (Excluded bodies)

    O and Department of Police, Fire and Emergency Management (No 2) (August 2023)

    On 10 November 2019, O made an application for assessed disclosure, under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to the Department of Police, Fire and Emergency Management (the Department), for information related to the death of her sister. On 22 November 2019, the Department refused O’s request on the basis the information was otherwise available (s12) or a repeat application (s20(a)). O sought internal review and the Department affirmed its decision on 3 December 2019. O then sought external review.

    The Ombudsman has already considered the correct application of s6 in a previous decision relating to the same parties in O and the Department of Police, Fire and Emergency Management No 1 (June 2023) and found that it had been incorrectly applied in the past.

    The Ombudsman determined that the Department:

    • was not entitled to rely on s20(a) to refuse the application as a repeat, but was not required to reassess the relevant information as it is excluded under s6 of the Act;
    • did not undertake a sufficient search for information responsive to O’s request, but has now taken appropriate steps to rectify this issue; and
    • was entitled to refuse to provide information in relation to the remainder of O’s request, as this was otherwise available under s12(3)(c)(i) or did not exist.
    O and Department of Police, Fire and Emergency Management (No 2) (PDF, 258.4 KB)

    O and Department of Police, Fire and Emergency Management (June 2023)

    On 15 August 2019, O made an application for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to the Department of Police, Fire and Emergency Management (the Department). The information sought by O related to the investigation into the death of her sister, P.

    On 16 August 2019, the Department released some further information but claimed the information could not be provided due to s6, as it related to coronial proceedings and the coroner is an excluded person.

    The request was also refused in part under s20(a), as the Department claimed it was a repeat application for the same or similar information as had been previously requested. This was affirmed on the internal review on 5 September 2019.

    The Ombudsman found that the Department:

    • has previously misapplied s6 but was entitled to rely on it where information was in possession of a police officer assisting the coroner; and
    • was not entitled to refuse O’s application as a repeat under s20(a).
    O and Department of Police, Fire and Emergency Management (PDF, 198.1 KB)

    B and Department of Justice (March 2021)

    B made an application for assessed disclosure of information to the Department of Justice. In that application, B sought information pertaining to declared conflicts of interest by the Chief Executive Officer of the Integrity Commission. The Department did not hold this information, so transferred the request to the Integrity Commission pursuant to s14. Due to the subject matter of the request for disclosure, the Integrity Commission delegated Ms Amanda Russell, the then Deputy Secretary, Corporate, Strategy and Policy at the Department of Justice to respond to the application. Ms Russell did not provide a decision within the time frame required under the Act, so B sought external review due to the deemed refusal of his application under s45(1)(f). Under s6, the Integrity Commission is an excluded body to which the Act does not apply, except for information related to the administration of that body. The Ombudsman determined that the information B sought did not relate to the administration of the Integrity Commission. Therefore, the Act did not apply to the information and B was not entitled to it.

    B and Department of Justice (PDF, 85.0 KB)

    Carlo Di Falco and Tasmania Police (August 2020)

    Mr Carlo Di Falco requested information from Tasmania Police relating to gun crimes. Tasmania Police provided some information, but refused the bulk of the information under s19. Information was also refused as matters were currently before the Court and also because of legal professional privilege.

    The Ombudsman upheld Tasmania Police's use of s19 on the basis that the work involved in providing the information would substantially and unreasonably divert the Police Service's resources from its other work. The Ombudsman also found similarly regarding information which could not be produced using the normal computer hardware and software and technical expertise of Tasmania Police. It was refused pursuant to s10.

    Carlo Di Falco and Tasmania Police (PDF, 1.2 MB)

    William Yabsley and Department of Justice (July 2019)

    Mr Yabsley asked for a range of information from the Supreme Court of Tasmania. This was in relation to a matter that involved him. The Department refused some of the request on the basis it was already available to Mr Yabsley for a reasonable fee. It also refused the other parts on the basis the Supreme Court is an excluded body under s6. The Ombudsman upheld this decision.

    William Yabsley and Department of Justice (PDF, 1.2 MB)
    Section 9 (Persons not entitled)

    Camille Bianchi and the Department of Health (November 2021)

    Ms Camille Bianchi is a freelance journalist who sought information from the Department of Health regarding the response to allegations of misconduct from its former employee at Ward 4K of the Launceston General Hospital, nurse James Griffin. The Department released a decision on 22 July 2020 on the 104 pages of information it located responsive to Ms Bianchi’s request, determining that all documents were exempt pursuant to ss35, 36 and 39 of the Right to Information Act 2009. Ms Bianchi then sought external review of this decision.

    During the external review process, the Department reconsidered some of its proposed exemptions and located additional documents responsive to Ms Bianchi’s request, which had not previously been assessed.

    The Ombudsman ordered that:
    * Exemptions claimed by the Department under ss30 and 39 are not made out;
    * Some information was validly exempt under s35 but the release of the majority was not contrary to the public interest;
    * The personal information of patients, members of the public, Department staff raising concerns about Mr Griffin and Ward 4K staff was exempt under s36, except job titles for Ward 4K staff;
    * The personal information of Mr Griffin, except his personal address, telephone number or date of birth, and the work related personal information of other Department staff, union representatives and consultants is not exempt under s36 and is to be released to Ms Bianchi; and
    * Some documents were out of scope of the request or publicly available and not required to be released.

    Camille Bianchi and the Department of Health (PDF, 298.0 KB)

    Carlo Di Falco and Tasmania Police (August 2020)

    Mr Carlo Di Falco requested information from Tasmania Police relating to gun crimes. Tasmania Police provided some information, but refused the bulk of the information under s19. Information was also refused as matters were currently before the Court and also because of legal professional privilege.

    The Ombudsman upheld Tasmania Police's use of s19 on the basis that the work involved in providing the information would substantially and unreasonably divert the Police Service's resources from its other work. The Ombudsman also found similarly regarding information which could not be produced using the normal computer hardware and software and technical expertise of Tasmania Police. It was refused pursuant to s10.

    Carlo Di Falco and Tasmania Police (PDF, 1.2 MB)

    William Yabsley and Department of Justice (July 2019)

    Mr Yabsley asked for a range of information from the Supreme Court of Tasmania. This was in relation to a matter that involved him. The Department refused some of the request on the basis it was already available to Mr Yabsley for a reasonable fee. It also refused the other parts on the basis the Supreme Court is an excluded body under s6. The Ombudsman upheld this decision.

    William Yabsley and Department of Justice (PDF, 1.2 MB)
    Section 10 (Electronic information)

    Graham Murray and City of Hobart (June 2022)

    Mr Graham Murray is a supporter of the proposal to construct and operate a cable car on kunanyi/Mount Wellington in Hobart. On 22 August 2018, Mr Murray submitted a request for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to the City of Hobart (Council). He sought information on a range of issues regarding the cable car project.

    On 27 September 2018, Council released a large amount of information to Mr Murray, but refused to assess part of his application under s10 and claimed a further 324 pages were exempt pursuant to ss31, 35, 36 and 39. A second decision was released on 24 October 2018, following consultation under s36(2), and a further part of Mr Murray’s request was refused under s19. A final decision was released on 9 November 2018, which released further information and refused the remaining part of Mr Murray’s request, as there was no recognised list of ‘cable car or anti cable car websites’ to enable the information to be collated. Mr Murray then sought external review of all of Council’s decisions.

    The Ombudsman determined that:

    • He had no power to review Council’s decision under s10 and it remained unchanged;
    • Council’s use of s19 was affirmed;
    • Council’s use of section 31 was varied;
    • Council’s use of s35 was varied;
    • Council’s use of s36 was affirmed; and
    • Council's use of s39 was varied.
    Graham Murray and City of Hobart (PDF, 255.9 KB)

    Carlo Di Falco and Tasmania Police (August 2020)

    Mr Carlo Di Falco requested information from Tasmania Police relating to gun crimes. Tasmania Police provided some information, but refused the bulk of the information under s19. Information was also refused as matters were currently before the Court and also because of legal professional privilege.

    The Ombudsman upheld Tasmania Police's use of s19 on the basis that the work involved in providing the information would substantially and unreasonably divert the Police Service's resources from its other work. The Ombudsman also found similarly regarding information which could not be produced using the normal computer hardware and software and technical expertise of Tasmania Police. It was refused pursuant to s10.

    Carlo Di Falco and Tasmania Police (PDF, 1.2 MB)
    Section 12 (Information Provided Apart from Act)

    O and Department of Police, Fire and Emergency Management (No 2) (August 2023)

    On 10 November 2019, O made an application for assessed disclosure, under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to the Department of Police, Fire and Emergency Management (the Department), for information related to the death of her sister. On 22 November 2019, the Department refused O’s request on the basis the information was otherwise available (s12) or a repeat application (s20(a)). O sought internal review and the Department affirmed its decision on 3 December 2019. O then sought external review.

    The Ombudsman has already considered the correct application of s6 in a previous decision relating to the same parties in O and the Department of Police, Fire and Emergency Management No 1 (June 2023) and found that it had been incorrectly applied in the past.

    The Ombudsman determined that the Department:

    • was not entitled to rely on s20(a) to refuse the application as a repeat, but was not required to reassess the relevant information as it is excluded under s6 of the Act;
    • did not undertake a sufficient search for information responsive to O’s request, but has now taken appropriate steps to rectify this issue; and
    • was entitled to refuse to provide information in relation to the remainder of O’s request, as this was otherwise available under s12(3)(c)(i) or did not exist.
    O and Department of Police, Fire and Emergency Management (No 2) (PDF, 258.4 KB)

    Camille Bianchi and the Department of Health (November 2021)

    Ms Camille Bianchi is a freelance journalist who sought information from the Department of Health regarding the response to allegations of misconduct from its former employee at Ward 4K of the Launceston General Hospital, nurse James Griffin. The Department released a decision on 22 July 2020 on the 104 pages of information it located responsive to Ms Bianchi’s request, determining that all documents were exempt pursuant to ss35, 36 and 39 of the Right to Information Act 2009. Ms Bianchi then sought external review of this decision.

    During the external review process, the Department reconsidered some of its proposed exemptions and located additional documents responsive to Ms Bianchi’s request, which had not previously been assessed.

    The Ombudsman ordered that:
    * Exemptions claimed by the Department under ss30 and 39 are not made out;
    * Some information was validly exempt under s35 but the release of the majority was not contrary to the public interest;
    * The personal information of patients, members of the public, Department staff raising concerns about Mr Griffin and Ward 4K staff was exempt under s36, except job titles for Ward 4K staff;
    * The personal information of Mr Griffin, except his personal address, telephone number or date of birth, and the work related personal information of other Department staff, union representatives and consultants is not exempt under s36 and is to be released to Ms Bianchi; and
    * Some documents were out of scope of the request or publicly available and not required to be released.

    Camille Bianchi and the Department of Health (PDF, 298.0 KB)

    Lawrence Archer and Dorset Council (June 2021)

    In June 2018, former councillor Mr Lawrence Archer made an application to the Dorset Council for assessed disclosure. He sought a list of the monthly allowances and expenses incurred by individual elected members of Council, and copies of bank statements for Council credit cards used by the Mayor and General Manager.

    Council refused to provide information regarding the councillors’ allowances and expenses, claiming that it was available to Mr Archer at a point in time (before he left Council) in what was known as Audit Panel papers.  The Council refused to provide information requested about expenses outside of the Audit Papers, as it indicated that this was not able to be provided accurately. It also refused to provide the credit card statements pursuant to s20(b), as it stated that this was a vexatious request.

    The Ombudsman determined that he had no jurisdiction to review Council’s decision to refuse allowance and expense information under s12(3)(c)(i). However, he found that the remainder of Mr Archer’s application should be reassessed in accordance with the provisions of the Act, as s20(b) did not apply and other information appeared to be able to be extracted and provided in accordance with s18(3).

    Lawrence Archer and Dorset Council (PDF, 298.0 KB)

    Rhiana Whitson and Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment (May 2021)

    Ms Whitson (a journalist for the ABC) sought information from the Department about the death of 16 polo ponies in January 2018 which were transported on the Spirit of Tasmania ferry. The Department refused to provide any information responsive to the request, considering it fully exempt pursuant to s30(1)(a) of the Right to Information Act 2009, as information relating to the enforcement of the law, on the basis of an ongoing investigation and potential prosecutions relating to the incident. Since the Department’s original decision, charges have been laid under the Animal Welfare Act 1993 in relation to the incident and their prosecution remains ongoing.

    The Ombudsman predominantly upheld the Department’s decision but found that some information was not exempt, consistent with a previous external review decision in Mandy Squires and Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment (March 2019). This information was nonetheless not required to be provided to Ms Whitson, as it was otherwise available under s12(3)(c)(i).

    Rhiana Whitson and Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment (PDF, 162.3 KB)

    Clive Stott and Hydro Tasmania (February 2021)

    Mr Stott requested information from Hydro Tasmania ('Hydro') regarding the fault in the Basslink cable which caused it to shut down in 2015. Hydro released some information to Mr Stott but refused the majority of his request on the basis that it considered that: the information was already publicly available (s12); the work involved in providing the information would substantially and unreasonably divert Hydro’s resources from its other work (s19); or the information was exempt (under a section noted below). Mr Stott sought external review of this decision.

    Late in the external review process, Mr Stott agreed to redaction of some personal information relating to personnel internal or external to Hydro. Hence, while the reasons consider exemptions claimed under s36, ultimately a s36 review decision was not required.

    The Ombudsman found that:

    1. He does not have the power to review a decision under s12 to refuse to provide information which is already publicly available.

    2. Hydro had not complied with the requirements of s19 to give Mr Stott a reasonable opportunity to consult with it to refine his request to a form which would not substantially and unreasonably divert its resources. Mr Stott’s request was returned to Hydro to reassess under the Act.

    3. Exemptions claimed under s31 (legal professional privilege) should be varied, releasing additional documents to Mr Stott.

    4. Exemptions claimed under s37 (information relating to the business affairs of a third party) and s38 (information relating to the business affairs of a public authority) were not made out and relevant documents should be released to Mr Stott.

    5. The exemption claimed over a document under s39 (information obtained in confidence) was not made out, but the document was otherwise exempt under s30 (information relating to the enforcement of the law).

    Clive Stott and Hydro Tasmania (PDF, 262.1 KB)

    Damien Matcham and Brighton Council (January 2018)

    Mr Matcham requested seven years' worth of Council related credit card statements and several years worth of the General Manager's diary appointments among other things.  Council refused the bulk of the decision under s19 on the basis the work required would be a substantial and unreasonable diversion of its resources from its other work.  Some of the information, it claimed, was already publicly available and it subsequently refused to release it under s12 of the Act.  The use of s19 was varied - set aside for the credit card statements, but affirmed for the diary entries.  A refusal under s12 is not a reviewable decision under the Act.

    Damien Matcham and Brighton Council (PDF, 1.0 MB)

    Timothy Kirkwood and Tasmanian Planning Commission (February 2017)

    Mr Kirkwood (Manager of Southern Midlands Council) requested information provided by a third party to the Commission outside of its usual hearing/determination process. The Ombudsman was satisfied that any such information held in respect of the third party related to the Commission’s ‘official business’ and hence was subject to the Right to Information Act 2009. However, all such information was exempt under s36 and it was contrary to the public interest to disclose this.

    The decision also explored the interplay between information  ‘otherwise available’ under s12(3)(c) of the Right to Information Act 2009 and information (written evidence and submission documents) subject to an obligation to be made public under s12 of the Tasmanian Planning Commission Act 1997.

    Timothy Kirkwood and Tasmanian Planning Commission (PDF, 722.1 KB)
    Section 17 (Deferrals)

    Michael Atkin and Forestry Tasmania (October 2018)

    After the 2014 state election, Mr Atkin, a Tasmanian-based journalist for the ABC at that time, submitted an application for assessed disclosure seeking information that covered emails and other briefings about FSC certification. This included an Incoming Government Briefing (IGB).

    This primarily considers the exemption of the IGB and the decision of this office to release parts of it as purely factual information.

    Michael Atkin and Forestry Tasmania (PDF, 1.3 MB)
    Section 18 (Provision of Information)

    Robin Smith and Launceston City Council (April 2021)

    Mr Smith applied to Council for assessed disclosure of a wide variety of information regarding its City Heart redevelopment project. Council released some information and claimed some exemptions. This review concerned Mr Smith's request for '(3) Total expenditure on community engagement for City Heart planning.'

    Council had decided this sought information not in its possession, but which would require analysis to produce. Council submitted that analysis was needed to extract and cost the time of its in-house staff and other Council resources spent on the community engagement / consultation.

    Before the Ombudsman's decision, Council (consistently with s12) undertook analysis to produce answers to questions 3 and 4 of Mr Smith's request, annexed to the decision.

    At Council's request, the Ombudsman made a determination. He ultimately concluded that, in undertaking its analysis to produce accurate answers to Mr Smith’s questions 3 and 4, Council (consistently with s12) went above and beyond its duty under s18(3). It was commended for doing so.

    Robin Smith and Launceston City Council (PDF, 647.1 KB)

    Patrick Billings and Department of Health and Human Services (December 2016)

    Mr Billings (a journalist on ‘The Mercury’ newspaper) requested CCTV footage of an event at Ashley Youth Detention Centre in July 2016.  The Ombudsman determined that the footage should not be released, as various exemption grounds under s30(1) of the Right to Information Act 2009 were satisfied.  Under the Act, s30 exemptions are not subject to the public interest test at s33.

    Patrick Billings and Department of Health and Human Services (PDF, 448.4 KB)
    Section 19 (Voluminous)

    Lawrence Archer and Dorset Council (October 2023)

    On 11 August 2021, Mr Lawrence Archer lodged an application for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) with the Dorset Council (Council). The request was for information relating to credit card statements used by the Mayor and General Manager and to a valuation of a parcel of Council land.

    On 28 October 2021, Council released a decision to Mr Archer, refusing his application pursuant to s20(a) and (b) of the Act on the grounds it was a repeat and vexatious application. The position was affirmed on internal review released and Mr Archer applied for external review.

    After receiving a preliminary view from the Ombudsman, Council reconsidered its position and issued a fresh decision, relying on s19 instead to assert that responding to the request would be an unreasonable diversion of Council’s resources from its other work. Mr Archer sought internal review and Council maintained its position. Mr Archer then sought external review.

    The Ombudsman determined that Council was not entitled to refuse Mr Archer’s application for assessed disclosure pursuant to s19 of the Act.

    Lawrence Archer and Dorset Council (PDF, 145.3 KB)

    Clive Stott and Department of Health (June 2023)

    On 13 June 2022 Mr Clive Stott lodged an application for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) with the Department of Health (the Department). The request was for information relating to the hospital wards in Tasmania that do not have air conditioning or ventilation installed.

    On 25 July 2022 the Department provided a s19(2) notification indicating an intention to refuse the application on the basis that to process the request would substantially and unreasonably divert the resources of the public authority from its work. The notification offered the applicant five days in which to consult with the Department. Mr Stott responded the next day and sought to engage with the Department regarding how the ground of refusal under s19 could be removed. The Department did not respond and Mr Stott sought external review due to the Department’s delay in releasing a decision. A decision was released on 8 November 2022 refusing the application pursuant to s19. He sought internal review and the Department affirmed its decision on 24 February 2023. His external review was extended to a full external review following this decision.

    The Ombudsman determined that the Department did not properly consult with the applicant as required under s19(2) and was therefore not entitled to rely on s19 to refuse Mr Stott’s application. The Department was directed to re-assess Mr Stott’s application in accordance with the provisions of the Act.

    Clive Stott and Department of Health (PDF, 204.9 KB)

    C and Sustainable Timber Tasmania (February 2023)

    C, the applicant, is a business owner with a professional interest in Tasmanian’s timber resources. On 9 May 2022, C made an application to Sustainable Timber Tasmanian (STT) for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009. C sought information Forest Practices Plans (FPPs) and harvest information relating to 23 coupes managed by STT.

    A decision was issued on 8 June 2022, relying on s19(1)(a) to refuse the request for assessed disclosure on the basis that to do so for the 23 coupes would substantially and unreasonably divert its resources from its other work. On 11 July 2022 an internal review decision confirmed the original decision and C then sought external review.

    The Ombudsman determined that STT was not entitled to refuse the relevant parts of C’s assessed disclosure request pursuant to s19, as he was not satisfied it would cause an unreasonable diversion of STT’s resources from its other work. He directed STT to assess the information responsive to those parts of C’s request in accordance with the provisions of the Act.

    C and Sustainable Timber Tasmania (PDF, 247.1 KB)

    Rosalie Woodruff MP and Department of Natural Resources and Environment Tasmania (November 2022)

    Dr Rosalie Woodruff MP has been the Tasmanian Greens Member for Franklin since 2015. She raised concerns about the Ocean Monarch drilling rig’s presence in Hobart in late 2018/early 2019. On 19 December 2018, Dr Woodruff lodged an application for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) with the former Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment (DPIPWE), now the Department of Natural Resources and Environment Tasmania (the Department). She sought information regarding the Ocean Monarch drilling rig.

    The Department released a decision on 26 March 2019, refusing all aspects of Dr Woodruff’s application pursuant to s19 of the Act. The Department determined that the work involved in providing the information requested would substantially and unreasonably divert its resources from its other work. Following an application for internal review, the Department released a further decision on 7 May 2019, which affirmed the original decision. Dr Woodruff applied for external review of the decision.

    The Ombudsman determined that the Department was entitled to refuse, pursuant to s19, to provide information in relation to Dr Woodruff’s application.

    Rosalie Woodruff MP and Department of Natural Resources and Environment Tasmania (PDF, 152.4 KB)

    Robin Smith and City of Launceston No.1 (September 2022)

    Mr Robin Smith is the owner of a small business in Launceston’s Brisbane Street Mall. He has a keen interest in how the City of Launceston (Council) is conducting its City Heart project. On 16 January 2019, Mr Smith submitted a request for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to Council. He sought 11 types of information relating to Council’s use of resources and actions in relation to the project.

    After negotiations with Mr Smith, Council released a decision on 6 February 2019, refusing all aspects of his application pursuant to s19 of the Act. Council determined that the work involved in providing the information requested would substantially and unreasonably divert the resources of Council from its other work. Following an application for internal review from Mr Smith, Council released a further decision on 26 April 2019, which affirmed the original decision. Mr Smith applied for external review of the decision.

    The Ombudsman determined that:

    • Council’s reliance on s19 was reasonable in relation to the broad and imprecise parts of Mr Smith’s request and it was entitled to refuse those parts of his request; and
    • Council was not entitled to refuse the more confined parts of Mr Smith’s request pursuant to s19. Council was directed to assess the information responsive to these parts of Mr Smith’s request in accordance with the provisions of the Act.
    Robin Smith and City of Launceston No.1 (PDF, 185.8 KB)

    Graham Murray and City of Hobart (June 2022)

    Mr Graham Murray is a supporter of the proposal to construct and operate a cable car on kunanyi/Mount Wellington in Hobart. On 22 August 2018, Mr Murray submitted a request for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to the City of Hobart (Council). He sought information on a range of issues regarding the cable car project.

    On 27 September 2018, Council released a large amount of information to Mr Murray, but refused to assess part of his application under s10 and claimed a further 324 pages were exempt pursuant to ss31, 35, 36 and 39. A second decision was released on 24 October 2018, following consultation under s36(2), and a further part of Mr Murray’s request was refused under s19. A final decision was released on 9 November 2018, which released further information and refused the remaining part of Mr Murray’s request, as there was no recognised list of ‘cable car or anti cable car websites’ to enable the information to be collated. Mr Murray then sought external review of all of Council’s decisions.

    The Ombudsman determined that:

    • He had no power to review Council’s decision under s10 and it remained unchanged;
    • Council’s use of s19 was affirmed;
    • Council’s use of section 31 was varied;
    • Council’s use of s35 was varied;
    • Council’s use of s36 was affirmed; and
    • Council's use of s39 was varied.
    Graham Murray and City of Hobart (PDF, 255.9 KB)

    Clive Stott and Hydro Tasmania (February 2021)

    Mr Stott requested information from Hydro Tasmania ('Hydro') regarding the fault in the Basslink cable which caused it to shut down in 2015. Hydro released some information to Mr Stott but refused the majority of his request on the basis that it considered that: the information was already publicly available (s12); the work involved in providing the information would substantially and unreasonably divert Hydro’s resources from its other work (s19); or the information was exempt (under a section noted below). Mr Stott sought external review of this decision.

    Late in the external review process, Mr Stott agreed to redaction of some personal information relating to personnel internal or external to Hydro. Hence, while the reasons consider exemptions claimed under s36, ultimately a s36 review decision was not required.

    The Ombudsman found that:

    1. He does not have the power to review a decision under s12 to refuse to provide information which is already publicly available.

    2. Hydro had not complied with the requirements of s19 to give Mr Stott a reasonable opportunity to consult with it to refine his request to a form which would not substantially and unreasonably divert its resources. Mr Stott’s request was returned to Hydro to reassess under the Act.

    3. Exemptions claimed under s31 (legal professional privilege) should be varied, releasing additional documents to Mr Stott.

    4. Exemptions claimed under s37 (information relating to the business affairs of a third party) and s38 (information relating to the business affairs of a public authority) were not made out and relevant documents should be released to Mr Stott.

    5. The exemption claimed over a document under s39 (information obtained in confidence) was not made out, but the document was otherwise exempt under s30 (information relating to the enforcement of the law).

    Clive Stott and Hydro Tasmania (PDF, 262.1 KB)

    Carlo Di Falco and Tasmania Police (August 2020)

    Mr Carlo Di Falco requested information from Tasmania Police relating to gun crimes. Tasmania Police provided some information, but refused the bulk of the information under s19. Information was also refused as matters were currently before the Court and also because of legal professional privilege.

    The Ombudsman upheld Tasmania Police's use of s19 on the basis that the work involved in providing the information would substantially and unreasonably divert the Police Service's resources from its other work. The Ombudsman also found similarly regarding information which could not be produced using the normal computer hardware and software and technical expertise of Tasmania Police. It was refused pursuant to s10.

    Carlo Di Falco and Tasmania Police (PDF, 1.2 MB)

    Jeff Thompson and Tasmania Police (July 2020)

    Mr Thompson sought a broad range of information held by Tasmania Police as a result of several charges laid against him. Tasmania Police refused the information on the basis it would be a substantial and unreasonable diversion of its resources. On review the Ombudsman found Tasmania Police grossly underestimated the volume of information held and its decision to refuse was affirmed.

    Jeff Thompson and Tasmania Police (PDF, 612.0 KB)

    Environment Tasmania and Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and the Environment (November 2019)

    Environment Tasmania asked the Department to provide a range of information about fin-fish farming around Tasmania. The first response was a possible refusal under s19. This was due to the size and complexity of what has been sought. The scope was revised and focused on a smaller sub-set of information about Okehampton Bay. The Department refused its release claiming it would expose a third party to competitive disadvantage under s37. The Ombudsman set this decision aside. While s37 might have been able to apply, it did not satisfy the public interest test.

    Environment Tasmania and Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and the Environment (PDF, 2.5 MB)

    Rosalie Woodruff MP and the Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water, and the Environment (June 2018)

    In an original application, Ms Woodruff requested information from the Department in relation to four fin-fish farming organisations. The Department originally applied s19 and appropriately offered Ms Woodruff an opportunity to revise her application.

    Ms Woodruff did this, cutting the application down to just one of those companies. Once that decision was completed, Ms Woodruff then submitted two additional applications - each one dealing with one of the three remaining companies removed from her original application. The Department refused this under s20 claiming it a repeat application.

    Rosalie Woodruff MP and the Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water, and the Environment (PDF, 2.5 MB)

    Gina Green and King Island Council (May 2018)

    Ms Green alleged that a development application that was put out for public comment by King Island Council was different to the actual development. Ms Green submitted an application for assessed disclosure to Council, seeking a copy of the DA.

    Council refused the application under s19 on the basis it only allocated 1% of one of its officer's time to processing RTI applications. The Ombudsman determined this was not appropriate and overturned the use of s19, directing an assessed disclosure be undertaken.

    Gina Green and King Island Council (PDF, 1.2 MB)

    Damien Matcham and Brighton Council (January 2018)

    Mr Matcham requested seven years' worth of Council related credit card statements and several years worth of the General Manager's diary appointments among other things.  Council refused the bulk of the decision under s19 on the basis the work required would be a substantial and unreasonable diversion of its resources from its other work.  Some of the information, it claimed, was already publicly available and it subsequently refused to release it under s12 of the Act.  The use of s19 was varied - set aside for the credit card statements, but affirmed for the diary entries.  A refusal under s12 is not a reviewable decision under the Act.

