2024 Decisions

Ms Christine Wright is an employee of the Department of Police, Fire and Emergency Management (the Department).  On 19 October 2022 she made an application to the Department for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) seeking information about herself contained in briefing notes to the Minister.

The Department relied upon s27 of the Act to exempt a small amount of information on the grounds that it constituted opinions contained in internal briefing information for a Minister.  Ms Wright sought external review.

The Ombudsman determined that the exemptions claimed pursuant to s27 were varied.

On 18 July 2023, the Honourable Rebecca White MP submitted an application for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to the Office of the Premier. She sought information regarding the appointment of Danielle McKay to the Office of the Premier. The request was comprised of three parts.

No information responsive to parts two and three of Ms White’s application was located by the Premier’s delegate, while some information responsive to part one of Ms White’s application was deemed to be exempt pursuant to ss35 (internal deliberative information and 36 (personal information) of the Act. Ms White sought external review of this decision.

On external review, the Ombudsman determined that Premier’s delegate was entitled to decide that information requested was not in the Premier’s possession, and that exemptions claimed under ss35 and 36 should be varied.

On 6 January 2022, O submitted an application for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to TT-Line Company Pty Ltd (TT-Line). O requested passenger and car registration information relating to the Spirit of Tasmania ferry.

TT-Line released a decision and held that the requested information was exempt from disclosure in full pursuant to s36 of the Act (personal information). O sought an internal review of the decision regarding car registration details, accepting the finding regarding passenger details.

The original decision was upheld on internal review and O sought external review.

The Ombudsman affirmed TT-Line’s exemption of car registration details under s36 of the Act, finding their release would be contrary to the public interest in the circumstances.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.