Your search for
Section 30
returned 36 results.
-
M and Department of Justice
On 2 December 2024, the primary applicant in this matter submitted an assessed disclosure application under the Right to Information Act 2009 (Tas) (the Act) to the Department of Justice (the Department). This application sought access to all information relating to complaints, concerns and disputes involving M and associated corporations.
Pursuant to s37(2) of the Act, the Department consulted M to obtain their view as to whether the information should be released. Despite M’s objections, the Department decided that the information should be released. M subsequently sought external review of the Department’s decision, arguing that all information proposed to be released was exempt under ss30, 36 and 37.
The Ombudsman determined that the relevant information was not exempt, affirming the Department’s decision.
M and Department of Justice (PDF, 251.9 KB)
-
R and Department of Police, Fire and Emergency Management
On 11 February 2025, R made an application for assessed disclosure to the Department of Police, Fire and Emergency Management (the Department) under the Right to Information Act 2009 (Tas) (the Act). The application sought information related to a police family violence order.
The Department’s delegate held that some information sought by R was exempt from disclosure under ss30, 35, 36 and 39 of the Act. R sought internal review and the decision was upheld.
R sought external review. The Ombudsman determined:
- exemptions claimed pursuant to ss30(1)(d), 35, 36 and 39 were varied; and
- exemptions claimed pursuant to s30(1)(e) were affirmed.
R and Department of Police, Fire and Emergency Management (PDF, 209.5 KB)
-
Adam Holmes and Department of Premier and Cabinet
On 24 September 2024, Mr Adam Holmes submitted an assessed disclosure application under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to the Department of Premier and Cabinet (the Department). He requested information related to legal fees charged to the government.
On 27 September 2024, the Department issued its original decision to Mr Holmes. The Department relied on s22(4) of the Act to neither confirm nor deny the existence of relevant information.
Mr Holmes sought internal review, and the Department altered its position. It continued to rely on s22(4) in relation to part of the requested information, but it released other information in part. Exemptions were also claimed under ss31 and 36.
Mr Holmes sought external review. The Ombudsman determined:
- exemptions claimed pursuant to ss30, 31 and 36 should be varied; and
- exemptions under s39 apply.
Adam Holmes and Department of Premier and Cabinet (PDF, 348.6 KB)
-
Kiera Salerno and Tasracing
Ms Kiera Salerno lodged an assessed disclosure application under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) with Tasracing seeking information related to the Greyhounds as Pets program.
Tasracing’s decided that some information relating to Ms Salerno’s application was exempt from disclosure pursuant to ss30 and 38 of the Act. Ms Salerno sought internal review and Tasracing affirmed its decision. Ms Salerno sought external review.
The Ombudsman determined that:
- exemptions claimed under s30 should be varied; and
- exemptions claimed under s38 were not made out.
Kiera Salerno and Tasracing (PDF, 258.3 KB)
-
F and Department of Police, Fire and Emergency Management
F submitted an application for assessed disclosure on 19 August 2024 under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to the Department of Police, Fire and Emergency Management (the Department). F sought information regarding allegedly fraudulent banking activities.
The Department did not identify any information responding to two parts of F’s request, however it did identify relevant information relating to the third part. The Department released some of this information, but found that exemptions under ss30, 35, and 36 of the Act, and s18 of the Telecommunications (Interception) Tasmania Act 1999, applied to the remainder. The Department affirmed its decision on internal review.
F sought external review. The Acting Ombudsman determined:
- exemptions claimed pursuant to ss30(1)(e) and 36 were upheld; and
- information was not exempt under the Telecommunications (Interception) Tasmania Act 1999, but was exempt under s30(1)(a)(ii) of the Act.
F and Department of Police, Fire and Emergency Management (PDF, 206.3 KB)
-
Jacqui Lambie and Department of Police, Fire and Emergency Management
On 9 August 2024, Senator Jacqui Lambie made an application to the Department of Police, Fire and Emergency Management (the Department) for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act). She sought information regarding the investigation into the death of Ms Eden Westbrook.
The Department’s decisions held that exemptions pursuant to ss30, 35, 36 and 39 of the Act applied to the information related to Senator Lambie’s request. Senator Lambie sought external review.
The Acting Ombudsman determined that:
- exemptions claimed pursuant to s30(1)(b) and (d) were affirmed;
- exemptions claimed pursuant to ss35 and 36 were varied; and
- the Department’s search for information was sufficient.
