J was previously employed by the Department for Education, Children and Young People (the Department) at a school. On 18 January 2025, J made an application for assessed disclosure to the Department under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) seeking information relating to their employment.

The Department refused part of J’s application under s20(a) and relied on ss35 and 36 to exempt some other information.  J then sought internal review and subsequently external review when they had not received a decision within the relevant timeframe.

The Ombudsman determined that:

• the Department was not entitled to rely on s20(a) to refuse aspects of J’s request, as there was a reasonable basis for again seeking the information;
• exemptions claimed pursuant to s35 were varied;
• exemptions claimed pursuant to s36 were affirmed; and
• the Department conducted a sufficient search for information.

Mr Malcolm Gardam is a resident of the Devonport local government area.  On 21 February 2024, he submitted an application for assessed disclosure to Devonport City Council (Council) under s13 of the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) seeking information about the Waterfront Parkland Redevelopment.

Council relied upon s37 of the Act to exempt a contract with an external party and determined other information did not exist.  Council maintained this position on internal review and Mr Gardam sought external review.

The Ombudsman determined:

• exemptions claimed pursuant to s37 were varied; and
• Council had conducted a sufficient search for information.

Ms Heather Barwick is a resident of the George Town local government area and an elected member of George Town Council (Council).  On 27 August 2024, Ms Barwick submitted an application for assessed disclosure to Council under s13 of the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) seeking information relating to communication between Council and the Ombudsman.

Council identified one letter and relied on s35 of the Act to exempt some information.  Ms Barwick sought external review.

Council released some further information in a second decision, however again relied on s35 to exempt a small amount of information.

The Ombudsman determined that the exemption claimed pursuant to s35 was not made out.

On 25 October 2024, Ms Salerno submitted an assessed disclosure application to Tasracing. This application was subsequently refined to a request for Any videos sent to ORI [Office of Racing Integrity Tasmania] or relied upon when determining euthanasia of any greyhounds from July 2023.

On 5 December 2024, Tasracing issued a decision to Ms Salerno. Tasracing held that two of six videos identified as responding to Ms Salerno’s application were exempt from disclosure in full under s36 of the Act, on the basis that they contained the personal information of a person other than the applicant. This decision was affirmed on internal review.

Ms Salerno was not satisfied by Tasracing’s internal review and so sought external review by the Ombudsman on 2 January 2025. The Ombudsman decided that Tasracing’s use of s36 should be varied.

On 9 August 2024, Senator Jacqui Lambie made an application to the Department of Police, Fire and Emergency Management (the Department) for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act). She sought information regarding the investigation into the death of Ms Eden Westbrook.

The Department’s decisions held that exemptions pursuant to ss30, 35, 36 and 39 of the Act applied to the information related to Senator Lambie’s request. Senator Lambie sought external review.

The Acting Ombudsman determined that:

• exemptions claimed pursuant to s30(1)(b) and (d) were affirmed;
• exemptions claimed pursuant to ss35 and 36 were varied; and
• the Department’s search for information was sufficient.

On 28 March 2025, Ms Isla MacGregor submitted an assessed disclosure application under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to the Department for Education, Children and Young People (the Department). She sought information relating to the cancellation of Womenspeak Tasmania events at the Burnie Library on 21 March 2024 and Devonport Library on 7 April 2025.

On 13 March 2025, the Department issued a decision to Ms MacGregor, finding that some of the information relating to her request was exempt from disclosure pursuant to ss35 and 36 of the Act. This decision was affirmed on internal review.

Ms MacGregor sought external review. The Acting Ombudsman determined that the Department’s use of ss35 and 36 should be varied.

F submitted an application for assessed disclosure on 19 August 2024 under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to the Department of Police, Fire and Emergency Management (the Department). F sought information regarding allegedly fraudulent banking activities.

The Department did not identify any information responding to two parts of F’s request, however it did identify relevant information relating to the third part. The Department released some of this information, but found that exemptions under ss30, 35, and 36 of the Act, and s18 of the Telecommunications (Interception) Tasmania Act 1999, applied to the remainder. The Department affirmed its decision on internal review.

F sought external review. The Acting Ombudsman determined:

• exemptions claimed pursuant to ss30(1)(e) and 36 were upheld; and
• information was not exempt under the Telecommunications (Interception) Tasmania Act 1999, but was exempt under s30(1)(a)(ii) of the Act.

On 25 January 2024, 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) seeking information regarding the minutes of meetings of the University Council.

