2020 Decisions

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.