Jacqui Lambie and Department of Police, Fire and Emergency Management (PDF, 353.3 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)
-
Meg Webb and Department of Police, Fire and Emergency Management
On 16 October 2023, the Honourable Meg Webb MLC made an application to the Department of Police, Fire and Emergency Management (the Department) for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act). She sought information regarding the investigation into the murder of Mr Robert Chappell.
The Department released 608 pages of information in whole or in part and relied on ss30, 31, 35 and 36 to exempt some information.
Ms Webb sought internal review and the Department released a small amount of additional information but largely maintained its position. Ms Webb then sought external review.
The Ombudsman determined that exemptions claimed pursuant to ss30, 31, 35 and 36 were varied.
Meg Webb and Department of Police, Fire and Emergency Management (PDF, 239.1 KB)
-
Meg Webb and Department of Police, Fire and Emergency Management
On 30 January, 20 February and 14 March 2023, the Hon Meg Webb MLC made applications to the Department of Police, Fire and Emergency Management (the Department) under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act). She sought information regarding evidence used or tested in the murder investigation and trial of Ms Susan Neill-Fraser.
The Department combined the requests and initially refused them pursuant to s19 because they would substantially and unreasonably divert the resources of the Department from its other work.
Ms Webb sought internal review and the Department reassessed its decision and released some information. It relied on ss30, 31, 35 and 36 to exempt some other information.
Ms Webb then sought external review, questioning the exemptions applied and searching conducted by the Department.
The Ombudsman determined:
- exemptions claimed pursuant to ss30, 31, 35 and 36 were varied; and
- the Department conducted a sufficient search for information.
Meg Webb and Department of Police, Fire and Emergency Management (PDF, 252.5 KB)
-
Ella Haddad and Department of Premier and Cabinet
On 25 September 2023, Ms Ella Haddad MP submitted an application for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to the Department of Premier and Cabinet (the Department) requesting information in relation to workplace complaints.
The Department’s decision held that exemptions pursuant to ss30, 31, 36 and 39 of the Act applied to the information responsive to Ms Haddad’s request.
Ms Haddad sought external review of this decision. The Ombudsman determined that:
- exemptions claimed pursuant to s30 were not made out;
- exemptions claimed pursuant to s31 were upheld; and
- exemptions claimed pursuant to ss36 and 39 were varied.
Ella Haddad and Department of Premier and Cabinet (PDF, 206.1 KB)
-
B and Department of Police, Fire and Emergency Management
On 10 August 2023, B submitted an assessed disclosure application under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to the Department of Police, Fire and Emergency Management (the Department) requesting information in relation to his re-entry into Australia in 2022.
The Department’s original decision held that exemptions pursuant to ss34, 35 and 39 of the Act applied to information responsive to B’s application. This original decision was upheld on internal review, with additional exemptions being applied pursuant to s30 of the Act.
B sought external review of these decisions. The Ombudsman determined that:
- exemptions claimed pursuant to ss30 and 39 were varied;
- exemptions claimed pursuant to ss34 and 35 were not made out; and
- exemptions pursuant to s36 were applied.
B and Department of Police, Fire and Emergency Management (PDF, 238.8 KB)
-
Kiera Salerno and Tasracing Pty Ltd
On 23 November 2023, Ms Kiera Salerno submitted an assessed disclosure application under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to Tasracing Pty Ltd requesting 8 items of information, which primarily related to a workplace dispute between Tasracing and the former General Manager of the Greyhound Adoption Program.
Tasracing’s original decision held that exemptions pursuant to ss30, 31, 35, 36 of the Act applied to information responsive to Ms Salerno’s application. It also set out that information responsive to particular aspects of Ms Salerno’s application could not be located. The original decision was upheld by Tasracing on internal review.
Ms Salerno sought external review. The Ombudsman determined that:
- exemptions claimed pursuant to s30 were affirmed;
- exemptions claimed pursuant to ss31, 35, and 36 were varied; and
- Tasracing’s search for information responsive to Ms Salerno’s assessed disclosure application was sufficient.
Kiera Salerno and Tasracing Pty Ltd (PDF, 327.8 KB)
-
Andrew McCullagh and Northern Midlands Council
Mr Andrew McCullagh is an elected member of the Northern Midlands Council (Council).
On 19 April 2023, Mr McCullagh submitted an application for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to Council seeking information in relation to a planning application and other Council business.
Council applied ss30, 31 and 36 to exempt some information and maintained this position on internal review. Mr McCullagh sought external review.