    Damien Matcham and Brighton Council (PDF, 1.0 MB)
    Section 20 (Repeat and vexatious)

    Carlo Di Falco and City of Hobart (No. 2) (January 2024)

    On 25 October 2020, Mr Di Falco applied for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to City of Hobart (Council).  He sought information regarding a workplace incident in 2004.

    On 26 November 2020 Council released a decision to Mr Di Falco, refusing his request under s20(a) of the Act, on the basis that it was a repeat of a previous request for information Mr Di Falco had lodged on 10 March 2020. He sought external review on 30 November 2020.

    The Ombudsman determined that Council was entitled to refuse repeated aspects of Mr Di Falco’s request under s20(a) of the Act.  He determined that Council was not entitled to refuse the remainder of the request, as it was not a repeat request. Council was directed to re-assess the new part of the request against the provisions of the Act.

    Carlo Di Falco and City of Hobart (No. 2) (PDF, 174.1 KB)

    O and Department of Police, Fire and Emergency Management (No 2) (August 2023)

    On 10 November 2019, O made an application for assessed disclosure, under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to the Department of Police, Fire and Emergency Management (the Department), for information related to the death of her sister. On 22 November 2019, the Department refused O’s request on the basis the information was otherwise available (s12) or a repeat application (s20(a)). O sought internal review and the Department affirmed its decision on 3 December 2019. O then sought external review.

    The Ombudsman has already considered the correct application of s6 in a previous decision relating to the same parties in O and the Department of Police, Fire and Emergency Management No 1 (June 2023) and found that it had been incorrectly applied in the past.

    The Ombudsman determined that the Department:

    • was not entitled to rely on s20(a) to refuse the application as a repeat, but was not required to reassess the relevant information as it is excluded under s6 of the Act;
    • did not undertake a sufficient search for information responsive to O’s request, but has now taken appropriate steps to rectify this issue; and
    • was entitled to refuse to provide information in relation to the remainder of O’s request, as this was otherwise available under s12(3)(c)(i) or did not exist.
    O and Department of Police, Fire and Emergency Management (No 2) (PDF, 258.4 KB)

    O and Department of Police, Fire and Emergency Management (June 2023)

    On 15 August 2019, O made an application for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to the Department of Police, Fire and Emergency Management (the Department). The information sought by O related to the investigation into the death of her sister, P.

    On 16 August 2019, the Department released some further information but claimed the information could not be provided due to s6, as it related to coronial proceedings and the coroner is an excluded person.

    The request was also refused in part under s20(a), as the Department claimed it was a repeat application for the same or similar information as had been previously requested. This was affirmed on the internal review on 5 September 2019.

    The Ombudsman found that the Department:

    • has previously misapplied s6 but was entitled to rely on it where information was in possession of a police officer assisting the coroner; and
    • was not entitled to refuse O’s application as a repeat under s20(a).
    O and Department of Police, Fire and Emergency Management (PDF, 198.1 KB)

    Janiece Bryan and Glenorchy City Council (June 2023)

    On 21 June 2019, Ms Janiece Bryan made an application for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to the Glenorchy City Council (Council). Ms Bryan requested access to legal advice Council had received about whether it had the ability to sell the Derwent Entertainment Centre and surrounding land.

    On 11 July 2019 Council issued a decision to Ms Bryan, determining that the information responsive to her request was exempt under s31 of the Act on the basis that it would be privileged from production in legal proceedings on the ground of legal professional privilege.

    On 4 November 2019, Ms Bryan made a second application for assessed disclosure to Council, as she considered Council had since waived privilege over the legal advice. On 21 November 2019, Council issued a decision to Ms Bryan in relation to her second application for assessed disclosure. Council refused to accept the application under s20(a) of the Act, setting out that it was a repeat application and that there was no reasonable basis for seeking the same information again. Council also asserted that the requested information was exempt from disclosure under s31 of the Act.

    This decision was affirmed on internal review and, on 16 December 2019, Ms Bryan made an application for external review. The Ombudsman determined that:

    • Council was not entitled to refuse the application under s20(a);
    • exemptions claimed pursuant to s31 were varied; and
    • exemptions under s35 apply.
    Janiece Bryan and Glenorchy City Council (PDF, 219.2 KB)

    Robin Smith and City of Launceston No. 2 (September 2022)

    Mr Robin Smith is the owner of a small business in Launceston’s Brisbane Street Mall. He has a keen interest in how the City of Launceston (Council) is conducting its City Heart project. On 11 April 2019, Mr Smith submitted a request for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to Council. He sought 33 types of information relating to Council’s use of resources and actions in relation to the project.

    On 16 May 2019 the Principal Officer of Council released a decision to Mr Smith, refusing all aspects of his application pursuant to s20(a) of the Act. Council determined that the information was the same or similar to information sought in previous applications by Mr Smith and that his current application did not disclose any reasonable basis for again seeking access to the information. Mr Smith applied for external review of the decision.

    The Ombudsman determined that:

    • Council had applied and interpreted s20(a) too broadly in relation to the majority of the items of information sought and it was to assess those parts of Mr Smith’s application in accordance with the provisions of the Act;
    • Council was entitled to refuse, pursuant to s12(3)(c)(i), four parts of Mr Smith’s application; and
    • Council was not required to respond to Item 29 of Mr Smith’s request, as it posed a clarifying question rather than seeking information already in existence.
    Robin Smith and City of Launceston No. 2 (PDF, 250.3 KB)

    Andrew McCullagh and Northern Midlands Council (June 2022)

    Mr Andrew McCullagh is a ratepayer in the Northern Midlands Council (Council) municipality who operates a Facebook group entitled Northern Midlands Council Watch and takes a keen interest in Council’s fiscal management and operations. On 26 May 2020, Mr McCullagh made an application under the Right to Information Act 2009 to Council for information regarding various projects being undertaken or proposed in the municipality. On 19 June 2020, Council released a decision to Mr McCullagh refusing to provide the information sought pursuant to ss20(a) and (b) as it considered part of the request to be a repeat and part to be vexatious. This position was maintained on internal review and Mr McCullagh then sought external review of the decisions.

    The Ombudsman determined that ss20(a) and (b) did not apply to Mr McCullagh’s application and directed Council to assess the information requested for disclosure in accordance with the provisions of the Act.

    Andrew McCullagh and Northern Midlands Council (PDF, 162.1 KB)

    Lawrence Archer and Dorset Council (June 2021)

    In June 2018, former councillor Mr Lawrence Archer made an application to the Dorset Council for assessed disclosure. He sought a list of the monthly allowances and expenses incurred by individual elected members of Council, and copies of bank statements for Council credit cards used by the Mayor and General Manager.

    Council refused to provide information regarding the councillors’ allowances and expenses, claiming that it was available to Mr Archer at a point in time (before he left Council) in what was known as Audit Panel papers.  The Council refused to provide information requested about expenses outside of the Audit Papers, as it indicated that this was not able to be provided accurately. It also refused to provide the credit card statements pursuant to s20(b), as it stated that this was a vexatious request.

    The Ombudsman determined that he had no jurisdiction to review Council’s decision to refuse allowance and expense information under s12(3)(c)(i). However, he found that the remainder of Mr Archer’s application should be reassessed in accordance with the provisions of the Act, as s20(b) did not apply and other information appeared to be able to be extracted and provided in accordance with s18(3).

    Lawrence Archer and Dorset Council (PDF, 298.0 KB)

    Mr Darryl Howlin and City of Clarence (February 2021)

    Mr Howlin has been in dispute with the City of Clarence regarding which party has responsibility for Marsh Street, Opossum Bay. He made an application in July 2017 for assessed disclosure of information regarding planning approvals, maintenance and other records to support his claim against the City of Clarence. Council refused his application pursuant to subsections 20(a) and (b) of the Right to Information Act 2009. Council considered it was: (a) a repeat request for information provided in response to a previous 2010 application by Mr Howlin on the same subject; and (b) a vexatious application as Council considered it a further attempt to gain evidence to prove arguments already rejected in court proceedings against Council. The Ombudsman found on external review that Council should not have refused his application on this basis, except for one aspect which was appropriately refused as that information had already been provided. The Ombudsman directed Council to reassess the application in accordance with the provisions of the Act.

    Mr Darryl Howlin and City of Clarence (PDF, 184.9 KB)

    Rosalie Woodruff MP and the Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water, and the Environment (June 2018)

    In an original application, Ms Woodruff requested information from the Department in relation to four fin-fish farming organisations. The Department originally applied s19 and appropriately offered Ms Woodruff an opportunity to revise her application.

    Ms Woodruff did this, cutting the application down to just one of those companies. Once that decision was completed, Ms Woodruff then submitted two additional applications - each one dealing with one of the three remaining companies removed from her original application. The Department refused this under s20 claiming it a repeat application.

    Rosalie Woodruff MP and the Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water, and the Environment (PDF, 2.5 MB)
    Section 22 (Reasons for a Decision)

    Damien Matcham and Brighton Council (January 2018)

    Mr Matcham requested seven years' worth of Council related credit card statements and several years worth of the General Manager's diary appointments among other things.  Council refused the bulk of the decision under s19 on the basis the work required would be a substantial and unreasonable diversion of its resources from its other work.  Some of the information, it claimed, was already publicly available and it subsequently refused to release it under s12 of the Act.  The use of s19 was varied - set aside for the credit card statements, but affirmed for the diary entries.  A refusal under s12 is not a reviewable decision under the Act.

    Damien Matcham and Brighton Council (PDF, 1.0 MB)

    Laura Kelly, on behalf of Environment Tasmania and the Environment Protection Agency (June 2017)

    Environment Tasmania requested information about Huon Aquaculture’s Lonnavale Hatchery and its effect on the Russell River. Some information was released but the EPA considered that all other information was exempt under s39(1)  of the Right to Information Act 2009 (Information obtained in confidence) in the first instance because it had been voluntarily provided by Huon.  On review the Ombudsman determined that none of the remaining information was exempt under s39(1) as disclosure of the information would not be reasonably likely to impair the ability of a public authority or Minister to obtain similar information in the future: s39(1)(b). However,  much of the information was found to be exempt under s37(1) (Information relating to business affairs of third party) and, whilst it was contrary to the public interest to release raw monitoring data,  the Ombudsman determined that it was not contrary to release all other information.

    Laura Kelly, on behalf of Environment Tasmania and the Environment Protection Agency (PDF, 1.6 MB)
    Section 26 (Cabinet information)

    Emma Hamilton and Department of Natural Resources and Environment Tasmania (November 2023)

    In 2019 the Tasmanian Government announced plans to build a prison on Birralee Road in Westbury in Tasmania’s north. Ms Emma Hamilton is a Westbury resident opposed to the construction of this prison.

    On 25 June 2020, Ms Hamilton submitted an application for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to the Department of Natural Resources and Environment Tasmania, then known as the Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and the Environment (the Department), requesting information related to the transfer of a property on Birralee Road in Westbury from the Crown to the Tasmanian Land Conservancy.

    In its original decision, the Department redacted information responsive to Ms Hamilton’s application pursuant to ss26, 31, and 36. The Department’s original decision was affirmed on internal review.

    On external review, the Ombudsman determined that:

    • exemptions claimed pursuant to ss26, 31 and 36 should be varied; and
    • information is exempt pursuant to s35.
    Emma Hamilton and Department of Natural Resources and Environment Tasmania (PDF, 358.0 KB)

    Robert Hogan and University of Tasmania (June 2023)

    Mr Robert Hogan is opposed to the plan to relocate the campus of the University of Tasmania (the University) to central Hobart. On 24 March 2022, Mr Hogan made an application for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to the University for copies of the minutes of meetings of the University Council.

    On 27 May 2022, the University released a decision to Mr Hogan. He was provided with some information but other information was found to be exempt under ss37 and 38 of the Act. Mr Hogan sought internal review and on 18 July 2022, the University released an internal review decision which affirmed the original decision. Mr Hogan sought external review of that decision.

    The Ombudsman found that exemptions claimed by the University under s37 were not made out and those claimed under s38 were to be varied.

    Robert Hogan and University of Tasmania (PDF, 267.4 KB)

    Michael Atkin and Tasmania Police (October 2019)

    Mr Atkin, an ABC journalist, submitted a request to Tasmania Police seeking information in relation to the gun trafficking trade in Tasmania in February 2015. Nearly 300 pages of information were claimed exempt under a range of different sections given the sensitivity of the information. The application of the various sections was largely supported by this office with a few minor changes to Tasmania Police’s decision.

    Michael Atkin and Tasmania Police (PDF, 1.1 MB)
    Section 27 (Internal Briefing Information of a Minister)

    Linda Poulton and Department of Natural Resources and Environment Tasmania (November 2023)

    In 2019 the Tasmanian Government announced plans to build a prison on Birralee Road in Westbury, Tasmania. Ms Linda Poulton is a Westbury resident opposed to the construction of this prison.

    On 18 August 2020, Ms Poulton submitted an application for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to the then Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment, now the Department of Natural Resources and Environment Tasmania (the Department), requesting information related to the transfer of a Birralee Road property from the Crown to Tasmanian Land Conservancy.

    In its original decision, the Department found information responsive to Ms Poulton’s application exempt from disclosure, in full or in part, pursuant to ss27, 31 and 36. On internal review, the Department again found that these exemption provisions applied to exempt, in full or in part, to information responsive to Ms Poulton’s application.

    On external review, the Ombudsman determined:

    • exemptions claimed pursuant to s27 should be affirmed;
    • exemptions claimed pursuant to ss31 and 36 should be varied; and
    • exemptions under s35 apply.
    Linda Poulton and Department of Natural Resources and Environment Tasmania (PDF, 195.3 KB)

    Jonathon Simonetis and Department for Education, Children and Young People (May 2023)

    On 21 June 2019, Mr Jonathon Simonetis made an application for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to the Department for Education, Children and Young People (the Department). Mr Simonetis sought information relating to changes to the Department’s Procedures for Planning Off-Campus Activities relating to restrictions on students playing laser tag. On 4 September 2019, the Department released a decision to Mr Simonetis. It determined to release the information in part, with some information found to be exempt under ss27, 35 and 36 of the Act.

    Mr Simonetis applied for internal review on 30 September 2019, questioning the validity of these exemption and whether there had been a sufficient search for information by the Department. On 31 October 2019 the Department released further information to Mr Simonetis but relied on the same provisions of the Act to exempt the remaining information. Mr Simonetis then sought external review of the Department’s application of exemptions.

    The Ombudsman determined that exemptions claimed pursuant to s27, s35 and s36 should be varied.

    Jonathon Simonetis and Department for Education, Children and Young People (PDF, 816.9 KB)

    F and Department of Education (June 2022)

    F and G are parents of a young son, A, who attended a school run by the Department of Education (the Department). F and G had concerns their son had been subjected to regular bullying by another boy, B. On 15 March 2018, F made an application under the Right to Information Act 2009 for information regarding A’s alleged bullying and the Department’s response to incidents and concerns raised by F and G.

    On 14 June 2018, the Department released a decision to F which released some information and found the remainder to be exempt under ss27, 35 and 36. F sought internal review regarding the exemptions applied and disputing that all relevant documents had been located and assessed. On 9 August 2018, the Department released an internal review decision to F. It located and released some additional information, finding the remainder to be exempt for on the same bases as in the original decision. F sought external review, again disputing the exemptions applied and whether the Department had undertaken a sufficient search for information responsive to his request.

    The Ombudsman determined that:

    • Exemptions claimed pursuant to s27 were affirmed;
    • Exemptions claimed pursuant to s35 were varied; and
    • Exemptions claimed pursuant to s36 were affirmed.

    He also determined that the Department did not conduct a sufficient search for information responsive to F’s request, but had taken appropriate steps to rectify the issues in searching by the conclusion of his external review.

    F and Department of Education (PDF, 264.0 KB)

    Rebecca White MP and Minister Barnett, Minister for Resources, Minister for Building and Construction (January 2021)

    The applicant sought four incoming ministerial briefs prepared for Minister Barnett upon his appointment as Minister for Resources and Minister for Building and Construction. The briefs were from the Department of State Growth and the Department of Justice. Minister Barnett decided the briefs were entirely exempt pursuant to s27 and/or s35. In relation to s27, Minister Barnett asserted that any factual information contained in the briefs could be located by other means such as departmental websites and annual reports. In relation to s35, the Minister argued that the public interest in protecting the deliberative process outweighed the public interest in release of the information. Ms White applied for external review, asserting that much of the information could not be publicly located. Ms White further submitted that the public interest test had been incorrectly applied in the decision.


    The Ombudsman varied the Minister’s decision, determining that most of the information in the ministerial briefings was ‘purely factual information’ within the meaning of s27(4) and s35(2). As such, that information was not exempt and should be released to the applicant. A table overview of [then] ‘current prosecutions and significant investigations’ under the Work Health and Safety Act 2012 was now no longer: current; nor exempt under s30.

    The Ombudsman agreed that some information was exempt under: s26(1)(d); s27; or (after applying the public interest test, only the name of the mother of a deceased worker) s36.

    Rebecca White MP and Minister Barnett, Minister for Resources, Minister for Building and Construction (PDF, 3.2 MB)

    Rudra Sharma and Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and the Environment (March 2020)

    Mr Sharma has had ongoing interactions with the Land Titles Office in relation to his property in Sandy Bay. There was an adverse decision not to approve something Mr Sharma sought and he subsequently submitted a request for the information relating to that decision.

    The Department refused the release of the information on the basis it formed internally deliberative material and the public interest test did not support its release. The Ombudsman found this was not fully correct and he varied the decision.

    The common issues with this decision relate to proper consideration of use of s35 and the public interest test.

    Rudra Sharma and Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and the Environment (PDF, 1.5 MB)

    Richard Webb and Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water, and the Environment (January 2020)

    Mr Webb sought information from the Department in relation to the development proposal on Halls Island, Lake Malbena. The request sought a range of information that primarily included some leases for Halls Island and some documents to the relevant Minister.

    One of the core parts of this review was whether or not the two leases sought for Halls Island was information obtained in confidence as claimed by the Department. The Ombudsman overturned this in full on the basis the Department's own lease documents could not constitute information obtained in confidence that, if released, would impair its ability to obtain similar information in the future.

    Richard Webb and Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water, and the Environment (PDF, 1.5 MB)

    Michael Atkin and Tasmania Police (October 2019)

    Mr Atkin, an ABC journalist, submitted a request to Tasmania Police seeking information in relation to the gun trafficking trade in Tasmania in February 2015. Nearly 300 pages of information were claimed exempt under a range of different sections given the sensitivity of the information. The application of the various sections was largely supported by this office with a few minor changes to Tasmania Police’s decision.

    Michael Atkin and Tasmania Police (PDF, 1.1 MB)

    Michael Atkin and Forestry Tasmania (October 2018)

    After the 2014 state election, Mr Atkin, a Tasmanian-based journalist for the ABC at that time, submitted an application for assessed disclosure seeking information that covered emails and other briefings about FSC certification. This included an Incoming Government Briefing (IGB).

    This primarily considers the exemption of the IGB and the decision of this office to release parts of it as purely factual information.

    Michael Atkin and Forestry Tasmania (PDF, 1.3 MB)

    Richard Baines and Department of Education (May 2018)

    Mr Baines sought a range of information from the Department of Education in relation to a presentation that was to be held by Mr Steve Biddulph. Ultimately, the decision addressed whether information contained in Question Time Briefs (QTB) and Notices of Motion (NoM), among other things, could be exempt under s27 on the basis it was internal briefing information of a Minister.

    Richard Baines and Department of Education (PDF, 650.7 KB)

    The Hon. Bryan Green MP and Department of Treasury and Finance (July 2017)

    The applicant sought information about briefings the Department had prepared in relation to GST distribution as a result of the Australian Government budget.   On review the Ombudsman affirmed that much of the information was exempt under s27, s35, and s36 of the Right to Information Act 2009 and that it was contrary to the public interest to disclose this information.  Despite the claims of the Department, names of staff who had prepared and cleared the briefings were not maintained as exempt.

    The Hon. Bryan Green MP and Department of Treasury and Finance (PDF, 700.3 KB)

    Richard Baines (ABC) and Department of Health and Human Services (June 2017)

    The applicant sought information about a for-profit residential care provider, including payments made to it by the Department. On review the Ombudsman affirmed that much of the information was exempt under s27, s35, s36 and s39 of the Right to Information Act 2009 and that it was contrary to the public interest to disclose this informationDespite the claims of the Department, no information was found to be exempt under s37. However, some information was to be disclosed, including payments made by the Department to the provider, subject to redaction of identifying personal information, as well as factual information contained in information which might otherwise be exempt under s27(1) or s35(1) of the Act.  The Department submitted that certain information could not be disclosed by virtue of either s16, s103 or s111A of the Children, Young Persons and their Families Act 1997 Act but the Ombudsman was not generally satisfied of this, considering that the Department was taking too broad a view of the purpose of that Act, although some information was found to be subject to s111A and was not to be disclosed.

    Richard Baines (ABC) and Department of Health and Human Services (PDF, 1.8 MB)

    Michael Atkin and Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Wildlife and the Environment (March 2017)

    Mr Atkin (a journalist with the ABC’s 7.30 Report) requested information concerning a third party’s mussel enterprise, including personal information. The Ombudsman determined that the remaining undisclosed information was exempt in accordance with s27, s35 and s36 of the Right to Information Act 2009.   On considering the public interest, the Ombudsman found that the s35 information should remain exempt, whist in the unusual circumstances of this case, it was not contrary to the public interest to disclose the personal information in question.

    Michael Atkin and Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Wildlife and the Environment (PDF, 500.8 KB)
    Section 30 (Enforcement of Law)

    Alison Sandy and Department of Police, Fire and Emergency Management (February 2024)

    Ms Alison Sandy is the FOI Editor of Seven Network. On 20 October 2020, Ms Sandy made an assessed disclosure application under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to the Department of Police, Fire and Emergency Management (the Department). She sought video and audio recordings and transcripts from 1996 of interactions between Tasmania Police and Martin Bryant.

    The Department found the information to be exempt in full, relying on s30 of the Act, information relating to law enforcement. Ms Sandy sought internal review and the Department affirmed its decision. Ms Sandy then sought external review.

    The Ombudsman affirmed the Department’s decision and determined that the information was exempt in full pursuant to s30(1)(c) and (d) of the Act.

    Alison Sandy and Department of Police, Fire and Emergency Management (PDF, 186.1 KB)

    Karl Willrath and Dorset Council (August 2023)

    On 26 November 2019, Mr Willrath made an application for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to Dorset Council (Council). Mr Willrath sought information relating to a Code of Conduct complaint under the Local Government Act 1993, made by the General Manager of Council against a Councillor, relating to a series of emails. The Code of Conduct Panel determination, which substantially set out the contents of the emails, has been publicly released. Mr Willrath sought the full content of the emails.

    On 18 December 2019, Council released a decision to Mr Willrath, declining to release the information. In coming to its decision, Council relied only on the Local Government Act 1993 rather than the Act. Upon request for internal review, Council upheld the initial decision on 5 February 2020. Mr Willrath then applied for external review. Pursuant to s47(1)(n), Council was requested to provide better reasons for its decision. Council issued a new decision on 20 June 2023 relying on ss30 and 35 to claim that the information was exempt under the Act.

    The Ombudsman determined that:

    • exemptions claimed pursuant to s30 were not made out;
    • exemptions claimed pursuant to s35 were not made out; and

    some information was exempt under s36.

    Karl Willrath and Dorset Council (PDF, 220.3 KB)

    L and Department of Police, Fire and Emergency Management (June 2023)

    L had been issued with a Police Family Violence Order (PFVO). L lodged an application for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009, seeking information from the Department of Police, Fire and Emergency Management (the Department) in relation to the complaint on which the PFVO was based. The Department released some information to L but considered that some information was exempt under ss30, 35, 36 and 39 of the Act.

    Upon application by L for internal review, the Department upheld its earlier decision. L then sought external review. The Ombudsman found that a small amount of the information sought could be released to L but the majority of the information remained exempt.

    The Ombudsman determined that:

    • Exemptions claimed pursuant to ss36 and 30(1)(d) were varied;
    • Exemptions claimed pursuant to ss30(1)(e) and 35 were affirmed; and
    • It was not necessary to assess the alternative exemption claimed under s39.
    L and Department of Police, Fire and Emergency Management (PDF, 372.3 KB)

    Tim Bullard and Department of Justice (December 2022)

    On 16 December 2021, an incident occurred at the Hillcrest Primary School in Northern Tasmania in which a jumping castle and inflatable ‘Zorb’ balls became airborne in high winds, resulting in the deaths of six children and injuries to a further three. The Hillcrest Primary School is operated by the Department for Education, Children and Young People, known at the time of the incident as the Department of Education (the Department).

    Mr Tim Bullard is the Secretary of the Department and made an application for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to the Department of Justice on 19 May 2022. He sought information regarding the ongoing WorkSafe investigation into the incident pursuant to the Work Health and Safety Act 2012. On 28 July 2022, a decision was released by the Department of Justice which determined that the majority of the information sought was exempt from release under s30 of the Act due to risk of prejudice to the ongoing investigation. Mr Bullard sought external review of this decision.

    The Ombudsman determined that the Department of Justice’s claim for exemption of the relevant information pursuant to s30 was valid and upheld the decision.

    Tim Bullard and Department of Justice (PDF, 160.1 KB)

    H and Department of Police, Fire and Emergency Management (November 2022)

    H made a complaint to the Department of Police, Fire and Emergency Management (the Department) regarding the handling of an alleged breach of a Family Violence Order in place for her protection. As part of that complaint, H made an application for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to the Department to seek further information about its guidelines or protocols in relation to breaches of Family Violence Orders.

    The Department released a decision to H on 21 May 2019, determining that there were two pages of relevant information from the Department’s Family Violence Manual and both were fully exempt pursuant to s30(1)(c). H sought internal review and the Department released a further decision on 11 June 2019. This decision affirmed the original decision and did not release any information. H sought external review of that decision.

    The Ombudsman determined that the exemptions claimed by the Department pursuant to s30(1)(c) were not made out in the majority of instances, but that some parts of the information were exempt under s30(1)(c).

    H and Department of Police, Fire and Emergency Management (PDF, 138.3 KB)

    Clive Stott and TT-Line Company Pty Ltd (June 2022)

    On 16 March 2019, Mr Clive Stott made an application for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 to TT-Line Company Pty Ltd (TT-Line). He sought air quality monitoring reports in relation to the Spirit of Tasmania I and Spirit of Tasmania II, following the deaths of 16 polo ponies on a truck which travelled on one of the vessels in 2018. TT-Line issued a decision on 9 May 2019 to refuse the majority of Mr Stott’s request on the basis that it considered that:

    • the disclosure of the information would prejudice an ongoing investigation into the deaths of the ponies (s30);
    • the information contains personal information of a person other than Mr Stott (s36); and
    • the release of the information would expose TT-Line to competitive disadvantage (s38).

    This decision was upheld at internal review and Mr Stott sought external review of that decision.

    The Ombudsman determined that exemptions claimed under ss30, 36 and 38 were not made out and relevant documents should be released to Mr Stott.

    Clive Stott and TT-Line Company Pty Ltd (PDF, 185.5 KB)

    Simon Cameron and Department of Natural Resources and Environment Tasmania (January 2022)

    Mr Simon Cameron owns a sheep farming property in central Tasmania. Allegations were made against his farm manager by officers of the then Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment, now the Department of Natural Resources and Environment Tasmania (the Department), regarding whether the management of feral deer was in breach of the Wildlife (General) Regulations 2010. This eventually led to the farm manager lodging a complaint against the Department with the Integrity Commission and an investigation by the Department into whether misconduct had been committed by its officers. Mr Cameron made an application in November 2017 for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) seeking the investigation report and associated documentation. The Department released a decision on 12 December 2017, finding all 766 pages found to be responsive to the request were exempt from disclosure under ss30, 31, 35, 36 and 39 of the Act. Mr Cameron then sought external review of this decision.

