-
Andrew Hunter and Department of Natural Resources and Environment Tasmania
Mr Andrew Hunter is Campaigns Manager for Birdlife Australia, a bird conservation not-for-profit organisation. On 14 April 2023, he made an application for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) seeking information from the Department of Natural Resources and Environment Tasmania (the Department) regarding conversion or exchange orders of future potential production forest land to permanent timber production zone land.
On 14 June 2023, the Department released a decision to Mr Hunter, determining that the 88 pages of information relevant to his request was exempt in full pursuant to section 26 of the Act (cabinet information). On 12 July 2023, Mr Hunter sought external review of the Department’s decision.
The Ombudsman determined that:
- exemptions claimed pursuant to s26 were varied; and
- information was exempt under s35.
Andrew Hunter and Department of Natural Resources and Environment Tasmania (PDF, 236.5 KB)
-
Huon Aquaculture and Department of Natural Resources and Environment
The Department of Natural Resources and Environment (the Department) received an application for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) from a not-for-profit organisation. The information responsive to the request included information that related to Huon Aquaculture Group Pty Ltd (Huon) and salmon mortality in its operations in Macquarie Harbour.
In accordance with s37(2) of the Act, the Department contacted Huon seeking its view on whether the information should be released. Huon’s position was that the information should be exempt under s37 of the Act and therefore requested the information not be released to the original Applicant.
The Department made a decision to release the information sought, but in an aggregated form combined with data from the two other major salmon farming companies operating in Macquarie Harbour. Huon sought internal review but the Department maintained its position.
On 9 August 2024, Huon sought external review. The Ombudsman determined that the relevant information was not exempt pursuant to s37 of the Act and should be released to the original applicant.
Huon Aquaculture and Department of Natural Resources and Environment (PDF, 229.9 KB)
-
Emma Hamilton and Department of Natural Resources and Environment Tasmania
In 2019 the Tasmanian Government announced plans to build a prison on Birralee Road in Westbury in Tasmania’s north. Ms Emma Hamilton is a Westbury resident opposed to the construction of this prison.
On 25 June 2020, Ms Hamilton submitted an application for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to the Department of Natural Resources and Environment Tasmania, then known as the Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and the Environment (the Department), requesting information related to the transfer of a property on Birralee Road in Westbury from the Crown to the Tasmanian Land Conservancy.
In its original decision, the Department redacted information responsive to Ms Hamilton’s application pursuant to ss26, 31, and 36. The Department’s original decision was affirmed on internal review.
On external review, the Ombudsman determined that:
- exemptions claimed pursuant to ss26, 31 and 36 should be varied; and
- information is exempt pursuant to s35.
Emma Hamilton and Department of Natural Resources and Environment Tasmania (PDF, 358.0 KB)
-
Linda Poulton and Department of Natural Resources and Environment Tasmania
In 2019 the Tasmanian Government announced plans to build a prison on Birralee Road in Westbury, Tasmania. Ms Linda Poulton is a Westbury resident opposed to the construction of this prison.
On 18 August 2020, Ms Poulton submitted an application for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to the then Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment, now the Department of Natural Resources and Environment Tasmania (the Department), requesting information related to the transfer of a Birralee Road property from the Crown to Tasmanian Land Conservancy.
In its original decision, the Department found information responsive to Ms Poulton’s application exempt from disclosure, in full or in part, pursuant to ss27, 31 and 36. On internal review, the Department again found that these exemption provisions applied to exempt, in full or in part, to information responsive to Ms Poulton’s application.
On external review, the Ombudsman determined:
- exemptions claimed pursuant to s27 should be affirmed;
- exemptions claimed pursuant to ss31 and 36 should be varied; and
- exemptions under s35 apply.
Linda Poulton and Department of Natural Resources and Environment Tasmania (PDF, 195.3 KB)
-
Tarkine National Coalition and Department of Natural Resources and Environment Tasmania
On 13 November 2019, the Tarkine National Coalition (Tarkine) made an application for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to the Department. Tarkine sought information regarding arrangements between the mining company, Venture Minerals Ltd, and the Department, particularly with regard to the Save the Devil program. Also, information regarding any proposed amendment or variation to Venture Mineral’s Environmental Permit and any Environmental Protection Notice
On 17 January 2020, the Department issued a Decision to Tarkine, in which some information was released and some information was found to be exempt from disclosure. The Department relied on ss27, 31, 35, 36, 37 and 39 of the Act. The applicant requested an internal review and the Department consented to release a further small amount of information but for the most part upheld its earlier decision. Tarkine applied for external review of the decision on 30 March 2020. Tarkine did not seek review regarding the use of s27 of the Act and certain personal information under s36.
