On 2 November 2016, Mr Clive Stott submitted an application for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to Hydro Tasmania seeking a range of information in relation to the 2016 fault in the Basslink undersea power cable. The Ombudsman issued a decision on this application on 18 February 2021.

As part of this decision, the Ombudsman held that Hydro Tasmania had not complied with the requirements of s19 of the Act, as Hydro did not 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 therefore returned to Hydro for it to be reassessed under the Act.

Hydro initially refused Mr Stott’s application again under s19 but then accepted a refined request and issued an internal review decision which assessed the information. The decision applied ss30, 36, 37 and 39 of the Act to exempt the requested information from disclosure.

On 19 March 2022, Mr Stott applied to the Ombudsman for an external review of this decision. The Ombudsman determined that:

• exemptions claimed pursuant to ss30, 37 and 39 were varied;
• exemptions claimed pursuant to s36 applied; and
• Hydro’s search for information was sufficient.

On 26 June 2023, 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). She sought information which related to the investigation into the death of her sister.

The Department found that information was excluded under s6 of the Act as it was in the possession of the Department only by virtue of the role police officers take in assisting the Coroner. There was some other relevant information to O’s request which was claimed to be exempt under ss30 and 36. O sought internal review and the decision was affirmed. O then sought external review.

The Ombudsman concluded that:

• the Department correctly relied upon s6 to exclude the jurisdiction of the Act in relation to the information it holds for the Coroner; and
• exemptions claimed pursuant to ss30 and 36 were affirmed.

Mr Thomas Bade is a resident of a semi-rural area within the Huon Valley local government area and has been in a dispute with a nearby landholder regarding earthworks undertaken on the nearby land. The Huon Valley Council (Council) issued an enforcement order for the nearby land and subsequently withdrew the order.

Mr Bade made an application for assessed disclosure to Council seeking information relating to the enforcement order. Council applied ss30 and 36 of the Act to exempt some information. Mr Bade sought external review.

The Ombudsman determined that:

• exemptions claimed pursuant to s30 were not made out; and
• exemptions claimed pursuant to s36 were varied.

On 15 March 2023, Mr Roland Browne made an application for assessed disclosure to the Department of Health (the Department) under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) seeking information regarding helicopter operations at the Royal Hobart Hospital.

On 7 June 2023, the Department released a decision to Mr Browne, determining to release in full or in part 149 pages of information relevant to his request. It relied on exemptions pursuant to s27, s35 and s36 of the Act.

On 17 June 2023, Mr Browne sought internal review of the Department’s decision. The Department located and released a small amount of additional information, but largely maintained its position. Mr Browne sought external review.

The Ombudsman determined that:

• the exemption claimed pursuant to s27 was affirmed;
• the exemption claimed pursuant to s35 was set aside; and
• exemptions claimed pursuant to s36 were varied.

Mr Andrew Hunter is Campaigns Manager for Birdlife Australia, a bird conservation not-for-profit organisation.   On 14 April 2023, he made an application for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) seeking information from the Department of Natural Resources and Environment Tasmania (the Department) regarding conversion or exchange orders of future potential production forest land to permanent timber production zone land.

On 14 June 2023, the Department released a decision to Mr Hunter, determining that the 88 pages of information relevant to his request was exempt in full pursuant to section 26 of the Act (cabinet information). On 12 July 2023, Mr Hunter sought external review of the Department’s decision.

The Ombudsman determined that:

• exemptions claimed pursuant to s26 were varied; and
• information was exempt under s35.

On 9 May 2023, the Honourable Ms Rebecca White MP submitted an assessed disclosure application under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to the Office of the Premier seeking information relating to correspondence between the Premier or any of his staff with the Tasmanian Anti-Discrimination Commissioner Sarah Bolt.

The application was initially refused but a fresh decision was eventually issued on 16 January 2024, following intervention from Ombudsman Tasmania. A delegate of the Premier, having identified six items of information responsive to Ms White’s application, determined that three of these items were exempt pursuant to sections 36 and 39 of the Act.