    The Ombudsman determined that:

    • Exemptions claimed pursuant to s30 were primarily not made out, but some information was validly exempt under s30(1)(a)(ii);
    • Exemptions claimed pursuant to s31 were upheld; and
    • Some information was validly exempt under ss35, 36 and 39 but the release of the remainder was not contrary to the public interest.
    Simon Cameron and Department of Natural Resources and Environment Tasmania (PDF, 497.8 KB)

    Anna Porretta and the Department of Police, Fire and Emergency Management (December 2021)

    Mrs Anna Porretta is involved in the operation of the Ivory Lounge Bar.  She made an application in July 2018 for assessed disclosure to the Department of Police, Fire and Emergency Management regarding its representations relating to an application for an out-of-hours permit submitted to the Liquor and Gaming Branch of the Department of Treasury and Finance.  In particular, she sought to obtain the names and rankings, in terms of Tasmania Police call outs, of other licensed premises to give context to information included in the representations.  The Department released a decision on 2 August 2018 and an internal review decision on 22 September 2018, both determining that all information was exempt pursuant to s30(1)(e) of the Right to Information Act 2009, as it considered that the information would disclose information gathered, collated and created for intelligence purposes.  Mrs Porretta then sought external review of this decision.

    The Ombudsman determined that the information amounted to intelligence as defined by the Act and affirmed the Department's decision to exempt the information under s30(1)(e).

    Anna Porretta and the Department of Police, Fire and Emergency Management (PDF, 143.1 KB)

    Camille Bianchi and the Department of Health (November 2021)

    Ms Camille Bianchi is a freelance journalist who sought information from the Department of Health regarding the response to allegations of misconduct from its former employee at Ward 4K of the Launceston General Hospital, nurse James Griffin. The Department released a decision on 22 July 2020 on the 104 pages of information it located responsive to Ms Bianchi’s request, determining that all documents were exempt pursuant to ss35, 36 and 39 of the Right to Information Act 2009. Ms Bianchi then sought external review of this decision.

    During the external review process, the Department reconsidered some of its proposed exemptions and located additional documents responsive to Ms Bianchi’s request, which had not previously been assessed.

    The Ombudsman ordered that:
    * Exemptions claimed by the Department under ss30 and 39 are not made out;
    * Some information was validly exempt under s35 but the release of the majority was not contrary to the public interest;
    * The personal information of patients, members of the public, Department staff raising concerns about Mr Griffin and Ward 4K staff was exempt under s36, except job titles for Ward 4K staff;
    * The personal information of Mr Griffin, except his personal address, telephone number or date of birth, and the work related personal information of other Department staff, union representatives and consultants is not exempt under s36 and is to be released to Ms Bianchi; and
    * Some documents were out of scope of the request or publicly available and not required to be released.

    Camille Bianchi and the Department of Health (PDF, 298.0 KB)

    Rhiana Whitson and Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment (May 2021)

    Ms Whitson (a journalist for the ABC) sought information from the Department about the death of 16 polo ponies in January 2018 which were transported on the Spirit of Tasmania ferry. The Department refused to provide any information responsive to the request, considering it fully exempt pursuant to s30(1)(a) of the Right to Information Act 2009, as information relating to the enforcement of the law, on the basis of an ongoing investigation and potential prosecutions relating to the incident. Since the Department’s original decision, charges have been laid under the Animal Welfare Act 1993 in relation to the incident and their prosecution remains ongoing.

    The Ombudsman predominantly upheld the Department’s decision but found that some information was not exempt, consistent with a previous external review decision in Mandy Squires and Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment (March 2019). This information was nonetheless not required to be provided to Ms Whitson, as it was otherwise available under s12(3)(c)(i).

    Rhiana Whitson and Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment (PDF, 162.3 KB)

    Clive Stott and Hydro Tasmania (February 2021)

    Mr Stott requested information from Hydro Tasmania ('Hydro') regarding the fault in the Basslink cable which caused it to shut down in 2015. Hydro released some information to Mr Stott but refused the majority of his request on the basis that it considered that: the information was already publicly available (s12); the work involved in providing the information would substantially and unreasonably divert Hydro’s resources from its other work (s19); or the information was exempt (under a section noted below). Mr Stott sought external review of this decision.

    Late in the external review process, Mr Stott agreed to redaction of some personal information relating to personnel internal or external to Hydro. Hence, while the reasons consider exemptions claimed under s36, ultimately a s36 review decision was not required.

    The Ombudsman found that:

    1. He does not have the power to review a decision under s12 to refuse to provide information which is already publicly available.

    2. Hydro had not complied with the requirements of s19 to give Mr Stott a reasonable opportunity to consult with it to refine his request to a form which would not substantially and unreasonably divert its resources. Mr Stott’s request was returned to Hydro to reassess under the Act.

    3. Exemptions claimed under s31 (legal professional privilege) should be varied, releasing additional documents to Mr Stott.

    4. Exemptions claimed under s37 (information relating to the business affairs of a third party) and s38 (information relating to the business affairs of a public authority) were not made out and relevant documents should be released to Mr Stott.

    5. The exemption claimed over a document under s39 (information obtained in confidence) was not made out, but the document was otherwise exempt under s30 (information relating to the enforcement of the law).

    Clive Stott and Hydro Tasmania (PDF, 262.1 KB)

    Rebecca White MP and Minister Barnett, Minister for Resources, Minister for Building and Construction (January 2021)

    The applicant sought four incoming ministerial briefs prepared for Minister Barnett upon his appointment as Minister for Resources and Minister for Building and Construction. The briefs were from the Department of State Growth and the Department of Justice. Minister Barnett decided the briefs were entirely exempt pursuant to s27 and/or s35. In relation to s27, Minister Barnett asserted that any factual information contained in the briefs could be located by other means such as departmental websites and annual reports. In relation to s35, the Minister argued that the public interest in protecting the deliberative process outweighed the public interest in release of the information. Ms White applied for external review, asserting that much of the information could not be publicly located. Ms White further submitted that the public interest test had been incorrectly applied in the decision.


    The Ombudsman varied the Minister’s decision, determining that most of the information in the ministerial briefings was ‘purely factual information’ within the meaning of s27(4) and s35(2). As such, that information was not exempt and should be released to the applicant. A table overview of [then] ‘current prosecutions and significant investigations’ under the Work Health and Safety Act 2012 was now no longer: current; nor exempt under s30.

    The Ombudsman agreed that some information was exempt under: s26(1)(d); s27; or (after applying the public interest test, only the name of the mother of a deceased worker) s36.

    Rebecca White MP and Minister Barnett, Minister for Resources, Minister for Building and Construction (PDF, 3.2 MB)

    Carlo Di Falco and Tasmania Police (August 2020)

    Mr Carlo Di Falco requested information from Tasmania Police relating to gun crimes. Tasmania Police provided some information, but refused the bulk of the information under s19. Information was also refused as matters were currently before the Court and also because of legal professional privilege.

    The Ombudsman upheld Tasmania Police's use of s19 on the basis that the work involved in providing the information would substantially and unreasonably divert the Police Service's resources from its other work. The Ombudsman also found similarly regarding information which could not be produced using the normal computer hardware and software and technical expertise of Tasmania Police. It was refused pursuant to s10.

    Carlo Di Falco and Tasmania Police (PDF, 1.2 MB)

    T and Tasmania Police (June 2020)

    T sought information in relation to her complaint to police about an alleged abuser. Tasmania Police processed the request and found most of the information to be exempt. This was mainly on the basis it involved information relating to the enforcement of the law, information subject to legal professional privilege, internal information, or personal information of other people. The Ombudsman considered the decision of Tasmania Police and, while mostly upholding it, held that some further information should be released to T.

    T and Tasmania Police (PDF, 3.0 MB)

    Dr George Lane and Tasmania Police (April 2020)

    Dr George Lane is a scientist who had been undertaking some consultancy work for which he ordered equipment from China. Tasmania Police was alerted to a parcel potentially containing glassware consistent with drug manufacture. A search warrant was issued and Dr Lane's property was searched. He sought information from the Police Service relating to the incident. Tasmania Police exempted much of the material as it related to the enforcement of the law, or for other reasons such as internal deliberative and personal information. While most of the information remained exempt, the Ombudsman made some variations to the Police Service’s decision.

    Dr George Lane and Tasmania Police (PDF, 1.9 MB)

    Michael Atkin and Tasmania Police (October 2019)

    Mr Atkin, an ABC journalist, submitted a request to Tasmania Police seeking information in relation to the gun trafficking trade in Tasmania in February 2015. Nearly 300 pages of information were claimed exempt under a range of different sections given the sensitivity of the information. The application of the various sections was largely supported by this office with a few minor changes to Tasmania Police’s decision.

    Michael Atkin and Tasmania Police (PDF, 1.1 MB)

    Mandy Squires and Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water, and the Environment (March 2019)

    Ms Squires (a journalist with NewsCorp) sought information from the Department about the death of 16 ponies on the Spirit of Tasmania. This was a serious incident and sparked a lot of interest among the media and the public. This is an interesting matter in that a strong public interest does not necessarily guarantee release of information in the right circumstances. The Department relied on exemptions due to enforcement of the law, third party business information, and information obtained in confidence. The decision only upholds those exemptions relating to the enforcement of the law and overturns the others.

    Mandy Squires and Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water, and the Environment (PDF, 2.2 MB)

    Christine Smart and City of Launceston (April 2018)

    Ms Smart requested information relating to the legal costs incurred by Council in relation to her property, specifically her fence line that bordered an alleyway, that had historically been there for decades. A review of the boundaries identified the discrepancy and Ms Smart was asked to correct it.

    Ms Smart's application for assessed disclosure sought the the amount of legal costs incurred by Council after she challenged Council's decision. This matter primarily looks at whether or not the legal costs incurred constitute privileged information.

    Christine Smart and City of Launceston (PDF, 1.1 MB)

    Patrick Billings and Department of Health and Human Services (December 2016)

    Mr Billings (a journalist on ‘The Mercury’ newspaper) requested CCTV footage of an event at Ashley Youth Detention Centre in July 2016.  The Ombudsman determined that the footage should not be released, as various exemption grounds under s30(1) of the Right to Information Act 2009 were satisfied.  Under the Act, s30 exemptions are not subject to the public interest test at s33.

    Patrick Billings and Department of Health and Human Services (PDF, 448.4 KB)
    Section 31 (Legal Professional Privilege)

    Malcolm Gardam and Devonport City Council (January 2024)

    On 11 September 2020, Mr Malcolm Gardam made an application for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to the Devonport City Council (Council). He sought information regarding the lease agreement between Council and Providore Place (Devonport) Pty Ltd.

    On 8 October 2020, Council issued a decision to Mr Gardam. No documents were released but some responses were provided to matters raised by Mr Gardam. Information was claimed to be exempt under ss31 (legal professional privilege), 32 (closed meetings of council) and 36 (personal information). He sought internal review and Council issued an internal review decision on 22 October 2020. This decision affirmed Council’s first decision in full.

    Mr Gardam then sought external review. Council advised during the external review process that it now relied on s37 (information relating to the business affairs of a third party) instead of s32 in relation to some documents.

    The Ombudsman determined that:

    • Exemptions claimed pursuant to s31 were upheld;
    • Exemptions claimed pursuant to ss32 and 36 were varied;
    • Exemptions claimed pursuant to s37 were not made out; and
    • Information identifying parties to leases was to be redacted by agreement between the parties.
    Malcolm Gardam and Devonport City Council (PDF, 295.9 KB)

    Linda Poulton and Department of Natural Resources and Environment Tasmania (November 2023)

    In 2019 the Tasmanian Government announced plans to build a prison on Birralee Road in Westbury, Tasmania. Ms Linda Poulton is a Westbury resident opposed to the construction of this prison.

    On 18 August 2020, Ms Poulton submitted an application for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to the then Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment, now the Department of Natural Resources and Environment Tasmania (the Department), requesting information related to the transfer of a Birralee Road property from the Crown to Tasmanian Land Conservancy.

    In its original decision, the Department found information responsive to Ms Poulton’s application exempt from disclosure, in full or in part, pursuant to ss27, 31 and 36. On internal review, the Department again found that these exemption provisions applied to exempt, in full or in part, to information responsive to Ms Poulton’s application.

    On external review, the Ombudsman determined:

    • exemptions claimed pursuant to s27 should be affirmed;
    • exemptions claimed pursuant to ss31 and 36 should be varied; and
    • exemptions under s35 apply.
    Linda Poulton and Department of Natural Resources and Environment Tasmania (PDF, 195.3 KB)

    Emma Hamilton and Department of Natural Resources and Environment Tasmania (November 2023)

    In 2019 the Tasmanian Government announced plans to build a prison on Birralee Road in Westbury in Tasmania’s north. Ms Emma Hamilton is a Westbury resident opposed to the construction of this prison.

    On 25 June 2020, Ms Hamilton submitted an application for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to the Department of Natural Resources and Environment Tasmania, then known as the Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and the Environment (the Department), requesting information related to the transfer of a property on Birralee Road in Westbury from the Crown to the Tasmanian Land Conservancy.

    In its original decision, the Department redacted information responsive to Ms Hamilton’s application pursuant to ss26, 31, and 36. The Department’s original decision was affirmed on internal review.

    On external review, the Ombudsman determined that:

    • exemptions claimed pursuant to ss26, 31 and 36 should be varied; and
    • information is exempt pursuant to s35.
    Emma Hamilton and Department of Natural Resources and Environment Tasmania (PDF, 358.0 KB)

    Tarkine National Coalition and Department of Natural Resources and Environment Tasmania (October 2023)

    On 13 November 2019, the Tarkine National Coalition (Tarkine) made an application for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to the Department. Tarkine sought information regarding arrangements between the mining company, Venture Minerals Ltd, and the Department, particularly with regard to the Save the Devil program. Also, information regarding any proposed amendment or variation to Venture Mineral’s Environmental Permit and any Environmental Protection Notice

    On 17 January 2020, the Department issued a Decision to Tarkine, in which some information was released and some information was found to be exempt from disclosure. The Department relied on ss27, 31, 35, 36, 37 and 39 of the Act. The applicant requested an internal review and the Department consented to release a further small amount of information but for the most part upheld its earlier decision. Tarkine applied for external review of the decision on 30 March 2020. Tarkine did not seek review regarding the use of s27 of the Act and certain personal information under s36.

    The Ombudsman determined that exemptions claimed pursuant to ss31, 35, 36, 37 and 39 were varied.

    Tarkine National Coalition and Department of Natural Resources and Environment Tasmania (PDF, 446.5 KB)

    Janiece Bryan and Glenorchy City Council (June 2023)

    On 21 June 2019, Ms Janiece Bryan made an application for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to the Glenorchy City Council (Council). Ms Bryan requested access to legal advice Council had received about whether it had the ability to sell the Derwent Entertainment Centre and surrounding land.

    On 11 July 2019 Council issued a decision to Ms Bryan, determining that the information responsive to her request was exempt under s31 of the Act on the basis that it would be privileged from production in legal proceedings on the ground of legal professional privilege.

    On 4 November 2019, Ms Bryan made a second application for assessed disclosure to Council, as she considered Council had since waived privilege over the legal advice. On 21 November 2019, Council issued a decision to Ms Bryan in relation to her second application for assessed disclosure. Council refused to accept the application under s20(a) of the Act, setting out that it was a repeat application and that there was no reasonable basis for seeking the same information again. Council also asserted that the requested information was exempt from disclosure under s31 of the Act.

    This decision was affirmed on internal review and, on 16 December 2019, Ms Bryan made an application for external review. The Ombudsman determined that:

    • Council was not entitled to refuse the application under s20(a);
    • exemptions claimed pursuant to s31 were varied; and
    • exemptions under s35 apply.
    Janiece Bryan and Glenorchy City Council (PDF, 219.2 KB)

    Geoffrey Swan and Huon Valley Council (June 2022)

    On 18 October 2021, Mr Geoffrey Swan made an application for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 to the Huon Valley Council (Council). He sought information relating to the investigation into the recruitment process of Council’s new General Manager, commissioned following controversy regarding the way Council managed a conflict of interest that arose during that process. Council issued a decision on 13 October 2021 to refuse the application in full, on the basis that it considered the information exempt due to it relating to:

    • legal professional privilege (s31); and
    • information related to closed meetings of council (s32).

    Mr Swan then sought external review of Council’s decision.

    The Ombudsman determined that:

    • Council’s use of s31 was varied;
    • Council’s use of s32 was varied; and
    • Information was found to be exempt pursuant to s35 (internal deliberative information).
    Geoffrey Swan and Huon Valley Council (PDF, 193.9 KB)

    Graham Murray and City of Hobart (June 2022)

    Mr Graham Murray is a supporter of the proposal to construct and operate a cable car on kunanyi/Mount Wellington in Hobart. On 22 August 2018, Mr Murray submitted a request for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to the City of Hobart (Council). He sought information on a range of issues regarding the cable car project.

    On 27 September 2018, Council released a large amount of information to Mr Murray, but refused to assess part of his application under s10 and claimed a further 324 pages were exempt pursuant to ss31, 35, 36 and 39. A second decision was released on 24 October 2018, following consultation under s36(2), and a further part of Mr Murray’s request was refused under s19. A final decision was released on 9 November 2018, which released further information and refused the remaining part of Mr Murray’s request, as there was no recognised list of ‘cable car or anti cable car websites’ to enable the information to be collated. Mr Murray then sought external review of all of Council’s decisions.

    The Ombudsman determined that:

    • He had no power to review Council’s decision under s10 and it remained unchanged;
    • Council’s use of s19 was affirmed;
    • Council’s use of section 31 was varied;
    • Council’s use of s35 was varied;
    • Council’s use of s36 was affirmed; and
    • Council's use of s39 was varied.
    Graham Murray and City of Hobart (PDF, 255.9 KB)

    Trevor Burdon and Sustainable Timber Tasmania (June 2022)

    Mr Trevor Burdon invested in the Managed Investment Schemes (MIS) regarding plantations grown by Gunns Plantations Limited (Gunns) on land managed by Forestry Tasmania, now Sustainable Timber Tasmania (STT). When Gunns became insolvent in 2013, legal disputes arose between STT and the liquidators for Gunns regarding issues impacting Mr Burdon. On 7 December 2018, Mr Burdon made an application for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) seeking information regarding the legal settlement of the dispute and alleged ‘gross underpayment’ of MIS investors by STT in that settlement. On 17 April 2019, STT released a decision to Mr Burdon which found that all information responsive to his request was exempt from release pursuant to ss31, 35, 37, 38 and 40 of the Act. Mr Burdon sought external review of this decision.

    The Ombudsman determined that:

    • Exemptions claimed pursuant to s31 were varied;
    • Exemptions claimed pursuant to s38 were varied; and
    • Exemptions claimed pursuant to ss35, 37 and 40 were not required to be assessed, as the relevant information was otherwise exempt.
    Trevor Burdon and Sustainable Timber Tasmania (PDF, 193.1 KB)

    Simon Cameron and Department of Natural Resources and Environment Tasmania (January 2022)

    Mr Simon Cameron owns a sheep farming property in central Tasmania. Allegations were made against his farm manager by officers of the then Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment, now the Department of Natural Resources and Environment Tasmania (the Department), regarding whether the management of feral deer was in breach of the Wildlife (General) Regulations 2010. This eventually led to the farm manager lodging a complaint against the Department with the Integrity Commission and an investigation by the Department into whether misconduct had been committed by its officers. Mr Cameron made an application in November 2017 for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) seeking the investigation report and associated documentation. The Department released a decision on 12 December 2017, finding all 766 pages found to be responsive to the request were exempt from disclosure under ss30, 31, 35, 36 and 39 of the Act. Mr Cameron then sought external review of this decision.

    The Ombudsman determined that:

    • Exemptions claimed pursuant to s30 were primarily not made out, but some information was validly exempt under s30(1)(a)(ii);
    • Exemptions claimed pursuant to s31 were upheld; and
    • Some information was validly exempt under ss35, 36 and 39 but the release of the remainder was not contrary to the public interest.
    Simon Cameron and Department of Natural Resources and Environment Tasmania (PDF, 497.8 KB)

    Clive Stott and Hydro Tasmania (February 2021)

    Mr Stott requested information from Hydro Tasmania ('Hydro') regarding the fault in the Basslink cable which caused it to shut down in 2015. Hydro released some information to Mr Stott but refused the majority of his request on the basis that it considered that: the information was already publicly available (s12); the work involved in providing the information would substantially and unreasonably divert Hydro’s resources from its other work (s19); or the information was exempt (under a section noted below). Mr Stott sought external review of this decision.

    Late in the external review process, Mr Stott agreed to redaction of some personal information relating to personnel internal or external to Hydro. Hence, while the reasons consider exemptions claimed under s36, ultimately a s36 review decision was not required.

    The Ombudsman found that:

    1. He does not have the power to review a decision under s12 to refuse to provide information which is already publicly available.

    2. Hydro had not complied with the requirements of s19 to give Mr Stott a reasonable opportunity to consult with it to refine his request to a form which would not substantially and unreasonably divert its resources. Mr Stott’s request was returned to Hydro to reassess under the Act.

    3. Exemptions claimed under s31 (legal professional privilege) should be varied, releasing additional documents to Mr Stott.

    4. Exemptions claimed under s37 (information relating to the business affairs of a third party) and s38 (information relating to the business affairs of a public authority) were not made out and relevant documents should be released to Mr Stott.

    5. The exemption claimed over a document under s39 (information obtained in confidence) was not made out, but the document was otherwise exempt under s30 (information relating to the enforcement of the law).

    Clive Stott and Hydro Tasmania (PDF, 262.1 KB)

    T and Tasmania Police (June 2020)

    T sought information in relation to her complaint to police about an alleged abuser. Tasmania Police processed the request and found most of the information to be exempt. This was mainly on the basis it involved information relating to the enforcement of the law, information subject to legal professional privilege, internal information, or personal information of other people. The Ombudsman considered the decision of Tasmania Police and, while mostly upholding it, held that some further information should be released to T.

    T and Tasmania Police (PDF, 3.0 MB)

    Christine Smart and City of Launceston (April 2018)

    Ms Smart requested information relating to the legal costs incurred by Council in relation to her property, specifically her fence line that bordered an alleyway, that had historically been there for decades. A review of the boundaries identified the discrepancy and Ms Smart was asked to correct it.

    Ms Smart's application for assessed disclosure sought the the amount of legal costs incurred by Council after she challenged Council's decision. This matter primarily looks at whether or not the legal costs incurred constitute privileged information.

    Christine Smart and City of Launceston (PDF, 1.1 MB)

    Mr Simeon Thomas-Wilson and City of Hobart (October 2017)

    The information at issue was whether information contained in a memorandum of Council constituted legal professional privilege under s31.  This was in response to Council seeking legal advice relating to the Facebook parody page, "Hobart City Council".

    Mr Simeon Thomas-Wilson and City of Hobart (PDF, 124.7 KB)
    Section 32 (Closed meetings of Council

    Malcolm Gardam and Devonport City Council (January 2024)

    On 11 September 2020, Mr Malcolm Gardam made an application for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to the Devonport City Council (Council). He sought information regarding the lease agreement between Council and Providore Place (Devonport) Pty Ltd.

    On 8 October 2020, Council issued a decision to Mr Gardam. No documents were released but some responses were provided to matters raised by Mr Gardam. Information was claimed to be exempt under ss31 (legal professional privilege), 32 (closed meetings of council) and 36 (personal information). He sought internal review and Council issued an internal review decision on 22 October 2020. This decision affirmed Council’s first decision in full.

    Mr Gardam then sought external review. Council advised during the external review process that it now relied on s37 (information relating to the business affairs of a third party) instead of s32 in relation to some documents.

    The Ombudsman determined that:

    • Exemptions claimed pursuant to s31 were upheld;
    • Exemptions claimed pursuant to ss32 and 36 were varied;
    • Exemptions claimed pursuant to s37 were not made out; and
    • Information identifying parties to leases was to be redacted by agreement between the parties.
    Malcolm Gardam and Devonport City Council (PDF, 295.9 KB)

    Malcolm Gardam and Devonport City Council (June 2023)

    On 21 November 2019, Mr Malcolm Gardam made an application for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 to Devonport City Council (Council). He sought information relating to the manner in which public funds had been used by Council regarding ‘The Living City Project’. Council issued a decision on 17 December 2019 which refused the application in full, on the basis that it considered the information exempt due to it relating to information related to closed meetings of council (s32).

    Mr Gardam applied for internal review and a further decision was issued, which affirmed the original decision. Mr Gardam then sought external review of Council’s decision.

    The Ombudsman determined that exemptions claimed pursuant to s32 were not made out.

    Malcolm Gardam and Devonport City Council (PDF, 184.5 KB)

    Geoffrey Swan and Huon Valley Council (June 2022)

    On 18 October 2021, Mr Geoffrey Swan made an application for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 to the Huon Valley Council (Council). He sought information relating to the investigation into the recruitment process of Council’s new General Manager, commissioned following controversy regarding the way Council managed a conflict of interest that arose during that process. Council issued a decision on 13 October 2021 to refuse the application in full, on the basis that it considered the information exempt due to it relating to:

    • legal professional privilege (s31); and
    • information related to closed meetings of council (s32).

    Mr Swan then sought external review of Council’s decision.

    The Ombudsman determined that:

    • Council’s use of s31 was varied;
    • Council’s use of s32 was varied; and
    • Information was found to be exempt pursuant to s35 (internal deliberative information).
    Geoffrey Swan and Huon Valley Council (PDF, 193.9 KB)

    Robert Vellacott and Devonport City Council (April 2022)

    In October 2018, Mr Robert Vellacott made an application for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to the Devonport City Council seeking information about the Providore Place development (now re-named Market Square Pavillion). Council released a decision which provided some explanation of details regarding Council expenditure and contributions to the project, but refused under ss32 and 37 of the Act to provide the majority of information sought, including the signed lease agreement between it and Providore Place Devonport Pty Ltd, any amendments to that lease, and individual figures for fit-out of tenancies. This decision was affirmed on internal review on 24 December 2018. Mr Vellacott sought external review of the exemptions applied to the information and whether a sufficient search for information responsive to his request had been made by Council.

    The Ombudsman determined that:

    • Exemptions claimed by Council pursuant to s32 of the Act were varied, as the signed lease agreement was not exempt;
    • Exemptions claimed by Council pursuant to s37 of the Act were upheld; and
    • There had been a sufficient search for relevant information by Council.
    Robert Vellacott and Devonport City Council (PDF, 258.6 KB)
    Section 34 (Other jurisdictions)

    Adam Stanway and Tasmania Police (May 2021)

    Mr Stanway sought information from Tasmania Police regarding its classification of the Warwick WFA1 bolt action rifle as a prohibited firearm and membership of its Firearms Categorisation Assessment Committee [FCAC]. Tasmania Police released some information regarding the decision to classify the WFA1 as a prohibited firearm, but claimed other information exempt under s35 or s36. Tasmania Police released information regarding most FCAC members, but not one who it had engaged from another jurisdiction. Tasmania Police decided that member's information was exempt under s34 and/or s36.

    During the Ombudsman's external review, Tasmania Police agreed to the release of that member's name and biographic information, after his consent. The Ombudsman therefore determined that information was not exempt under s34 or s36. That had been Mr Stanway's main concern.

    Mr Stanway agreed he did not require personal information of FCAC members contained in emails between them, beyond that already released to him by Tasmania Police or by the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth). Due to that and s12(3)(c)(i), the Ombudsman was able to finalise the application on the basis of its scope and without determining the exemptions claimed by Tasmania Police pursuant to s35.

    Adam Stanway and Tasmania Police (PDF, 243.7 KB)

    Dr George Lane and Tasmania Police (April 2020)

    Dr George Lane is a scientist who had been undertaking some consultancy work for which he ordered equipment from China. Tasmania Police was alerted to a parcel potentially containing glassware consistent with drug manufacture. A search warrant was issued and Dr Lane's property was searched. He sought information from the Police Service relating to the incident. Tasmania Police exempted much of the material as it related to the enforcement of the law, or for other reasons such as internal deliberative and personal information. While most of the information remained exempt, the Ombudsman made some variations to the Police Service’s decision.

    Dr George Lane and Tasmania Police (PDF, 1.9 MB)
    Section 35 (Internal Deliberative Information)

    Emma Hamilton and Department of Natural Resources and Environment Tasmania (November 2023)

    In 2019 the Tasmanian Government announced plans to build a prison on Birralee Road in Westbury in Tasmania’s north. Ms Emma Hamilton is a Westbury resident opposed to the construction of this prison.

    On 25 June 2020, Ms Hamilton submitted an application for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to the Department of Natural Resources and Environment Tasmania, then known as the Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and the Environment (the Department), requesting information related to the transfer of a property on Birralee Road in Westbury from the Crown to the Tasmanian Land Conservancy.

    In its original decision, the Department redacted information responsive to Ms Hamilton’s application pursuant to ss26, 31, and 36. The Department’s original decision was affirmed on internal review.