The Ombudsman determined:
- exemptions claimed pursuant to ss30 and 31 were not made out; and
- exemptions claimed pursuant to s36 were varied.
Andrew McCullagh and Northern Midlands Council (PDF, 279.1 KB)
-
Clive Stott and Hydro Tasmania
On 2 November 2016, Mr Clive Stott submitted an application for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to Hydro Tasmania seeking a range of information in relation to the 2016 fault in the Basslink undersea power cable. The Ombudsman issued a decision on this application on 18 February 2021.
As part of this decision, the Ombudsman held that Hydro Tasmania had not complied with the requirements of s19 of the Act, as Hydro did not give Mr Stott a reasonable opportunity to consult with it to refine his request to a form which would not substantially and unreasonably divert its resources. Mr Stott’s request was therefore returned to Hydro for it to be reassessed under the Act.
Hydro initially refused Mr Stott’s application again under s19 but then accepted a refined request and issued an internal review decision which assessed the information. The decision applied ss30, 36, 37 and 39 of the Act to exempt the requested information from disclosure.
On 19 March 2022, Mr Stott applied to the Ombudsman for an external review of this decision. The Ombudsman determined that:
- exemptions claimed pursuant to ss30, 37 and 39 were varied;
- exemptions claimed pursuant to s36 applied; and
- Hydro’s search for information was sufficient.
Clive Stott and Hydro Tasmania (PDF, 433.2 KB)
-
Thomas Bade and Huon Valley Council
Mr Thomas Bade is a resident of a semi-rural area within the Huon Valley local government area and has been in a dispute with a nearby landholder regarding earthworks undertaken on the nearby land. The Huon Valley Council (Council) issued an enforcement order for the nearby land and subsequently withdrew the order.
Mr Bade made an application for assessed disclosure to Council seeking information relating to the enforcement order. Council applied ss30 and 36 of the Act to exempt some information. Mr Bade sought external review.
The Ombudsman determined that:
- exemptions claimed pursuant to s30 were not made out; and
- exemptions claimed pursuant to s36 were varied.
Thomas Bade and Huon Valley Council (PDF, 248.0 KB)
-
O and Department of Police, Fire and Emergency Management
On 26 June 2023, O made an application for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to the Department of Police, Fire and Emergency Management (the Department). She sought information which related to the investigation into the death of her sister.
The Department found that information was excluded under s6 of the Act as it was in the possession of the Department only by virtue of the role police officers take in assisting the Coroner. There was some other relevant information to O’s request which was claimed to be exempt under ss30 and 36. O sought internal review and the decision was affirmed. O then sought external review.
The Ombudsman concluded that:
- the Department correctly relied upon s6 to exclude the jurisdiction of the Act in relation to the information it holds for the Coroner; and
- exemptions claimed pursuant to ss30 and 36 were affirmed.
O and Department of Police, Fire and Emergency Management (PDF, 290.5 KB)
-
Peter Jacobson and Department for Education, Children and Young People
On 22 December 2022, Mr Peter Jacobson made an application to the Department for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) seeking information about his interactions with the Department.
The Department relied upon ss30, 31, 36 and 39 of the Act to exempt some information. Mr Jacobson sought internal review of this decision, but the Department maintained its position (though it released some additional information). Mr Jacobson sought external review.
The Ombudsman determined that:
* exemptions claimed pursuant to s30 were not made out;
* exemptions claimed pursuant to s31 were varied;
* exemptions claimed pursuant to s36 were affirmed; and
* exemptions claimed pursuant to s39 were not made out.
Peter Jacobson and Department for Education, Children and Young People (PDF, 297.8 KB)
-
Alison Sandy and Department of Police, Fire and Emergency Management
Ms Alison Sandy is the FOI Editor of Seven Network. On 20 October 2020, Ms Sandy made an assessed disclosure application under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to the Department of Police, Fire and Emergency Management (the Department). She sought video and audio recordings and transcripts from 1996 of interactions between Tasmania Police and Martin Bryant.
The Department found the information to be exempt in full, relying on s30 of the Act, information relating to law enforcement. Ms Sandy sought internal review and the Department affirmed its decision. Ms Sandy then sought external review.
The Ombudsman affirmed the Department’s decision and determined that the information was exempt in full pursuant to s30(1)(c) and (d) of the Act.
Alison Sandy and Department of Police, Fire and Emergency Management (PDF, 186.1 KB)
-
Karl Willrath and Dorset Council
On 26 November 2019, Mr Willrath made an application for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to Dorset Council (Council). Mr Willrath sought information relating to a Code of Conduct complaint under the Local Government Act 1993, made by the General Manager of Council against a Councillor, relating to a series of emails.