On 22 January 2024, Ms White sought external review of this decision.

The Ombudsman determined that exemptions claimed pursuant to ss36 and 39 should be varied.

Mr Phil Harris operates an adventure tour company, Aardvark Adventures, specialising in activities such as abseiling and white-water rafting.  On 3 July 2023, he made an application for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) seeking information from Tourism Tasmania about a reported safety incident involving his company.

Tourism Tasmania issued a decision in relation to his application. It released the majority of the relevant information but relied upon s36 of the Act to exempt a small amount of personal information. It also determined other information was not in its possession.  Mr Harris sought external review.

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

On 28 August 2023, Mr Codie Hutchison made an application for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) from the Waratah-Wynyard Council (Council). He sought a copy of a report titled Independent Review Report (2013) into Council.

Council, having identified a document responsive to Mr Hutchison’s request, determined to exempt the document in full under s39 of the Act and referenced a 2014 external review decision of the Ombudsman relating to the same document.

Mr Hutchison sought internal review, however Council maintained its position. On 4 October 2023, Mr Hutchison sought external review.

The Ombudsman determined that exemptions claimed under s39(1)(b) should be varied.

On 4 May 2022, Mr Robert Hogan sought information through assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) regarding the 2019 decision made by the University of Tasmania to relocate its campus from Sandy Bay to central Hobart. The relevant part of his request regarding appointments to the University Council was assessed by the then Department of Education, now the Department for Education, Children and Young People (the Department).

On 4 July 2022, the Department released a decision to Mr Hogan, determining that no information relevant to the application was found. In response to Mr Hogan’s request for an internal review, the Department released 39 pages of information and applied s36 of the Act to exempt some personal information.

On 11 October 2022, Mr Hogan sought external review, which was accepted pursuant to s44(1) of the Act.

The Ombudsman determined that:

• exemptions claimed pursuant to s36 are varied; and
• while the Department initially did not undertake a sufficient search for information, by the conclusion of the external review it had taken appropriate steps to rectify the situation.

The Department of Natural Resources and Environment (the Department) received an application for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) from a not-for-profit organisation. The information responsive to the request included information that related to Huon Aquaculture Group Pty Ltd (Huon) and salmon mortality in its operations in Macquarie Harbour.

In accordance with s37(2) of the Act, the Department contacted Huon seeking its view on whether the information should be released. Huon’s position was that the information should be exempt under s37 of the Act and therefore requested the information not be released to the original Applicant.

The Department made a decision to release the information sought, but in an aggregated form combined with data from the two other major salmon farming companies operating in Macquarie Harbour. Huon sought internal review but the Department maintained its position.

On 9 August 2024, Huon sought external review. The Ombudsman determined that the relevant information was not exempt pursuant to s37 of the Act and should be released to the original applicant.

On 7 June 2023, Mr Derksen-Luelf sought information through assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) from the Derwent Valley Council (Council). The applicant, who is involved in the New Norfolk Distillery (the Distillery), was seeking information about the dissemination of two documents regarding the project - a commercial lease agreement and a letter from the Premier’s Office.

Council located four emails responsive to the request and determined that three were exempt under s31 (legal professional privilege). Mr Derksen-Luelf sought internal review but Council maintained its position. He then sought external review regarding the exemption applied and also querying whether Council had undertaken a sufficient search for relevant information.

The Ombudsman determined that:

* exemptions claimed by Council pursuant to s31 were affirmed; and

* despite valid issues initially presenting, Council ultimately undertook a sufficient search for information responsive to the request.

On 22 December 2022, Mr Peter Jacobson made an application to the Department for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) seeking information about his interactions with the Department.

The Department relied upon ss30, 31, 36 and 39 of the Act to exempt some information. Mr Jacobson sought internal review of this decision, but the Department maintained its position (though it released some additional information). Mr Jacobson sought external review.