    On external review, the Ombudsman determined that:

    • exemptions claimed pursuant to ss26, 31 and 36 should be varied; and
    • information is exempt pursuant to s35.
    Emma Hamilton and Department of Natural Resources and Environment Tasmania (PDF, 358.0 KB)

    Linda Poulton and Department of Natural Resources and Environment Tasmania (November 2023)

    In 2019 the Tasmanian Government announced plans to build a prison on Birralee Road in Westbury, Tasmania. Ms Linda Poulton is a Westbury resident opposed to the construction of this prison.

    On 18 August 2020, Ms Poulton submitted an application for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to the then Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment, now the Department of Natural Resources and Environment Tasmania (the Department), requesting information related to the transfer of a Birralee Road property from the Crown to Tasmanian Land Conservancy.

    In its original decision, the Department found information responsive to Ms Poulton’s application exempt from disclosure, in full or in part, pursuant to ss27, 31 and 36. On internal review, the Department again found that these exemption provisions applied to exempt, in full or in part, to information responsive to Ms Poulton’s application.

    On external review, the Ombudsman determined:

    • exemptions claimed pursuant to s27 should be affirmed;
    • exemptions claimed pursuant to ss31 and 36 should be varied; and
    • exemptions under s35 apply.
    Linda Poulton and Department of Natural Resources and Environment Tasmania (PDF, 195.3 KB)

    Tarkine National Coalition and Department of Natural Resources and Environment Tasmania (October 2023)

    On 13 November 2019, the Tarkine National Coalition (Tarkine) made an application for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to the Department. Tarkine sought information regarding arrangements between the mining company, Venture Minerals Ltd, and the Department, particularly with regard to the Save the Devil program. Also, information regarding any proposed amendment or variation to Venture Mineral’s Environmental Permit and any Environmental Protection Notice

    On 17 January 2020, the Department issued a Decision to Tarkine, in which some information was released and some information was found to be exempt from disclosure. The Department relied on ss27, 31, 35, 36, 37 and 39 of the Act. The applicant requested an internal review and the Department consented to release a further small amount of information but for the most part upheld its earlier decision. Tarkine applied for external review of the decision on 30 March 2020. Tarkine did not seek review regarding the use of s27 of the Act and certain personal information under s36.

    The Ombudsman determined that exemptions claimed pursuant to ss31, 35, 36, 37 and 39 were varied.

    Tarkine National Coalition and Department of Natural Resources and Environment Tasmania (PDF, 446.5 KB)

    R and Department of Health (October 2023)

    On 29 January 2020, the applicant, R, sought access to information on her employment file under the Personal Information Protection Act 2004. Access was granted except for three pages. Through her lawyer, the applicant then sought access to these pages under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act).

    The Department of Health did not release a decision within the required timeframe and R made an application for review under s45(1)(f) of the Act. On 11 September 2020, the Department released a decision which released some information but found part to be exempt under s35 (internal deliberative information). R sought internal review.

    The internal review decision affirmed the exemption under s35 on a slightly different basis. R sought external review.

    The Ombudsman determined that s35 applied but varied the use of the exemption.

    R and Department of Health (PDF, 357.7 KB)

    Robert Hogan and University of Tasmania (October 2023)

    On 26 November 2022, Mr Robert Hogan made an application to the University of Tasmania (the University) for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act). Mr Hogan sought reports that the University relied upon in making its submissions regarding the merits of its decision to relocate its Sandy Bay Campus to the 2022 Tasmanian Legislative Council Select Committee Inquiry into the provisions of the University of Tasmania Act 1992.

    On 23 February 2023, the University issued a decision to Mr Hogan, in which information was found to be exempt from disclosure ss35, 36, 37, 38 and 39 of the Act. Mr Hogan requested an internal review and the University upheld the earlier decision, however no longer relied on s38.

    Mr Hogan applied for external review of the decision on 29 May 2020 and requested priority. The Ombudsman granted priority on the grounds that the matter was one of significant public interest and the time sensitive nature of raising objections to the campus move.

    The Ombudsman determined that exemptions claimed pursuant to ss35, 36, 37 were not made out and the exemptions claimed under s39 were varied.

    Robert Hogan and University of Tasmania (PDF, 315.6 KB)

    Karl Willrath and Dorset Council (August 2023)

    On 26 November 2019, Mr Willrath made an application for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to Dorset Council (Council). Mr Willrath sought information relating to a Code of Conduct complaint under the Local Government Act 1993, made by the General Manager of Council against a Councillor, relating to a series of emails. The Code of Conduct Panel determination, which substantially set out the contents of the emails, has been publicly released. Mr Willrath sought the full content of the emails.

    On 18 December 2019, Council released a decision to Mr Willrath, declining to release the information. In coming to its decision, Council relied only on the Local Government Act 1993 rather than the Act. Upon request for internal review, Council upheld the initial decision on 5 February 2020. Mr Willrath then applied for external review. Pursuant to s47(1)(n), Council was requested to provide better reasons for its decision. Council issued a new decision on 20 June 2023 relying on ss30 and 35 to claim that the information was exempt under the Act.

    The Ombudsman determined that:

    • exemptions claimed pursuant to s30 were not made out;
    • exemptions claimed pursuant to s35 were not made out; and

    some information was exempt under s36.

    Karl Willrath and Dorset Council (PDF, 220.3 KB)

    Lake Maintenance Pty Ltd and Homes Tasmania (July 2023)

    In 2018, the then Department of Communities issued a request for tender (RFT) that sought to engage contractors for the provision of maintenance services for social housing properties in Tasmania. The RFT attracted 13 applications, one of which was submitted by the applicant, Lake Maintenance Pty Ltd.

    The applicant was unsuccessful in this tender process and on 15 February 2019 submitted an application for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) seeking information regarding the selection process.

    On 10 April 2019, a decision was issued to the applicant. 1,434 pages of information was identified as being responsive to the applicant’s request with the substantial majority of this information was released in full. However, the evaluation report regarding the tender process was found to be partially exempt from disclosure under s37(1)(b) of the Act. This decision was affirmed on internal review.

    On 18 July 2019, the applicant submitted an application for external review. Homes Tasmania is now the relevant public authority following the disbandment of the Department of Communities.

    The Ombudsman determined that some information contained in the report was exempt under ss35 and 37 of the Act.

    Lake Maintenance Pty Ltd and Homes Tasmania (PDF, 201.7 KB)

    Rosalie Woodruff and Hydro Tasmania (July 2023)

    On 19 December 2018, Dr Rosalie Woodruff MP lodged an application for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) with Hydro Tasmania (Hydro). The request was for information relating to the  Karuma Hydropower Project in Uganda that Hydro was involved with through Entura, a part of Hydro.

    The parties negotiated to reach agreement on scope and, on 22 March 2019, Hydro released 146 pages of information with exemptions applied under s35 (internal deliberative information) and s36 (personal information) of the Act. Dr Woodruff queried the exemptions claimed and applied for external review after the internal review affirmed the approach taken.

    The Ombudsman determined that:

    • the exemptions claimed pursuant to s35 were set aside; and
    • those claimed in relation to 36 were varied.
    Rosalie Woodruff and Hydro Tasmania (PDF, 193.6 KB)

    Alexandra Humphries and Department of Health (June 2023)

    On 25 August 2022 Ms Alexandra Humphries, a journalist with the ABC, lodged an application for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) with the Department of Health (the Department). The request was for a report about procurements and contracting in the Hyperbaric Unit.

    The original decision, released on 14 November 2022, identified a PowerPoint presentation prepared by Deloitte but disclosure was refused over the whole document as it was claimed to be exempt under s35 (internal deliberative information). The internal review decision of 17 February 2023 refused release under s18 due to a copyright argument and s39 in the alternative. In response to enquiries from the Ombudsman about whether refusal of an application under s18 was possible, the Department released a supplementary decision abandoning s18 but relying on s39 (information obtained in confidence) to exempt the PowerPoint as a whole.

    The Ombudsman determined that the exemption claimed by the Department, pursuant to s39, was set aside.

    Alexandra Humphries and Department of Health (PDF, 427.3 KB)

    L and Department of Police, Fire and Emergency Management (June 2023)

    L had been issued with a Police Family Violence Order (PFVO). L lodged an application for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009, seeking information from the Department of Police, Fire and Emergency Management (the Department) in relation to the complaint on which the PFVO was based. The Department released some information to L but considered that some information was exempt under ss30, 35, 36 and 39 of the Act.

    Upon application by L for internal review, the Department upheld its earlier decision. L then sought external review. The Ombudsman found that a small amount of the information sought could be released to L but the majority of the information remained exempt.

    The Ombudsman determined that:

    • Exemptions claimed pursuant to ss36 and 30(1)(d) were varied;
    • Exemptions claimed pursuant to ss30(1)(e) and 35 were affirmed; and
    • It was not necessary to assess the alternative exemption claimed under s39.
    L and Department of Police, Fire and Emergency Management (PDF, 372.3 KB)

    Robert Hogan and University of Tasmania (June 2023)

    Mr Robert Hogan is opposed to the plan to relocate the campus of the University of Tasmania (the University) to central Hobart. On 24 March 2022, Mr Hogan made an application for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to the University for copies of the minutes of meetings of the University Council.

    On 27 May 2022, the University released a decision to Mr Hogan. He was provided with some information but other information was found to be exempt under ss37 and 38 of the Act. Mr Hogan sought internal review and on 18 July 2022, the University released an internal review decision which affirmed the original decision. Mr Hogan sought external review of that decision.

    The Ombudsman found that exemptions claimed by the University under s37 were not made out and those claimed under s38 were to be varied.

    Robert Hogan and University of Tasmania (PDF, 267.4 KB)

    Robert Hogan and the University of Tasmania (June 2023)

    Mr Robert Hogan is opposed to the plan to relocate the campus of the University of Tasmania (the University) to central Hobart. On 23 August 2022, Mr Hogan made an application for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to the University for information relating to the STEM Precinct Business Case, including research and reports on which it was based, as well as the Southern Futures Business Case.

    On 20 September 2022, the University released a decision to Mr Hogan. He was provided with some information but other information was found to be exempt under s35 of the Act. Mr Hogan sought internal review and, on 10 November 2022, the University released an internal review decision which affirmed the original decision. Mr Hogan sought external review of that decision.

    The Ombudsman found that exemptions claimed by the University under s35 were not made out.

    Robert Hogan and the University of Tasmania (PDF, 231.8 KB)

    Janiece Bryan and Glenorchy City Council (June 2023)

    On 21 June 2019, Ms Janiece Bryan made an application for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to the Glenorchy City Council (Council). Ms Bryan requested access to legal advice Council had received about whether it had the ability to sell the Derwent Entertainment Centre and surrounding land.

    On 11 July 2019 Council issued a decision to Ms Bryan, determining that the information responsive to her request was exempt under s31 of the Act on the basis that it would be privileged from production in legal proceedings on the ground of legal professional privilege.

    On 4 November 2019, Ms Bryan made a second application for assessed disclosure to Council, as she considered Council had since waived privilege over the legal advice. On 21 November 2019, Council issued a decision to Ms Bryan in relation to her second application for assessed disclosure. Council refused to accept the application under s20(a) of the Act, setting out that it was a repeat application and that there was no reasonable basis for seeking the same information again. Council also asserted that the requested information was exempt from disclosure under s31 of the Act.

    This decision was affirmed on internal review and, on 16 December 2019, Ms Bryan made an application for external review. The Ombudsman determined that:

    • Council was not entitled to refuse the application under s20(a);
    • exemptions claimed pursuant to s31 were varied; and
    • exemptions under s35 apply.
    Janiece Bryan and Glenorchy City Council (PDF, 219.2 KB)

    The Eaves Family and Department of State Growth (June 2023)

    On 2 September 2019, the Eaves family made an application for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to the Department of State Growth (the Department). The Eaves family sought information relating to the Department’s processes for assessing Expressions of Interest in relation to leasing a property in the Burnie area for the accommodation of the Department’s Transport Groups operations. On 20 November 2019, the Department released a decision to the Eaves family. It determined to release the information in part, with some information found to be exempt under ss35, 36, 37 and 39 of the Act.

    The Eaves family applied for internal review and sought answers to further questions. On 16 January 2021 the Department released its decision. While the Secretary of the Department did provide some further answers and clarification to the Eaves family, the Department relied on the same provisions of the Act to exempt the remaining information. The Eaves family then sought external review, though they did not contest the exemption of information under s36 of the Act.

    The Ombudsman determined that exemptions claimed pursuant to s35, 37 and 39 were varied.

    The Eaves Family and Department of State Growth (PDF, 404.7 KB)

    Manuel Sessink and Department of Justice (May 2023)

    On 13 October 2019, Mr Manuel Sessink made an application for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to the Department of Justice (the Department) seeking information relating to the siting of the proposed northern prison. On 20 November 2019, Mr Sessink sought external review under s45(1)(f) of the Act because the timeframe for a decision to be provided by the Department had elapsed and he was not in receipt of that decision.

    On 21 November 2019, the Department issued a decision to Mr Sessink. It decided to release the requested information, in part, exempting the remainder from disclosure under ss35, 37, and 39 of the Act. Mr Sessink extended his external review request to a full review without seeking internal review.

    The Ombudsman determined that exemptions claimed pursuant to ss35, 37, and 39 should be varied.

    Manuel Sessink and Department of Justice (PDF, 280.3 KB)

    Jonathon Simonetis and Department for Education, Children and Young People (May 2023)

    On 21 June 2019, Mr Jonathon Simonetis made an application for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to the Department for Education, Children and Young People (the Department). Mr Simonetis sought information relating to changes to the Department’s Procedures for Planning Off-Campus Activities relating to restrictions on students playing laser tag. On 4 September 2019, the Department released a decision to Mr Simonetis. It determined to release the information in part, with some information found to be exempt under ss27, 35 and 36 of the Act.

    Mr Simonetis applied for internal review on 30 September 2019, questioning the validity of these exemption and whether there had been a sufficient search for information by the Department. On 31 October 2019 the Department released further information to Mr Simonetis but relied on the same provisions of the Act to exempt the remaining information. Mr Simonetis then sought external review of the Department’s application of exemptions.

    The Ombudsman determined that exemptions claimed pursuant to s27, s35 and s36 should be varied.

    Jonathon Simonetis and Department for Education, Children and Young People (PDF, 816.9 KB)

    Suzanne Pattinson and Department of Education (August 2022)

    On 11 September 2020, Ms Suzanne Pattinson made an application for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to the Department of Education (the Department). Ms Pattinson sought information relating to the Department’s management of the Rose Bay High School 2016 European School Tour and subsequent investigations. On 14 January 2021, the Department released a decision to Ms Pattinson. It determined to release the information in part, with some information found to be exempt under ss35 and 36 of the Act.

    Ms Pattinson applied for internal review and on 4 March 2021 the Department released slightly more information to Ms Pattinson but relied on the same provisions of the Act to exempt the remaining information. Ms Pattinson then sought external review of the Department’s internal review decision. As part of her external review Ms Pattinson sought a review of whether there had been an insufficiency in searching for information by the Department.

    The Ombudsman determined that:

    • Exemptions claimed pursuant to s35 were varied;
    • Exemptions claimed pursuant to s36 were varied; and
    • The Department’s search for information was sufficient.
    Suzanne Pattinson and Department of Education (PDF, 292.2 KB)

    Graham Murray and City of Hobart (June 2022)

    Mr Graham Murray is a supporter of the proposal to construct and operate a cable car on kunanyi/Mount Wellington in Hobart. On 22 August 2018, Mr Murray submitted a request for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to the City of Hobart (Council). He sought information on a range of issues regarding the cable car project.

    On 27 September 2018, Council released a large amount of information to Mr Murray, but refused to assess part of his application under s10 and claimed a further 324 pages were exempt pursuant to ss31, 35, 36 and 39. A second decision was released on 24 October 2018, following consultation under s36(2), and a further part of Mr Murray’s request was refused under s19. A final decision was released on 9 November 2018, which released further information and refused the remaining part of Mr Murray’s request, as there was no recognised list of ‘cable car or anti cable car websites’ to enable the information to be collated. Mr Murray then sought external review of all of Council’s decisions.

    The Ombudsman determined that:

    • He had no power to review Council’s decision under s10 and it remained unchanged;
    • Council’s use of s19 was affirmed;
    • Council’s use of section 31 was varied;
    • Council’s use of s35 was varied;
    • Council’s use of s36 was affirmed; and
    • Council's use of s39 was varied.
    Graham Murray and City of Hobart (PDF, 255.9 KB)

    F and Department of Education (June 2022)

    F and G are parents of a young son, A, who attended a school run by the Department of Education (the Department). F and G had concerns their son had been subjected to regular bullying by another boy, B. On 15 March 2018, F made an application under the Right to Information Act 2009 for information regarding A’s alleged bullying and the Department’s response to incidents and concerns raised by F and G.

    On 14 June 2018, the Department released a decision to F which released some information and found the remainder to be exempt under ss27, 35 and 36. F sought internal review regarding the exemptions applied and disputing that all relevant documents had been located and assessed. On 9 August 2018, the Department released an internal review decision to F. It located and released some additional information, finding the remainder to be exempt for on the same bases as in the original decision. F sought external review, again disputing the exemptions applied and whether the Department had undertaken a sufficient search for information responsive to his request.

    The Ombudsman determined that:

    • Exemptions claimed pursuant to s27 were affirmed;
    • Exemptions claimed pursuant to s35 were varied; and
    • Exemptions claimed pursuant to s36 were affirmed.

    He also determined that the Department did not conduct a sufficient search for information responsive to F’s request, but had taken appropriate steps to rectify the issues in searching by the conclusion of his external review.

    F and Department of Education (PDF, 264.0 KB)

    Professor Michael Rowan and Kingborough Council (May 2022)

    Professor Michael Rowan is the co-owner of a property in the Kingborough Council (Council) municipal area. A bushfire safety bunker has been installed at the property and Council has been pursuing compliance action on the basis that proper approvals under the Building Act 2016 were not obtained for the bunker. Professor Rowan made an application on 3 December 2021 under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to Council seeking information regarding such bunkers in general and regarding the bunker at his property in particular. Council located eleven documents and released the majority of the information responsive to his request, with some redactions made pursuant to ss35 and 36. Professor Rowan sought internal review and Council’s internal review decision of 21 January 2022 primarily affirmed its original decision. Professor Rowan then sought external review disputing one s35 redaction in an email, on the basis that the information should not be exempt and was of particular importance in defending imminent enforcement action from Council.

    The Ombudsman determined that the exemption claimed by Council under s35 was not made out and the information should be released to Professor Rowan.

    Professor Michael Rowan and Kingborough Council (PDF, 129.0 KB)

    Todd Dudley and Department of Natural Resources and Environment Tasmania (May 2022)

    Mr Todd Dudley, the president of the North East Bioregional Network Inc., made an application on 18 August 2018 under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to the Department of Natural Resources and Environment (the Department) seeking information regarding the environmental impact of proposed mountain bike tracks in the St Helens area. The Department located nine pages of information responsive to his request and made a decision on 3 December 2018 to redact parts of the information pursuant to ss35 and 36. Mr Dudley sought internal review and the Department’s internal review decision of 29 March 2019 affirmed its original decision. Mr Dudley then sought external review on the bases that the exemptions claimed were not valid and that there had been an insufficient search for information responsive to his request.

    The Ombudsman determined that:

    • The Department’s search for information was sufficient; and
    • Exemptions claimed by the Department pursuant to ss35 and 36 were not made out.
    Todd Dudley and Department of Natural Resources and Environment Tasmania (PDF, 226.6 KB)

    Simon Cameron and Department of Natural Resources and Environment Tasmania (January 2022)

    Mr Simon Cameron owns a sheep farming property in central Tasmania. Allegations were made against his farm manager by officers of the then Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment, now the Department of Natural Resources and Environment Tasmania (the Department), regarding whether the management of feral deer was in breach of the Wildlife (General) Regulations 2010. This eventually led to the farm manager lodging a complaint against the Department with the Integrity Commission and an investigation by the Department into whether misconduct had been committed by its officers. Mr Cameron made an application in November 2017 for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) seeking the investigation report and associated documentation. The Department released a decision on 12 December 2017, finding all 766 pages found to be responsive to the request were exempt from disclosure under ss30, 31, 35, 36 and 39 of the Act. Mr Cameron then sought external review of this decision.

    The Ombudsman determined that:

    • Exemptions claimed pursuant to s30 were primarily not made out, but some information was validly exempt under s30(1)(a)(ii);
    • Exemptions claimed pursuant to s31 were upheld; and
    • Some information was validly exempt under ss35, 36 and 39 but the release of the remainder was not contrary to the public interest.
    Simon Cameron and Department of Natural Resources and Environment Tasmania (PDF, 497.8 KB)

    Camille Bianchi and the Department of Health (November 2021)

    Ms Camille Bianchi is a freelance journalist who sought information from the Department of Health regarding the response to allegations of misconduct from its former employee at Ward 4K of the Launceston General Hospital, nurse James Griffin. The Department released a decision on 22 July 2020 on the 104 pages of information it located responsive to Ms Bianchi’s request, determining that all documents were exempt pursuant to ss35, 36 and 39 of the Right to Information Act 2009. Ms Bianchi then sought external review of this decision.

    During the external review process, the Department reconsidered some of its proposed exemptions and located additional documents responsive to Ms Bianchi’s request, which had not previously been assessed.

    The Ombudsman ordered that:
    * Exemptions claimed by the Department under ss30 and 39 are not made out;
    * Some information was validly exempt under s35 but the release of the majority was not contrary to the public interest;
    * The personal information of patients, members of the public, Department staff raising concerns about Mr Griffin and Ward 4K staff was exempt under s36, except job titles for Ward 4K staff;
    * The personal information of Mr Griffin, except his personal address, telephone number or date of birth, and the work related personal information of other Department staff, union representatives and consultants is not exempt under s36 and is to be released to Ms Bianchi; and
    * Some documents were out of scope of the request or publicly available and not required to be released.

    Camille Bianchi and the Department of Health (PDF, 298.0 KB)

    Adam Stanway and Tasmania Police (May 2021)

    Mr Stanway sought information from Tasmania Police regarding its classification of the Warwick WFA1 bolt action rifle as a prohibited firearm and membership of its Firearms Categorisation Assessment Committee [FCAC]. Tasmania Police released some information regarding the decision to classify the WFA1 as a prohibited firearm, but claimed other information exempt under s35 or s36. Tasmania Police released information regarding most FCAC members, but not one who it had engaged from another jurisdiction. Tasmania Police decided that member's information was exempt under s34 and/or s36.

    During the Ombudsman's external review, Tasmania Police agreed to the release of that member's name and biographic information, after his consent. The Ombudsman therefore determined that information was not exempt under s34 or s36. That had been Mr Stanway's main concern.

    Mr Stanway agreed he did not require personal information of FCAC members contained in emails between them, beyond that already released to him by Tasmania Police or by the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth). Due to that and s12(3)(c)(i), the Ombudsman was able to finalise the application on the basis of its scope and without determining the exemptions claimed by Tasmania Police pursuant to s35.

    Adam Stanway and Tasmania Police (PDF, 243.7 KB)

    Rebecca White MP and Minister Barnett, Minister for Resources, Minister for Building and Construction (January 2021)

    The applicant sought four incoming ministerial briefs prepared for Minister Barnett upon his appointment as Minister for Resources and Minister for Building and Construction. The briefs were from the Department of State Growth and the Department of Justice. Minister Barnett decided the briefs were entirely exempt pursuant to s27 and/or s35. In relation to s27, Minister Barnett asserted that any factual information contained in the briefs could be located by other means such as departmental websites and annual reports. In relation to s35, the Minister argued that the public interest in protecting the deliberative process outweighed the public interest in release of the information. Ms White applied for external review, asserting that much of the information could not be publicly located. Ms White further submitted that the public interest test had been incorrectly applied in the decision.


    The Ombudsman varied the Minister’s decision, determining that most of the information in the ministerial briefings was ‘purely factual information’ within the meaning of s27(4) and s35(2). As such, that information was not exempt and should be released to the applicant. A table overview of [then] ‘current prosecutions and significant investigations’ under the Work Health and Safety Act 2012 was now no longer: current; nor exempt under s30.

    The Ombudsman agreed that some information was exempt under: s26(1)(d); s27; or (after applying the public interest test, only the name of the mother of a deceased worker) s36.

    Rebecca White MP and Minister Barnett, Minister for Resources, Minister for Building and Construction (PDF, 3.2 MB)

    Ms Debbie Wisby and Ms Jennifer Crawford and Department of Premier and Cabinet (August 2020)

    The Glamorgan Spring Bay Council’s General Manager (GM) conducted an investigation into an alleged breach of confidentiality. Two Councillors applied for all information relating to or touching upon: the investigation; or contact regarding it between the GM and specified officers of the Department’s Local Government Division (LGD). The Department released most of the information, but not emails in which the GM requested, and an officer of the LGD provided, advice regarding the investigation. These were claimed to be exempt pursuant to s35(1)(b) and, on internal review, s39(1)(b).

    The Ombudsman considered the emails under both s35(1)(b) and s39(1)(b). It was arguable they came within these exemptions. However, the Ombudsman was not satisfied disclosure would be reasonably likely to impair the ability of the LGD to obtain similar information in the future, as required for exemption under s39(1)(b). Both sections are subject to the s33 public interest test. After considering a range of relevant matters, the Ombudsman determined that the emails should be disclosed as this would not harm the public interest.

    Ms Debbie Wisby and Ms Jennifer Crawford and Department of Premier and Cabinet (PDF, 133.7 KB)

    T and Tasmania Police (June 2020)

    T sought information in relation to her complaint to police about an alleged abuser. Tasmania Police processed the request and found most of the information to be exempt. This was mainly on the basis it involved information relating to the enforcement of the law, information subject to legal professional privilege, internal information, or personal information of other people. The Ombudsman considered the decision of Tasmania Police and, while mostly upholding it, held that some further information should be released to T.

    T and Tasmania Police (PDF, 3.0 MB)

    Dr George Lane and Tasmania Police (April 2020)

    Dr George Lane is a scientist who had been undertaking some consultancy work for which he ordered equipment from China. Tasmania Police was alerted to a parcel potentially containing glassware consistent with drug manufacture. A search warrant was issued and Dr Lane's property was searched. He sought information from the Police Service relating to the incident. Tasmania Police exempted much of the material as it related to the enforcement of the law, or for other reasons such as internal deliberative and personal information. While most of the information remained exempt, the Ombudsman made some variations to the Police Service’s decision.

    Dr George Lane and Tasmania Police (PDF, 1.9 MB)

    Ms Louise Grahame and City of Hobart (March 2020)

    Louise Grahame ran a stall at the Salamanca Market. Conflict between Ms Grahame and a number of other stallholders saw complaints made to the Council, which manages the market, by other stallholders about Ms Grahame. She sought copies of these complaints and emails relating to her and the market. The Council released a large amount of information but exempted in full or part various documents it claimed were internal deliberative information or information obtained by Council in confidence. It also redacted some personal information. The Ombudsman determined that most of the information was not exempt, including the identities of stallholders who had made complaints about Ms Grahame. While the latter was personal information, the public interest, including reasons of procedural fairness, entitled Ms Grahame to know the identities of those who had complained about her. However, a complainant's argument that their telephone number and personal email address were exempt information was upheld.

    Ms Louise Grahame and City of Hobart (PDF, 13.4 MB)

    Rudra Sharma and Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and the Environment (March 2020)

    Mr Sharma has had ongoing interactions with the Land Titles Office in relation to his property in Sandy Bay. There was an adverse decision not to approve something Mr Sharma sought and he subsequently submitted a request for the information relating to that decision.

    The Department refused the release of the information on the basis it formed internally deliberative material and the public interest test did not support its release. The Ombudsman found this was not fully correct and he varied the decision.

    The common issues with this decision relate to proper consideration of use of s35 and the public interest test.

    Rudra Sharma and Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and the Environment (PDF, 1.5 MB)

    Richard Webb and Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water, and the Environment (January 2020)

    Mr Webb sought information from the Department in relation to the development proposal on Halls Island, Lake Malbena. The request sought a range of information that primarily included some leases for Halls Island and some documents to the relevant Minister.

    One of the core parts of this review was whether or not the two leases sought for Halls Island was information obtained in confidence as claimed by the Department. The Ombudsman overturned this in full on the basis the Department's own lease documents could not constitute information obtained in confidence that, if released, would impair its ability to obtain similar information in the future.