The Code of Conduct Panel determination, which substantially set out the contents of the emails, has been publicly released. Mr Willrath sought the full content of the emails.
On 18 December 2019, Council released a decision to Mr Willrath, declining to release the information. In coming to its decision, Council relied only on the Local Government Act 1993 rather than the Act.
Upon request for internal review, Council upheld the initial decision on 5 February 2020. Mr Willrath then applied for external review. Pursuant to s47(1)(n), Council was requested to provide better reasons for its decision. Council issued a new decision on 20 June 2023 relying on ss30 and 35 to claim that the information was exempt under the Act.
The Ombudsman determined that:
- exemptions claimed pursuant to s30 were not made out;
- exemptions claimed pursuant to s35 were not made out; and
- some information was exempt under s36.
Karl Willrath and Dorset Council (PDF, 220.3 KB)
-
L and Department of Police, Fire and Emergency Management
L had been issued with a Police Family Violence Order (PFVO). L lodged an application for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009, seeking information from the Department of Police, Fire and Emergency Management (the Department) in relation to the complaint on which the PFVO was based. The Department released some information to L but considered that some information was exempt under ss30, 35, 36 and 39 of the Act.
Upon application by L for internal review, the Department upheld its earlier decision. L then sought external review. The Ombudsman found that a small amount of the information sought could be released to L but the majority of the information remained exempt.
The Ombudsman determined that:
- Exemptions claimed pursuant to ss36 and 30(1)(d) were varied;
- Exemptions claimed pursuant to ss30(1)(e) and 35 were affirmed; and
- It was not necessary to assess the alternative exemption claimed under s39.
L and Department of Police, Fire and Emergency Management (PDF, 372.3 KB)
-
Tim Bullard and Department of Justice
On 16 December 2021, an incident occurred at the Hillcrest Primary School in Northern Tasmania in which a jumping castle and inflatable ‘Zorb’ balls became airborne in high winds, resulting in the deaths of six children and injuries to a further three. The Hillcrest Primary School is operated by the Department for Education, Children and Young People, known at the time of the incident as the Department of Education (the Department).
Mr Tim Bullard is the Secretary of the Department and made an application for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to the Department of Justice on 19 May 2022. He sought information regarding the ongoing WorkSafe investigation into the incident pursuant to the Work Health and Safety Act 2012. On 28 July 2022, a decision was released by the Department of Justice which determined that the majority of the information sought was exempt from release under s30 of the Act due to risk of prejudice to the ongoing investigation. Mr Bullard sought external review of this decision.
The Ombudsman determined that the Department of Justice’s claim for exemption of the relevant information pursuant to s30 was valid and upheld the decision.
Tim Bullard and Department of Justice (PDF, 160.1 KB)
-
H and Department of Police, Fire and Emergency Management
H made a complaint to the Department of Police, Fire and Emergency Management (the Department) regarding the handling of an alleged breach of a Family Violence Order in place for her protection. As part of that complaint, H made an application for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to the Department to seek further information about its guidelines or protocols in relation to breaches of Family Violence Orders.
The Department released a decision to H on 21 May 2019, determining that there were two pages of relevant information from the Department’s Family Violence Manual and both were fully exempt pursuant to s30(1)(c). H sought internal review and the Department released a further decision on 11 June 2019. This decision affirmed the original decision and did not release any information. H sought external review of that decision.
The Ombudsman determined that the exemptions claimed by the Department pursuant to s30(1)(c) were not made out in the majority of instances, but that some parts of the information were exempt under s30(1)(c).
H and Department of Police, Fire and Emergency Management (PDF, 138.3 KB)
-
Clive Stott and TT-Line Company Pty Ltd
On 16 March 2019, Mr Clive Stott made an application for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 to TT-Line Company Pty Ltd (TT-Line). He sought air quality monitoring reports in relation to the Spirit of Tasmania I and Spirit of Tasmania II, following the deaths of 16 polo ponies on a truck which travelled on one of the vessels in 2018. TT-Line issued a decision on 9 May 2019 to refuse the majority of Mr Stott’s request on the basis that it considered that:
- the disclosure of the information would prejudice an ongoing investigation into the deaths of the ponies (s30);
- the information contains personal information of a person other than Mr Stott (s36); and
- the release of the information would expose TT-Line to competitive disadvantage (s38).