The University released 71 pages of information in whole or in part and relied on ss35, 36, 37, 38 and 39 to exempt some information.

Mr Hogan sought internal review and the University made some small amendments but largely maintained its position. Mr Hogan then sought external review.

The Acting Ombudsman determined:

• exemptions claimed pursuant to ss35, 36, 37 and 38 were varied; and
• exemptions claimed pursuant to s39 were not made out.

Mr Adam Holmes is a journalist with the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. On 31 May 2024, he submitted an application for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to the Department of Premier and Cabinet seeking information regarding a proposed ‘Chocolate Experience’ tourism development.

The Department of Premier and Cabinet transferred part of the application to Department of State Growth (the Department). On 19 September 2024, Mr Holmes sought external review as he had not received a decision within the statutory timeframe. A subsequent decision from the Department applied exemptions under ss35, 36, 37 and 39. Mr Holmes only sought external review of the application of s37 to one document.

The Acting Ombudsman determined that exemptions claimed pursuant to s37 should be varied.

On 21 November 2024, Mr James Davis submitted an assessed disclosure application to Circular Head Council (Council) under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act). Mr Davis requested information related to the proposed northern and western boundary consolidation and lease expansion of Stanley Caravan Park.

Council issued a decision to Mr Davis in three parts, redacting some information and releasing the remainder. Mr Davis sought internal review and then external review when a decision was not provided within the statutory timeframe. This request was accepted and Council was directed to provide better reasons for decision under s47(1)(n) of the Act. In these additional reasons it advised that it relied on exemptions under ss32, 36 and 37 of the Act.

Mr Davis only sought external review regarding Council’s use of exemptions under ss32 and 37 in a lease agreement, and whether Council’s search for information was sufficient.

The Ombudsman determined that:

• exemptions claimed pursuant to s32 did not apply;
• exemptions claimed by Council pursuant to s37 should be varied; and
• Council’s search for information was sufficient.

Mr Damien Matcham submitted an assessed disclosure application under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to the Department of Health (the Department) for information related to the closure of Greenpoint Medical Centre in Bridgewater.

On 9 February 2024 the Department issued a decision to Mr Matcham, finding that some information related to his request was exempt from disclosure pursuant to ss35 and 36 of the Act. This decision was affirmed on internal review.

Mr Matcham subsequently sought external review. The Ombudsman determined that the Department’s use of ss35 and 36 should be varied.

On 17 February 2024, Mr Graham Murray submitted an assessed disclosure application under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to City of Hobart (Council) requesting information relating to a briefing note which referenced him.

Council issued a decision to Mr Murray on 3 June 2024. Council’s decision set out that it refused aspects of Mr Murray’s application pursuant to ss10 and 19, and that it could not locate some information requested by Mr Murray. On 6 June 2024, Mr Murray sought external review of the decision and also raised concerns about the sufficiency of Council’s search for information.

The Ombudsman determined that Council was not entitled to rely on s19. He also determined that Council did not initially undertake a sufficient search but had taken appropriate steps to rectify this by the conclusion of the external review.

On 31 October 2023, Mr Selby Cooper submitted an assessed disclosure application under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to the Department of State Growth (the Department). This application sought information concerning mobile speed cameras operating in Tasmania.

The Department’s decision held that exemptions pursuant to ss30, 36 and 37 of the Act applied to the information responsive to Mr Cooper’s request. Mr Cooper sought external review of this decision.

The Ombudsman determined that:

• exemptions claimed pursuant to s36 are affirmed; and
• exemptions claimed pursuant to ss30 and 37 are varied.

Ms Sandwell is a representative of the accommodation booking platform Airbnb. On 24 July 2023, Ms Sandwell requested a range of information related to the City of Hobart’s (Council’s) decision to increase the rates payable for short stay accommodation in the Hobart municipal area.

This application was subject to various delays, however Council eventually determined to refuse aspects of Ms Sandwell’s application under s19. Council also decided that some requested information was exempt from disclosure pursuant to ss31, 32, 35, 38, 40, and 41 of the Act. Ms Sandwell sought external review.

The Ombudsman determined that:

• Council was not entitled to rely on s19 to refuse Ms Sandwell’s application;
• exemptions claimed pursuant to ss31, 32 and 35 should be varied; and
• exemptions claimed pursuant to ss38, 40 and 41 were not made out.

Mr Damien Matcham has a keen interest in the governance of Brighton Council (Council). On 10 April 2024, Mr Matcham submitted an assessed disclosure application to Council under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) requesting a broad range of information, most of which was related to the expenditure of public money by Council.