    Richard Webb and Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water, and the Environment (PDF, 1.5 MB)

    Damon Smith and Tasmania Police (October 2019)

    Mr Smith sought information from Tasmania Police in relation to a complaint he had made. Specifically, he sought a copy of the investigation notes and details that resulted from his complaint.

    Tasmania Police exempted some information and released other pieces directly to the applicant. There was some negotiation with Police during this review that resulted in Tasmania Police voluntarily releasing extra information. As a result there were very few pieces of information the Ombudsman determined should additionally be released to the applicant.

    Damon Smith and Tasmania Police (PDF, 888.3 KB)

    Michael Atkin and Forestry Tasmania (October 2018)

    After the 2014 state election, Mr Atkin, a Tasmanian-based journalist for the ABC at that time, submitted an application for assessed disclosure seeking information that covered emails and other briefings about FSC certification. This included an Incoming Government Briefing (IGB).

    This primarily considers the exemption of the IGB and the decision of this office to release parts of it as purely factual information.

    Michael Atkin and Forestry Tasmania (PDF, 1.3 MB)

    Timothy Baird and Launceston City Council (November 2017)

    Mr Baird requested information relating to the City of Launceston's plan to upgrade the Sea Port Boardwalk.  Specifically, Mr Baird sought information leading to the appointment of Darcon Pty Ltd as the successful tenderer.

    This decision considered the points of 'competitive disadvantage' under s37 and the balance between public interest and deliberative information.

    Timothy Baird and Launceston City Council (PDF, 689.3 KB)

    The Hon. Bryan Green MP and Department of Treasury and Finance (July 2017)

    The applicant sought information about briefings the Department had prepared in relation to GST distribution as a result of the Australian Government budget.   On review the Ombudsman affirmed that much of the information was exempt under s27, s35, and s36 of the Right to Information Act 2009 and that it was contrary to the public interest to disclose this information.  Despite the claims of the Department, names of staff who had prepared and cleared the briefings were not maintained as exempt.

    The Hon. Bryan Green MP and Department of Treasury and Finance (PDF, 700.3 KB)

    Richard Baines (ABC) and Department of Health and Human Services (June 2017)

    The applicant sought information about a for-profit residential care provider, including payments made to it by the Department. On review the Ombudsman affirmed that much of the information was exempt under s27, s35, s36 and s39 of the Right to Information Act 2009 and that it was contrary to the public interest to disclose this informationDespite the claims of the Department, no information was found to be exempt under s37. However, some information was to be disclosed, including payments made by the Department to the provider, subject to redaction of identifying personal information, as well as factual information contained in information which might otherwise be exempt under s27(1) or s35(1) of the Act.  The Department submitted that certain information could not be disclosed by virtue of either s16, s103 or s111A of the Children, Young Persons and their Families Act 1997 Act but the Ombudsman was not generally satisfied of this, considering that the Department was taking too broad a view of the purpose of that Act, although some information was found to be subject to s111A and was not to be disclosed.

    Richard Baines (ABC) and Department of Health and Human Services (PDF, 1.8 MB)

    Patrick Billings & the Department of Health and Human Services (February 2017)

    On review, Mr Billings (a journalist on ‘The Mercury’ newspaper) requested the full Operational Review in relation to Ambulance Tasmania’s State Communications Centre power failure and shutdown in July 2015.   The Ombudsman determined that parts of the Operational Review were subject to exemption under s35 of the Right to Information Act 2009internal deliberative document - and that it was contrary to the public interest to disclose this information.

    Patrick Billings & the Department of Health and Human Services (PDF, 425.1 KB)
    Section 36 (Personal Information)

    T and Department of Health (March 2024)

    On 14 June 2023, T made a request to access his medical records. This request was taken to be an application for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) by the Department of Health (the Department).

    The Department released 21 pages of information to T in full and found 53 pages to be partially exempt from release pursuant to s36 of the Act. This was on the basis that it was the personal information of third parties. T sought internal review, and the Department affirmed its decision regarding s36.

    On 30 November 2023, T sought external review to Ombudsman Tasmania. The Ombudsman determined that the Department’s use of s36 of the act be varied, overturning the majority of applications of the exemption.

    The Ombudsman also criticised the Department for initially offering to provide requested information far more quickly and without redactions if T’s legal representative made an undertaking that the requested information would not be used in litigation against the State. He emphasised that this approach is not in accordance with the Act.

    T and Department of Health (PDF, 161.0 KB)

    Malcolm Gardam and Devonport City Council (January 2024)

    On 11 September 2020, Mr Malcolm Gardam made an application for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to the Devonport City Council (Council). He sought information regarding the lease agreement between Council and Providore Place (Devonport) Pty Ltd.

    On 8 October 2020, Council issued a decision to Mr Gardam. No documents were released but some responses were provided to matters raised by Mr Gardam. Information was claimed to be exempt under ss31 (legal professional privilege), 32 (closed meetings of council) and 36 (personal information). He sought internal review and Council issued an internal review decision on 22 October 2020. This decision affirmed Council’s first decision in full.

    Mr Gardam then sought external review. Council advised during the external review process that it now relied on s37 (information relating to the business affairs of a third party) instead of s32 in relation to some documents.

    The Ombudsman determined that:

    • Exemptions claimed pursuant to s31 were upheld;
    • Exemptions claimed pursuant to ss32 and 36 were varied;
    • Exemptions claimed pursuant to s37 were not made out; and
    • Information identifying parties to leases was to be redacted by agreement between the parties.
    Malcolm Gardam and Devonport City Council (PDF, 295.9 KB)

    Carlo Di Falco and City of Hobart (January 2024)

    On 10 March 2020, Mr Carlo Di Falco applied for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to the City of Hobart (Council).  He sought information regarding a workplace incident which occurred in 2004. On 24 August 2020, Council released a partial decision and some information to Mr Di Falco. Some further information was claimed to be exempt under s31 of the Act and he was advised that third parties were being consulted under s36(2). Mr Di Falco did not lodge an external review request within the required timeframes regarding this partial decision.

    On 25 November 2020, Council issued a final decision to Mr Di Falco and claimed that information was exempt under s36 (personal information of a person), after considering the views of third parties consulted. Mr Di Falco sought external review of this decision on 30 November 2020.

    The Ombudsman determined that exemptions claimed by Council pursuant to s36 should be varied.

    Carlo Di Falco and City of Hobart (PDF, 179.6 KB)

    Gerry Willis and Department of Health (December 2023)

    Mr Gerry Willis is a Furneaux Group resident who is interested in improving health outcomes for residents. On 24 January 2020, he made an application under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) for information regarding the Patient Travel Assistance Scheme operated by the Department of Health (the Department). On 18 September 2020, a decision was issued by the Department to release some of the information to him. This was in a different format to what Mr Willis sought. Mr Willis requested an internal review and, on 20 November 2020, the Department issued an internal review decision. It claimed the information which had not been released to date was exempt under s36 (personal information of a person). Mr Willis sought external review.

    The Ombudsman determined that the majority of the information was not exempt under s36, but some of the data was validly exempt as patients could potentially be identified.

    Gerry Willis and Department of Health (PDF, 159.0 KB)

    Linda Poulton and Department of Natural Resources and Environment Tasmania (November 2023)

    In 2019 the Tasmanian Government announced plans to build a prison on Birralee Road in Westbury, Tasmania. Ms Linda Poulton is a Westbury resident opposed to the construction of this prison.

    On 18 August 2020, Ms Poulton submitted an application for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to the then Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment, now the Department of Natural Resources and Environment Tasmania (the Department), requesting information related to the transfer of a Birralee Road property from the Crown to Tasmanian Land Conservancy.

    In its original decision, the Department found information responsive to Ms Poulton’s application exempt from disclosure, in full or in part, pursuant to ss27, 31 and 36. On internal review, the Department again found that these exemption provisions applied to exempt, in full or in part, to information responsive to Ms Poulton’s application.

    On external review, the Ombudsman determined:

    • exemptions claimed pursuant to s27 should be affirmed;
    • exemptions claimed pursuant to ss31 and 36 should be varied; and
    • exemptions under s35 apply.
    Linda Poulton and Department of Natural Resources and Environment Tasmania (PDF, 195.3 KB)

    Emma Hamilton and Department of Natural Resources and Environment Tasmania (November 2023)

    In 2019 the Tasmanian Government announced plans to build a prison on Birralee Road in Westbury in Tasmania’s north. Ms Emma Hamilton is a Westbury resident opposed to the construction of this prison.

    On 25 June 2020, Ms Hamilton submitted an application for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to the Department of Natural Resources and Environment Tasmania, then known as the Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and the Environment (the Department), requesting information related to the transfer of a property on Birralee Road in Westbury from the Crown to the Tasmanian Land Conservancy.

    In its original decision, the Department redacted information responsive to Ms Hamilton’s application pursuant to ss26, 31, and 36. The Department’s original decision was affirmed on internal review.

    On external review, the Ombudsman determined that:

    • exemptions claimed pursuant to ss26, 31 and 36 should be varied; and
    • information is exempt pursuant to s35.
    Emma Hamilton and Department of Natural Resources and Environment Tasmania (PDF, 358.0 KB)

    Tarkine National Coalition and Department of Natural Resources and Environment Tasmania (October 2023)

    On 13 November 2019, the Tarkine National Coalition (Tarkine) made an application for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to the Department. Tarkine sought information regarding arrangements between the mining company, Venture Minerals Ltd, and the Department, particularly with regard to the Save the Devil program. Also, information regarding any proposed amendment or variation to Venture Mineral’s Environmental Permit and any Environmental Protection Notice

    On 17 January 2020, the Department issued a Decision to Tarkine, in which some information was released and some information was found to be exempt from disclosure. The Department relied on ss27, 31, 35, 36, 37 and 39 of the Act. The applicant requested an internal review and the Department consented to release a further small amount of information but for the most part upheld its earlier decision. Tarkine applied for external review of the decision on 30 March 2020. Tarkine did not seek review regarding the use of s27 of the Act and certain personal information under s36.

    The Ombudsman determined that exemptions claimed pursuant to ss31, 35, 36, 37 and 39 were varied.

    Tarkine National Coalition and Department of Natural Resources and Environment Tasmania (PDF, 446.5 KB)

    Peter Jacobson and Department for Education, Children and Young People (October 2023)

    On 8 May 2021, Mr Jacobson made an application for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to what is now the Department for Education, Children and Young People (the Department).  Mr Jacobson sought information relating to all records placed on his personal file in 2020 including letters, file notes and electronic records.

    On 18 June 2021, the Department released a decision to Mr Jacobson, deciding to release some of the information, but finding other parts exempt under s36 (personal information of a person). It redacted names and work contact information.  Mr Jacobson sought internal review. On 29 July 2021, the Department released an internal review decision which disclosed further information but primarily affirmed the original decision.  Mr Jacobson then sought external review.

    The Ombudsman determined that exemptions claimed pursuant to s36 should be varied.

    Peter Jacobson and Department for Education, Children and Young People (PDF, 158.7 KB)

    Don Allen and City of Launceston (October 2023)

    On 16 March 2021, an application for assessed disclosure was made under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to the City of Launceston (Council) for information relating to the development of a car park site in Paterson Street, Launceston. The site is partly owned by Car Parks Super Pty Ltd, a director of which is Mr Don Allen. Council consulted with Mr Allen under s37(2) of the Act as a third party to the application for information.  Mr Allen did not agree to the release of the information.

    On 10 June 2021, Council information Mr Allen of its decision to release the information to the applicant. Mr Allen sought internal review of this decision.  By August 2021, no internal review decision had been made and Mr Allen sought external review.

    On 21 April 2023, Council issued an internal review decision notifying Mr Allen that it proposed to release four emails in part, after applying exemptions under s36 (personal information of a person) and s37 (information relating to business affairs of a third party). On 9 May 2023, Mr Allen advised that he sought a full external review, objecting to the release of parts of one email and submitting that all of that email should be exempt pursuant to ss36 and 37.

    The Ombudsman determined that the information that Mr Allen sought to be exempt from release was not exempt pursuant to ss36 or 37.

    Don Allen and City of Launceston (PDF, 181.7 KB)

    Robert Hogan and University of Tasmania (October 2023)

    On 26 November 2022, Mr Robert Hogan made an application to the University of Tasmania (the University) for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act). Mr Hogan sought reports that the University relied upon in making its submissions regarding the merits of its decision to relocate its Sandy Bay Campus to the 2022 Tasmanian Legislative Council Select Committee Inquiry into the provisions of the University of Tasmania Act 1992.

    On 23 February 2023, the University issued a decision to Mr Hogan, in which information was found to be exempt from disclosure ss35, 36, 37, 38 and 39 of the Act. Mr Hogan requested an internal review and the University upheld the earlier decision, however no longer relied on s38.

    Mr Hogan applied for external review of the decision on 29 May 2020 and requested priority. The Ombudsman granted priority on the grounds that the matter was one of significant public interest and the time sensitive nature of raising objections to the campus move.

    The Ombudsman determined that exemptions claimed pursuant to ss35, 36, 37 were not made out and the exemptions claimed under s39 were varied.

    Robert Hogan and University of Tasmania (PDF, 315.6 KB)

    Q and Northern Midlands Council (September 2023)

    On 9 July 2020, Q made an application for assessed disclosure under the under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act)to the Northern Midlands Council (Council) requesting all correspondence from John Wayne Millwood to the Northern Midlands Council referring to his criminal conviction or [Q]. The information identified as being responsive to the request was a single page letter written by Mr Millwood’s lawyer and sent to the Mayor of Council.

    Consistent with s36(2), Council contacted Mr Millwood to seek his view as to whether the information could be released. He objected to the release. Council then determined the letter was exempt from release under s36. Q sought internal review and this position was maintained by Council. Q then sought external review.

    The Ombudsman determined that the Council’s use of s36 should be varied, finding that the letter could be released except for two small sections which identified other parties.

    Q and Northern Midlands Council (PDF, 156.0 KB)

    Karl Willrath and Dorset Council (August 2023)

    On 26 November 2019, Mr Willrath made an application for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to Dorset Council (Council). Mr Willrath sought information relating to a Code of Conduct complaint under the Local Government Act 1993, made by the General Manager of Council against a Councillor, relating to a series of emails. The Code of Conduct Panel determination, which substantially set out the contents of the emails, has been publicly released. Mr Willrath sought the full content of the emails.

    On 18 December 2019, Council released a decision to Mr Willrath, declining to release the information. In coming to its decision, Council relied only on the Local Government Act 1993 rather than the Act. Upon request for internal review, Council upheld the initial decision on 5 February 2020. Mr Willrath then applied for external review. Pursuant to s47(1)(n), Council was requested to provide better reasons for its decision. Council issued a new decision on 20 June 2023 relying on ss30 and 35 to claim that the information was exempt under the Act.

    The Ombudsman determined that:

    • exemptions claimed pursuant to s30 were not made out;
    • exemptions claimed pursuant to s35 were not made out; and

    some information was exempt under s36.

    Karl Willrath and Dorset Council (PDF, 220.3 KB)

    Linda Poulton and Meander Valley Council (August 2023)

    Concerned Westbury resident and President of community group ‘Westbury Region Against the Prison’, Ms Linda Poulton, submitted two applications for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) requesting information relating to the proposed northern prison project. Ms Poulton lodged her first application to the Department of Justice on 25 February 2020, which was transferred to Meander Valley Council (Council) on 26 February 2020. Ms Poulton submitted her second application to Council on 19 May 2020.

    On 19 May 2020, Ms Poulton also sought external review in relation to her first application, as a decision had not been received within the required timeframe.

    On 24 June 2020, Council issued a single decision in relation to both applications and released some information. On 15 July 2020, Council released further information to Ms Poulton. Information was also claimed to be exempt under ss36 and 39 of the Act.

    On 23 July 2020, Ms Poulton confirmed she wish to continue with her application for external review on both requests, which were considered jointly.

    The Ombudsman determined that:

    • Exemptions claimed by Council pursuant to s36 were varied; and
    • Exemptions claimed by Council pursuant to s39 were upheld.
    Linda Poulton and Meander Valley Council (PDF, 171.4 KB)

    Rosalie Woodruff and Hydro Tasmania (July 2023)

    On 19 December 2018, Dr Rosalie Woodruff MP lodged an application for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) with Hydro Tasmania (Hydro). The request was for information relating to the  Karuma Hydropower Project in Uganda that Hydro was involved with through Entura, a part of Hydro.

    The parties negotiated to reach agreement on scope and, on 22 March 2019, Hydro released 146 pages of information with exemptions applied under s35 (internal deliberative information) and s36 (personal information) of the Act. Dr Woodruff queried the exemptions claimed and applied for external review after the internal review affirmed the approach taken.

    The Ombudsman determined that:

    • the exemptions claimed pursuant to s35 were set aside; and
    • those claimed in relation to 36 were varied.
    Rosalie Woodruff and Hydro Tasmania (PDF, 193.6 KB)

    L and Department of Police, Fire and Emergency Management (June 2023)

    L had been issued with a Police Family Violence Order (PFVO). L lodged an application for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009, seeking information from the Department of Police, Fire and Emergency Management (the Department) in relation to the complaint on which the PFVO was based. The Department released some information to L but considered that some information was exempt under ss30, 35, 36 and 39 of the Act.

    Upon application by L for internal review, the Department upheld its earlier decision. L then sought external review. The Ombudsman found that a small amount of the information sought could be released to L but the majority of the information remained exempt.

    The Ombudsman determined that:

    • Exemptions claimed pursuant to ss36 and 30(1)(d) were varied;
    • Exemptions claimed pursuant to ss30(1)(e) and 35 were affirmed; and
    • It was not necessary to assess the alternative exemption claimed under s39.
    L and Department of Police, Fire and Emergency Management (PDF, 372.3 KB)

    Graham Murray and City of Hobart (May 2023)

    Mr Murray is a supporter of the proposed cable car development on Kunanyi/Mt Wellington. Mr Murray was concerned that Tasmanian media outlets were provided unauthorised access to a Ministerial Authority permitting the construction of this cable car. Mr Murray had in his possession information that showed that this Ministerial Authority was scanned from a multi-functional machine within the Hobart Town Hall on 2 March 2019.

    On 5 April 2019, Mr Murray submitted an application for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to the City of Hobart (Council). He requested, among other items of information, Town Hall access logs from 2 March 2019.

    On 20 September 2019, Council issued a decision to Mr Murray which determined that all information identified as being responsive to this request was exempt from disclosure under s36 of the Act. As this decision was made by Council’s principal officer, there was no internal review process available.

    On 18 October 2019, Mr Murray submitted an application for external review of Council’s decision regarding the access logs. The Ombudsman determined that the exemption claimed by Council pursuant to s36 of the Act was not made out.

    Graham Murray and City of Hobart (PDF, 146.3 KB)

    Jonathon Simonetis and Department for Education, Children and Young People (May 2023)

    On 21 June 2019, Mr Jonathon Simonetis made an application for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to the Department for Education, Children and Young People (the Department). Mr Simonetis sought information relating to changes to the Department’s Procedures for Planning Off-Campus Activities relating to restrictions on students playing laser tag. On 4 September 2019, the Department released a decision to Mr Simonetis. It determined to release the information in part, with some information found to be exempt under ss27, 35 and 36 of the Act.

    Mr Simonetis applied for internal review on 30 September 2019, questioning the validity of these exemption and whether there had been a sufficient search for information by the Department. On 31 October 2019 the Department released further information to Mr Simonetis but relied on the same provisions of the Act to exempt the remaining information. Mr Simonetis then sought external review of the Department’s application of exemptions.

    The Ombudsman determined that exemptions claimed pursuant to s27, s35 and s36 should be varied.

    Jonathon Simonetis and Department for Education, Children and Young People (PDF, 816.9 KB)

    Suzanne Pattinson and Department of Education (August 2022)

    On 11 September 2020, Ms Suzanne Pattinson made an application for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to the Department of Education (the Department). Ms Pattinson sought information relating to the Department’s management of the Rose Bay High School 2016 European School Tour and subsequent investigations. On 14 January 2021, the Department released a decision to Ms Pattinson. It determined to release the information in part, with some information found to be exempt under ss35 and 36 of the Act.

    Ms Pattinson applied for internal review and on 4 March 2021 the Department released slightly more information to Ms Pattinson but relied on the same provisions of the Act to exempt the remaining information. Ms Pattinson then sought external review of the Department’s internal review decision. As part of her external review Ms Pattinson sought a review of whether there had been an insufficiency in searching for information by the Department.

    The Ombudsman determined that:

    • Exemptions claimed pursuant to s35 were varied;
    • Exemptions claimed pursuant to s36 were varied; and
    • The Department’s search for information was sufficient.
    Suzanne Pattinson and Department of Education (PDF, 292.2 KB)

    F and Department of Education (June 2022)

    F and G are parents of a young son, A, who attended a school run by the Department of Education (the Department). F and G had concerns their son had been subjected to regular bullying by another boy, B. On 15 March 2018, F made an application under the Right to Information Act 2009 for information regarding A’s alleged bullying and the Department’s response to incidents and concerns raised by F and G.

    On 14 June 2018, the Department released a decision to F which released some information and found the remainder to be exempt under ss27, 35 and 36. F sought internal review regarding the exemptions applied and disputing that all relevant documents had been located and assessed. On 9 August 2018, the Department released an internal review decision to F. It located and released some additional information, finding the remainder to be exempt for on the same bases as in the original decision. F sought external review, again disputing the exemptions applied and whether the Department had undertaken a sufficient search for information responsive to his request.

    The Ombudsman determined that:

    • Exemptions claimed pursuant to s27 were affirmed;
    • Exemptions claimed pursuant to s35 were varied; and
    • Exemptions claimed pursuant to s36 were affirmed.

    He also determined that the Department did not conduct a sufficient search for information responsive to F’s request, but had taken appropriate steps to rectify the issues in searching by the conclusion of his external review.

    F and Department of Education (PDF, 264.0 KB)

    Clive Stott and TT-Line Company Pty Ltd (June 2022)

    On 16 March 2019, Mr Clive Stott made an application for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 to TT-Line Company Pty Ltd (TT-Line). He sought air quality monitoring reports in relation to the Spirit of Tasmania I and Spirit of Tasmania II, following the deaths of 16 polo ponies on a truck which travelled on one of the vessels in 2018. TT-Line issued a decision on 9 May 2019 to refuse the majority of Mr Stott’s request on the basis that it considered that:

    • the disclosure of the information would prejudice an ongoing investigation into the deaths of the ponies (s30);
    • the information contains personal information of a person other than Mr Stott (s36); and
    • the release of the information would expose TT-Line to competitive disadvantage (s38).

    This decision was upheld at internal review and Mr Stott sought external review of that decision.

    The Ombudsman determined that exemptions claimed under ss30, 36 and 38 were not made out and relevant documents should be released to Mr Stott.

    Clive Stott and TT-Line Company Pty Ltd (PDF, 185.5 KB)

    Graham Murray and City of Hobart (June 2022)

    Mr Graham Murray is a supporter of the proposal to construct and operate a cable car on kunanyi/Mount Wellington in Hobart. On 22 August 2018, Mr Murray submitted a request for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to the City of Hobart (Council). He sought information on a range of issues regarding the cable car project.

    On 27 September 2018, Council released a large amount of information to Mr Murray, but refused to assess part of his application under s10 and claimed a further 324 pages were exempt pursuant to ss31, 35, 36 and 39. A second decision was released on 24 October 2018, following consultation under s36(2), and a further part of Mr Murray’s request was refused under s19. A final decision was released on 9 November 2018, which released further information and refused the remaining part of Mr Murray’s request, as there was no recognised list of ‘cable car or anti cable car websites’ to enable the information to be collated. Mr Murray then sought external review of all of Council’s decisions.

    The Ombudsman determined that:

    • He had no power to review Council’s decision under s10 and it remained unchanged;
    • Council’s use of s19 was affirmed;
    • Council’s use of section 31 was varied;
    • Council’s use of s35 was varied;
    • Council’s use of s36 was affirmed; and
    • Council's use of s39 was varied.
    Graham Murray and City of Hobart (PDF, 255.9 KB)

    Todd Dudley and Department of Natural Resources and Environment Tasmania (May 2022)

    Mr Todd Dudley, the president of the North East Bioregional Network Inc., made an application on 18 August 2018 under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to the Department of Natural Resources and Environment (the Department) seeking information regarding the environmental impact of proposed mountain bike tracks in the St Helens area. The Department located nine pages of information responsive to his request and made a decision on 3 December 2018 to redact parts of the information pursuant to ss35 and 36. Mr Dudley sought internal review and the Department’s internal review decision of 29 March 2019 affirmed its original decision. Mr Dudley then sought external review on the bases that the exemptions claimed were not valid and that there had been an insufficient search for information responsive to his request.

    The Ombudsman determined that:

    • The Department’s search for information was sufficient; and
    • Exemptions claimed by the Department pursuant to ss35 and 36 were not made out.
    Todd Dudley and Department of Natural Resources and Environment Tasmania (PDF, 226.6 KB)

    Simon Cameron and Department of Natural Resources and Environment Tasmania (January 2022)

    Mr Simon Cameron owns a sheep farming property in central Tasmania. Allegations were made against his farm manager by officers of the then Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment, now the Department of Natural Resources and Environment Tasmania (the Department), regarding whether the management of feral deer was in breach of the Wildlife (General) Regulations 2010. This eventually led to the farm manager lodging a complaint against the Department with the Integrity Commission and an investigation by the Department into whether misconduct had been committed by its officers. Mr Cameron made an application in November 2017 for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) seeking the investigation report and associated documentation. The Department released a decision on 12 December 2017, finding all 766 pages found to be responsive to the request were exempt from disclosure under ss30, 31, 35, 36 and 39 of the Act. Mr Cameron then sought external review of this decision.

    The Ombudsman determined that:

    • Exemptions claimed pursuant to s30 were primarily not made out, but some information was validly exempt under s30(1)(a)(ii);
    • Exemptions claimed pursuant to s31 were upheld; and
    • Some information was validly exempt under ss35, 36 and 39 but the release of the remainder was not contrary to the public interest.
    Simon Cameron and Department of Natural Resources and Environment Tasmania (PDF, 497.8 KB)

    C and Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment (December 2021)

    In May 2018, C made an application to the Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment (the Department) for assessed disclosure, seeking copies of commercial filming agreements and drone use approved between 1 January 2013 and 21 May 2018 in the Arthur-Pieman Conservation Area. Consultation occurred with the commercial flying agreement applicants under s36(2) and s37(2). Following this consultation, the names and personal information relating to some entities applying for filming were redacted under s36, as well as the personal information of some Departmental staff. C sought external review of this decision.

    The Ombudsman determined that the Department’s use of s36 should be varied. Some personal information of contact people listen on the commercial filming applications was validly exempt, but the Department had not discharged its onus under s47(4) to show why the names and Australian Business Numbers of some commercial entities, and the personal information of some Departmental staff, should be exempt under s36.

    C and Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment (PDF, 182.5 KB)

    D, E and Department of Education (December 2021)

    D applied for assessed disclosure from the Department of Education (the Department) of information concerning E, who is a former Departmental employee and the alleged perpetrator of child sexual abuse against D.  D sought information held by the Department regarding E’s suspension from teaching duties, his subsequent reinstatement and any subsequent complaints. During the assessment of D’s application, the Department located a letter containing E’s personal information which was responsive to the request. The Department consulted E under s36(2), seeking his view on the potential disclosure of his personal information. E objected to the release of the information, but the Department proposed to release it in partially redacted  form and maintained this view on internal review. E sought external review on 11 February 2019.

    The Ombudsman determined that the exemption claimed by the Department under s36 should be varied, with E’s signature ordered to now be redacted in addition to his address, telephone number and email address. It is not contrary to the public interest to release the remainder of the document to D.

    D, E and Department of Education (PDF, 206.1 KB)

    D, E and Tasmania Police (December 2021)

    D alleges he was sexually assaulted as a child by an older man, E.  E was investigated for gross indecency then later charged with indecent practices between males.  He was acquitted at trial.  D applied to Tasmania Police for assessed disclosure of information regarding the investigation, as he was seeking to make a civil claim against E.  A proof of evidence that included E's record of interview was found to be responsive to D's request. Tasmania Police consulted E under s36(2) when considering whether to release the document.  E objected to the release, but Tasmania Police decided that the document was not exempt information under s36 and should be provided to D with certain personal information redacted.  E sought internal review of the decision and Tasmania Police affirmed its original decision.  E sought external review of Tasmania Police's internal review decision to release the information to D.

