-
Graham Murray and City of Hobart
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.
Graham Murray and City of Hobart (PDF, 282.5 KB)
-
Heidi Sandwell and City of Hobart
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.
Heidi Sandwell and City of Hobart (PDF, 388.2 KB)
-
Louise Elliot and City of Hobart
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.
Louise Elliot and City of Hobart (PDF, 257.0 KB)
-
Jeff Briscoe and City of Hobart
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.
Jeff Briscoe and City of Hobart (PDF, 171.9 KB)
-
Graham Murray and City of Hobart
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.
Graham Murray and City of Hobart (PDF, 457.8 KB)
-
Daniel Winston and City of Hobart
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.
Daniel Winston and City of Hobart (PDF, 218.7 KB)
-
Carlo Di Falco and City of Hobart
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.
Carlo Di Falco and City of Hobart (PDF, 179.6 KB)
-
Carlo Di Falco and City of Hobart (No. 2)
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.
Carlo Di Falco and City of Hobart (No. 2) (PDF, 174.1 KB)
-
Mount Wellington Cableway Company and City of Hobart
Mount Wellington Cableway Company (MWCC) sought to construct a cable car on kunanyi/Mt Wellington, which evoked strong views within the Tasmanian community.
The City of Hobart (Council) received three applications for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) from the primary applicant on 31 December 2019 and 21 January 2020. Some of the information identified by Council as being responsive to these applications was provided to Council by MWCC. Council consulted with MWCC under s37(2) of the Act to seek its input as to whether this information should be released. MWCC did not provide any input and on 7 April 2023 Council notified MWCC that it had decided to release this information to the primary applicant.
On the same day MWCC wrote to Ombudsman Tasmania to seek an external review of Council’s decision, on the basis that the release of requested information provided to Council by MWCC would cause it a competitive disadvantage.
The Ombudsman determined that this information was not exempt from disclosure pursuant to s37 of the Act.
Mount Wellington Cableway Company and City of Hobart (PDF, 171.4 KB)
-
Graham Murray and City of Hobart
Mr Murray is a supporter of the proposed cable car development on Kunanyi/Mt Wellington. Mr Murray was concerned that Tasmanian media outlets were provided unauthorised access to a Ministerial Authority permitting the construction of this cable car. Mr Murray had in his possession information that showed that this Ministerial Authority was scanned from a multi-functional machine within the Hobart Town Hall on 2 March 2019.
On 5 April 2019, Mr Murray submitted an application for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to the City of Hobart (Council). He requested, among other items of information, Town Hall access logs from 2 March 2019.
On 20 September 2019, Council issued a decision to Mr Murray which determined that all information identified as being responsive to this request was exempt from disclosure under s36 of the Act. As this decision was made by Council’s principal officer, there was no internal review process available.
On 18 October 2019, Mr Murray submitted an application for external review of Council’s decision regarding the access logs. The Ombudsman determined that the exemption claimed by Council pursuant to s36 of the Act was not made out.
Graham Murray and City of Hobart (PDF, 146.3 KB)
-
Ari Zaetz and City of Hobart
On 6 March 2019, Mr Zaetz applied for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 with the then Hobart City Council, now City of Hobart (Council). The information requested was about the Council’s tender process for the development of a pay-by-phone application for on street car parking. EasyPark ANZ Pty Ltd (EasyPark) was awarded the contract and the information sought by Mr Zaetz was the contract between Council and EasyPark and the procurement documents. Council consulted with EasyPark pursuant to s37(3) in assessing the application for information.
On 8 April 2019, Council released the procurement documents but claimed exemption over the contract between Council and EasyPark, pursuant to s39. On 28 June 2019 the internal review decision was released, in which Council’s position changed from relying on s39 to reliance on s37 (information relating to the business affairs of the third party). Further information in the contract was released but significant portions remained redacted.
The Ombudsman determined that the exemptions claimed by Council pursuant to s37 should be varied, with information in only four clauses found to be exempt.
Ari Zaetz and City of Hobart (PDF, 162.3 KB)
-
Graham Murray and City of Hobart
Mr Graham Murray is a supporter of the proposal to construct and operate a cable car on kunanyi/Mount Wellington in Hobart. On 22 August 2018, Mr Murray submitted a request for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to the City of Hobart (Council). He sought information on a range of issues regarding the cable car project.
On 27 September 2018, Council released a large amount of information to Mr Murray, but refused to assess part of his application under s10 and claimed a further 324 pages were exempt pursuant to ss31, 35, 36 and 39. A second decision was released on 24 October 2018, following consultation under s36(2), and a further part of Mr Murray’s request was refused under s19. A final decision was released on 9 November 2018, which released further information and refused the remaining part of Mr Murray’s request, as there was no recognised list of ‘cable car or anti cable car websites’ to enable the information to be collated. Mr Murray then sought external review of all of Council’s decisions.
The Ombudsman determined that:
- He had no power to review Council’s decision under s10 and it remained unchanged;
- Council’s use of s19 was affirmed;
- Council’s use of section 31 was varied;
- Council’s use of s35 was varied;
- Council’s use of s36 was affirmed; and
- Council's use of s39 was varied.
Graham Murray and City of Hobart (PDF, 255.9 KB)
-
Ms Louise Grahame and City of Hobart
Louise Grahame ran a stall at the Salamanca Market. Conflict between Ms Grahame and a number of other stallholders saw complaints made to the Council, which manages the market, by other stallholders about Ms Grahame. She sought copies of these complaints and emails relating to her and the market. The Council released a large amount of information but exempted in full or part various documents it claimed were internal deliberative information or information obtained by Council in confidence. It also redacted some personal information. The Ombudsman determined that most of the information was not exempt, including the identities of stallholders who had made complaints about Ms Grahame. While the latter was personal information, the public interest, including reasons of procedural fairness, entitled Ms Grahame to know the identities of those who had complained about her. However, a complainant's argument that their telephone number and personal email address were exempt information was upheld.
Ms Louise Grahame and City of Hobart (PDF, 13.4 MB)
-
Mr Simeon Thomas-Wilson and City of Hobart
The information at issue was whether information contained in a memorandum of Council constituted legal professional privilege under s31. This was in response to Council seeking legal advice relating to the Facebook parody page, "Hobart City Council".
Mr Simeon Thomas-Wilson and City of Hobart (PDF, 124.7 KB)