After assessing information responsive to Mr Matcham’s application, Council decided that some of the information requested was exempt from disclosure pursuant to ss32 and 36 of the Act.

Mr Matcham sought an external review of Council’s decision by the Ombudsman, who determined that:

• exemptions claimed pursuant to s32 were affirmed; and
• exemptions claimed pursuant to s36 were varied.

On 4 December 2024, the City of Launceston (Council) received an application for assessed disclosure under s13 of the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) in relation to correspondence sent from and received by Z’s email address at Council.

In accordance with s36(2) of the Act, Council sought Z’s view as to whether the information should be released.  Although Z objected to the release of the information, Council notified Z that it had decided to release the majority of the information, exempting some pursuant to ss31 and 36.

On 17 February 2025, Z submitted an application for external review. The Ombudsman determined that some additional information proposed by Council to be released was exempt from disclosure pursuant to s36 of the Act.

D is a victim-survivor who made a submission to the Commission of Inquiry into the Tasmanian Government’s Responses to Child Sexual Abuse in Institutional Settings.

On 11 September 2024, D contacted the Department of Justice (the Department) seeking other information provided to the Commission of Inquiry regarding their abuser.

The Department released some information but claimed another statement was exempt under ss36 and 39 of the Act.  D sought internal review and the Department largely maintained its position.  D then sought external review.

The Ombudsman determined that exemptions claimed pursuant to s39 were affirmed.

On 16 October 2023, the Honourable Meg Webb MLC made an application to the Department of Police, Fire and Emergency Management (the Department) for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act). She sought information regarding the investigation into the murder of Mr Robert Chappell.

The Department released 608 pages of information in whole or in part and relied on ss30, 31, 35 and 36 to exempt some information.

Ms Webb sought internal review and the Department released a small amount of additional information but largely maintained its position.  Ms Webb then sought external review.

The Ombudsman determined that exemptions claimed pursuant to ss30, 31, 35 and 36 were varied.

On 4 October 2024, Ms Louise Elliot submitted an application for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to the City of Hobart (Council) requesting information about Council motions and Executive Manager training workshops.

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 from its other work.  Ms Elliot 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.

Mr Damien Matcham is a longstanding resident of the Brighton municipal area and has an interest in the administration of Brighton Council (Council).

On 24 April 2024, Mr Matcham submitted an assessed disclosure application to Council under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) for information regarding payments to Council employees.

Council relied on s36 of the Act to exempt the release of the information responsive to this request. Mr Matcham sought external review.

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

On 10 November 2022, Mr Selby Cooper submitted an assessed disclosure application under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act), which was responded to by the Department of Health (the Department). This application requested information related to public health directions during the COVID-19 pandemic.

There was a complex history to Mr Cooper’s application, with multiple decisions, reconsiderations and fresh decisions. However, the Department eventually released some information and determined that some information responsive to Mr Cooper’s application was exempt from disclosure pursuant to s31, s35, and s36.

Mr Cooper sought an external review of exemptions applied and queried whether the Department’s search for information was sufficient.

The Ombudsman determined that:

• exemptions claimed pursuant to s31 were affirmed;
• exemptions claimed pursuant to s35 were set aside;
• exemptions claimed pursuant to s36 were varied; and
• the Department’s search for information was sufficient.

On 25 September 2023, Ms Ella Haddad MP submitted an application for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to the Department of Premier and Cabinet (the Department) requesting information in relation to workplace complaints.

The Department’s decision held that exemptions pursuant to ss30, 31, 36 and 39 of the Act applied to the information responsive to Ms Haddad’s request.

Ms Haddad sought external review of this decision. The Ombudsman determined that:

• exemptions claimed pursuant to s30 were not made out;
• exemptions claimed pursuant to s31 were upheld; and
• exemptions claimed pursuant to ss36 and 39 were varied.

On 30 January, 20 February and 14 March 2023, the Hon Meg Webb MLC made applications to the Department of Police, Fire and Emergency Management (the Department) under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act). She sought information regarding evidence used or tested in the murder investigation and trial of Ms Susan Neill-Fraser.

The Department combined the requests and initially refused them pursuant to s19 because they would substantially and unreasonably divert the resources of the Department from its other work.

Ms Webb sought internal review and the Department reassessed its decision and released some information. It relied on ss30, 31, 35 and 36 to exempt some other information.

Ms Webb then sought external review, questioning the exemptions applied and searching conducted by the Department.

