2023 Decisions

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.