-
Robert Hogan and University of Tasmania
On 25 January 2024, Mr Robert Hogan made an application to the University of Tasmania (the University) for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) seeking information regarding the minutes of meetings of the University Council.
The University released 71 pages of information in whole or in part and relied on ss35, 36, 37, 38 and 39 to exempt some information.
Mr Hogan sought internal review and the University made some small amendments but largely maintained its position. Mr Hogan then sought external review.
The Acting Ombudsman determined:
- exemptions claimed pursuant to ss35, 36, 37 and 38 were varied; and
- exemptions claimed pursuant to s39 were not made out.
Robert Hogan and University of Tasmania (PDF, 277.7 KB)
-
Robert Hogan and University of Tasmania
The applicant, Mr Hogan, had previously made three assessed disclosure applications under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to the University of Tasmania (the University) for information relating to the University’s campus move. All three applications were refused on the basis of s12(3)(c)(ii) of the Act that the requested information will become available, in accordance with a decision that was made before receipt of the application, as routine disclosure or required disclosure.
Mr Hogan made a further application for information under the Act for the for evidence demonstrating that a prior decision had in fact been made to release the information sought in the three original applications. His application was refused initially by the University and Mr Hogan sought internal review. An explanation but no information was provided in the internal review decision. Mr Hogan then sought external review.
The review was on the basis of s45(1)(e) and whether the University has conducted a sufficient searching for relevant information. In the course of the review, the University located a file note of the relevant decision and released this to Mr Hogan.
The Ombudsman found that the University initially did not undertake a sufficient search for information responsive to the assessed disclosure request. However, by the conclusion of the external review the University had taken appropriate steps to rectify the situation.
Robert Hogan and University of Tasmania (PDF, 299.6 KB)
-
Lee Moyle and University of Tasmania
Mr Lee Moyle was a volunteer Amateur Radio Assessor with the Australian Maritime College of the University of Tasmania (the University). On 26 April 2021, Mr Moyle applied to the University under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) for information held by the University relating to himself.
The University’s original decision determined that some information was exempt from release under sections 31 (legal professional privilege), 35 (internal deliberative information) and 36 (personal information). Mr Moyle sought internal review. On internal review the University affirmed its initial decision and provided additional reasons in relation to the application of ss35 and 36.
Mr Moyle sought external review of this decision. The Ombudsman found that the exemptions claimed pursuant to ss31, 35, and 36 should be varied.
Lee Moyle and University of Tasmania (PDF, 263.3 KB)
-
Robert Hogan and University of Tasmania
On 26 November 2022, Mr Robert Hogan made an application to the University of Tasmania (the University) for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act). Mr Hogan sought reports that the University relied upon in making its submissions regarding the merits of its decision to relocate its Sandy Bay Campus to the 2022 Tasmanian Legislative Council Select Committee Inquiry into the provisions of the University of Tasmania Act 1992.
On 23 February 2023, the University issued a decision to Mr Hogan, in which information was found to be exempt from disclosure ss35, 36, 37, 38 and 39 of the Act. Mr Hogan requested an internal review and the University upheld the earlier decision, however no longer relied on s38.
Mr Hogan applied for external review of the decision on 29 May 2020 and requested priority. The Ombudsman granted priority on the grounds that the matter was one of significant public interest and the time sensitive nature of raising objections to the campus move.
The Ombudsman determined that exemptions claimed pursuant to ss35, 36, 37 were not made out and the exemptions claimed under s39 were varied.
Robert Hogan and University of Tasmania (PDF, 315.6 KB)
-
Robert Hogan and the University of Tasmania
Mr Robert Hogan is opposed to the plan to relocate the campus of the University of Tasmania (the University) to central Hobart. On 23 August 2022, Mr Hogan made an application for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to the University for information relating to the STEM Precinct Business Case, including research and reports on which it was based, as well as the Southern Futures Business Case.
On 20 September 2022, the University released a decision to Mr Hogan. He was provided with some information but other information was found to be exempt under s35 of the Act. Mr Hogan sought internal review and, on 10 November 2022, the University released an internal review decision which affirmed the original decision. Mr Hogan sought external review of that decision.
The Ombudsman found that exemptions claimed by the University under s35 were not made out.
Robert Hogan and the University of Tasmania (PDF, 231.8 KB)
-
Robert Hogan and University of Tasmania
Mr Robert Hogan is opposed to the plan to relocate the campus of the University of Tasmania (the University) to central Hobart. On 24 March 2022, Mr Hogan made an application for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to the University for copies of the minutes of meetings of the University Council.
On 27 May 2022, the University released a decision to Mr Hogan. He was provided with some information but other information was found to be exempt under ss37 and 38 of the Act. Mr Hogan sought internal review and on 18 July 2022, the University released an internal review decision which affirmed the original decision. Mr Hogan sought external review of that decision.
The Ombudsman found that exemptions claimed by the University under s37 were not made out and those claimed under s38 were to be varied.
Robert Hogan and University of Tasmania (PDF, 267.4 KB)
-
Alexandra Humphries and University of Tasmania
The University of Tasmania purchased the former Fountainside, MidCity and Theatre Royal hotels in central Hobart and expressed its intention to convert the properties to student accommodation. Plans to convert the ‘Old Commerce Building’ in French Street, Sandy Bay to student accommodation were also reported in the media.
On 12 February 2019, Ms Alexandra Humphries, a journalist with the ABC, made an application to the University under the Right to Information Act 2009 for information regarding the purchase price of the Fountainside Hotel and business, refurbishment costs of the Fountainside, MidCity and Theatre Royal hotels, engineering reports regarding the French Street property and the amount the University paid in rates to the Hobart City Council. Except for an Occupancy Permit relating to the French Street property, the University did not disclose any information responsive to Ms Humphries’ request, claiming the information was exempt under s38(1)(ii). It maintained this position on internal review. Ms Humphries sought external review on 14 May 2019.
The Ombudsman determined that the University’s use of s38 should be varied and that its use of s39, in the alternative, was not made out. Some information regarding the refurbishment costs for the Fountainside and Theatre Royal hotels was found to be exempt under s38, but the Department had not discharged its onus under s47(4) to show why the remaining information should not be disclosed.
Alexandra Humphries and University of Tasmania (PDF, 232.9 KB)
-
Graham Gourlay and University of Tasmania
At the time of the request for information, Mr Gourlay was a student at UTAS. He had applied to the ethics committee for approval to undertake some research. The approval was denied. Mr Gourlay sought the names of the members of the ethics committee. The University denied this claiming it was exempt information under s36 and that the public interest test did not support its released. The Ombudsman overturned this decision.
Graham Gourlay and University of Tasmania (PDF, 1.0 MB)