The Ombudsman determined:

• exemptions claimed pursuant to ss30, 31, 35 and 36 were varied; and
• the Department conducted a sufficient search for information.

On 27 August 2024, the Environmental Defenders Office (EDO) submitted an assessed disclosure application under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to the Environment Protection Authority (EPA). It sought environmental management planning information that each Macquarie Harbour salmon farm environmental licence holder was required to submit to the EPA by 24 April 2024.

The EPA original decision deferred the release of the relevant draft plans pursuant to s17 of the Act. This original decision was upheld on internal review. The EDO sought external review.

Following early resolution efforts by Ombudsman Tasmania, the EPA issued a fresh decision in relation to the draft plan, finding the draft plan in its entirety was exempt pursuant to s37.

The Ombudsman determined that the exemptions claimed pursuant to s37 were set aside.

On 5 October 2023, Mr Jeff Briscoe submitted an assessed disclosure application under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to the City of Hobart (Council) requesting information relating to a funding campaign regarding a statue of Dr William Crowther.

Council issued a decision claiming that the relevant information was exempt pursuant to s31, as it was subject to legal professional privilege. Mr Briscoe sought external review contesting the application of s31 and the sufficiency of searching by Council.

During the external review process, Council decided to waive privilege and release the information to Mr Briscoe. It also undertook further searching and released further information located to Mr Briscoe.

The Ombudsman determined that Council 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 the external review.

Z is a senior officer of City of Launceston (Council).

On 27 September 2024, Council received an application for assessed disclosure under s13 of the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) seeking information concerning emails sent to and from Z’s official email account.

Pursuant to s36(2) of the Act, Council sought Z’s view as to whether the information should be released.  Although Z objected to the release on the grounds that the information was personal and unrelated to their official duties, Council notified Z that it had decided to release the majority of the information.

On 11 December 2024, Z sought external review. The Ombudsman determined that some information proposed by Council to be released was exempt from disclosure pursuant to s36 of the Act.

C is a business owner with a strong professional interest in Tasmania’s timber resources.

On 1 June 2024, C made an application for assessed disclosure under s13 of the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) seeking information concerning the management of special species timber, which was responded to by the Department of State Growth (the Department). On 24 July 2024, C sought external review on the grounds that they had not received a decision and the time for a decision to be provided had passed.

On 22 August 2024, the Department issued a decision to C and applied ss27, 35 and 36 to exempt some information. It maintained this position on internal review, although some further information was released.

C sought to continue with the external review and questioned the sufficiency of the Department’s searching.

The Ombudsman determined:

• exemptions claimed pursuant to ss27 and 36 were affirmed;
• exemptions claimed pursuant to s35 were varied; and
• the Department undertook a sufficient search for information.

On 10 August 2023, B submitted an assessed disclosure application under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to the Department of Police, Fire and Emergency Management (the Department) requesting information in relation to his re-entry into Australia in 2022.

The Department’s original decision held that exemptions pursuant to ss34, 35 and 39 of the Act applied to information responsive to B’s application. This original decision was upheld on internal review, with additional exemptions being applied pursuant to s30 of the Act.

B sought external review of these decisions. The Ombudsman determined that:

• exemptions claimed pursuant to ss30 and 39 were varied;
• exemptions claimed pursuant to ss34 and 35 were not made out; and
• exemptions pursuant to s36 were applied.

On 23 November 2023, Ms Kiera Salerno submitted an assessed disclosure application under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to Tasracing Pty Ltd requesting 8 items of information, which primarily related to a workplace dispute between Tasracing and the former General Manager of the Greyhound Adoption Program.

Tasracing’s original decision held that exemptions pursuant to ss30, 31, 35, 36 of the Act applied to information responsive to Ms Salerno’s application. It also set out that information responsive to particular aspects of Ms Salerno’s application could not be located. The original decision was upheld by Tasracing on internal review.

Ms Salerno sought external review. The Ombudsman determined that:

• exemptions claimed pursuant to s30 were affirmed;
• exemptions claimed pursuant to ss31, 35, and 36 were varied; and
• Tasracing’s search for information responsive to Ms Salerno’s assessed disclosure application was sufficient.

On 28 July 2023 Ms Rebecca White, the then leader of the State Opposition, submitted an assessed disclosure application under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to the Office of the Premier. Ms White requested copies of any correspondence to or from the Premier or his office about the proposed New Norfolk Distillery or Willow Court since 1 July 2022.

