-
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)
-
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.
G and Department for Education, Children and Young People (PDF, 244.2 KB)
-
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.
J and Department for Education, Children and Young People (PDF, 233.8 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)
-
Robert Hogan and Department for Education, Children and Young People
On 4 May 2022, Mr Robert Hogan sought information through assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) regarding the 2019 decision made by the University of Tasmania to relocate its campus from Sandy Bay to central Hobart. The relevant part of his request regarding appointments to the University Council was assessed by the then Department of Education, now the Department for Education, Children and Young People (the Department).
On 4 July 2022, the Department released a decision to Mr Hogan, determining that no information relevant to the application was found. In response to Mr Hogan’s request for an internal review, the Department released 39 pages of information and applied s36 of the Act to exempt some personal information.
On 11 October 2022, Mr Hogan sought external review, which was accepted pursuant to s44(1) of the Act.
The Ombudsman determined that:
- exemptions claimed pursuant to s36 are varied; and
- while the Department initially did not undertake a sufficient search for information, by the conclusion of the external review it had taken appropriate steps to rectify the situation.
Robert Hogan and Department for Education, Children and Young People (PDF, 231.8 KB)
-
Peter Jacobson and Department for Education, Children and Young People
On 22 December 2022, Mr Peter Jacobson made an application to the Department for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) seeking information about his interactions with the Department.
The Department relied upon ss30, 31, 36 and 39 of the Act to exempt some information. Mr Jacobson sought internal review of this decision, but the Department maintained its position (though it released some additional information). Mr Jacobson sought external review.
The Ombudsman determined that:
* exemptions claimed pursuant to s30 were not made out;
* exemptions claimed pursuant to s31 were varied;
* exemptions claimed pursuant to s36 were affirmed; and
* exemptions claimed pursuant to s39 were not made out.
Peter Jacobson and Department for Education, Children and Young People (PDF, 297.8 KB)
-
V and the Department for Education, Children and Young People
V was previously employed by the Department of Communities Tasmania, now the Department for Education, Children and Young People (the Department), as a Child Safety Officer.
On 23 December 2020, V filed a request for information under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) with the Department. The request was for correspondence sent between various colleagues that related to V or contained his name. The Department held that s36 of the Act, and ss103(1) and 111A(1) of the Children Young Persons and Their Families Act 1997 applied to justify the non-disclosure of some information responsive to V’s application. V sought external review.
The Ombudsman determined that exemptions claimed by the Department pursuant to s36 of the Act should be varied.
V and the Department for Education, Children and Young People (PDF, 193.0 KB)
-
Peter Jacobson and Department for Education, Children and Young People
On 8 May 2021, Mr Jacobson made an application for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to what is now the Department for Education, Children and Young People (the Department). Mr Jacobson sought information relating to all records placed on his personal file in 2020 including letters, file notes and electronic records.
On 18 June 2021, the Department released a decision to Mr Jacobson, deciding to release some of the information, but finding other parts exempt under s36 (personal information of a person). It redacted names and work contact information. Mr Jacobson sought internal review. On 29 July 2021, the Department released an internal review decision which disclosed further information but primarily affirmed the original decision. Mr Jacobson then sought external review.
The Ombudsman determined that exemptions claimed pursuant to s36 should be varied.
Peter Jacobson and Department for Education, Children and Young People (PDF, 158.7 KB)
-
Jonathon Simonetis and Department for Education, Children and Young People
On 21 June 2019, Mr Jonathon Simonetis made an application for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to the Department for Education, Children and Young People (the Department). Mr Simonetis sought information relating to changes to the Department’s Procedures for Planning Off-Campus Activities relating to restrictions on students playing laser tag. On 4 September 2019, the Department released a decision to Mr Simonetis. It determined to release the information in part, with some information found to be exempt under ss27, 35 and 36 of the Act.