    The Ombudsman considered E's objections and relevant public interest factors.  He concluded that the proof of evidence that included E's record of interview should be released to D in the redacted form provided to E in the Tasmania Police internal review decision.

    D, E and Tasmania Police (PDF, 179.4 KB)

    Camille Bianchi and the Department of Health (November 2021)

    Ms Camille Bianchi is a freelance journalist who sought information from the Department of Health regarding the response to allegations of misconduct from its former employee at Ward 4K of the Launceston General Hospital, nurse James Griffin. The Department released a decision on 22 July 2020 on the 104 pages of information it located responsive to Ms Bianchi’s request, determining that all documents were exempt pursuant to ss35, 36 and 39 of the Right to Information Act 2009. Ms Bianchi then sought external review of this decision.

    During the external review process, the Department reconsidered some of its proposed exemptions and located additional documents responsive to Ms Bianchi’s request, which had not previously been assessed.

    The Ombudsman ordered that:
    * Exemptions claimed by the Department under ss30 and 39 are not made out;
    * Some information was validly exempt under s35 but the release of the majority was not contrary to the public interest;
    * The personal information of patients, members of the public, Department staff raising concerns about Mr Griffin and Ward 4K staff was exempt under s36, except job titles for Ward 4K staff;
    * The personal information of Mr Griffin, except his personal address, telephone number or date of birth, and the work related personal information of other Department staff, union representatives and consultants is not exempt under s36 and is to be released to Ms Bianchi; and
    * Some documents were out of scope of the request or publicly available and not required to be released.

    Camille Bianchi and the Department of Health (PDF, 298.0 KB)

    Patrick Billings and Department of Justice (November 2021)

    Patrick Billings, a journalist with the Mercury newspaper, sought information from the Department of Justice regarding prisoners who had been incorrectly released. The Department located information relating to seven prisoners and released the gender and age of each prisoner, the date of early or late release, the correct earliest release date, the date each prisoner was returned to custody and the Tasmania Prison Service’s assessment of how the errors were made. Offence information relating to the prisoners was claimed to be exempt pursuant to s36 of the Right to Information Act 2009.

    Mr Billings sought external review and the Ombudsman determined that offence information relating to prisoners about whom a decision or comments on passing sentence had been published is exempt under s36. Offence information relating to prisoners about whom there were no decision or comments on passing sentence published was not exempt as it did not render the identity of the prisoners reasonably ascertainable and was to be released to Mr Billings.

    The Ombudsman reconsidered his decision due to the accidental omission of the opportunity for the Department to provide input on an adverse decision, but did not alter his original determinations following the reconsideration.

    Patrick Billings and Department of Justice (PDF, 136.2 KB)

    Damien Matcham, on behalf of Nigel Matcham, and Department of Justice (May 2021)

    Mr Nigel Matcham suffered a serious head injury while working at the chocolate factory at Cadbury Road in Claremont. His brother, Mr Damien Matcham, applied on behalf of Nigel to WorkSafe Tasmania (part of the Department of Justice) for documentation it held regarding Nigel. The Department released emails, letters, medical certificates, a workplace attendance record and, on internal review, medical reports. However, it decided four statements, each signed by another person working at the factory that night then provided to WorkSafe by the employer, Mondelez Australia Pty Ltd, were exempt in full under s36.

    The Ombudsman's office consulted each author of a statement (which the Department had not done). One author opposed release of their statement. The Ombudsman considered the meaning of 'personal information' as defined in s5(1). He found that each statement contained some personal information, but parts of the statements were clearly not personal information. The Ombudsman considered the public interest test under s33 and Schedule 1 of the Act. He found only matter (m) in Schedule 1 weighed, in part, against release of one statement, given its author's objection. By contrast, a number of matters weighed in favour of disclosure (including, in part, matter (m)), given the significant interests of Nigel Matcham in obtaining the statements regarding the circumstances of his injury. The Ombudsman determined the public interest test required disclosure of all four statements in full, so reversed the Department's decision regarding the statements.

    The Department made no submission on the preliminary/draft decision under s48(1)(a). It noted that the 'matter dates back to 2017 and the Department now, as a general rule, releases such witness statement [sic] as a matter of course for the reasons outlined in the decision.'

    Damien Matcham, on behalf of Nigel Matcham, and Department of Justice (PDF, 262.1 KB)

    Adam Stanway and Tasmania Police (May 2021)

    Mr Stanway sought information from Tasmania Police regarding its classification of the Warwick WFA1 bolt action rifle as a prohibited firearm and membership of its Firearms Categorisation Assessment Committee [FCAC]. Tasmania Police released some information regarding the decision to classify the WFA1 as a prohibited firearm, but claimed other information exempt under s35 or s36. Tasmania Police released information regarding most FCAC members, but not one who it had engaged from another jurisdiction. Tasmania Police decided that member's information was exempt under s34 and/or s36.

    During the Ombudsman's external review, Tasmania Police agreed to the release of that member's name and biographic information, after his consent. The Ombudsman therefore determined that information was not exempt under s34 or s36. That had been Mr Stanway's main concern.

    Mr Stanway agreed he did not require personal information of FCAC members contained in emails between them, beyond that already released to him by Tasmania Police or by the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth). Due to that and s12(3)(c)(i), the Ombudsman was able to finalise the application on the basis of its scope and without determining the exemptions claimed by Tasmania Police pursuant to s35.

    Adam Stanway and Tasmania Police (PDF, 243.7 KB)

    X, Y and Tasmania Police (March 2021)

    X alleges he was sexually abused as a child by an older man, Y. Y was charged with indecent assault (of a child) but this was discontinued. X applied to Tasmania Police for assessed disclosure  of information relating to the indecent assault investigation and prosecution, as he was seeking to make a civil claim against Y. Tasmania Police consulted Y under s36(2) when considering whether to release a transcript of his record of interview and associated signed notes in relation to the matter. Y objected to the release, but Tasmania Police decided that the documents were not exempt information under s36 and should be provided to X with the personal information of Y and other alleged victims redacted. Y sought internal review of the decision and Tasmania Police affirmed its original decision. Y sought external review of Tasmania Police's internal review decision to release the information to X.

    The Ombudsman considered Y’s objections and relevant public interest factors. He concluded that Y’s record of interview and associated signed notes should be released to X in the redacted form provided to Y with the Tasmania Police internal review decision. This would not be contrary to the public interest.

    X, Y and Tasmania Police (PDF, 175.8 KB)

    Z, C and the Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water, and Environment (March 2021)

    In May 2018, C made an application to the Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment (the Department) for assessed disclosure, which included a request for copies of commercial filming agreements approved between 1 January 2013 and 21 May 2018 in the Arthur-Pieman Conservation Area.  An application Z had made through his media company was found to be responsive to the request and he was consulted under s36(2) and s37(2) by the Department.  Z did not object to the release of his commercial filming application but was concerned about the release of an associated email which he did not consider to be in the public interest. The Department decided that the email should be released to C, with Z’s personal information redacted. Z sought an internal review of this decision, which upheld the original decision except for one sentence, which was also redacted. Z then sought external review of this decision. The Ombudsman considered that the Department’s redactions struck an appropriate balance between releasing information about commercial filming agreements approved in public spaces and protecting Z’s personal information. The Ombudsman determined that the email should be released to C in the redacted form provided to Z in the Department’s internal review decision.

    Z, C and the Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water, and Environment (PDF, 216.3 KB)

    Clive Stott and Hydro Tasmania (February 2021)

    Mr Stott requested information from Hydro Tasmania ('Hydro') regarding the fault in the Basslink cable which caused it to shut down in 2015. Hydro released some information to Mr Stott but refused the majority of his request on the basis that it considered that: the information was already publicly available (s12); the work involved in providing the information would substantially and unreasonably divert Hydro’s resources from its other work (s19); or the information was exempt (under a section noted below). Mr Stott sought external review of this decision.

    Late in the external review process, Mr Stott agreed to redaction of some personal information relating to personnel internal or external to Hydro. Hence, while the reasons consider exemptions claimed under s36, ultimately a s36 review decision was not required.

    The Ombudsman found that:

    1. He does not have the power to review a decision under s12 to refuse to provide information which is already publicly available.

    2. Hydro had not complied with the requirements of s19 to give Mr Stott a reasonable opportunity to consult with it to refine his request to a form which would not substantially and unreasonably divert its resources. Mr Stott’s request was returned to Hydro to reassess under the Act.

    3. Exemptions claimed under s31 (legal professional privilege) should be varied, releasing additional documents to Mr Stott.

    4. Exemptions claimed under s37 (information relating to the business affairs of a third party) and s38 (information relating to the business affairs of a public authority) were not made out and relevant documents should be released to Mr Stott.

    5. The exemption claimed over a document under s39 (information obtained in confidence) was not made out, but the document was otherwise exempt under s30 (information relating to the enforcement of the law).

    Clive Stott and Hydro Tasmania (PDF, 262.1 KB)

    Rebecca White MP and Minister Barnett, Minister for Resources, Minister for Building and Construction (January 2021)

    The applicant sought four incoming ministerial briefs prepared for Minister Barnett upon his appointment as Minister for Resources and Minister for Building and Construction. The briefs were from the Department of State Growth and the Department of Justice. Minister Barnett decided the briefs were entirely exempt pursuant to s27 and/or s35. In relation to s27, Minister Barnett asserted that any factual information contained in the briefs could be located by other means such as departmental websites and annual reports. In relation to s35, the Minister argued that the public interest in protecting the deliberative process outweighed the public interest in release of the information. Ms White applied for external review, asserting that much of the information could not be publicly located. Ms White further submitted that the public interest test had been incorrectly applied in the decision.


    The Ombudsman varied the Minister’s decision, determining that most of the information in the ministerial briefings was ‘purely factual information’ within the meaning of s27(4) and s35(2). As such, that information was not exempt and should be released to the applicant. A table overview of [then] ‘current prosecutions and significant investigations’ under the Work Health and Safety Act 2012 was now no longer: current; nor exempt under s30.

    The Ombudsman agreed that some information was exempt under: s26(1)(d); s27; or (after applying the public interest test, only the name of the mother of a deceased worker) s36.

    Rebecca White MP and Minister Barnett, Minister for Resources, Minister for Building and Construction (PDF, 3.2 MB)

    T and Tasmania Police (June 2020)

    T sought information in relation to her complaint to police about an alleged abuser. Tasmania Police processed the request and found most of the information to be exempt. This was mainly on the basis it involved information relating to the enforcement of the law, information subject to legal professional privilege, internal information, or personal information of other people. The Ombudsman considered the decision of Tasmania Police and, while mostly upholding it, held that some further information should be released to T.

    T and Tasmania Police (PDF, 3.0 MB)

    Dr George Lane and Tasmania Police (April 2020)

    Dr George Lane is a scientist who had been undertaking some consultancy work for which he ordered equipment from China. Tasmania Police was alerted to a parcel potentially containing glassware consistent with drug manufacture. A search warrant was issued and Dr Lane's property was searched. He sought information from the Police Service relating to the incident. Tasmania Police exempted much of the material as it related to the enforcement of the law, or for other reasons such as internal deliberative and personal information. While most of the information remained exempt, the Ombudsman made some variations to the Police Service’s decision.

    Dr George Lane and Tasmania Police (PDF, 1.9 MB)

    Ms Louise Grahame and City of Hobart (March 2020)

    Louise Grahame ran a stall at the Salamanca Market. Conflict between Ms Grahame and a number of other stallholders saw complaints made to the Council, which manages the market, by other stallholders about Ms Grahame. She sought copies of these complaints and emails relating to her and the market. The Council released a large amount of information but exempted in full or part various documents it claimed were internal deliberative information or information obtained by Council in confidence. It also redacted some personal information. The Ombudsman determined that most of the information was not exempt, including the identities of stallholders who had made complaints about Ms Grahame. While the latter was personal information, the public interest, including reasons of procedural fairness, entitled Ms Grahame to know the identities of those who had complained about her. However, a complainant's argument that their telephone number and personal email address were exempt information was upheld.

    Ms Louise Grahame and City of Hobart (PDF, 13.4 MB)

    Richard Webb and Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water, and the Environment (January 2020)

    Mr Webb sought information from the Department in relation to the development proposal on Halls Island, Lake Malbena. The request sought a range of information that primarily included some leases for Halls Island and some documents to the relevant Minister.

    One of the core parts of this review was whether or not the two leases sought for Halls Island was information obtained in confidence as claimed by the Department. The Ombudsman overturned this in full on the basis the Department's own lease documents could not constitute information obtained in confidence that, if released, would impair its ability to obtain similar information in the future.

    Richard Webb and Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water, and the Environment (PDF, 1.5 MB)

    Graham Gourlay and University of Tasmania (December 2019)

    At the time of the request for information, Mr Gourlay was a student at UTAS. He had applied to the ethics committee for approval to undertake some research. The approval was denied. Mr Gourlay sought the names of the members of the ethics committee. The University denied this claiming it was exempt information under s36 and that the public interest test did not support its released. The Ombudsman overturned this decision.

    Graham Gourlay and University of Tasmania (PDF, 1.0 MB)

    The Hon. Bryan Green MP and Department of Treasury and Finance (July 2017)

    The applicant sought information about briefings the Department had prepared in relation to GST distribution as a result of the Australian Government budget.   On review the Ombudsman affirmed that much of the information was exempt under s27, s35, and s36 of the Right to Information Act 2009 and that it was contrary to the public interest to disclose this information.  Despite the claims of the Department, names of staff who had prepared and cleared the briefings were not maintained as exempt.

    The Hon. Bryan Green MP and Department of Treasury and Finance (PDF, 700.3 KB)

    Richard Baines (ABC) and Department of Health and Human Services (June 2017)

    The applicant sought information about a for-profit residential care provider, including payments made to it by the Department. On review the Ombudsman affirmed that much of the information was exempt under s27, s35, s36 and s39 of the Right to Information Act 2009 and that it was contrary to the public interest to disclose this informationDespite the claims of the Department, no information was found to be exempt under s37. However, some information was to be disclosed, including payments made by the Department to the provider, subject to redaction of identifying personal information, as well as factual information contained in information which might otherwise be exempt under s27(1) or s35(1) of the Act.  The Department submitted that certain information could not be disclosed by virtue of either s16, s103 or s111A of the Children, Young Persons and their Families Act 1997 Act but the Ombudsman was not generally satisfied of this, considering that the Department was taking too broad a view of the purpose of that Act, although some information was found to be subject to s111A and was not to be disclosed.

    Richard Baines (ABC) and Department of Health and Human Services (PDF, 1.8 MB)

    Michael Atkin and Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Wildlife and the Environment (March 2017)

    Mr Atkin (a journalist with the ABC’s 7.30 Report) requested information concerning a third party’s mussel enterprise, including personal information. The Ombudsman determined that the remaining undisclosed information was exempt in accordance with s27, s35 and s36 of the Right to Information Act 2009.   On considering the public interest, the Ombudsman found that the s35 information should remain exempt, whist in the unusual circumstances of this case, it was not contrary to the public interest to disclose the personal information in question.

    Michael Atkin and Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Wildlife and the Environment (PDF, 500.8 KB)

    A and Tasmania Police (March 2017)

    The information at issue was whether the will of the applicant’s late parent should be disclosed to them. This decision discusses the requirements of s36 (personal information of a person) of the Right to Information Act 2009 and the intersection it has with the Wills Act 2008. As these Acts appear at face value to contradict each other, the issue of implied repeal by later statute is also considered.

    A and Tasmania Police (PDF, 97.5 KB)

    Timothy Kirkwood and Tasmanian Planning Commission (February 2017)

    Mr Kirkwood (Manager of Southern Midlands Council) requested information provided by a third party to the Commission outside of its usual hearing/determination process. The Ombudsman was satisfied that any such information held in respect of the third party related to the Commission’s ‘official business’ and hence was subject to the Right to Information Act 2009. However, all such information was exempt under s36 and it was contrary to the public interest to disclose this.

    The decision also explored the interplay between information  ‘otherwise available’ under s12(3)(c) of the Right to Information Act 2009 and information (written evidence and submission documents) subject to an obligation to be made public under s12 of the Tasmanian Planning Commission Act 1997.

    Timothy Kirkwood and Tasmanian Planning Commission (PDF, 722.1 KB)
    Section 37 (Business Affairs of a Third Party)

    Warren Davis and City of Launceston (February 2024)

    In March 2021, an application for assessed disclosure was received by the City of Launceston (Council) under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act). The application sought information relating to the development of a new creative precinct in central Launceston and included information relating to Mr Warren Davis as a director of Bricktop (an investment firm). Council ultimately decided to release the information and Mr Davis sought external review on the basis that he would be adversely affected by this decision.

    The Ombudsman determined that Council was entitled to release the relevant information, as it was not exempt under s37 of the Act.

    Warren Davis and City of Launceston (PDF, 155.9 KB)

    Malcolm Gardam and Devonport City Council (January 2024)

    On 11 September 2020, Mr Malcolm Gardam made an application for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to the Devonport City Council (Council). He sought information regarding the lease agreement between Council and Providore Place (Devonport) Pty Ltd.

    On 8 October 2020, Council issued a decision to Mr Gardam. No documents were released but some responses were provided to matters raised by Mr Gardam. Information was claimed to be exempt under ss31 (legal professional privilege), 32 (closed meetings of council) and 36 (personal information). He sought internal review and Council issued an internal review decision on 22 October 2020. This decision affirmed Council’s first decision in full.

    Mr Gardam then sought external review. Council advised during the external review process that it now relied on s37 (information relating to the business affairs of a third party) instead of s32 in relation to some documents.

    The Ombudsman determined that:

    • Exemptions claimed pursuant to s31 were upheld;
    • Exemptions claimed pursuant to ss32 and 36 were varied;
    • Exemptions claimed pursuant to s37 were not made out; and
    • Information identifying parties to leases was to be redacted by agreement between the parties.
    Malcolm Gardam and Devonport City Council (PDF, 295.9 KB)

    Mount Wellington Cableway Company and City of Hobart (October 2023)

    Mount Wellington Cableway Company (MWCC) sought to construct a cable car on kunanyi/Mt Wellington, which evoked strong views within the Tasmanian community.

    The City of Hobart (Council) received three applications for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) from the primary applicant on 31 December 2019 and 21 January 2020. Some of the information identified by Council as being responsive to these applications was provided to Council by MWCC. Council consulted with MWCC under s37(2) of the Act to seek its input as to whether this information should be released. MWCC did not provide any input and on 7 April 2023 Council notified MWCC that it had decided to release this information to the primary applicant.

    On the same day MWCC wrote to Ombudsman Tasmania to seek an external review of Council’s decision, on the basis that the release of requested information provided to Council by MWCC would cause it a competitive disadvantage.

    The Ombudsman determined that this information was not exempt from disclosure pursuant to s37 of the Act.

    Mount Wellington Cableway Company and City of Hobart (PDF, 171.4 KB)

    Tarkine National Coalition and Department of Natural Resources and Environment Tasmania (October 2023)

    On 13 November 2019, the Tarkine National Coalition (Tarkine) made an application for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to the Department. Tarkine sought information regarding arrangements between the mining company, Venture Minerals Ltd, and the Department, particularly with regard to the Save the Devil program. Also, information regarding any proposed amendment or variation to Venture Mineral’s Environmental Permit and any Environmental Protection Notice

    On 17 January 2020, the Department issued a Decision to Tarkine, in which some information was released and some information was found to be exempt from disclosure. The Department relied on ss27, 31, 35, 36, 37 and 39 of the Act. The applicant requested an internal review and the Department consented to release a further small amount of information but for the most part upheld its earlier decision. Tarkine applied for external review of the decision on 30 March 2020. Tarkine did not seek review regarding the use of s27 of the Act and certain personal information under s36.

    The Ombudsman determined that exemptions claimed pursuant to ss31, 35, 36, 37 and 39 were varied.

    Tarkine National Coalition and Department of Natural Resources and Environment Tasmania (PDF, 446.5 KB)

    Don Allen and City of Launceston (October 2023)

    On 16 March 2021, an application for assessed disclosure was made under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to the City of Launceston (Council) for information relating to the development of a car park site in Paterson Street, Launceston. The site is partly owned by Car Parks Super Pty Ltd, a director of which is Mr Don Allen. Council consulted with Mr Allen under s37(2) of the Act as a third party to the application for information.  Mr Allen did not agree to the release of the information.

    On 10 June 2021, Council information Mr Allen of its decision to release the information to the applicant. Mr Allen sought internal review of this decision.  By August 2021, no internal review decision had been made and Mr Allen sought external review.

    On 21 April 2023, Council issued an internal review decision notifying Mr Allen that it proposed to release four emails in part, after applying exemptions under s36 (personal information of a person) and s37 (information relating to business affairs of a third party). On 9 May 2023, Mr Allen advised that he sought a full external review, objecting to the release of parts of one email and submitting that all of that email should be exempt pursuant to ss36 and 37.

    The Ombudsman determined that the information that Mr Allen sought to be exempt from release was not exempt pursuant to ss36 or 37.

    Don Allen and City of Launceston (PDF, 181.7 KB)

    Robert Hogan and University of Tasmania (October 2023)

    On 26 November 2022, Mr Robert Hogan made an application to the University of Tasmania (the University) for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act). Mr Hogan sought reports that the University relied upon in making its submissions regarding the merits of its decision to relocate its Sandy Bay Campus to the 2022 Tasmanian Legislative Council Select Committee Inquiry into the provisions of the University of Tasmania Act 1992.

    On 23 February 2023, the University issued a decision to Mr Hogan, in which information was found to be exempt from disclosure ss35, 36, 37, 38 and 39 of the Act. Mr Hogan requested an internal review and the University upheld the earlier decision, however no longer relied on s38.

    Mr Hogan applied for external review of the decision on 29 May 2020 and requested priority. The Ombudsman granted priority on the grounds that the matter was one of significant public interest and the time sensitive nature of raising objections to the campus move.

    The Ombudsman determined that exemptions claimed pursuant to ss35, 36, 37 were not made out and the exemptions claimed under s39 were varied.

    Robert Hogan and University of Tasmania (PDF, 315.6 KB)

    Manuel Sessink and Meander Valley Council (October 2023)

    On 23 December 2019, Mr Manuel Sessink submitted an application for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to Meander Valley Council (Council) requesting 12 items of information regarding the Tasmanian Northern Prison project.

    On 23 January 2020, Council issued a decision to Mr Sessink on some parts of his application. Council found information exempt, either in full or in part, pursuant to ss36, 37, 38, and 39 of the Act.

    As Council had not issued a decision on the balance of his application within the prescribed timeframes under the Act, Mr Sessink made an application for external review to Ombudsman Tasmania on 1 March 2020. On 30 June 2020, Council issued a second decision on the remainder of Mr Sessink’s application, this time applying ss36 and 37 of the Act to partially exempt information from disclosure.

    On external review, the Ombudsman determined that:

    *              Exemptions claimed pursuant to ss36 and 39 should be varied; and

    *              Exemptions claimed pursuant to ss37 and 38 should be set aside.

    Manuel Sessink and Meander Valley Council (PDF, 227.6 KB)

    Lake Maintenance Pty Ltd and Homes Tasmania (July 2023)

    In 2018, the then Department of Communities issued a request for tender (RFT) that sought to engage contractors for the provision of maintenance services for social housing properties in Tasmania. The RFT attracted 13 applications, one of which was submitted by the applicant, Lake Maintenance Pty Ltd.

    The applicant was unsuccessful in this tender process and on 15 February 2019 submitted an application for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) seeking information regarding the selection process.

    On 10 April 2019, a decision was issued to the applicant. 1,434 pages of information was identified as being responsive to the applicant’s request with the substantial majority of this information was released in full. However, the evaluation report regarding the tender process was found to be partially exempt from disclosure under s37(1)(b) of the Act. This decision was affirmed on internal review.

    On 18 July 2019, the applicant submitted an application for external review. Homes Tasmania is now the relevant public authority following the disbandment of the Department of Communities.

    The Ombudsman determined that some information contained in the report was exempt under ss35 and 37 of the Act.

    Lake Maintenance Pty Ltd and Homes Tasmania (PDF, 201.7 KB)

    Robert Hogan and University of Tasmania (June 2023)

    Mr Robert Hogan is opposed to the plan to relocate the campus of the University of Tasmania (the University) to central Hobart. On 24 March 2022, Mr Hogan made an application for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to the University for copies of the minutes of meetings of the University Council.

    On 27 May 2022, the University released a decision to Mr Hogan. He was provided with some information but other information was found to be exempt under ss37 and 38 of the Act. Mr Hogan sought internal review and on 18 July 2022, the University released an internal review decision which affirmed the original decision. Mr Hogan sought external review of that decision.

    The Ombudsman found that exemptions claimed by the University under s37 were not made out and those claimed under s38 were to be varied.

    Robert Hogan and University of Tasmania (PDF, 267.4 KB)

    The Eaves Family and Department of State Growth (June 2023)

    On 2 September 2019, the Eaves family made an application for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to the Department of State Growth (the Department). The Eaves family sought information relating to the Department’s processes for assessing Expressions of Interest in relation to leasing a property in the Burnie area for the accommodation of the Department’s Transport Groups operations. On 20 November 2019, the Department released a decision to the Eaves family. It determined to release the information in part, with some information found to be exempt under ss35, 36, 37 and 39 of the Act.

    The Eaves family applied for internal review and sought answers to further questions. On 16 January 2021 the Department released its decision. While the Secretary of the Department did provide some further answers and clarification to the Eaves family, the Department relied on the same provisions of the Act to exempt the remaining information. The Eaves family then sought external review, though they did not contest the exemption of information under s36 of the Act.

    The Ombudsman determined that exemptions claimed pursuant to s35, 37 and 39 were varied.

    The Eaves Family and Department of State Growth (PDF, 404.7 KB)

    Manuel Sessink and Department of Justice (May 2023)

    On 13 October 2019, Mr Manuel Sessink made an application for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to the Department of Justice (the Department) seeking information relating to the siting of the proposed northern prison. On 20 November 2019, Mr Sessink sought external review under s45(1)(f) of the Act because the timeframe for a decision to be provided by the Department had elapsed and he was not in receipt of that decision.

    On 21 November 2019, the Department issued a decision to Mr Sessink. It decided to release the requested information, in part, exempting the remainder from disclosure under ss35, 37, and 39 of the Act. Mr Sessink extended his external review request to a full review without seeking internal review.

    The Ombudsman determined that exemptions claimed pursuant to ss35, 37, and 39 should be varied.

    Manuel Sessink and Department of Justice (PDF, 280.3 KB)

    Woolnorth Wind Farm Holding Pty Ltd and Department of Natural Resources and Environment (April 2023)

    On 7 August 2019, the now the Department of Natural Resources and Environment (the Department) accepted a request for information under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) from a journalist in relation to bird strikes at wind farms. A search of the records in the Department’s possession identified some information in relation to Woolnorth Wind Farm Holding Pty Ltd (Woolnorth). The Department consulted with Woolnorth pursuant to section 37(2) of the Act and Woolnorth objected to the disclosure of certain information, claiming it was exempt under ss36 and 37. The Department notified Woolnorth on 13 September 2019 that it had decided to release all the relevant information in their possession except for information that it considered exempt under s36. Woolnorth agreed to the release of some information but sought internal review of the decision based on concerns that the release of certain photographs of bird strikes would harm its competitive position. Woolnorth believed that the information should be exempt under s37 of the Act. On 4 October 2019, the Department released an internal review decision which upheld the original decision that determined s37 did not apply. Woolnorth sought external review and the Ombudsman determined that the information was not exempt pursuant to s37.

    Woolnorth Wind Farm Holding Pty Ltd and Department of Natural Resources and Environment (PDF, 215.9 KB)

    Ari Zaetz and City of Hobart (October 2022)

    On 6 March 2019, Mr Zaetz applied for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 with the then Hobart City Council, now City of Hobart (Council). The information requested was about the Council’s tender process for the development of a pay-by-phone application for on street car parking. EasyPark ANZ Pty Ltd (EasyPark) was awarded the contract and the information sought by Mr Zaetz was the contract between Council and EasyPark and the procurement documents. Council consulted with EasyPark pursuant to s37(3) in assessing the application for information.

    On 8 April 2019, Council released the procurement documents but claimed exemption over the contract between Council and EasyPark, pursuant to s39. On 28 June 2019 the internal review decision was released, in which Council’s position changed from relying on s39 to reliance on s37 (information relating to the business affairs of the third party). Further information in the contract was released but significant portions remained redacted.

    The Ombudsman determined that the exemptions claimed by Council pursuant to s37 should be varied, with information in only four clauses found to be exempt.