The Ombudsman determined that:

* exemptions claimed pursuant to s30 were not made out;

* exemptions claimed pursuant to s31 were varied;

* exemptions claimed pursuant to s36 were affirmed; and

* exemptions claimed pursuant to s39 were not made out.

Mr Brett Maryniak is a resident of the Derwent Valley local government area.  On 2 May 2023 he made an application to Derwent Valley Council (Council) for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) seeking information, documents and communications related to Derwent Valley Arts community organisation.

Council relied upon s19 of the Act to refuse the application on the grounds that the work involved in providing the information would substantially and unreasonably divert the resources of Council.  Mr Maryniak sought external review.

The Ombudsman determined that Council was not entitled to rely upon s19, and directed Council to reassess the application in accordance with the Act.

On 22 May 2022, Mr Malcolm Gardam made an application for assessed disclosure under Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to the Devonport City Council. He sought information regarding lease agreements and contracts between Council and key stakeholders in relation to the Living City development in the Devonport area.

On 24 June 2022, Council issued a decision to Mr Gardam. No documents were released and information was claimed to be exempt under ss32 (closed meetings of council) and 37 (business affairs of a third party).

Mr Gardam sought internal review. The internal review decision affirmed Council’s original decision, except for in relation to one contract which was released with redactions.

On 3 August 2022, Mr Gardam sought external review. The Ombudsman determined that exemptions claimed pursuant to ss32 and 37 of the Act were not made out.

Dr Scott Bell has an interest in environmental issues.  On 23 September 2021 he lodged an application for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) with the Department of State Growth (the Department) seeking information concerning a mining exploration licence issued to Kassem Holdings Pty Ltd for an area near Bridport.

The Department released some information but relied upon ss35 (internal deliberative information), 36 (personal information), 37 (information relating to the business affairs of a third party) and 42 (information likely to affect the cultural, heritage or natural resources of the State) of the Act to exempt other information. Dr Bell sought internal review but the Department did not change its position. Dr Bell then sought external review.

The Ombudsman determined that:

• exemptions claimed pursuant to s35 were set aside;
• exemptions claimed pursuant to ss36 and 37 were varied; and
• exemptions claimed pursuant to s42 were upheld

The applicant, Mr Hogan, had previously made three assessed disclosure applications under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to the University of Tasmania (the University) for information relating to the University’s campus move. All three applications were refused on the basis of s12(3)(c)(ii) of the Act that the requested information will become available, in accordance with a decision that was made before receipt of the application, as routine disclosure or required disclosure.

Mr Hogan made a further application for information under the Act for the for evidence demonstrating that a prior decision had in fact been made to release the information sought in the three original applications. His application was refused initially by the University and Mr Hogan sought internal review. An explanation but no information was provided in the internal review decision. Mr Hogan then sought external review.

The review was on the basis of s45(1)(e) and whether the University has conducted a sufficient searching for relevant information. In the course of the review, the University located a file note of the relevant decision and released this to Mr Hogan.

The Ombudsman found that the University initially did not undertake a sufficient search for information responsive to the assessed disclosure request. However, by the conclusion of the external review the University had taken appropriate steps to rectify the situation.

Mr Graham Murray has an interest in the cable car project (the project) that was proposed for kunanyi/Mt Wellington. On 2 November 2020 he made an assessed disclosure application to the City of Hobart (Council), under the Right to Information Act 2009, for a range of information about the project, including a planned burn off.

There was a significant volume of information identified, collated and assessed. Mr Nick Heath, the then principal officer and CEO of the Council, delivered his decision in four parts, releasing some information and relying on s35 (internal deliberative information) and s37 (information relating to business affairs of third party) to exempt other information. In relation to the burn off, he found that there was no information responsive to the request, which gave rise to a question about the sufficiency of Council’s searching for relevant information.

The Ombudsman determined that:

*              the exemptions claimed pursuant to ss35 and 37 were varied; and

*              the searching undertaken in relation to the burn off was sufficient.