The Ombudsman determined that exemptions claimed pursuant to ss31, 35, 36, 37 and 39 were varied.
Tarkine National Coalition and Department of Natural Resources and Environment Tasmania (PDF, 446.5 KB)
-
Woolnorth Wind Farm Holding Pty Ltd and Department of Natural Resources and Environment
On 7 August 2019, the now the Department of Natural Resources and Environment (the Department) accepted a request for information under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) from a journalist in relation to bird strikes at wind farms. A search of the records in the Department’s possession identified some information in relation to Woolnorth Wind Farm Holding Pty Ltd (Woolnorth). The Department consulted with Woolnorth pursuant to section 37(2) of the Act and Woolnorth objected to the disclosure of certain information, claiming it was exempt under ss36 and 37. The Department notified Woolnorth on 13 September 2019 that it had decided to release all the relevant information in their possession except for information that it considered exempt under s36. Woolnorth agreed to the release of some information but sought internal review of the decision based on concerns that the release of certain photographs of bird strikes would harm its competitive position. Woolnorth believed that the information should be exempt under s37 of the Act. On 4 October 2019, the Department released an internal review decision which upheld the original decision that determined s37 did not apply. Woolnorth sought external review and the Ombudsman determined that the information was not exempt pursuant to s37.
Woolnorth Wind Farm Holding Pty Ltd and Department of Natural Resources and Environment (PDF, 215.9 KB)
-
Rosalie Woodruff MP and Department of Natural Resources and Environment Tasmania
Dr Rosalie Woodruff MP has been the Tasmanian Greens Member for Franklin since 2015. She raised concerns about the Ocean Monarch drilling rig’s presence in Hobart in late 2018/early 2019. On 19 December 2018, Dr Woodruff lodged an application for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) with the former Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment (DPIPWE), now the Department of Natural Resources and Environment Tasmania (the Department). She sought information regarding the Ocean Monarch drilling rig.
The Department released a decision on 26 March 2019, refusing all aspects of Dr Woodruff’s application pursuant to s19 of the Act. The Department determined that the work involved in providing the information requested would substantially and unreasonably divert its resources from its other work. Following an application for internal review, the Department released a further decision on 7 May 2019, which affirmed the original decision. Dr Woodruff applied for external review of the decision.
The Ombudsman determined that the Department was entitled to refuse, pursuant to s19, to provide information in relation to Dr Woodruff’s application.
Rosalie Woodruff MP and Department of Natural Resources and Environment Tasmania (PDF, 152.4 KB)
-
Blue Derby Pods Ride Pty Ltd and the Department of Natural Resources and Environment Tasmania
On 31 January 2020, an applicant made an application for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to the now Department of Natural Resources and Environment Tasmania (the Department). A Lease and Business Licence Agreement (the Agreement) between Blue Derby Pods Ride Pty Ltd (Blue Derby) and the Department was responsive to this request. The Department consulted with Blue Derby pursuant to section 37(2) of the Act and Blue Derby objected to the disclosure of information in the Agreement.
The Department notified Blue Derby on 17 March 2020 that it had decided to release the majority of the Agreement except for some information it considered exempt pursuant to s37. Blue Derby sought internal review of this decision based on concerns the release of the information would reveal trade secrets and harm its competitive position. Blue Derby believed the information should be exempt pursuant to ss37 and 39. On 21 April 2020, the Department released an internal review decision which upheld its original decision and determined that s39 was not relevant. Blue Derby then sought external review of this decision.
The Ombudsman determined that:
- Exemptions claimed pursuant to s37 were not made out; and
- Exemptions claimed pursuant to s39 were varied.