On 20 September 2023, Ms White sought external review under s45(1)(f) of the Act as she had not received a decision within the statutory timeframe.

On 31 October 2023, the Premier’s delegate issued a decision to Ms White. The Premier’s delegate identified 14 relevant documents and held that some of this information was exempt from disclosure pursuant to ss35, 36, and 39 of the Act.

Upon completing this external review, the Ombudsman determined that:

• exemptions claimed pursuant to ss35 and 39 were not made out; and
• exemptions claimed pursuant to s36 should be varied.

Mr Andrew McCullagh is an elected member of the Northern Midlands Council (Council).

On 19 April 2023, Mr McCullagh submitted an application for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to Council seeking information in relation to a planning application and other Council business.

Council applied ss30, 31 and 36 to exempt some information and maintained this position on internal review.  Mr McCullagh sought external review.

The Ombudsman determined:

• exemptions claimed pursuant to ss30 and 31 were not made out; and
• exemptions claimed pursuant to s36 were varied.

In June 2023, an agreement was made between the Department of Premier and Cabinet (the Department) and Font PR, a public relations company, for media liaison and support in the Office of the Premier. Concerns were raised regarding the possibility of inappropriate access to confidential information.

On 7 July 2023, Ms Rebecca White, then Leader of the Opposition, submitted an application for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to the Department seeking information regarding the appointment of Font PR.

On 20 September 2023, Ms White sought external review as the timeframe for a decision to be provided had elapsed.  The Department subsequently issued a decision and applied ss 31, 35, 36 and 39 to exempt some information.

The Ombudsman determined:

• exemptions claimed pursuant to ss31, 35 and 36 were varied; and
• exemptions claimed pursuant to s39 were not made out.

On 11 October 2023, the primary applicant in this matter submitted an assessed disclosure application under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) for the City of Launceston (Council)’s application for a Building Better Regions Fund grant (the BBRF application). Council decided that the BBRF application should be released, which included information about Creative Property Holdings (CPH).

On 8 January 2024, Mr Chris Billing sought external review of Council’s decision. Mr Billing is the director of CPH and held concerns that the release of the relevant information would be likely to expose CPH to a competitive disadvantage.

The Ombudsman required Council to consult with Mr Billing about the release of the BBRF application, as it had failed to do so in coming to its decision. Council conducted the required consultation with Mr Billing but nonetheless affirmed its decision to release the BBRF application.

The Ombudsman determined that some information in the BBRF application was exempt from disclosure pursuant to s37 of the Act, but that the remainder of the information, with the exception of a telephone number, should be released.

On 11 October 2023, the primary applicant in this matter submitted an assessed disclosure application under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to the City of Launceston (Council). This application sought Council’s application for the $10m Building Better Regions Fund grant (the BBRF application).

Pursuant to s37(2) of the Act, Council consulted Mr John Perry, Tasmania’s Coordinator-General, to obtain his view as to whether the BBRF application should be released.

Despite Mr Perry’s objections, Council decided that the BBRF application should be released. Mr Perry subsequently sought external review of Council’s decision.

The Ombudsman determined that some information within the BBRF application was exempt from disclosure pursuant to s37 of the Act. However, the Ombudsman found that neither ss38, 39 or 41 applied.

On 11 October 2023, the primary applicant in this matter submitted an assessed disclosure application under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) for the City of Launceston (Council)’s application for a Building Better Regions Fund grant (the BBRF application). Council decided that the BBRF application should be released, which included information about W, X and Y.

On 20 December 2023, W, X, and Y sought external review of Council’s decision by the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman required Council to consult with W, X, and Y about the release of the BBRF application, as it had failed to do so in coming to its decision. Council conducted the required consultation but nonetheless affirmed its decision to release the BBRF application.

The Ombudsman determined that some information in the BBRF application was exempt from disclosure pursuant to s37 of the Act, but that the remainder of the information, with the exception of a telephone number, should be released.

Mr Rick Snell is an Adjunct Associate Professor at the Law School of the University of Tasmania with an interest and expertise in the field of right to information law.

The Right to Information Uplift Project was initiated by the Tasmanian government to identify opportunities to improve the provision of right to information services by the Tasmanian State Service.

Mr Snell submitted an application for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to the Department of Premier and Cabinet (the Department) seeking a copy of a discussion paper produced by the Right to Information Uplift Project Steering Committee.  The Department applied s35 of the Act to exempt some information and maintained this position upon internal review.  Mr Snell sought external review.

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