K was employed by the Department of Health (the Department) in a management role. A union representative applied under the Right to Information Act 2009 for access to a workplace culture review report concerning K’s team. The Department determined to release the report in full.

K objected, submitting that the report was exempt in its entirety under s36 (personal information) as it contained personal information, that their identity was reasonably ascertainable and that disclosure would harm their mental health, reputation and employment prospects. The Department maintained that the report was not exempt and that disclosure was in the public interest.

On external review, the Ombudsman determined that the majority of the report could be released but that some information was exempt under s36.

K and Department of Health (( Mar 2026) (PDF File, 243.1 KB)

H requested information from the Department for Education, Children and Young People (the Department) under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) regarding an investigation into childhood sexual abuse allegations.

On 21 May 2025, the Department issued its original decision to H. It found some information was exempt personal information under s36 of the Act, some information was not permitted to be released under the Children, Young Persons and Their Families Act 1997. This decision was affirmed on internal review.

H was not satisfied by the Department’s decisions and sought external review. The Ombudsman determined that the Department’s use of s36 should be varied.

H and The Department for Education, Children and Young People (( Feb 2026) (PDF File, 280.9 KB)

G was employed by the Department for Education, Children and Young People (the Department) as a teacher.  Allegations of inappropriate physical contact with students were made and G was suspended from their role. G submitted an application for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) seeking information regarding this suspension.

The Department released some information and relied upon ss6 and 35 to exclude or exempt some information. G sought internal review.  Upon internal review the Department no longer relied on s6, however applied ss31, 35 and 36 to exempt some information.  G then sought external review.

The Ombudsman determined that:

• exemptions claimed pursuant to ss31 and 36 were varied; and
• exemptions claimed pursuant to s35 were not made out.

G and Department for Education, Children and Young People (( Jan 2026) (PDF File, 244.2 KB)

The Honourable Meg Webb MLC is the Member for Nelson in the Legislative Council.  On 3 June 2024, she submitted an application for assessed disclosure under s13 of the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to the Department of Treasury and Finance (the Department). She sought information relating to the proposed universal player card gambling system for poker machines.

The Department relied on ss31, 35, 36 and 37 of the Act to exempt some information. Ms Webb sought internal review and the Department largely maintained its position on internal review.  Ms Webb sought external review.

The Ombudsman determined:

• exemptions claimed pursuant to ss31, 35 and 36 were varied; and
• the exemption claimed pursuant to s37 was not made out.

Meg Webb and Department of Treasury and Finance (( Mar 2026) (PDF File, 259.3 KB)

Ms Kiera Salerno lodged an assessed disclosure application under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) with Tasracing seeking information related to the Greyhounds as Pets program.

Tasracing’s decided that some information relating to Ms Salerno’s application was exempt from disclosure pursuant to ss30 and 38 of the Act. Ms Salerno sought internal review and Tasracing affirmed its decision. Ms Salerno sought external review.

The Ombudsman determined that:

• exemptions claimed under s30 should be varied; and
• exemptions claimed under s38 were not made out.

Kiera Salerno and Tasracing (( May 2026) (PDF File, 258.3 KB)

Mr Robert Hogan is a member of the community who has an interest in actions of the University of Tasmania (the University). On 23 September 2024, he made an application to the University for assessed disclosure under s13 of the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) seeking information relating to communications between the University and the Australian Labor Party.

The University identified 174 documents and relied on ss35, 36, 37 and 38 of the  Act to exempt some information. Mr Hogan sought internal review.

On internal review the University identified some further documents, and maintained its reliance on ss35, 36 and 37 but no longer relied on s38. Mr Hogan sought external review, querying the use of exemptions and the sufficiency of searching for relevant information.

The Ombudsman determined;

• exemptions claimed pursuant to ss36 and 37 were varied;
• exemptions claimed pursuant to s35 were not made out; and
• a sufficient search for information was ultimately conducted.