Blue Derby Pods Ride Pty Ltd and the Department of Natural Resources and Environment Tasmania (PDF, 191.9 KB)
-
Todd Dudley and Department of Natural Resources and Environment Tasmania
Mr Todd Dudley, the president of the North East Bioregional Network Inc., made an application on 18 August 2018 under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to the Department of Natural Resources and Environment (the Department) seeking information regarding the environmental impact of proposed mountain bike tracks in the St Helens area. The Department located nine pages of information responsive to his request and made a decision on 3 December 2018 to redact parts of the information pursuant to ss35 and 36. Mr Dudley sought internal review and the Department’s internal review decision of 29 March 2019 affirmed its original decision. Mr Dudley then sought external review on the bases that the exemptions claimed were not valid and that there had been an insufficient search for information responsive to his request.
The Ombudsman determined that:
- The Department’s search for information was sufficient; and
- Exemptions claimed by the Department pursuant to ss35 and 36 were not made out.
Todd Dudley and Department of Natural Resources and Environment Tasmania (PDF, 226.6 KB)
-
Cassy O’Connor MP and the Department of Natural Resources and Environment Tasmania
Ms Cassy O’Connor MP made a request for information under the Right to Information Act 2009 to the Department of Natural Resources and Environment (the Department) in May 2018, seeking copies of Reserve Activity Assessments (RAAs) regarding proposed developments in Tasmanian national parks and reserves. On 3 April 2019, the Department released a decision to Ms O’Connor regarding the RAA for the Maydena Bike Park and decided that it was exempt in full pursuant to ss36, 37 and 39. Ms O’Connor sought external review and the Department was directed to undertake an internal review. On 10 May 2019, the Department released a further decision which also exempted all the relevant information in full pursuant to s39 (or s37 in the alternative).
The Ombudsman considered that the majority of the 184 page RAA should be released, except for 15 pages which were actually likely to expose the Maydena Bike Park proponent to competitive disadvantage. Accordingly, he determined that:
*Exemptions claimed pursuant to s39 were not made out; and
*Exemptions claimed pursuant to s37 were varied.
Cassy O’Connor MP and the Department of Natural Resources and Environment Tasmania (PDF, 238.0 KB)
-
Cassy O’Connor MP and Department of Natural Resources and Environment Tasmania
Ms Cassy O’Connor MP made a request for information under the Right to Information Act 2009 for correspondence regarding the health and welfare of animals being transported on the Spirit of Tasmania vessels. She refined her request to restrict it to correspondence between the Department of Natural Resources and Environment (the Department), TT-Line Pty Ltd and the office of the Minister for Primary Industries, following an indication from the Department that her request was likely to be refused, due to it being a substantial and unreasonable diversion of resources from its other work, unless this occurred. On 29 March 2019, the Department released a decision to Ms O’Connor in which it found that eight pages of information were responsive to her request and all were exempt from release pursuant to s30. Ms O’Connor sought external review under s45(1)(e), on the grounds that she believed an insufficient search for information had been carried out, due to the very small quantity of information assessed. The Ombudsman directed the Department conduct an internal review under s47(1)(f) and its fresh decision affirmed the finding of the original delegate, that the information responsive was exempt under s30, and refuted that there was any insufficiency of searching.
On external review, the Ombudsman determined that the Department had conducted a sufficient search for information responsive to Ms O’Connor’s request. He noted, however, that the issues raised on external review may have been resolved through more consistent communication with Ms O’Connor and a broader interpretation of the scope of her request by the Department.
Cassy O’Connor MP and Department of Natural Resources and Environment Tasmania (PDF, 152.0 KB)
-
Simon Cameron and Department of Natural Resources and Environment Tasmania
Mr Simon Cameron owns a sheep farming property in central Tasmania. Allegations were made against his farm manager by officers of the then Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment, now the Department of Natural Resources and Environment Tasmania (the Department), regarding whether the management of feral deer was in breach of the Wildlife (General) Regulations 2010. This eventually led to the farm manager lodging a complaint against the Department with the Integrity Commission and an investigation by the Department into whether misconduct had been committed by its officers. Mr Cameron made an application in November 2017 for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) seeking the investigation report and associated documentation. The Department released a decision on 12 December 2017, finding all 766 pages found to be responsive to the request were exempt from disclosure under ss30, 31, 35, 36 and 39 of the Act. Mr Cameron then sought external review of this decision.