    Ari Zaetz and City of Hobart (PDF, 162.3 KB)

    Blue Derby Pods Ride Pty Ltd and the Department of Natural Resources and Environment Tasmania (June 2022)

    On 31 January 2020, an applicant made an application for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to the now Department of Natural Resources and Environment Tasmania (the Department).Lease and Business Licence Agreement (the Agreement) between Blue Derby Pods Ride Pty Ltd (Blue Derby) and the Department was responsive to this request. The Department consulted with Blue Derby pursuant to section 37(2) of the Act and Blue Derby objected to the disclosure of information in the Agreement.

    The Department notified Blue Derby on 17 March 2020 that it had decided to release the majority of the Agreement except for some information it considered exempt pursuant to s37. Blue Derby sought internal review of this decision based on concerns the release of the information would reveal trade secrets and harm its competitive position. Blue Derby believed the information should be exempt pursuant to ss37 and 39. On 21 April 2020, the Department released an internal review decision which upheld its original decision and determined that s39 was not relevant. Blue Derby then sought external review of this decision.

    The Ombudsman determined that:

    • Exemptions claimed pursuant to s37 were not made out; and
    • Exemptions claimed pursuant to s39 were varied.
    Blue Derby Pods Ride Pty Ltd and the Department of Natural Resources and Environment Tasmania (PDF, 191.9 KB)

    Cassy O’Connor MP and the Department of Natural Resources and Environment Tasmania (April 2022)

    Ms Cassy O’Connor MP made a request for information under the Right to Information Act 2009 to the Department of Natural Resources and Environment (the Department) in May 2018, seeking copies of Reserve Activity Assessments (RAAs) regarding proposed developments in Tasmanian national parks and reserves. On 3 April 2019, the Department released a decision to Ms O’Connor regarding the RAA for the Maydena Bike Park and decided that it was exempt in full pursuant to ss36, 37 and 39. Ms O’Connor sought external review and the Department was directed to undertake an internal review. On 10 May 2019, the Department released a further decision which also exempted all the relevant information in full pursuant to s39 (or s37 in the alternative).

    The Ombudsman considered that the majority of the 184 page RAA should be released, except for 15 pages which were actually likely to expose the Maydena Bike Park proponent to competitive disadvantage. Accordingly, he determined that:

    *Exemptions claimed pursuant to s39 were not made out; and
    *Exemptions claimed pursuant to s37 were varied.

    Cassy O’Connor MP and the Department of Natural Resources and Environment Tasmania (PDF, 238.0 KB)

    Robert Vellacott and Devonport City Council (April 2022)

    In October 2018, Mr Robert Vellacott made an application for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to the Devonport City Council seeking information about the Providore Place development (now re-named Market Square Pavillion). Council released a decision which provided some explanation of details regarding Council expenditure and contributions to the project, but refused under ss32 and 37 of the Act to provide the majority of information sought, including the signed lease agreement between it and Providore Place Devonport Pty Ltd, any amendments to that lease, and individual figures for fit-out of tenancies. This decision was affirmed on internal review on 24 December 2018. Mr Vellacott sought external review of the exemptions applied to the information and whether a sufficient search for information responsive to his request had been made by Council.

    The Ombudsman determined that:

    • Exemptions claimed by Council pursuant to s32 of the Act were varied, as the signed lease agreement was not exempt;
    • Exemptions claimed by Council pursuant to s37 of the Act were upheld; and
    • There had been a sufficient search for relevant information by Council.
    Robert Vellacott and Devonport City Council (PDF, 258.6 KB)

    C and Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment (December 2021)

    In May 2018, C made an application to the Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment (the Department) for assessed disclosure, seeking copies of commercial filming agreements and drone use approved between 1 January 2013 and 21 May 2018 in the Arthur-Pieman Conservation Area. Consultation occurred with the commercial flying agreement applicants under s36(2) and s37(2). Following this consultation, the names and personal information relating to some entities applying for filming were redacted under s36, as well as the personal information of some Departmental staff. C sought external review of this decision.

    The Ombudsman determined that the Department’s use of s36 should be varied. Some personal information of contact people listen on the commercial filming applications was validly exempt, but the Department had not discharged its onus under s47(4) to show why the names and Australian Business Numbers of some commercial entities, and the personal information of some Departmental staff, should be exempt under s36.

    C and Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment (PDF, 182.5 KB)

    Rhiana Whitson and Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment (May 2021)

    Ms Whitson (a journalist for the ABC) sought information from the Department about the death of 16 polo ponies in January 2018 which were transported on the Spirit of Tasmania ferry. The Department refused to provide any information responsive to the request, considering it fully exempt pursuant to s30(1)(a) of the Right to Information Act 2009, as information relating to the enforcement of the law, on the basis of an ongoing investigation and potential prosecutions relating to the incident. Since the Department’s original decision, charges have been laid under the Animal Welfare Act 1993 in relation to the incident and their prosecution remains ongoing.

    The Ombudsman predominantly upheld the Department’s decision but found that some information was not exempt, consistent with a previous external review decision in Mandy Squires and Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment (March 2019). This information was nonetheless not required to be provided to Ms Whitson, as it was otherwise available under s12(3)(c)(i).

    Rhiana Whitson and Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment (PDF, 162.3 KB)

    Clive Stott and Hydro Tasmania (February 2021)

    Mr Stott requested information from Hydro Tasmania ('Hydro') regarding the fault in the Basslink cable which caused it to shut down in 2015. Hydro released some information to Mr Stott but refused the majority of his request on the basis that it considered that: the information was already publicly available (s12); the work involved in providing the information would substantially and unreasonably divert Hydro’s resources from its other work (s19); or the information was exempt (under a section noted below). Mr Stott sought external review of this decision.

    Late in the external review process, Mr Stott agreed to redaction of some personal information relating to personnel internal or external to Hydro. Hence, while the reasons consider exemptions claimed under s36, ultimately a s36 review decision was not required.

    The Ombudsman found that:

    1. He does not have the power to review a decision under s12 to refuse to provide information which is already publicly available.

    2. Hydro had not complied with the requirements of s19 to give Mr Stott a reasonable opportunity to consult with it to refine his request to a form which would not substantially and unreasonably divert its resources. Mr Stott’s request was returned to Hydro to reassess under the Act.

    3. Exemptions claimed under s31 (legal professional privilege) should be varied, releasing additional documents to Mr Stott.

    4. Exemptions claimed under s37 (information relating to the business affairs of a third party) and s38 (information relating to the business affairs of a public authority) were not made out and relevant documents should be released to Mr Stott.

    5. The exemption claimed over a document under s39 (information obtained in confidence) was not made out, but the document was otherwise exempt under s30 (information relating to the enforcement of the law).

    Clive Stott and Hydro Tasmania (PDF, 262.1 KB)

    Environment Tasmania and Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and the Environment (November 2019)

    Environment Tasmania asked the Department to provide a range of information about fin-fish farming around Tasmania. The first response was a possible refusal under s19. This was due to the size and complexity of what has been sought. The scope was revised and focused on a smaller sub-set of information about Okehampton Bay. The Department refused its release claiming it would expose a third party to competitive disadvantage under s37. The Ombudsman set this decision aside. While s37 might have been able to apply, it did not satisfy the public interest test.

    Environment Tasmania and Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and the Environment (PDF, 2.5 MB)

    Mandy Squires and Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water, and the Environment (March 2019)

    Ms Squires (a journalist with NewsCorp) sought information from the Department about the death of 16 ponies on the Spirit of Tasmania. This was a serious incident and sparked a lot of interest among the media and the public. This is an interesting matter in that a strong public interest does not necessarily guarantee release of information in the right circumstances. The Department relied on exemptions due to enforcement of the law, third party business information, and information obtained in confidence. The decision only upholds those exemptions relating to the enforcement of the law and overturns the others.

    Mandy Squires and Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water, and the Environment (PDF, 2.2 MB)

    Christine Smart and City of Launceston (April 2018)

    Ms Smart requested information relating to the legal costs incurred by Council in relation to her property, specifically her fence line that bordered an alleyway, that had historically been there for decades. A review of the boundaries identified the discrepancy and Ms Smart was asked to correct it.

    Ms Smart's application for assessed disclosure sought the the amount of legal costs incurred by Council after she challenged Council's decision. This matter primarily looks at whether or not the legal costs incurred constitute privileged information.

    Christine Smart and City of Launceston (PDF, 1.1 MB)

    Timothy Baird and Launceston City Council (November 2017)

    Mr Baird requested information relating to the City of Launceston's plan to upgrade the Sea Port Boardwalk.  Specifically, Mr Baird sought information leading to the appointment of Darcon Pty Ltd as the successful tenderer.

    This decision considered the points of 'competitive disadvantage' under s37 and the balance between public interest and deliberative information.

    Timothy Baird and Launceston City Council (PDF, 689.3 KB)

    Huon Aquaculture Group Pty Ltd and Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment (July 2017)

    On 7 November 2013, an application for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) was received by the Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment (the Department) from Tassal Operations Pty Ltd (Tassal). Tassal sought information relating to Huon Aquaculture Group Pty Ltd (Huon) and any interaction it has had with wildlife. A large number of documents were collated and the Department consulted with Huon pursuant to section 37(2) of the Act. Huon was advised that while some information was deemed exempt under the Act, the Department had decided to release a significant amount of information.

    Huon sought an internal review, and the internal review decision was made on 16 July 2014. While further information was exempted, the Department’s internal review decision still proposed to release the majority of the relevant information. Huon continued to object to this and sought an external review.
    The external review relates to exemptions claimed under ss37, 39 and 42 of the Act.

    The Ombudsman determined that:

    • Exemptions claimed pursuant to s37 were varied; and
    • Exemptions claimed pursuant to ss39 and 42 were affirmed.
    Huon Aquaculture Group Pty Ltd and Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment (PDF, 1.4 MB)

    Richard Baines (ABC) and Department of Health and Human Services (June 2017)

    The applicant sought information about a for-profit residential care provider, including payments made to it by the Department. On review the Ombudsman affirmed that much of the information was exempt under s27, s35, s36 and s39 of the Right to Information Act 2009 and that it was contrary to the public interest to disclose this informationDespite the claims of the Department, no information was found to be exempt under s37. However, some information was to be disclosed, including payments made by the Department to the provider, subject to redaction of identifying personal information, as well as factual information contained in information which might otherwise be exempt under s27(1) or s35(1) of the Act.  The Department submitted that certain information could not be disclosed by virtue of either s16, s103 or s111A of the Children, Young Persons and their Families Act 1997 Act but the Ombudsman was not generally satisfied of this, considering that the Department was taking too broad a view of the purpose of that Act, although some information was found to be subject to s111A and was not to be disclosed.

    Richard Baines (ABC) and Department of Health and Human Services (PDF, 1.8 MB)

    Laura Kelly, on behalf of Environment Tasmania and the Environment Protection Agency (June 2017)

    Environment Tasmania requested information about Huon Aquaculture’s Lonnavale Hatchery and its effect on the Russell River. Some information was released but the EPA considered that all other information was exempt under s39(1)  of the Right to Information Act 2009 (Information obtained in confidence) in the first instance because it had been voluntarily provided by Huon.  On review the Ombudsman determined that none of the remaining information was exempt under s39(1) as disclosure of the information would not be reasonably likely to impair the ability of a public authority or Minister to obtain similar information in the future: s39(1)(b). However,  much of the information was found to be exempt under s37(1) (Information relating to business affairs of third party) and, whilst it was contrary to the public interest to release raw monitoring data,  the Ombudsman determined that it was not contrary to release all other information.

    Laura Kelly, on behalf of Environment Tasmania and the Environment Protection Agency (PDF, 1.6 MB)

    Michael Atkin and Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and the Environment (April 2017)

    Mr Atkin (a journalist with the ABC) requested information in relation to a fish mortality event in Macquarie Harbour that occurred between 1 December 2014 and 28 February 2015.  Some laboratory report information as to the probable cause of the fish mortality event was released by the Department on internal review. The Ombudsman determined that information relating to the reporting of the fish mortality event by the relevant enterprise to the Department was exempt under s37 of the Right to Information Act 2009 but that, in terms of s33, it was not contrary to the public interest to disclose this.  By contrast, whilst the remaining laboratory report information was exempt under s39, it was contrary to the public interest to disclose any further information from this report.

    Michael Atkin and Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and the Environment (PDF, 974.8 KB)

    Michael Atkin and Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Wildlife and the Environment (March 2017)

    Mr Atkin (a journalist with the ABC’s 7.30 Report) requested information concerning a third party’s mussel enterprise, including personal information. The Ombudsman determined that the remaining undisclosed information was exempt in accordance with s27, s35 and s36 of the Right to Information Act 2009.   On considering the public interest, the Ombudsman found that the s35 information should remain exempt, whist in the unusual circumstances of this case, it was not contrary to the public interest to disclose the personal information in question.

    Michael Atkin and Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Wildlife and the Environment (PDF, 500.8 KB)
    Section 38 (Business affairs of public authority)

    Manuel Sessink and Meander Valley Council (October 2023)

    On 23 December 2019, Mr Manuel Sessink submitted an application for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to Meander Valley Council (Council) requesting 12 items of information regarding the Tasmanian Northern Prison project.

    On 23 January 2020, Council issued a decision to Mr Sessink on some parts of his application. Council found information exempt, either in full or in part, pursuant to ss36, 37, 38, and 39 of the Act.

    As Council had not issued a decision on the balance of his application within the prescribed timeframes under the Act, Mr Sessink made an application for external review to Ombudsman Tasmania on 1 March 2020. On 30 June 2020, Council issued a second decision on the remainder of Mr Sessink’s application, this time applying ss36 and 37 of the Act to partially exempt information from disclosure.

    On external review, the Ombudsman determined that:

    *              Exemptions claimed pursuant to ss36 and 39 should be varied; and

    *              Exemptions claimed pursuant to ss37 and 38 should be set aside.

    Manuel Sessink and Meander Valley Council (PDF, 227.6 KB)

    Robert Hogan and University of Tasmania (June 2023)

    Mr Robert Hogan is opposed to the plan to relocate the campus of the University of Tasmania (the University) to central Hobart. On 24 March 2022, Mr Hogan made an application for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to the University for copies of the minutes of meetings of the University Council.

    On 27 May 2022, the University released a decision to Mr Hogan. He was provided with some information but other information was found to be exempt under ss37 and 38 of the Act. Mr Hogan sought internal review and on 18 July 2022, the University released an internal review decision which affirmed the original decision. Mr Hogan sought external review of that decision.

    The Ombudsman found that exemptions claimed by the University under s37 were not made out and those claimed under s38 were to be varied.

    Robert Hogan and University of Tasmania (PDF, 267.4 KB)

    Clive Stott and TT-Line Company Pty Ltd (June 2022)

    On 16 March 2019, Mr Clive Stott made an application for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 to TT-Line Company Pty Ltd (TT-Line). He sought air quality monitoring reports in relation to the Spirit of Tasmania I and Spirit of Tasmania II, following the deaths of 16 polo ponies on a truck which travelled on one of the vessels in 2018. TT-Line issued a decision on 9 May 2019 to refuse the majority of Mr Stott’s request on the basis that it considered that:

    • the disclosure of the information would prejudice an ongoing investigation into the deaths of the ponies (s30);
    • the information contains personal information of a person other than Mr Stott (s36); and
    • the release of the information would expose TT-Line to competitive disadvantage (s38).

    This decision was upheld at internal review and Mr Stott sought external review of that decision.

    The Ombudsman determined that exemptions claimed under ss30, 36 and 38 were not made out and relevant documents should be released to Mr Stott.

    Clive Stott and TT-Line Company Pty Ltd (PDF, 185.5 KB)

    Trevor Burdon and Sustainable Timber Tasmania (June 2022)

    Mr Trevor Burdon invested in the Managed Investment Schemes (MIS) regarding plantations grown by Gunns Plantations Limited (Gunns) on land managed by Forestry Tasmania, now Sustainable Timber Tasmania (STT). When Gunns became insolvent in 2013, legal disputes arose between STT and the liquidators for Gunns regarding issues impacting Mr Burdon. On 7 December 2018, Mr Burdon made an application for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) seeking information regarding the legal settlement of the dispute and alleged ‘gross underpayment’ of MIS investors by STT in that settlement. On 17 April 2019, STT released a decision to Mr Burdon which found that all information responsive to his request was exempt from release pursuant to ss31, 35, 37, 38 and 40 of the Act. Mr Burdon sought external review of this decision.

    The Ombudsman determined that:

    • Exemptions claimed pursuant to s31 were varied;
    • Exemptions claimed pursuant to s38 were varied; and
    • Exemptions claimed pursuant to ss35, 37 and 40 were not required to be assessed, as the relevant information was otherwise exempt.
    Trevor Burdon and Sustainable Timber Tasmania (PDF, 193.1 KB)

    Alexandra Humphries and University of Tasmania (February 2022)

    The University of Tasmania purchased the former Fountainside, MidCity and Theatre Royal hotels in central Hobart and expressed its intention to convert the properties to student accommodation. Plans to convert the ‘Old Commerce Building’ in French Street, Sandy Bay to student accommodation were also reported in the media.

    On 12 February 2019, Ms Alexandra Humphries, a journalist with the ABC, made an application to the University under the Right to Information Act 2009 for information regarding the purchase price of the Fountainside Hotel and business, refurbishment costs of the Fountainside, MidCity and Theatre Royal hotels, engineering reports regarding the French Street property and the amount the University paid in rates to the Hobart City Council. Except for an Occupancy Permit relating to the French Street property, the University did not disclose any information responsive to Ms Humphries’ request, claiming the information was exempt under s38(1)(ii). It maintained this position on internal review. Ms Humphries sought external review on 14 May 2019.

    The Ombudsman determined that the University’s use of s38 should be varied and that its use of s39, in the alternative, was not made out. Some information regarding the refurbishment costs for the Fountainside and Theatre Royal hotels was found to be exempt under s38, but the Department had not discharged its onus under s47(4) to show why the remaining information should not be disclosed.

    Alexandra Humphries and University of Tasmania (PDF, 232.9 KB)

    Clive Stott and Hydro Tasmania (February 2021)

    Mr Stott requested information from Hydro Tasmania ('Hydro') regarding the fault in the Basslink cable which caused it to shut down in 2015. Hydro released some information to Mr Stott but refused the majority of his request on the basis that it considered that: the information was already publicly available (s12); the work involved in providing the information would substantially and unreasonably divert Hydro’s resources from its other work (s19); or the information was exempt (under a section noted below). Mr Stott sought external review of this decision.

    Late in the external review process, Mr Stott agreed to redaction of some personal information relating to personnel internal or external to Hydro. Hence, while the reasons consider exemptions claimed under s36, ultimately a s36 review decision was not required.

    The Ombudsman found that:

    1. He does not have the power to review a decision under s12 to refuse to provide information which is already publicly available.

    2. Hydro had not complied with the requirements of s19 to give Mr Stott a reasonable opportunity to consult with it to refine his request to a form which would not substantially and unreasonably divert its resources. Mr Stott’s request was returned to Hydro to reassess under the Act.

    3. Exemptions claimed under s31 (legal professional privilege) should be varied, releasing additional documents to Mr Stott.

    4. Exemptions claimed under s37 (information relating to the business affairs of a third party) and s38 (information relating to the business affairs of a public authority) were not made out and relevant documents should be released to Mr Stott.

    5. The exemption claimed over a document under s39 (information obtained in confidence) was not made out, but the document was otherwise exempt under s30 (information relating to the enforcement of the law).

    Clive Stott and Hydro Tasmania (PDF, 262.1 KB)

    Graeme Gilmour and TT-Line (January 2020)

    Mr Gilmour runs a caravan park in Tasmania's north west. Mr Gilmour has noticed changes over the years and so he sought information from the TT-Line in relation to the number of recreational vehicles that might be traveling to Tasmania.

    TT-Line refused this information on the basis that, if its cargo carrying capacity and freight movements were revealed, it would expose it to competitive disadvantage. The Ombudsman overturned this decision and determined the information should be released.

    Graeme Gilmour and TT-Line (PDF, 1.1 MB)
    Section 39 (Information Obtained in Confidence)

    Tarkine National Coalition and Department of Natural Resources and Environment Tasmania (October 2023)

    On 13 November 2019, the Tarkine National Coalition (Tarkine) made an application for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to the Department. Tarkine sought information regarding arrangements between the mining company, Venture Minerals Ltd, and the Department, particularly with regard to the Save the Devil program. Also, information regarding any proposed amendment or variation to Venture Mineral’s Environmental Permit and any Environmental Protection Notice

    On 17 January 2020, the Department issued a Decision to Tarkine, in which some information was released and some information was found to be exempt from disclosure. The Department relied on ss27, 31, 35, 36, 37 and 39 of the Act. The applicant requested an internal review and the Department consented to release a further small amount of information but for the most part upheld its earlier decision. Tarkine applied for external review of the decision on 30 March 2020. Tarkine did not seek review regarding the use of s27 of the Act and certain personal information under s36.

    The Ombudsman determined that exemptions claimed pursuant to ss31, 35, 36, 37 and 39 were varied.

    Tarkine National Coalition and Department of Natural Resources and Environment Tasmania (PDF, 446.5 KB)

    Robert Hogan and University of Tasmania (October 2023)

    On 26 November 2022, Mr Robert Hogan made an application to the University of Tasmania (the University) for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act). Mr Hogan sought reports that the University relied upon in making its submissions regarding the merits of its decision to relocate its Sandy Bay Campus to the 2022 Tasmanian Legislative Council Select Committee Inquiry into the provisions of the University of Tasmania Act 1992.

    On 23 February 2023, the University issued a decision to Mr Hogan, in which information was found to be exempt from disclosure ss35, 36, 37, 38 and 39 of the Act. Mr Hogan requested an internal review and the University upheld the earlier decision, however no longer relied on s38.

    Mr Hogan applied for external review of the decision on 29 May 2020 and requested priority. The Ombudsman granted priority on the grounds that the matter was one of significant public interest and the time sensitive nature of raising objections to the campus move.

    The Ombudsman determined that exemptions claimed pursuant to ss35, 36, 37 were not made out and the exemptions claimed under s39 were varied.

    Robert Hogan and University of Tasmania (PDF, 315.6 KB)

    Manuel Sessink and Meander Valley Council (October 2023)

    On 23 December 2019, Mr Manuel Sessink submitted an application for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to Meander Valley Council (Council) requesting 12 items of information regarding the Tasmanian Northern Prison project.

    On 23 January 2020, Council issued a decision to Mr Sessink on some parts of his application. Council found information exempt, either in full or in part, pursuant to ss36, 37, 38, and 39 of the Act.

    As Council had not issued a decision on the balance of his application within the prescribed timeframes under the Act, Mr Sessink made an application for external review to Ombudsman Tasmania on 1 March 2020. On 30 June 2020, Council issued a second decision on the remainder of Mr Sessink’s application, this time applying ss36 and 37 of the Act to partially exempt information from disclosure.

    On external review, the Ombudsman determined that:

    *              Exemptions claimed pursuant to ss36 and 39 should be varied; and

    *              Exemptions claimed pursuant to ss37 and 38 should be set aside.

    Manuel Sessink and Meander Valley Council (PDF, 227.6 KB)

    Linda Poulton and Meander Valley Council (August 2023)

    Concerned Westbury resident and President of community group ‘Westbury Region Against the Prison’, Ms Linda Poulton, submitted two applications for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) requesting information relating to the proposed northern prison project. Ms Poulton lodged her first application to the Department of Justice on 25 February 2020, which was transferred to Meander Valley Council (Council) on 26 February 2020. Ms Poulton submitted her second application to Council on 19 May 2020.

    On 19 May 2020, Ms Poulton also sought external review in relation to her first application, as a decision had not been received within the required timeframe.

    On 24 June 2020, Council issued a single decision in relation to both applications and released some information. On 15 July 2020, Council released further information to Ms Poulton. Information was also claimed to be exempt under ss36 and 39 of the Act.

    On 23 July 2020, Ms Poulton confirmed she wish to continue with her application for external review on both requests, which were considered jointly.

    The Ombudsman determined that:

    • Exemptions claimed by Council pursuant to s36 were varied; and
    • Exemptions claimed by Council pursuant to s39 were upheld.
    Linda Poulton and Meander Valley Council (PDF, 171.4 KB)

    The Eaves Family and Department of State Growth (June 2023)

    On 2 September 2019, the Eaves family made an application for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to the Department of State Growth (the Department). The Eaves family sought information relating to the Department’s processes for assessing Expressions of Interest in relation to leasing a property in the Burnie area for the accommodation of the Department’s Transport Groups operations. On 20 November 2019, the Department released a decision to the Eaves family. It determined to release the information in part, with some information found to be exempt under ss35, 36, 37 and 39 of the Act.

    The Eaves family applied for internal review and sought answers to further questions. On 16 January 2021 the Department released its decision. While the Secretary of the Department did provide some further answers and clarification to the Eaves family, the Department relied on the same provisions of the Act to exempt the remaining information. The Eaves family then sought external review, though they did not contest the exemption of information under s36 of the Act.

    The Ombudsman determined that exemptions claimed pursuant to s35, 37 and 39 were varied.

    The Eaves Family and Department of State Growth (PDF, 404.7 KB)

    Alexandra Humphries and Department of Health (June 2023)

    On 25 August 2022 Ms Alexandra Humphries, a journalist with the ABC, lodged an application for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) with the Department of Health (the Department). The request was for a report about procurements and contracting in the Hyperbaric Unit.

    The original decision, released on 14 November 2022, identified a PowerPoint presentation prepared by Deloitte but disclosure was refused over the whole document as it was claimed to be exempt under s35 (internal deliberative information). The internal review decision of 17 February 2023 refused release under s18 due to a copyright argument and s39 in the alternative. In response to enquiries from the Ombudsman about whether refusal of an application under s18 was possible, the Department released a supplementary decision abandoning s18 but relying on s39 (information obtained in confidence) to exempt the PowerPoint as a whole.

    The Ombudsman determined that the exemption claimed by the Department, pursuant to s39, was set aside.

    Alexandra Humphries and Department of Health (PDF, 427.3 KB)

    L and Department of Police, Fire and Emergency Management (June 2023)

    L had been issued with a Police Family Violence Order (PFVO). L lodged an application for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009, seeking information from the Department of Police, Fire and Emergency Management (the Department) in relation to the complaint on which the PFVO was based. The Department released some information to L but considered that some information was exempt under ss30, 35, 36 and 39 of the Act.

    Upon application by L for internal review, the Department upheld its earlier decision. L then sought external review. The Ombudsman found that a small amount of the information sought could be released to L but the majority of the information remained exempt.

    The Ombudsman determined that:

    • Exemptions claimed pursuant to ss36 and 30(1)(d) were varied;
    • Exemptions claimed pursuant to ss30(1)(e) and 35 were affirmed; and
    • It was not necessary to assess the alternative exemption claimed under s39.
    L and Department of Police, Fire and Emergency Management (PDF, 372.3 KB)

    Manuel Sessink and Department of Justice (May 2023)

    On 13 October 2019, Mr Manuel Sessink made an application for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to the Department of Justice (the Department) seeking information relating to the siting of the proposed northern prison. On 20 November 2019, Mr Sessink sought external review under s45(1)(f) of the Act because the timeframe for a decision to be provided by the Department had elapsed and he was not in receipt of that decision.

    On 21 November 2019, the Department issued a decision to Mr Sessink. It decided to release the requested information, in part, exempting the remainder from disclosure under ss35, 37, and 39 of the Act. Mr Sessink extended his external review request to a full review without seeking internal review.

    The Ombudsman determined that exemptions claimed pursuant to ss35, 37, and 39 should be varied.

    Manuel Sessink and Department of Justice (PDF, 280.3 KB)

    Blue Derby Pods Ride Pty Ltd and the Department of Natural Resources and Environment Tasmania (June 2022)

    On 31 January 2020, an applicant made an application for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to the now Department of Natural Resources and Environment Tasmania (the Department).Lease and Business Licence Agreement (the Agreement) between Blue Derby Pods Ride Pty Ltd (Blue Derby) and the Department was responsive to this request. The Department consulted with Blue Derby pursuant to section 37(2) of the Act and Blue Derby objected to the disclosure of information in the Agreement.

    The Department notified Blue Derby on 17 March 2020 that it had decided to release the majority of the Agreement except for some information it considered exempt pursuant to s37. Blue Derby sought internal review of this decision based on concerns the release of the information would reveal trade secrets and harm its competitive position. Blue Derby believed the information should be exempt pursuant to ss37 and 39. On 21 April 2020, the Department released an internal review decision which upheld its original decision and determined that s39 was not relevant. Blue Derby then sought external review of this decision.