Mr Simonetis applied for internal review on 30 September 2019, questioning the validity of these exemption and whether there had been a sufficient search for information by the Department. On 31 October 2019 the Department released further information to Mr Simonetis but relied on the same provisions of the Act to exempt the remaining information. Mr Simonetis then sought external review of the Department’s application of exemptions.
The Ombudsman determined that exemptions claimed pursuant to s27, s35 and s36 should be varied.
Jonathon Simonetis and Department for Education, Children and Young People (PDF, 816.9 KB)
-
Suzanne Pattinson and Department of Education
On 11 September 2020, Ms Suzanne Pattinson made an application for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to the Department of Education (the Department). Ms Pattinson sought information relating to the Department’s management of the Rose Bay High School 2016 European School Tour and subsequent investigations. On 14 January 2021, the Department released a decision to Ms Pattinson. It determined to release the information in part, with some information found to be exempt under ss35 and 36 of the Act.
Ms Pattinson applied for internal review and on 4 March 2021 the Department released slightly more information to Ms Pattinson but relied on the same provisions of the Act to exempt the remaining information. Ms Pattinson then sought external review of the Department’s internal review decision. As part of her external review Ms Pattinson sought a review of whether there had been an insufficiency in searching for information by the Department.
The Ombudsman determined that:
- Exemptions claimed pursuant to s35 were varied;
- Exemptions claimed pursuant to s36 were varied; and
- The Department’s search for information was sufficient.
Suzanne Pattinson and Department of Education (PDF, 292.2 KB)
-
F and Department of Education
F and G are parents of a young son, A, who attended a school run by the Department of Education (the Department). F and G had concerns their son had been subjected to regular bullying by another boy, B. On 15 March 2018, F made an application under the Right to Information Act 2009 for information regarding A’s alleged bullying and the Department’s response to incidents and concerns raised by F and G.
On 14 June 2018, the Department released a decision to F which released some information and found the remainder to be exempt under ss27, 35 and 36. F sought internal review regarding the exemptions applied and disputing that all relevant documents had been located and assessed. On 9 August 2018, the Department released an internal review decision to F. It located and released some additional information, finding the remainder to be exempt for on the same bases as in the original decision. F sought external review, again disputing the exemptions applied and whether the Department had undertaken a sufficient search for information responsive to his request.
The Ombudsman determined that:
- Exemptions claimed pursuant to s27 were affirmed;
- Exemptions claimed pursuant to s35 were varied; and
- Exemptions claimed pursuant to s36 were affirmed.
He also determined that the Department did not conduct a sufficient search for information responsive to F’s request, but had taken appropriate steps to rectify the issues in searching by the conclusion of his external review.
F and Department of Education (PDF, 264.0 KB)
-
D, E and Department of Education
D applied for assessed disclosure from the Department of Education (the Department) of information concerning E, who is a former Departmental employee and the alleged perpetrator of child sexual abuse against D. D sought information held by the Department regarding E’s suspension from teaching duties, his subsequent reinstatement and any subsequent complaints. During the assessment of D’s application, the Department located a letter containing E’s personal information which was responsive to the request. The Department consulted E under s36(2), seeking his view on the potential disclosure of his personal information. E objected to the release of the information, but the Department proposed to release it in partially redacted form and maintained this view on internal review. E sought external review on 11 February 2019.
The Ombudsman determined that the exemption claimed by the Department under s36 should be varied, with E’s signature ordered to now be redacted in addition to his address, telephone number and email address. It is not contrary to the public interest to release the remainder of the document to D.
D, E and Department of Education (PDF, 206.1 KB)
-
Richard Baines and Department of Education
Mr Baines sought a range of information from the Department of Education in relation to a presentation that was to be held by Mr Steve Biddulph. Ultimately, the decision addressed whether information contained in Question Time Briefs (QTB) and Notices of Motion (NoM), among other things, could be exempt under s27 on the basis it was internal briefing information of a Minister.
Richard Baines and Department of Education (PDF, 650.7 KB)