-
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)
-
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)
-
Damien Matcham and Department of Health
Mr Damien Matcham submitted an assessed disclosure application under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to the Department of Health (the Department) for information related to the closure of Greenpoint Medical Centre in Bridgewater.
On 9 February 2024 the Department issued a decision to Mr Matcham, finding that some information related to his request was exempt from disclosure pursuant to ss35 and 36 of the Act. This decision was affirmed on internal review.
Mr Matcham subsequently sought external review. The Ombudsman determined that the Department’s use of ss35 and 36 should be varied.
Damien Matcham and Department of Health (PDF, 204.5 KB)
-
Selby Cooper and Department of Health
On 10 November 2022, Mr Selby Cooper submitted an assessed disclosure application under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act), which was responded to by the Department of Health (the Department). This application requested information related to public health directions during the COVID-19 pandemic.
There was a complex history to Mr Cooper’s application, with multiple decisions, reconsiderations and fresh decisions. However, the Department eventually released some information and determined that some information responsive to Mr Cooper’s application was exempt from disclosure pursuant to s31, s35, and s36.
Mr Cooper sought an external review of exemptions applied and queried whether the Department’s search for information was sufficient.
The Ombudsman determined that:
- exemptions claimed pursuant to s31 were affirmed;
- exemptions claimed pursuant to s35 were set aside;
- exemptions claimed pursuant to s36 were varied; and
- the Department’s search for information was sufficient.
Selby Cooper and Department of Health (PDF, 287.4 KB)
-
Roland Browne and Department of Health
On 15 March 2023, Mr Roland Browne made an application for assessed disclosure to the Department of Health (the Department) under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) seeking information regarding helicopter operations at the Royal Hobart Hospital.
On 7 June 2023, the Department released a decision to Mr Browne, determining to release in full or in part 149 pages of information relevant to his request. It relied on exemptions pursuant to s27, s35 and s36 of the Act.
On 17 June 2023, Mr Browne sought internal review of the Department’s decision. The Department located and released a small amount of additional information, but largely maintained its position. Mr Browne sought external review.
The Ombudsman determined that:
- the exemption claimed pursuant to s27 was affirmed;
- the exemption claimed pursuant to s35 was set aside; and
- exemptions claimed pursuant to s36 were varied.
Roland Browne and Department of Health (PDF, 212.6 KB)
-
Stephen Crothers and Department of Health
Mr Stephen Crothers identifies as a scientist, occupational hygienist and forensic investigator. On 11 October 2021, he applied to the Department of Health (the Department) under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) for assessed disclosure of information related to the COVID-19 pandemic.
On 15 February 2022, the Department released a decision to Mr Crothers, refusing his request under s20(b) of the Act, on the basis that the application was vexatious. Mr Crothers sought external review on 21 February 2022.
The Ombudsman determined that the Department was not entitled to refuse this application under s20(b) of the Act and directed the Department to assess the information requested for disclosure in accordance with the provisions of the Act.
Stephen Crothers and Department of Health (PDF, 180.4 KB)
-
T and Department of Health
On 14 June 2023, T made a request to access his medical records. This request was taken to be an application for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) by the Department of Health (the Department).
The Department released 21 pages of information to T in full and found 53 pages to be partially exempt from release pursuant to s36 of the Act. This was on the basis that it was the personal information of third parties. T sought internal review, and the Department affirmed its decision regarding s36.
On 30 November 2023, T sought external review to Ombudsman Tasmania. The Ombudsman determined that the Department’s use of s36 of the act be varied, overturning the majority of applications of the exemption.
The Ombudsman also criticised the Department for initially offering to provide requested information far more quickly and without redactions if T’s legal representative made an undertaking that the requested information would not be used in litigation against the State. He emphasised that this approach is not in accordance with the Act.
T and Department of Health (PDF, 161.0 KB)
-
Gerry Willis and Department of Health
Mr Gerry Willis is a Furneaux Group resident who is interested in improving health outcomes for residents. On 24 January 2020, he made an application under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) for information regarding the Patient Travel Assistance Scheme operated by the Department of Health (the Department). On 18 September 2020, a decision was issued by the Department to release some of the information to him. This was in a different format to what Mr Willis sought. Mr Willis requested an internal review and, on 20 November 2020, the Department issued an internal review decision. It claimed the information which had not been released to date was exempt under s36 (personal information of a person). Mr Willis sought external review.
The Ombudsman determined that the majority of the information was not exempt under s36, but some of the data was validly exempt as patients could potentially be identified.
Gerry Willis and Department of Health (PDF, 159.0 KB)
-
R and Department of Health
On 29 January 2020, the applicant, R, sought access to information on her employment file under the Personal Information Protection Act 2004. Access was granted except for three pages. Through her lawyer, the applicant then sought access to these pages under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act).
The Department of Health did not release a decision within the required timeframe and R made an application for review under s45(1)(f) of the Act. On 11 September 2020, the Department released a decision which released some information but found part to be exempt under s35 (internal deliberative information). R sought internal review.
The internal review decision affirmed the exemption under s35 on a slightly different basis. R sought external review.
The Ombudsman determined that s35 applied but varied the use of the exemption.
R and Department of Health (PDF, 357.7 KB)
-
Alexandra Humphries and Department of Health
On 25 August 2022 Ms Alexandra Humphries, a journalist with the ABC, lodged an application for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) with the Department of Health (the Department). The request was for a report about procurements and contracting in the Hyperbaric Unit.
