RTI Decisions search

Date
Publication date
From
To
Section
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Public authority
Third party review
Reset Filters

Your search for Department of State Growth returned 6 results.

  • Adam Holmes and Department of State Growth

    Mr Adam Holmes is a journalist with the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. On 31 May 2024, he submitted an application for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to the Department of Premier and Cabinet seeking information regarding a proposed ‘Chocolate Experience’ tourism development.

    The Department of Premier and Cabinet transferred part of the application to Department of State Growth (the Department). On 19 September 2024, Mr Holmes sought external review as he had not received a decision within the statutory timeframe. A subsequent decision from the Department applied exemptions under ss35, 36, 37 and 39. Mr Holmes only sought external review of the application of s37 to one document.

    The Acting Ombudsman determined that exemptions claimed pursuant to s37 should be varied.

    Adam Holmes and Department of State Growth (PDF, 196.1 KB)
  • Selby Cooper and Department of State Growth

    On 31 October 2023, Mr Selby Cooper submitted an assessed disclosure application under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to the Department of State Growth (the Department). This application sought information concerning mobile speed cameras operating in Tasmania.

    The Department’s decision held that exemptions pursuant to ss30, 36 and 37 of the Act applied to the information responsive to Mr Cooper’s request. Mr Cooper sought external review of this decision.

    The Ombudsman determined that:

    • exemptions claimed pursuant to s36 are affirmed; and
    • exemptions claimed pursuant to ss30 and 37 are varied.
    Selby Cooper and Department of State Growth (PDF, 366.0 KB)
  • C and Department of State Growth

    C is a business owner with a strong professional interest in Tasmania’s timber resources.

    On 1 June 2024, C made an application for assessed disclosure under s13 of the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) seeking information concerning the management of special species timber, which was responded to by the Department of State Growth (the Department). On 24 July 2024, C sought external review on the grounds that they had not received a decision and the time for a decision to be provided had passed.

    On 22 August 2024, the Department issued a decision to C and applied ss27, 35 and 36 to exempt some information. It maintained this position on internal review, although some further information was released.

    C sought to continue with the external review and questioned the sufficiency of the Department’s searching.

    The Ombudsman determined:

    • exemptions claimed pursuant to ss27 and 36 were affirmed;
    • exemptions claimed pursuant to s35 were varied; and
    • the Department undertook a sufficient search for information.
    C and Department of State Growth (PDF, 232.7 KB)
  • Scott Bell and Department of State Growth

    Dr Scott Bell has an interest in environmental issues.  On 23 September 2021 he lodged an application for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) with the Department of State Growth (the Department) seeking information concerning a mining exploration licence issued to Kassem Holdings Pty Ltd for an area near Bridport.

    The Department released some information but relied upon ss35 (internal deliberative information), 36 (personal information), 37 (information relating to the business affairs of a third party) and 42 (information likely to affect the cultural, heritage or natural resources of the State) of the Act to exempt other information. Dr Bell sought internal review but the Department did not change its position. Dr Bell then sought external review.

    The Ombudsman determined that:

    • exemptions claimed pursuant to s35 were set aside;
    • exemptions claimed pursuant to ss36 and 37 were varied; and
    • exemptions claimed pursuant to s42 were upheld
    Scott Bell and Department of State Growth (PDF, 307.6 KB)
  • C and Department of State Growth

    On 28 August 2020, C filed a request for information under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) with the Department of State Growth (the Department) concerning Screen Tasmania’s funding of the Wild Things documentary.

    On 30 October 2020, C received a decision. Some information was released, some information was considered already publicly available and a substantial amount of information was considered to be exempt pursuant to ss 27, 30, 35, 37 and 39 of the Act. C sought internal review.

    On internal review, the Department released additional information to the applicant that had been claimed exempt under s30 but raised a new ground for exemption of other information, specifically, s38.

    C sought external review of this decision. The Ombudsman upheld the exemptions claimed by the Department pursuant to s27 and determined that the exemptions claimed pursuant to ss35, 37, 38 and 39 should be varied.

    C and Department of State Growth (PDF, 308.6 KB)
  • The Eaves Family and Department of State Growth

    On 2 September 2019, the Eaves family made an application for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to the Department of State Growth (the Department). The Eaves family sought information relating to the Department’s processes for assessing Expressions of Interest in relation to leasing a property in the Burnie area for the accommodation of the Department’s Transport Groups operations. On 20 November 2019, the Department released a decision to the Eaves family. It determined to release the information in part, with some information found to be exempt under ss35, 36, 37 and 39 of the Act.

    The Eaves family applied for internal review and sought answers to further questions. On 16 January 2021 the Department released its decision. While the Secretary of the Department did provide some further answers and clarification to the Eaves family, the Department relied on the same provisions of the Act to exempt the remaining information. The Eaves family then sought external review, though they did not contest the exemption of information under s36 of the Act.

    The Ombudsman determined that exemptions claimed pursuant to s35, 37 and 39 were varied.

    The Eaves Family and Department of State Growth (PDF, 404.7 KB)
Last updated: 8 October 2026