Sort by
Your search returned 209 results.
-
Robert Hogan and Minister for Innovation, Science and the Digital Economy
Mr Robert Hogan has an interest in matters related to the University of Tasmania. On 4 December 2024, he made an application for assessed disclosure under s13 of the Right to Information Act 2009 (Tas) (the Act) to the former Minister for innovation, Science and the Digital Economy seeking information relating to the University of Tasmania (Protection of Land) Bill 2024.
On 29 January 2026 Mr Hogan received a decision on his assessed disclosure application. The Minister’s delegate identified 103 documents and relied on ss27, 31 and 39 to not release some of this information.
Mr Hogan sought external review of this decision by the Ombudsman, requesting a review of the use of these exemptions and the sufficiency of searching for relevant information.
The Ombudsman determined the:
- use of ss27 and 31 should be varied;
- use of s39 should be affirmed; and
- search for information was sufficient.
-
Nathanael Elcock and Kingborough Council
Mr Nathanael Elcock submitted an assessed disclosure application under the Right to Information Act 2009 (Tas) (the Act) to the Kingborough Council (the Council) requesting correspondence sent between Council staff.
The Council’s initial decision did not release any information, stating it was exempt from disclosure under ss35 and 36 of the Act. It also refused one aspect of his request under s19(1)(a). Mr Elcock sought internal review. On internal review, Council partially released 10 pages of information, redacting parts as exempt under ss35 and 36 of the Act. The internal review decision upheld the partial refusal under s19(1)(a).
Mr Elcock sought external review and the Ombudsman determined:
- section 19 did not apply;
- exemptions claimed pursuant to s35 were not made out;
- exemptions claimed pursuant to s36 should be varied.
-
M and Department of Justice
On 2 December 2024, the primary applicant in this matter submitted an assessed disclosure application under the Right to Information Act 2009 (Tas) (the Act) to the Department of Justice (the Department). This application sought access to all information relating to complaints, concerns and disputes involving M and associated corporations.
Pursuant to s37(2) of the Act, the Department consulted M to obtain their view as to whether the information should be released. Despite M’s objections, the Department decided that the information should be released. M subsequently sought external review of the Department’s decision, arguing that all information proposed to be released was exempt under ss30, 36 and 37.
The Ombudsman determined that the relevant information was not exempt, affirming the Department’s decision.
M and Department of Justice (PDF, 251.9 KB) -
Kelvin Derksen-Luelf and Department of Premier and Cabinet
Mr Kelvin Derksen-Luelf is an entrepreneur with a business within the Derwent Valley local government area. He submitted an application for assessed disclosure to Derwent Valley Council (Council) under the Right to Information Act 2009 (Tas) (the Act) seeking a copy of a statutory declaration submitted by a Council officer.
Council transferred the application to the Department of Premier and Cabinet (the Department) which applied exemptions under ss35, 36 and 39 to parts of the document. Mr Derksen-Luelf sought internal review. On internal review the Department maintained that information was exempt under ss35 and 36, no longer relied on s39 and released some further information.
Mr Derksen-Luelf sought external review and the Ombudsman determined:
- exemptions claimed pursuant to s35 were not made out; and
- information was exempt under s36.
-
Rosemary Schneider and Department of Health
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 (PDF, 215.6 KB) -
O & P and Department of Police, Fire and Emergency Management
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 (PDF, 288.6 KB) -
Q and Department for Education, Children and Young People
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 (PDF, 241.7 KB) -
R and Department of Police, Fire and Emergency Management
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.
-
Adam Holmes and Department of Premier and Cabinet
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.
-
J and TasTAFE
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.
-
Robert Hogan and University of Tasmania
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.
-
Kiera Salerno and Tasracing
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.
-
K and Department of Health
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 (PDF, 243.1 KB) -
Meg Webb and Department of Treasury and Finance
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.
-
H and The Department for Education, Children and Young People
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 (PDF, 280.9 KB) -
G and Department for Education, Children and Young People
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.
-
J and Department for Education, Children and Young People
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.
-
Malcolm Gardam and Devonport City Council
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.
-
Heather Barwick and George Town Council
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.
Heather Barwick and George Town Council (PDF, 169.6 KB) -
Kiera Salerno and Tasracing
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.
Kiera Salerno and Tasracing (PDF, 200.7 KB) -
Robert Hogan and University of Tasmania
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.
-
F and Department of Police, Fire and Emergency Management
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.
-
Jacqui Lambie and Department of Police, Fire and Emergency Management
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.
-
Adam Holmes and Department of State Growth
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.
Adam Holmes and Department of State Growth (PDF, 196.1 KB) -
Isla MacGregor and Department for Education, Children and Young People
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.
Isla MacGregor and Department for Education, Children and Young People (PDF, 291.9 KB)