Your search for
Section 27
returned 17 results.
-
Robert Hogan and Minister for Innovation, Science and the Digital Economy
Mr Robert Hogan has an interest in matters related to the University of Tasmania. On 4 December 2024, he made an application for assessed disclosure under s13 of the Right to Information Act 2009 (Tas) (the Act) to the former Minister for innovation, Science and the Digital Economy seeking information relating to the University of Tasmania (Protection of Land) Bill 2024.
On 29 January 2026 Mr Hogan received a decision on his assessed disclosure application. The Minister’s delegate identified 103 documents and relied on ss27, 31 and 39 to not release some of this information.
Mr Hogan sought external review of this decision by the Ombudsman, requesting a review of the use of these exemptions and the sufficiency of searching for relevant information.
The Ombudsman determined the:
- use of ss27 and 31 should be varied;
- use of s39 should be affirmed; and
- search for information was sufficient.
Robert Hogan and Minister for Innovation, Science and the Digital Economy (PDF, 227.8 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)
-
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)
-
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)
-
Christine Wright and Department of Police, Fire and Emergency Management
Ms Christine Wright is an employee of the Department of Police, Fire and Emergency Management (the Department). On 19 October 2022 she made an application to the Department for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) seeking information about herself contained in briefing notes to the Minister.
The Department relied upon s27 of the Act to exempt a small amount of information on the grounds that it constituted opinions contained in internal briefing information for a Minister. Ms Wright sought external review.
The Ombudsman determined that the exemptions claimed pursuant to s27 were varied.
Christine Wright and Department of Police, Fire and Emergency Management (PDF, 97.8 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)
-
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)
-
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)
-
Rebecca White MP and Minister Barnett, Minister for Resources, Minister for Building and Construction
The applicant sought four incoming ministerial briefs prepared for Minister Barnett upon his appointment as Minister for Resources and Minister for Building and Construction. The briefs were from the Department of State Growth and the Department of Justice. Minister Barnett decided the briefs were entirely exempt pursuant to s27 and/or s35. In relation to s27, Minister Barnett asserted that any factual information contained in the briefs could be located by other means such as departmental websites and annual reports. In relation to s35, the Minister argued that the public interest in protecting the deliberative process outweighed the public interest in release of the information. Ms White applied for external review, asserting that much of the information could not be publicly located. Ms White further submitted that the public interest test had been incorrectly applied in the decision.
The Ombudsman varied the Minister’s decision, determining that most of the information in the ministerial briefings was ‘purely factual information’ within the meaning of s27(4) and s35(2). As such, that information was not exempt and should be released to the applicant. A table overview of [then] ‘current prosecutions and significant investigations’ under the Work Health and Safety Act 2012 was now no longer: current; nor exempt under s30.
The Ombudsman agreed that some information was exempt under: s26(1)(d); s27; or (after applying the public interest test, only the name of the mother of a deceased worker) s36.
Rebecca White MP and Minister Barnett, Minister for Resources, Minister for Building and Construction (PDF, 3.2 MB)
-
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)
-
Michael Atkin and Tasmania Police
Mr Atkin, an ABC journalist, submitted a request to Tasmania Police seeking information in relation to the gun trafficking trade in Tasmania in February 2015. Nearly 300 pages of information were claimed exempt under a range of different sections given the sensitivity of the information. The application of the various sections was largely supported by this office with a few minor changes to Tasmania Police’s decision.
Michael Atkin and Tasmania Police (PDF, 1.1 MB)
-
Michael Atkin and Forestry Tasmania
After the 2014 state election, Mr Atkin, a Tasmanian-based journalist for the ABC at that time, submitted an application for assessed disclosure seeking information that covered emails and other briefings about FSC certification. This included an Incoming Government Briefing (IGB).
This primarily considers the exemption of the IGB and the decision of this office to release parts of it as purely factual information.
Michael Atkin and Forestry Tasmania (PDF, 1.3 MB)
-
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)
-
The Hon. Bryan Green MP and Department of Treasury and Finance
The applicant sought information about briefings the Department had prepared in relation to GST distribution as a result of the Australian Government budget. On review the Ombudsman affirmed that much of the information was exempt under s27, s35, and s36 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, names of staff who had prepared and cleared the briefings were not maintained as exempt.
The Hon. Bryan Green MP and Department of Treasury and Finance (PDF, 700.3 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)
-
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)