The Ombudsman determined that:
- Exemptions claimed pursuant to s30 were primarily not made out, but some information was validly exempt under s30(1)(a)(ii);
- Exemptions claimed pursuant to s31 were upheld; and
- Some information was validly exempt under ss35, 36 and 39 but the release of the remainder was not contrary to the public interest.
Simon Cameron and Department of Natural Resources and Environment Tasmania (PDF, 497.8 KB)
-
C and Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment
In May 2018, C made an application to the Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment (the Department) for assessed disclosure, seeking copies of commercial filming agreements and drone use approved between 1 January 2013 and 21 May 2018 in the Arthur-Pieman Conservation Area. Consultation occurred with the commercial flying agreement applicants under s36(2) and s37(2). Following this consultation, the names and personal information relating to some entities applying for filming were redacted under s36, as well as the personal information of some Departmental staff. C sought external review of this decision.
The Ombudsman determined that the Department’s use of s36 should be varied. Some personal information of contact people listen on the commercial filming applications was validly exempt, but the Department had not discharged its onus under s47(4) to show why the names and Australian Business Numbers of some commercial entities, and the personal information of some Departmental staff, should be exempt under s36.
C and Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment (PDF, 182.5 KB)
-
Rhiana Whitson and Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment
Ms Whitson (a journalist for the ABC) sought information from the Department about the death of 16 polo ponies in January 2018 which were transported on the Spirit of Tasmania ferry. The Department refused to provide any information responsive to the request, considering it fully exempt pursuant to s30(1)(a) of the Right to Information Act 2009, as information relating to the enforcement of the law, on the basis of an ongoing investigation and potential prosecutions relating to the incident. Since the Department’s original decision, charges have been laid under the Animal Welfare Act 1993 in relation to the incident and their prosecution remains ongoing.
The Ombudsman predominantly upheld the Department’s decision but found that some information was not exempt, consistent with a previous external review decision in Mandy Squires and Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment (March 2019). This information was nonetheless not required to be provided to Ms Whitson, as it was otherwise available under s12(3)(c)(i).
Rhiana Whitson and Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment (PDF, 162.3 KB)
-
Rudra Sharma and Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and the Environment
Mr Sharma has had ongoing interactions with the Land Titles Office in relation to his property in Sandy Bay. There was an adverse decision not to approve something Mr Sharma sought and he subsequently submitted a request for the information relating to that decision.
The Department refused the release of the information on the basis it formed internally deliberative material and the public interest test did not support its release. The Ombudsman found this was not fully correct and he varied the decision.
The common issues with this decision relate to proper consideration of use of s35 and the public interest test.
Rudra Sharma and Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and the Environment (PDF, 1.5 MB)
-
Richard Webb and Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water, and the Environment
Mr Webb sought information from the Department in relation to the development proposal on Halls Island, Lake Malbena. The request sought a range of information that primarily included some leases for Halls Island and some documents to the relevant Minister.
One of the core parts of this review was whether or not the two leases sought for Halls Island was information obtained in confidence as claimed by the Department. The Ombudsman overturned this in full on the basis the Department's own lease documents could not constitute information obtained in confidence that, if released, would impair its ability to obtain similar information in the future.
Richard Webb and Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water, and the Environment (PDF, 1.5 MB)
-
Nick McKim and Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water, and the Environment
In June 2014, the Tasmanian Government called for expressions of interest for developments in Tasmanian national parks. Senator McKim requested the proposed locations these developments in November 2014. The Department claimed this information was exempt as it was obtained in confidence and that it was not in the public interest to release it to the public. The Ombudsman overturned this decision and the list was released to Senator McKim.
Nick McKim and Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water, and the Environment (PDF, 6.0 MB)
-
Environment Tasmania and Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and the Environment
Environment Tasmania asked the Department to provide a range of information about fin-fish farming around Tasmania. The first response was a possible refusal under s19. This was due to the size and complexity of what has been sought. The scope was revised and focused on a smaller sub-set of information about Okehampton Bay. The Department refused its release claiming it would expose a third party to competitive disadvantage under s37. The Ombudsman set this decision aside. While s37 might have been able to apply, it did not satisfy the public interest test.