The original decision, released on 14 November 2022, identified a PowerPoint presentation prepared by Deloitte but disclosure was refused over the whole document as it was claimed to be exempt under s35 (internal deliberative information). The internal review decision of 17 February 2023 refused release under s18 due to a copyright argument and s39 in the alternative. In response to enquiries from the Ombudsman about whether refusal of an application under s18 was possible, the Department released a supplementary decision abandoning s18 but relying on s39 (information obtained in confidence) to exempt the PowerPoint as a whole.
The Ombudsman determined that the exemption claimed by the Department, pursuant to s39, was set aside.
Alexandra Humphries and Department of Health (PDF, 427.3 KB)
-
Clive Stott and Department of Health
On 13 June 2022 Mr Clive Stott lodged an application for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) with the Department of Health (the Department). The request was for information relating to the hospital wards in Tasmania that do not have air conditioning or ventilation installed.
On 25 July 2022 the Department provided a s19(2) notification indicating an intention to refuse the application on the basis that to process the request would substantially and unreasonably divert the resources of the public authority from its work. The notification offered the applicant five days in which to consult with the Department. Mr Stott responded the next day and sought to engage with the Department regarding how the ground of refusal under s19 could be removed. The Department did not respond and Mr Stott sought external review due to the Department’s delay in releasing a decision. A decision was released on 8 November 2022 refusing the application pursuant to s19. He sought internal review and the Department affirmed its decision on 24 February 2023. His external review was extended to a full external review following this decision.
The Ombudsman determined that the Department did not properly consult with the applicant as required under s19(2) and was therefore not entitled to rely on s19 to refuse Mr Stott’s application. The Department was directed to re-assess Mr Stott’s application in accordance with the provisions of the Act.
Clive Stott and Department of Health (PDF, 204.9 KB)
-
Camille Bianchi and the Department of Health
Ms Camille Bianchi is a freelance journalist who sought information from the Department of Health regarding the response to allegations of misconduct from its former employee at Ward 4K of the Launceston General Hospital, nurse James Griffin. The Department released a decision on 22 July 2020 on the 104 pages of information it located responsive to Ms Bianchi’s request, determining that all documents were exempt pursuant to ss35, 36 and 39 of the Right to Information Act 2009. Ms Bianchi then sought external review of this decision.
During the external review process, the Department reconsidered some of its proposed exemptions and located additional documents responsive to Ms Bianchi’s request, which had not previously been assessed.
The Ombudsman ordered that:
* Exemptions claimed by the Department under ss30 and 39 are not made out;
* Some information was validly exempt under s35 but the release of the majority was not contrary to the public interest;
* The personal information of patients, members of the public, Department staff raising concerns about Mr Griffin and Ward 4K staff was exempt under s36, except job titles for Ward 4K staff;
* The personal information of Mr Griffin, except his personal address, telephone number or date of birth, and the work related personal information of other Department staff, union representatives and consultants is not exempt under s36 and is to be released to Ms Bianchi; and
* Some documents were out of scope of the request or publicly available and not required to be released.
Camille Bianchi and the Department of Health (PDF, 298.0 KB)
-
Ivan Dean MLC and Department of Health
The Department proposed, in a regulatory impact statement (RIS), new laws regarding e-cigarettes, tobacco licensing and smoking. It published most submissions on the RIS, but not six marked confidential. Ivan Dean MLC applied for those six submissions. The Department refused to release them. On internal review, Mr Dean sought to narrow the scope of his application to submissions by tobacco companies. The Department contested his ability to do so, reviewed all six submissions and again refused to release any. The Ombudsman determined that: an applicant is entitled to limit the scope of information sought on internal review; and the one submission by a tobacco company should be released in full. Although marked 'Private and Confidential', the submission was not, in law, ‘communicated in confidence’. Nor would its release impair the Department's ability to obtain similar information in the future. Furthermore, non-disclosure would be antithetical to Australia’s international treaty obligations and to the public interest.
Ivan Dean MLC and Department of Health (PDF, 838.8 KB)
-
Richard Baines (ABC) and Department of Health and Human Services
The applicant sought information about a for-profit residential care provider, including payments made to it by the Department. On review the Ombudsman affirmed that much of the information was exempt under s27, s35, s36 and s39 of the Right to Information Act 2009 and that it was contrary to the public interest to disclose this information. Despite the claims of the Department, no information was found to be exempt under s37. However, some information was to be disclosed, including payments made by the Department to the provider, subject to redaction of identifying personal information, as well as factual information contained in information which might otherwise be exempt under s27(1) or s35(1) of the Act. The Department submitted that certain information could not be disclosed by virtue of either s16, s103 or s111A of the Children, Young Persons and their Families Act 1997 Act but the Ombudsman was not generally satisfied of this, considering that the Department was taking too broad a view of the purpose of that Act, although some information was found to be subject to s111A and was not to be disclosed.
Richard Baines (ABC) and Department of Health and Human Services (PDF, 1.8 MB)
-
Patrick Billings & the Department of Health and Human Services
On review, Mr Billings (a journalist on ‘The Mercury’ newspaper) requested the full Operational Review in relation to Ambulance Tasmania’s State Communications Centre power failure and shutdown in July 2015. The Ombudsman determined that parts of the Operational Review were subject to exemption under s35 of the Right to Information Act 2009 - internal deliberative document - and that it was contrary to the public interest to disclose this information.
Patrick Billings & the Department of Health and Human Services (PDF, 425.1 KB)
-
Patrick Billings and Department of Health and Human Services
Mr Billings (a journalist on ‘The Mercury’ newspaper) requested CCTV footage of an event at Ashley Youth Detention Centre in July 2016. The Ombudsman determined that the footage should not be released, as various exemption grounds under s30(1) of the Right to Information Act 2009 were satisfied. Under the Act, s30 exemptions are not subject to the public interest test at s33.
Patrick Billings and Department of Health and Human Services (PDF, 448.4 KB)