Mr Lee Moyle was a volunteer Amateur Radio Assessor with the Australian Maritime College of the University of Tasmania (the University). On 26 April 2021, Mr Moyle applied to the University under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) for information held by the University relating to himself.

The University’s original decision determined that some information was exempt from release under sections 31 (legal professional privilege), 35 (internal deliberative information) and 36 (personal information).  Mr Moyle sought internal review. On internal review the University affirmed its initial decision and provided additional reasons in relation to the application of ss35 and 36.

Mr Moyle sought external review of this decision. The Ombudsman found that the exemptions claimed pursuant to ss31, 35, and 36 should be varied.

Mr Daniel Winston is a resident of the City of Hobart local government area.  On 7 June 2022 he made an application to City of Hobart (Council) for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) seeking the name of a person who had made a complaint to Council about an alleged environmental nuisance caused by Mr Winston.

Council relied upon s36 of the Act to exempt the name of the complainant.  Mr Winston sought external review.

The Ombudsman determined that the exemption claimed pursuant to s36 was affirmed.

On 23 June 2023 Mr Clem Newton-Brown submitted an application for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to Flinders Council (Council). As part of this application Mr Newton-Brown requested three items of information related to a development application Mr Newton-Brown submitted to Council. This development application proposed to build visitor accommodation on Little Dog Island.

On 16 August 2023 a decision was issued to Mr Newton-Brown by Council’s General Manager, Mr Warren Groves. Mr Groves determined that some information responsive to Mr Newton-Brown’s application was exempt from disclosure pursuant to ss31 (legal professional privilege) and 36 (personal information) of the Act.

Mr Newton-Brown sought external review of this decision and the Ombudsman determined that Council’s use of ss31 and 36 should be varied.

The Hon. Meg Webb MLC is an independent member of the Parliament of Tasmania, representing the electorate of Nelson in the Legislative Council.  On 19 July 2021 she made an application to the Department of Treasury and Finance (the Department) for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) seeking information regarding the Premier’s Economic and Social Recovery Advisory Council (PESRAC).

The Department initially refused the request as it claimed it was a repeat pursuant to s20(a) of the Act. However, it agreed to issue a fresh decision and released some information. It relied upon s35 of the Act to exempt other information in the minutes of PESRAC’s meetings as internal deliberative information.  Ms Webb sought external review.

The Ombudsman determined that the exemptions claimed pursuant to s35 were varied.

V was previously employed by the Department of Communities Tasmania, now the Department for Education, Children and Young People (the Department), as a Child Safety Officer.

On 23 December 2020, V filed a request for information under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) with the Department. The request was for correspondence sent between various colleagues that related to V or contained his name. The Department held that s36 of the Act, and ss103(1) and 111A(1) of the Children Young Persons and Their Families Act 1997 applied to justify the non-disclosure of some information responsive to V’s application. V sought external review.

The Ombudsman determined that exemptions claimed by the Department pursuant to s36 of the Act should be varied.

On 15 June 2020 Westbury resident Ms Linda Poulton submitted an application for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to the Department of Justice (the Department), requesting 10 items of information related to a proposed prison development at Westbury.

The Department’s original decision relevantly held that ss35 and 39 of the Act applied to exempt some information responsive to Ms Poulton’s application from disclosure. This original decision was upheld on internal review.

Ms Poulton sought external review of this decision by the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman determined that:

• exemptions pursuant to s36 were applicable; and
• exemptions pursuant to ss35 and 39 should be varied.

On 28 August 2020, C filed a request for information under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) with the Department of State Growth (the Department) concerning Screen Tasmania’s funding of the Wild Things documentary.

On 30 October 2020, C received a decision. Some information was released, some information was considered already publicly available and a substantial amount of information was considered to be exempt pursuant to ss 27, 30, 35, 37 and 39 of the Act. C sought internal review.

On internal review, the Department released additional information to the applicant that had been claimed exempt under s30 but raised a new ground for exemption of other information, specifically, s38.