Environment Tasmania and Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and the Environment (PDF, 2.5 MB)
-
Mandy Squires and Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water, and the Environment
Ms Squires (a journalist with NewsCorp) sought information from the Department about the death of 16 ponies on the Spirit of Tasmania. This was a serious incident and sparked a lot of interest among the media and the public. This is an interesting matter in that a strong public interest does not necessarily guarantee release of information in the right circumstances. The Department relied on exemptions due to enforcement of the law, third party business information, and information obtained in confidence. The decision only upholds those exemptions relating to the enforcement of the law and overturns the others.
Mandy Squires and Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water, and the Environment (PDF, 2.2 MB)
-
Rosalie Woodruff MP and the Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water, and the Environment
In an original application, Ms Woodruff requested information from the Department in relation to four fin-fish farming organisations. The Department originally applied s19 and appropriately offered Ms Woodruff an opportunity to revise her application.
Ms Woodruff did this, cutting the application down to just one of those companies. Once that decision was completed, Ms Woodruff then submitted two additional applications - each one dealing with one of the three remaining companies removed from her original application. The Department refused this under s20 claiming it a repeat application.
Rosalie Woodruff MP and the Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water, and the Environment (PDF, 2.5 MB)
-
Huon Aquaculture Group Pty Ltd and Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment
On 7 November 2013, an application for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) was received by the Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment (the Department) from Tassal Operations Pty Ltd (Tassal). Tassal sought information relating to Huon Aquaculture Group Pty Ltd (Huon) and any interaction it has had with wildlife. A large number of documents were collated and the Department consulted with Huon pursuant to section 37(2) of the Act. Huon was advised that while some information was deemed exempt under the Act, the Department had decided to release a significant amount of information.
Huon sought an internal review, and the internal review decision was made on 16 July 2014. While further information was exempted, the Department’s internal review decision still proposed to release the majority of the relevant information. Huon continued to object to this and sought an external review.
The external review relates to exemptions claimed under ss37, 39 and 42 of the Act.
The Ombudsman determined that:
- Exemptions claimed pursuant to s37 were varied; and
- Exemptions claimed pursuant to ss39 and 42 were affirmed.
Huon Aquaculture Group Pty Ltd and Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment (PDF, 1.4 MB)
-
Laura Kelly, on behalf of Environment Tasmania and the Environment Protection Agency
Environment Tasmania requested information about Huon Aquaculture’s Lonnavale Hatchery and its effect on the Russell River. Some information was released but the EPA considered that all other information was exempt under s39(1) of the Right to Information Act 2009 (Information obtained in confidence) in the first instance because it had been voluntarily provided by Huon. On review the Ombudsman determined that none of the remaining information was exempt under s39(1) as disclosure of the information would not be reasonably likely to impair the ability of a public authority or Minister to obtain similar information in the future: s39(1)(b). However, much of the information was found to be exempt under s37(1) (Information relating to business affairs of third party) and, whilst it was contrary to the public interest to release raw monitoring data, the Ombudsman determined that it was not contrary to release all other information.
Laura Kelly, on behalf of Environment Tasmania and the Environment Protection Agency (PDF, 1.6 MB)
-
Michael Atkin and Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and the Environment
Mr Atkin (a journalist with the ABC) requested information in relation to a fish mortality event in Macquarie Harbour that occurred between 1 December 2014 and 28 February 2015. Some laboratory report information as to the probable cause of the fish mortality event was released by the Department on internal review. The Ombudsman determined that information relating to the reporting of the fish mortality event by the relevant enterprise to the Department was exempt under s37 of the Right to Information Act 2009 but that, in terms of s33, it was not contrary to the public interest to disclose this. By contrast, whilst the remaining laboratory report information was exempt under s39, it was contrary to the public interest to disclose any further information from this report.
Michael Atkin and Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and the Environment (PDF, 974.8 KB)
-
Michael Atkin and Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Wildlife and the Environment
Mr Atkin (a journalist with the ABC’s 7.30 Report) requested information concerning a third party’s mussel enterprise, including personal information. The Ombudsman determined that the remaining undisclosed information was exempt in accordance with s27, s35 and s36 of the Right to Information Act 2009. On considering the public interest, the Ombudsman found that the s35 information should remain exempt, whist in the unusual circumstances of this case, it was not contrary to the public interest to disclose the personal information in question.
Michael Atkin and Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Wildlife and the Environment (PDF, 500.8 KB)