-
Z and City of Launceston
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.
Z and City of Launceston (PDF, 172.3 KB)
-
Z and City of Launceston
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.
Z and City of Launceston (PDF, 191.7 KB)
-
Chris Billing and City of Launceston
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.
Chris Billing and City of Launceston (PDF, 206.2 KB)
-
John Perry and City of Launceston
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.
John Perry and City of Launceston (PDF, 299.3 KB)
-
W, X, Y and City of Launceston
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.
W, X, Y and City of Launceston (PDF, 257.8 KB)
-
Warren Davis and City of Launceston
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.
Warren Davis and City of Launceston (PDF, 155.9 KB)
-
Don Allen and City of Launceston
On 16 March 2021, an application for assessed disclosure was made under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to the City of Launceston (Council) for information relating to the development of a car park site in Paterson Street, Launceston. The site is partly owned by Car Parks Super Pty Ltd, a director of which is Mr Don Allen. Council consulted with Mr Allen under s37(2) of the Act as a third party to the application for information. Mr Allen did not agree to the release of the information.
On 10 June 2021, Council information Mr Allen of its decision to release the information to the applicant. Mr Allen sought internal review of this decision. By August 2021, no internal review decision had been made and Mr Allen sought external review.
On 21 April 2023, Council issued an internal review decision notifying Mr Allen that it proposed to release four emails in part, after applying exemptions under s36 (personal information of a person) and s37 (information relating to business affairs of a third party). On 9 May 2023, Mr Allen advised that he sought a full external review, objecting to the release of parts of one email and submitting that all of that email should be exempt pursuant to ss36 and 37.
The Ombudsman determined that the information that Mr Allen sought to be exempt from release was not exempt pursuant to ss36 or 37.
Don Allen and City of Launceston (PDF, 181.7 KB)
-
Robin Smith and City of Launceston No.1
Mr Robin Smith is the owner of a small business in Launceston’s Brisbane Street Mall. He has a keen interest in how the City of Launceston (Council) is conducting its City Heart project. On 16 January 2019, Mr Smith submitted a request for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to Council. He sought 11 types of information relating to Council’s use of resources and actions in relation to the project.
After negotiations with Mr Smith, Council released a decision on 6 February 2019, refusing all aspects of his application pursuant to s19 of the Act. Council determined that the work involved in providing the information requested would substantially and unreasonably divert the resources of Council from its other work. Following an application for internal review from Mr Smith, Council released a further decision on 26 April 2019, which affirmed the original decision. Mr Smith applied for external review of the decision.
The Ombudsman determined that:
- Council’s reliance on s19 was reasonable in relation to the broad and imprecise parts of Mr Smith’s request and it was entitled to refuse those parts of his request; and
- Council was not entitled to refuse the more confined parts of Mr Smith’s request pursuant to s19. Council was directed to assess the information responsive to these parts of Mr Smith’s request in accordance with the provisions of the Act.
Robin Smith and City of Launceston No.1 (PDF, 185.8 KB)
-
Robin Smith and City of Launceston No. 2
Mr Robin Smith is the owner of a small business in Launceston’s Brisbane Street Mall. He has a keen interest in how the City of Launceston (Council) is conducting its City Heart project. On 11 April 2019, Mr Smith submitted a request for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to Council. He sought 33 types of information relating to Council’s use of resources and actions in relation to the project.
On 16 May 2019 the Principal Officer of Council released a decision to Mr Smith, refusing all aspects of his application pursuant to s20(a) of the Act. Council determined that the information was the same or similar to information sought in previous applications by Mr Smith and that his current application did not disclose any reasonable basis for again seeking access to the information. Mr Smith applied for external review of the decision.
The Ombudsman determined that:
- Council had applied and interpreted s20(a) too broadly in relation to the majority of the items of information sought and it was to assess those parts of Mr Smith’s application in accordance with the provisions of the Act;
- Council was entitled to refuse, pursuant to s12(3)(c)(i), four parts of Mr Smith’s application; and
- Council was not required to respond to Item 29 of Mr Smith’s request, as it posed a clarifying question rather than seeking information already in existence.
Robin Smith and City of Launceston No. 2 (PDF, 250.3 KB)
-
Robin Smith and Launceston City Council
Mr Smith applied to Council for assessed disclosure of a wide variety of information regarding its City Heart redevelopment project. Council released some information and claimed some exemptions. This review concerned Mr Smith's request for '(3) Total expenditure on community engagement for City Heart planning.'
Council had decided this sought information not in its possession, but which would require analysis to produce. Council submitted that analysis was needed to extract and cost the time of its in-house staff and other Council resources spent on the community engagement / consultation.
Before the Ombudsman's decision, Council (consistently with s12) undertook analysis to produce answers to questions 3 and 4 of Mr Smith's request, annexed to the decision.
At Council's request, the Ombudsman made a determination. He ultimately concluded that, in undertaking its analysis to produce accurate answers to Mr Smith’s questions 3 and 4, Council (consistently with s12) went above and beyond its duty under s18(3). It was commended for doing so.
Robin Smith and Launceston City Council (PDF, 647.1 KB)
-
Robin Smith and Launceston City Council
On 21 March 2018, Mr Robin Smith submitted an application for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 to the Launceston City Council (Council). His application sought information relating to 15 specific questions regarding the City Heart development.
After scope negotiations with Mr Smith, Council’s General Manager, Mr Michael Stretton, released a decision on 11 April 2018, refusing Mr Smith’s application pursuant to s19 of the Act as it found that providing the information requested would substantially and unreasonably divert its resources from its other work.
Mr Smith requested an external review of Council’s decision. After discussions with Council, it agreed to re-consult with Mr Smith to remove any confusion, providing him with its responses to the matters in Schedule 3 in clear terms.
Mr Smith refined his application, and the matter was returned to Council for it to process the remaining balance of his application for assessed disclosure pursuant to the process set out in Division 2 of Part 2 of the Act. No determination was required from the Ombudsman, as the matter had resolved.
Robin Smith and Launceston City Council (PDF, 88.5 KB)
-
Christine Smart and City of Launceston
Ms Smart requested information relating to the legal costs incurred by Council in relation to her property, specifically her fence line that bordered an alleyway, that had historically been there for decades. A review of the boundaries identified the discrepancy and Ms Smart was asked to correct it.
Ms Smart's application for assessed disclosure sought the amount of legal costs incurred by Council after she challenged Council's decision. This matter primarily looks at whether or not the legal costs incurred constitute privileged information.
Christine Smart and City of Launceston (PDF, 1.1 MB)
-
Timothy Baird and Launceston City Council
Mr Baird requested information relating to the City of Launceston's plan to upgrade the Sea Port Boardwalk. Specifically, Mr Baird sought information leading to the appointment of Darcon Pty Ltd as the successful tenderer.
This decision considered the points of 'competitive disadvantage' under s37 and the balance between public interest and deliberative information.
Timothy Baird and Launceston City Council (PDF, 689.3 KB)