    The Ombudsman determined that:

    • Exemptions claimed pursuant to s37 were not made out; and
    • Exemptions claimed pursuant to s39 were varied.
    Blue Derby Pods Ride Pty Ltd and the Department of Natural Resources and Environment Tasmania (PDF, 191.9 KB)

    Graham Murray and City of Hobart (June 2022)

    Mr Graham Murray is a supporter of the proposal to construct and operate a cable car on kunanyi/Mount Wellington in Hobart. On 22 August 2018, Mr Murray submitted a request for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to the City of Hobart (Council). He sought information on a range of issues regarding the cable car project.

    On 27 September 2018, Council released a large amount of information to Mr Murray, but refused to assess part of his application under s10 and claimed a further 324 pages were exempt pursuant to ss31, 35, 36 and 39. A second decision was released on 24 October 2018, following consultation under s36(2), and a further part of Mr Murray’s request was refused under s19. A final decision was released on 9 November 2018, which released further information and refused the remaining part of Mr Murray’s request, as there was no recognised list of ‘cable car or anti cable car websites’ to enable the information to be collated. Mr Murray then sought external review of all of Council’s decisions.

    The Ombudsman determined that:

    • He had no power to review Council’s decision under s10 and it remained unchanged;
    • Council’s use of s19 was affirmed;
    • Council’s use of section 31 was varied;
    • Council’s use of s35 was varied;
    • Council’s use of s36 was affirmed; and
    • Council's use of s39 was varied.
    Graham Murray and City of Hobart (PDF, 255.9 KB)

    Cassy O’Connor MP and the Department of Natural Resources and Environment Tasmania (April 2022)

    Ms Cassy O’Connor MP made a request for information under the Right to Information Act 2009 to the Department of Natural Resources and Environment (the Department) in May 2018, seeking copies of Reserve Activity Assessments (RAAs) regarding proposed developments in Tasmanian national parks and reserves. On 3 April 2019, the Department released a decision to Ms O’Connor regarding the RAA for the Maydena Bike Park and decided that it was exempt in full pursuant to ss36, 37 and 39. Ms O’Connor sought external review and the Department was directed to undertake an internal review. On 10 May 2019, the Department released a further decision which also exempted all the relevant information in full pursuant to s39 (or s37 in the alternative).

    The Ombudsman considered that the majority of the 184 page RAA should be released, except for 15 pages which were actually likely to expose the Maydena Bike Park proponent to competitive disadvantage. Accordingly, he determined that:

    *Exemptions claimed pursuant to s39 were not made out; and
    *Exemptions claimed pursuant to s37 were varied.

    Cassy O’Connor MP and the Department of Natural Resources and Environment Tasmania (PDF, 238.0 KB)

    Alexandra Humphries and University of Tasmania (February 2022)

    The University of Tasmania purchased the former Fountainside, MidCity and Theatre Royal hotels in central Hobart and expressed its intention to convert the properties to student accommodation. Plans to convert the ‘Old Commerce Building’ in French Street, Sandy Bay to student accommodation were also reported in the media.

    On 12 February 2019, Ms Alexandra Humphries, a journalist with the ABC, made an application to the University under the Right to Information Act 2009 for information regarding the purchase price of the Fountainside Hotel and business, refurbishment costs of the Fountainside, MidCity and Theatre Royal hotels, engineering reports regarding the French Street property and the amount the University paid in rates to the Hobart City Council. Except for an Occupancy Permit relating to the French Street property, the University did not disclose any information responsive to Ms Humphries’ request, claiming the information was exempt under s38(1)(ii). It maintained this position on internal review. Ms Humphries sought external review on 14 May 2019.

    The Ombudsman determined that the University’s use of s38 should be varied and that its use of s39, in the alternative, was not made out. Some information regarding the refurbishment costs for the Fountainside and Theatre Royal hotels was found to be exempt under s38, but the Department had not discharged its onus under s47(4) to show why the remaining information should not be disclosed.

    Alexandra Humphries and University of Tasmania (PDF, 232.9 KB)

    Simon Cameron and Department of Natural Resources and Environment Tasmania (January 2022)

    Mr Simon Cameron owns a sheep farming property in central Tasmania. Allegations were made against his farm manager by officers of the then Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment, now the Department of Natural Resources and Environment Tasmania (the Department), regarding whether the management of feral deer was in breach of the Wildlife (General) Regulations 2010. This eventually led to the farm manager lodging a complaint against the Department with the Integrity Commission and an investigation by the Department into whether misconduct had been committed by its officers. Mr Cameron made an application in November 2017 for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) seeking the investigation report and associated documentation. The Department released a decision on 12 December 2017, finding all 766 pages found to be responsive to the request were exempt from disclosure under ss30, 31, 35, 36 and 39 of the Act. Mr Cameron then sought external review of this decision.

    The Ombudsman determined that:

    • Exemptions claimed pursuant to s30 were primarily not made out, but some information was validly exempt under s30(1)(a)(ii);
    • Exemptions claimed pursuant to s31 were upheld; and
    • Some information was validly exempt under ss35, 36 and 39 but the release of the remainder was not contrary to the public interest.
    Simon Cameron and Department of Natural Resources and Environment Tasmania (PDF, 497.8 KB)

    Camille Bianchi and the Department of Health (November 2021)

    Ms Camille Bianchi is a freelance journalist who sought information from the Department of Health regarding the response to allegations of misconduct from its former employee at Ward 4K of the Launceston General Hospital, nurse James Griffin. The Department released a decision on 22 July 2020 on the 104 pages of information it located responsive to Ms Bianchi’s request, determining that all documents were exempt pursuant to ss35, 36 and 39 of the Right to Information Act 2009. Ms Bianchi then sought external review of this decision.

    During the external review process, the Department reconsidered some of its proposed exemptions and located additional documents responsive to Ms Bianchi’s request, which had not previously been assessed.

    The Ombudsman ordered that:
    * Exemptions claimed by the Department under ss30 and 39 are not made out;
    * Some information was validly exempt under s35 but the release of the majority was not contrary to the public interest;
    * The personal information of patients, members of the public, Department staff raising concerns about Mr Griffin and Ward 4K staff was exempt under s36, except job titles for Ward 4K staff;
    * The personal information of Mr Griffin, except his personal address, telephone number or date of birth, and the work related personal information of other Department staff, union representatives and consultants is not exempt under s36 and is to be released to Ms Bianchi; and
    * Some documents were out of scope of the request or publicly available and not required to be released.

    Camille Bianchi and the Department of Health (PDF, 298.0 KB)

    Rhiana Whitson and Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment (May 2021)

    Ms Whitson (a journalist for the ABC) sought information from the Department about the death of 16 polo ponies in January 2018 which were transported on the Spirit of Tasmania ferry. The Department refused to provide any information responsive to the request, considering it fully exempt pursuant to s30(1)(a) of the Right to Information Act 2009, as information relating to the enforcement of the law, on the basis of an ongoing investigation and potential prosecutions relating to the incident. Since the Department’s original decision, charges have been laid under the Animal Welfare Act 1993 in relation to the incident and their prosecution remains ongoing.

    The Ombudsman predominantly upheld the Department’s decision but found that some information was not exempt, consistent with a previous external review decision in Mandy Squires and Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment (March 2019). This information was nonetheless not required to be provided to Ms Whitson, as it was otherwise available under s12(3)(c)(i).

    Rhiana Whitson and Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment (PDF, 162.3 KB)

    Elaine Anderson and Director of Inland Fisheries (April 2021)

    Ms Anderson applied for information about the lease of the Salmon Ponds heritage property to Nekon Pty Ltd. The Director of Inland Fisheries decided that: the lease was exempt in full under s39 (information obtained in confidence); and it was contrary to the public interest disclose it.

    The Ombudsman determined that the lease (which included the grant of a licence) was not exempt information as two requirements of s39 were not satisfied. Firstly, disclosure of the lease under the Act would not divulge information communicated in confidence to a public authority: s39(1). Secondly, its disclosure would not be reasonably likely to impair the ability of a public authority to obtain similar information in the future: s39(1)(b). Neither was s39(1)(a) applicable. The Ombudsman, therefore, did not need to determine the public interest test under s33. However, he indicated that, had he needed to do so, he may well have differed from the Director's conclusion that it was contrary to the public interest to disclose the lease.

    Elaine Anderson and Director of Inland Fisheries (PDF, 200.1 KB)

    Clive Stott and Hydro Tasmania (February 2021)

    Mr Stott requested information from Hydro Tasmania ('Hydro') regarding the fault in the Basslink cable which caused it to shut down in 2015. Hydro released some information to Mr Stott but refused the majority of his request on the basis that it considered that: the information was already publicly available (s12); the work involved in providing the information would substantially and unreasonably divert Hydro’s resources from its other work (s19); or the information was exempt (under a section noted below). Mr Stott sought external review of this decision.

    Late in the external review process, Mr Stott agreed to redaction of some personal information relating to personnel internal or external to Hydro. Hence, while the reasons consider exemptions claimed under s36, ultimately a s36 review decision was not required.

    The Ombudsman found that:

    1. He does not have the power to review a decision under s12 to refuse to provide information which is already publicly available.

    2. Hydro had not complied with the requirements of s19 to give Mr Stott a reasonable opportunity to consult with it to refine his request to a form which would not substantially and unreasonably divert its resources. Mr Stott’s request was returned to Hydro to reassess under the Act.

    3. Exemptions claimed under s31 (legal professional privilege) should be varied, releasing additional documents to Mr Stott.

    4. Exemptions claimed under s37 (information relating to the business affairs of a third party) and s38 (information relating to the business affairs of a public authority) were not made out and relevant documents should be released to Mr Stott.

    5. The exemption claimed over a document under s39 (information obtained in confidence) was not made out, but the document was otherwise exempt under s30 (information relating to the enforcement of the law).

    Clive Stott and Hydro Tasmania (PDF, 262.1 KB)

    Ms Debbie Wisby and Ms Jennifer Crawford and Department of Premier and Cabinet (August 2020)

    The Glamorgan Spring Bay Council’s General Manager (GM) conducted an investigation into an alleged breach of confidentiality. Two Councillors applied for all information relating to or touching upon: the investigation; or contact regarding it between the GM and specified officers of the Department’s Local Government Division (LGD). The Department released most of the information, but not emails in which the GM requested, and an officer of the LGD provided, advice regarding the investigation. These were claimed to be exempt pursuant to s35(1)(b) and, on internal review, s39(1)(b).

    The Ombudsman considered the emails under both s35(1)(b) and s39(1)(b). It was arguable they came within these exemptions. However, the Ombudsman was not satisfied disclosure would be reasonably likely to impair the ability of the LGD to obtain similar information in the future, as required for exemption under s39(1)(b). Both sections are subject to the s33 public interest test. After considering a range of relevant matters, the Ombudsman determined that the emails should be disclosed as this would not harm the public interest.

    Ms Debbie Wisby and Ms Jennifer Crawford and Department of Premier and Cabinet (PDF, 133.7 KB)

    Ivan Dean MLC and Department of Health (June 2020)

    The Department proposed, in a regulatory impact statement (RIS), new laws regarding e-cigarettes, tobacco licensing and smoking. It published most submissions on the RIS, but not six marked confidential. Ivan Dean MLC applied for those six submissions. The Department refused to release them. On internal review, Mr Dean sought to narrow the scope of his application to submissions by tobacco companies. The Department contested his ability to do so, reviewed all six submissions and again refused to release any. The Ombudsman determined that: an applicant is entitled to limit the scope of information sought on internal review; and the one submission by a tobacco company should be released in full. Although marked 'Private and Confidential', the submission was not, in law, ‘communicated in confidence’. Nor would its release impair the Department's ability to obtain similar information in the future. Furthermore, non-disclosure would be antithetical to Australia’s international treaty obligations and to the public interest.

    Ivan Dean MLC and Department of Health (PDF, 838.8 KB)

    Ms Louise Grahame and City of Hobart (March 2020)

    Louise Grahame ran a stall at the Salamanca Market. Conflict between Ms Grahame and a number of other stallholders saw complaints made to the Council, which manages the market, by other stallholders about Ms Grahame. She sought copies of these complaints and emails relating to her and the market. The Council released a large amount of information but exempted in full or part various documents it claimed were internal deliberative information or information obtained by Council in confidence. It also redacted some personal information. The Ombudsman determined that most of the information was not exempt, including the identities of stallholders who had made complaints about Ms Grahame. While the latter was personal information, the public interest, including reasons of procedural fairness, entitled Ms Grahame to know the identities of those who had complained about her. However, a complainant's argument that their telephone number and personal email address were exempt information was upheld.

    Ms Louise Grahame and City of Hobart (PDF, 13.4 MB)

    Richard Webb and Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water, and the Environment (January 2020)

    Mr Webb sought information from the Department in relation to the development proposal on Halls Island, Lake Malbena. The request sought a range of information that primarily included some leases for Halls Island and some documents to the relevant Minister.

    One of the core parts of this review was whether or not the two leases sought for Halls Island was information obtained in confidence as claimed by the Department. The Ombudsman overturned this in full on the basis the Department's own lease documents could not constitute information obtained in confidence that, if released, would impair its ability to obtain similar information in the future.

    Richard Webb and Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water, and the Environment (PDF, 1.5 MB)

    Nick McKim and Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water, and the Environment (November 2019)

    In June 2014, the Tasmanian Government called for expressions of interest for developments in Tasmanian national parks. Senator McKim requested the proposed locations these developments in November 2014. The Department claimed this information was exempt as it was obtained in confidence and that it was not in the public interest to release it to the public. The Ombudsman overturned this decision and the list was released to Senator McKim.

    Nick McKim and Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water, and the Environment (PDF, 6.0 MB)

    Mandy Squires and Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water, and the Environment (March 2019)

    Ms Squires (a journalist with NewsCorp) sought information from the Department about the death of 16 ponies on the Spirit of Tasmania. This was a serious incident and sparked a lot of interest among the media and the public. This is an interesting matter in that a strong public interest does not necessarily guarantee release of information in the right circumstances. The Department relied on exemptions due to enforcement of the law, third party business information, and information obtained in confidence. The decision only upholds those exemptions relating to the enforcement of the law and overturns the others.

    Mandy Squires and Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water, and the Environment (PDF, 2.2 MB)

    Huon Aquaculture Group Pty Ltd and Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment (July 2017)

    On 7 November 2013, an application for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) was received by the Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment (the Department) from Tassal Operations Pty Ltd (Tassal). Tassal sought information relating to Huon Aquaculture Group Pty Ltd (Huon) and any interaction it has had with wildlife. A large number of documents were collated and the Department consulted with Huon pursuant to section 37(2) of the Act. Huon was advised that while some information was deemed exempt under the Act, the Department had decided to release a significant amount of information.

    Huon sought an internal review, and the internal review decision was made on 16 July 2014. While further information was exempted, the Department’s internal review decision still proposed to release the majority of the relevant information. Huon continued to object to this and sought an external review.
    The external review relates to exemptions claimed under ss37, 39 and 42 of the Act.

    The Ombudsman determined that:

    • Exemptions claimed pursuant to s37 were varied; and
    • Exemptions claimed pursuant to ss39 and 42 were affirmed.
    Huon Aquaculture Group Pty Ltd and Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment (PDF, 1.4 MB)

    Richard Baines (ABC) and Department of Health and Human Services (June 2017)

    The applicant sought information about a for-profit residential care provider, including payments made to it by the Department. On review the Ombudsman affirmed that much of the information was exempt under s27, s35, s36 and s39 of the Right to Information Act 2009 and that it was contrary to the public interest to disclose this informationDespite the claims of the Department, no information was found to be exempt under s37. However, some information was to be disclosed, including payments made by the Department to the provider, subject to redaction of identifying personal information, as well as factual information contained in information which might otherwise be exempt under s27(1) or s35(1) of the Act.  The Department submitted that certain information could not be disclosed by virtue of either s16, s103 or s111A of the Children, Young Persons and their Families Act 1997 Act but the Ombudsman was not generally satisfied of this, considering that the Department was taking too broad a view of the purpose of that Act, although some information was found to be subject to s111A and was not to be disclosed.

    Richard Baines (ABC) and Department of Health and Human Services (PDF, 1.8 MB)

    Laura Kelly, on behalf of Environment Tasmania and the Environment Protection Agency (June 2017)

    Environment Tasmania requested information about Huon Aquaculture’s Lonnavale Hatchery and its effect on the Russell River. Some information was released but the EPA considered that all other information was exempt under s39(1)  of the Right to Information Act 2009 (Information obtained in confidence) in the first instance because it had been voluntarily provided by Huon.  On review the Ombudsman determined that none of the remaining information was exempt under s39(1) as disclosure of the information would not be reasonably likely to impair the ability of a public authority or Minister to obtain similar information in the future: s39(1)(b). However,  much of the information was found to be exempt under s37(1) (Information relating to business affairs of third party) and, whilst it was contrary to the public interest to release raw monitoring data,  the Ombudsman determined that it was not contrary to release all other information.

    Laura Kelly, on behalf of Environment Tasmania and the Environment Protection Agency (PDF, 1.6 MB)

    Michael Atkin and Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and the Environment (April 2017)

    Mr Atkin (a journalist with the ABC) requested information in relation to a fish mortality event in Macquarie Harbour that occurred between 1 December 2014 and 28 February 2015.  Some laboratory report information as to the probable cause of the fish mortality event was released by the Department on internal review. The Ombudsman determined that information relating to the reporting of the fish mortality event by the relevant enterprise to the Department was exempt under s37 of the Right to Information Act 2009 but that, in terms of s33, it was not contrary to the public interest to disclose this.  By contrast, whilst the remaining laboratory report information was exempt under s39, it was contrary to the public interest to disclose any further information from this report.

    Michael Atkin and Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and the Environment (PDF, 974.8 KB)
    Section 40 (Negotiations)

    Robert Hogan and University of Tasmania (June 2023)

    Mr Robert Hogan is opposed to the plan to relocate the campus of the University of Tasmania (the University) to central Hobart. On 24 March 2022, Mr Hogan made an application for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to the University for copies of the minutes of meetings of the University Council.

    On 27 May 2022, the University released a decision to Mr Hogan. He was provided with some information but other information was found to be exempt under ss37 and 38 of the Act. Mr Hogan sought internal review and on 18 July 2022, the University released an internal review decision which affirmed the original decision. Mr Hogan sought external review of that decision.

    The Ombudsman found that exemptions claimed by the University under s37 were not made out and those claimed under s38 were to be varied.

    Robert Hogan and University of Tasmania (PDF, 267.4 KB)
    Section 42 (Culture, heritage, and natural resources)

    Huon Aquaculture Group Pty Ltd and Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment (July 2017)

    On 7 November 2013, an application for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) was received by the Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment (the Department) from Tassal Operations Pty Ltd (Tassal). Tassal sought information relating to Huon Aquaculture Group Pty Ltd (Huon) and any interaction it has had with wildlife. A large number of documents were collated and the Department consulted with Huon pursuant to section 37(2) of the Act. Huon was advised that while some information was deemed exempt under the Act, the Department had decided to release a significant amount of information.

    Huon sought an internal review, and the internal review decision was made on 16 July 2014. While further information was exempted, the Department’s internal review decision still proposed to release the majority of the relevant information. Huon continued to object to this and sought an external review.
    The external review relates to exemptions claimed under ss37, 39 and 42 of the Act.

    The Ombudsman determined that:

    • Exemptions claimed pursuant to s37 were varied; and
    • Exemptions claimed pursuant to ss39 and 42 were affirmed.
    Huon Aquaculture Group Pty Ltd and Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment (PDF, 1.4 MB)
    Sections 43-45 (Review Mechanisms)

    O and Department of Police, Fire and Emergency Management (No 3) (August 2023)

    On 13 August 2020, O made an application for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to the Department of Police, Fire and Emergency Management (the Department). The information sought by O was records of phone calls made to St Helens Police Station over a particular period. The Department refused the request on the basis that recordings were not available. The decision was affirmed on internal review and O sought external review.

    On 1 August 2023, following assisted resolution under ss47(1)(g) and (k) of the Act, the Department provided a better explanation to O about the lack of call records and provided different information in an effort to assist her.

    The Ombudsman determined that:

    • the information sought by the applicant was not in existence on the day the application was made; and
    • the Department did not initially undertake a sufficient search for information responsive to the request, but had taken appropriate steps to rectify this by the conclusion of this external review.
    O and Department of Police, Fire and Emergency Management (No 3) (PDF, 142.0 KB)

    Suzanne Pattinson and Department of Education (August 2022)

    On 11 September 2020, Ms Suzanne Pattinson made an application for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to the Department of Education (the Department). Ms Pattinson sought information relating to the Department’s management of the Rose Bay High School 2016 European School Tour and subsequent investigations. On 14 January 2021, the Department released a decision to Ms Pattinson. It determined to release the information in part, with some information found to be exempt under ss35 and 36 of the Act.

    Ms Pattinson applied for internal review and on 4 March 2021 the Department released slightly more information to Ms Pattinson but relied on the same provisions of the Act to exempt the remaining information. Ms Pattinson then sought external review of the Department’s internal review decision. As part of her external review Ms Pattinson sought a review of whether there had been an insufficiency in searching for information by the Department.

    The Ombudsman determined that:

    • Exemptions claimed pursuant to s35 were varied;
    • Exemptions claimed pursuant to s36 were varied; and
    • The Department’s search for information was sufficient.
    Suzanne Pattinson and Department of Education (PDF, 292.2 KB)

    Todd Dudley and Department of Natural Resources and Environment Tasmania (May 2022)

    Mr Todd Dudley, the president of the North East Bioregional Network Inc., made an application on 18 August 2018 under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to the Department of Natural Resources and Environment (the Department) seeking information regarding the environmental impact of proposed mountain bike tracks in the St Helens area. The Department located nine pages of information responsive to his request and made a decision on 3 December 2018 to redact parts of the information pursuant to ss35 and 36. Mr Dudley sought internal review and the Department’s internal review decision of 29 March 2019 affirmed its original decision. Mr Dudley then sought external review on the bases that the exemptions claimed were not valid and that there had been an insufficient search for information responsive to his request.

    The Ombudsman determined that:

    • The Department’s search for information was sufficient; and
    • Exemptions claimed by the Department pursuant to ss35 and 36 were not made out.
    Todd Dudley and Department of Natural Resources and Environment Tasmania (PDF, 226.6 KB)

    Cassy O’Connor MP and Department of Natural Resources and Environment Tasmania (April 2022)

    Ms Cassy O’Connor MP made a request for information under the Right to Information Act 2009 for correspondence regarding the health and welfare of animals being transported on the Spirit of Tasmania vessels. She refined her request to restrict it to correspondence between the Department of Natural Resources and Environment (the Department), TT-Line Pty Ltd and the office of the Minister for Primary Industries, following an indication from the Department that her request was likely to be refused, due to it being a substantial and unreasonable diversion of resources from its other work, unless this occurred. On 29 March 2019, the Department released a decision to Ms O’Connor in which it found that eight pages of information were responsive to her request and all were exempt from release pursuant to s30. Ms O’Connor sought external review under s45(1)(e), on the grounds that she believed an insufficient search for information had been carried out, due to the very small quantity of information assessed. The Ombudsman directed the Department conduct an internal review under s47(1)(f) and its fresh decision affirmed the finding of the original delegate, that the information responsive was exempt under s30, and refuted that there was any insufficiency of searching.

    On external review, the Ombudsman determined that the Department had conducted a sufficient search for information responsive to Ms O’Connor’s request. He noted, however, that the issues raised on external review may have been resolved through more consistent communication with Ms O’Connor and a broader interpretation of the scope of her request by the Department.

    Cassy O’Connor MP and Department of Natural Resources and Environment Tasmania (PDF, 152.0 KB)

    Ivan Dean MLC and Department of Health (June 2020)

    The Department proposed, in a regulatory impact statement (RIS), new laws regarding e-cigarettes, tobacco licensing and smoking. It published most submissions on the RIS, but not six marked confidential. Ivan Dean MLC applied for those six submissions. The Department refused to release them. On internal review, Mr Dean sought to narrow the scope of his application to submissions by tobacco companies. The Department contested his ability to do so, reviewed all six submissions and again refused to release any. The Ombudsman determined that: an applicant is entitled to limit the scope of information sought on internal review; and the one submission by a tobacco company should be released in full. Although marked 'Private and Confidential', the submission was not, in law, ‘communicated in confidence’. Nor would its release impair the Department's ability to obtain similar information in the future. Furthermore, non-disclosure would be antithetical to Australia’s international treaty obligations and to the public interest.

    Ivan Dean MLC and Department of Health (PDF, 838.8 KB)

    Environment Tasmania and Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and the Environment (November 2019)

    Environment Tasmania asked the Department to provide a range of information about fin-fish farming around Tasmania. The first response was a possible refusal under s19. This was due to the size and complexity of what has been sought. The scope was revised and focused on a smaller sub-set of information about Okehampton Bay. The Department refused its release claiming it would expose a third party to competitive disadvantage under s37. The Ombudsman set this decision aside. While s37 might have been able to apply, it did not satisfy the public interest test.

    Environment Tasmania and Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and the Environment (PDF, 2.5 MB)

    The Hon Cassy O'Connor MHA and the Hon Matthew Groom MHA, Minister for Environment, Parks and Heritage (April 2016)

    The issue for determination was whether a decision made by the delegate of a Minister is subject to internal review under the Right to Information Act 2009 and whether the Ombudsman has jurisdiction under the Act to conduct an external review of such a decision. The review considered Sections 43, 44 and 45 of the Act and found that there was no right to internal review of such a decision and therefore no jurisdiction to accept an application for external review.

    The Hon Cassy O'Connor MHA and the Hon Matthew Groom MHA, Minister for Environment, Parks and Heritage (PDF, 171.9 KB)
    Other (Interaction with other Acts)

    Richard Baines (ABC) and Department of Health and Human Services (June 2017)

    The applicant sought information about a for-profit residential care provider, including payments made to it by the Department. On review the Ombudsman affirmed that much of the information was exempt under s27, s35, s36 and s39 of the Right to Information Act 2009 and that it was contrary to the public interest to disclose this informationDespite the claims of the Department, no information was found to be exempt under s37. However, some information was to be disclosed, including payments made by the Department to the provider, subject to redaction of identifying personal information, as well as factual information contained in information which might otherwise be exempt under s27(1) or s35(1) of the Act.  The Department submitted that certain information could not be disclosed by virtue of either s16, s103 or s111A of the Children, Young Persons and their Families Act 1997 Act but the Ombudsman was not generally satisfied of this, considering that the Department was taking too broad a view of the purpose of that Act, although some information was found to be subject to s111A and was not to be disclosed.

    Richard Baines (ABC) and Department of Health and Human Services (PDF, 1.8 MB)

    A and Tasmania Police (March 2017)

    The information at issue was whether the will of the applicant’s late parent should be disclosed to them. This decision discusses the requirements of s36 (personal information of a person) of the Right to Information Act 2009 and the intersection it has with the Wills Act 2008. As these Acts appear at face value to contradict each other, the issue of implied repeal by later statute is also considered.

    A and Tasmania Police (PDF, 97.5 KB)

    Timothy Kirkwood and Tasmanian Planning Commission (February 2017)

    Mr Kirkwood (Manager of Southern Midlands Council) requested information provided by a third party to the Commission outside of its usual hearing/determination process. The Ombudsman was satisfied that any such information held in respect of the third party related to the Commission’s ‘official business’ and hence was subject to the Right to Information Act 2009. However, all such information was exempt under s36 and it was contrary to the public interest to disclose this.

    The decision also explored the interplay between information  ‘otherwise available’ under s12(3)(c) of the Right to Information Act 2009 and information (written evidence and submission documents) subject to an obligation to be made public under s12 of the Tasmanian Planning Commission Act 1997.

    Timothy Kirkwood and Tasmanian Planning Commission (PDF, 722.1 KB)

    Patrick Billings and Department of Health and Human Services (December 2016)

    Mr Billings (a journalist on ‘The Mercury’ newspaper) requested CCTV footage of an event at Ashley Youth Detention Centre in July 2016.  The Ombudsman determined that the footage should not be released, as various exemption grounds under s30(1) of the Right to Information Act 2009 were satisfied.  Under the Act, s30 exemptions are not subject to the public interest test at s33.

    Patrick Billings and Department of Health and Human Services (PDF, 448.4 KB)