C sought external review of this decision. The Ombudsman upheld the exemptions claimed by the Department pursuant to s27 and determined that the exemptions claimed pursuant to ss35, 37, 38 and 39 should be varied.

On 15 December 2020, the Commonwealth and Tasmanian Governments signed a Commonwealth-Tasmania Bilateral Energy and Emissions Reduction Agreement Memorandum of Understanding (the MOU).

On 18 December 2020, Mr Bob Burton applied under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to the Tasmanian Premier for a copy of the MOU as well as any records and/or communication plans relating to the announcement of the MOU.

On 29 January 2021, Mr Burton received a decision. As the MOU was publicly available, Mr Burton was provided with an electronic link to the document. With regard to records of the announcement of the MOU, six records were identified as being responsive to Mr Burton’s application. Four documents were claimed to be exempt in full pursuant to s35 as internal deliberative information and two documents were claimed to be partially exempt pursuant to s36 as containing personal information of another person.

Mr Burton sought external review. The Ombudsman found that exemptions under s35 should be varied and that exemptions under s36 were not made out.

On 20 September 2021, O made an assessed disclosure request under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to Digital Strategy and Services (DSS), a division of the Department of Premier and Cabinet (the Department). The information sought by O was every single email with her family surname and including the first names both her and her deceased sister. The request included any emails held by the Department but also extended to emails received or generated by the Department of Police, Fire and Emergency Management (DPFEM).

On 15 October 2021, the Department released information that it held but was unable to assist in relation to DPFEM information. O believed that metadata for emails of the whole state government was retained by DSS and could be accessed by the Department, but the Department advised that this was not correct. O sought internal review but the decision remained unchanged. She then sought external review.

The Ombudsman affirmed the Department’s decision and determined that  a sufficient search was undertaken in response to the request for assessed disclosure  and  the information sought by the applicant was not in the possession of the Department.

On 29 September 2020, the Honourable Member for Murchison, Ruth Forrest MLC, made an application for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to the Department of Justice (the Department). The information requested related to two development applications received by Waratah-Wynyard Council (Council) concerning a proposed development at 30B Old Bass Hwy, Wynyard. Ms Forrest’s application was transferred by the Department to Council as the request related more closely to Council’s functions. Council issued a decision on 4 November 2020.

On 13 January 2021, due to irregularities in the decision, Council issued a fresh decision to Ms Forrest. Council made some information available for inspection in accordance with s18(1)(a) of the Act and applied s35 to exempt other relevant information from disclosure.

Ms Forrest sought an external review of this decision. The Ombudsman determined that exemptions claimed pursuant to s35 were not made out and information was not exempt pursuant to s39.

On 23 June 2020, Westbury resident Ms Linda Poulton submitted an application for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to the Department of Justice (the Department) requesting information related to a proposed prison development at Westbury.

On 12 October 2020, Ms Poulton received a decision on her application for assessed disclosure and some information was released to her. Some other information was deemed to be partially exempt from disclosure pursuant to s39(1)(a) of the Act, as information provided in confidence. Some aspects of Ms Poulton’s application were also transferred to the then Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment in accordance with s14 of the Act. This decision was upheld on internal review.

Ms Poulton sought the external review of this decision by the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman determined that, while the Department did not claim information to be exempt under those provisions, exemptions pursuant to ss35 and 36 were applicable. He further determined that exemptions pursuant to s39 should be 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.

Mr Stephen Crothers identifies as a scientist, occupational hygienist and forensic investigator. On 11 October 2021, he applied to the Department of Health (the Department) under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) for assessed disclosure of information related to the COVID-19 pandemic.

On 15 February 2022, the Department released a decision to Mr Crothers, refusing his request under s20(b) of the Act, on the basis that the application was vexatious. Mr Crothers sought external review on 21 February 2022.

The Ombudsman determined that the Department was not entitled to refuse this application under s20(b) of the Act and directed the Department to assess the information requested for disclosure in accordance with the provisions of the Act.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.