Robert Hogan and University of Tasmania (( Jan 2022) (PDF File, 236.6 KB)

Q submitted an assessed disclosure application under the Right to Information Act 2009 (Tas) (the Act) to the Department for Education, Children and Young People (the Department). They sought information relating to a complaint they had made as a child while in State care.

Though some information was released to Q, the Department decided that some requested information should be withheld under of the Act and s16 of the Children Young Persons and Their Families Act 1997 (Tas). Q sought internal review and the Department did not alter its decision.

Q was not satisfied the Department’s decision and so sought external review. The Ombudsman decided that the Department’s use of s36 should be varied.

Q and Department for Education, Children and Young People (( Jun 2026) (PDF File, 241.7 KB)

On 24 September 2024, Mr Adam Holmes submitted an assessed disclosure application under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to the Department of Premier and Cabinet (the Department). He requested information related to legal fees charged to the government.

On 27 September 2024, the Department issued its original decision to Mr Holmes. The Department relied on s22(4) of the Act to neither confirm nor deny the existence of relevant information.

Mr Holmes sought internal review, and the Department altered its position. It continued to rely on s22(4) in relation to part of the requested information, but it released other information in part. Exemptions were also claimed under ss31 and 36.

Mr Holmes sought external review. The Ombudsman determined:

• exemptions claimed pursuant to ss30, 31 and 36 should be varied; and
• exemptions under s39 apply.

Adam Holmes and Department of Premier and Cabinet (( Jun 2026) (PDF File, 348.6 KB)

On 11 February 2025, R made an application for assessed disclosure to the Department of Police, Fire and Emergency Management (the Department) under the Right to Information Act 2009 (Tas) (the Act). The application sought information related to a police family violence order.

The Department’s delegate held that some information sought by R was exempt from disclosure under ss30, 35, 36 and 39 of the Act. R sought internal review and the decision was upheld.

R sought external review. The Ombudsman determined:

• exemptions claimed pursuant to ss30(1)(d), 35, 36 and 39 were varied; and
• exemptions claimed pursuant to s30(1)(e) were affirmed.

R and Department of Police, Fire and Emergency Management (( Jun 2026) (PDF File, 209.5 KB)

On 26 November 2024, J made an application for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (Tas) (the Act) to TasTAFE. They requested information related to the processes and procedures followed in terminating their employment at TasTAFE.

On 16 April 2025, TasTAFE’s then Chief Executive Officer issued a decision to J, finding the relevant information was exempt from disclosure pursuant to s31 of the Act.

J was not satisfied by this decision and sought external review by the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman determined:

• exemptions claimed pursuant to s31 should be varied;
• exemptions pursuant to s35 apply.

J and TasTAFE (( Jun 2026) (PDF File, 266.7 KB)

The Department of Health (the Department) received an application for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (Tas) (the Act) from a member of the community. The relevant information included personal information of Dr Schneider.

In accordance with s36(2) of the Act, the Department sought Dr Schneider’s view on whether the information should be released. She raised some concerns but the Department decided that the majority of the information could be released to the original applicant.

Dr Schneider sought internal review and the Department maintained its decision. Dr Schneider then sought external review. The Ombudsman determined that some additional information was exempt under s36 of the Act but the remainder could be released to the original applicant.

Rosemary Schneider and Department of Health (( Jul 2026) (PDF File, 215.6 KB)

O and P requested information from the Department of Police, Fire and Emergency Management (the Department) under the Right to Information Act 2009 (Tas) (the Act) regarding an alleged property theft.

On 27 March 2025, the Department issued its original decision to both applicants. This found relevant information partially exempt under ss30, 35, 36 and 39 of the Act. The applicants sought internal review and the Department maintained its findings.

The applicants sought external review and the Ombudsman determined that exemptions claimed under ss35 and 36 should be varied. He further determined that it was not necessary to review exemptions claimed under ss30 or 39 beyond indicating that they were not applicable to information to be released.

O & P and Department of Police, Fire and Emergency Management (( Jul 2026) (PDF File, 288.6 KB)