This decision was upheld at internal review and Mr Stott sought external review of that decision.
The Ombudsman determined that exemptions claimed under ss30, 36 and 38 were not made out and relevant documents should be released to Mr Stott.
Clive Stott and TT-Line Company Pty Ltd (PDF, 185.5 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)
-
Anna Porretta and the Department of Police, Fire and Emergency Management
Mrs Anna Porretta is involved in the operation of the Ivory Lounge Bar. She made an application in July 2018 for assessed disclosure to the Department of Police, Fire and Emergency Management regarding its representations relating to an application for an out-of-hours permit submitted to the Liquor and Gaming Branch of the Department of Treasury and Finance. In particular, she sought to obtain the names and rankings, in terms of Tasmania Police call outs, of other licensed premises to give context to information included in the representations. The Department released a decision on 2 August 2018 and an internal review decision on 22 September 2018, both determining that all information was exempt pursuant to s30(1)(e) of the Right to Information Act 2009, as it considered that the information would disclose information gathered, collated and created for intelligence purposes. Mrs Porretta then sought external review of this decision.
The Ombudsman determined that the information amounted to intelligence as defined by the Act and affirmed the Department's decision to exempt the information under s30(1)(e).
Anna Porretta and the Department of Police, Fire and Emergency Management (PDF, 143.1 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)
-
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)
-
Clive Stott and Hydro Tasmania
Mr Stott requested information from Hydro Tasmania ('Hydro') regarding the fault in the Basslink cable which caused it to shut down in 2015. Hydro released some information to Mr Stott but refused the majority of his request on the basis that it considered that: the information was already publicly available (s12); the work involved in providing the information would substantially and unreasonably divert Hydro’s resources from its other work (s19); or the information was exempt (under a section noted below). Mr Stott sought external review of this decision.
Late in the external review process, Mr Stott agreed to redaction of some personal information relating to personnel internal or external to Hydro. Hence, while the reasons consider exemptions claimed under s36, ultimately a s36 review decision was not required.
The Ombudsman found that:
1. He does not have the power to review a decision under s12 to refuse to provide information which is already publicly available.
2. Hydro had not complied with the requirements of s19 to give Mr Stott a reasonable opportunity to consult with it to refine his request to a form which would not substantially and unreasonably divert its resources. Mr Stott’s request was returned to Hydro to reassess under the Act.
3. Exemptions claimed under s31 (legal professional privilege) should be varied, releasing additional documents to Mr Stott.
4. Exemptions claimed under s37 (information relating to the business affairs of a third party) and s38 (information relating to the business affairs of a public authority) were not made out and relevant documents should be released to Mr Stott.
5. The exemption claimed over a document under s39 (information obtained in confidence) was not made out, but the document was otherwise exempt under s30 (information relating to the enforcement of the law).
Clive Stott and Hydro Tasmania (PDF, 262.1 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)
-
Carlo Di Falco and Tasmania Police
Mr Carlo Di Falco requested information from Tasmania Police relating to gun crimes. Tasmania Police provided some information, but refused the bulk of the information under s19. Information was also refused as matters were currently before the Court and also because of legal professional privilege.
The Ombudsman upheld Tasmania Police's use of s19 on the basis that the work involved in providing the information would substantially and unreasonably divert the Police Service's resources from its other work. The Ombudsman also found similarly regarding information which could not be produced using the normal computer hardware and software and technical expertise of Tasmania Police. It was refused pursuant to s10.
Carlo Di Falco and Tasmania Police (PDF, 1.2 MB)
-
T and Tasmania Police
T sought information in relation to her complaint to police about an alleged abuser. Tasmania Police processed the request and found most of the information to be exempt. This was mainly on the basis it involved information relating to the enforcement of the law, information subject to legal professional privilege, internal information, or personal information of other people. The Ombudsman considered the decision of Tasmania Police and, while mostly upholding it, held that some further information should be released to T.
T and Tasmania Police (PDF, 3.0 MB)
-
Dr George Lane and Tasmania Police
Dr George Lane is a scientist who had been undertaking some consultancy work for which he ordered equipment from China. Tasmania Police was alerted to a parcel potentially containing glassware consistent with drug manufacture. A search warrant was issued and Dr Lane's property was searched. He sought information from the Police Service relating to the incident. Tasmania Police exempted much of the material as it related to the enforcement of the law, or for other reasons such as internal deliberative and personal information. While most of the information remained exempt, the Ombudsman made some variations to the Police Service’s decision.
Dr George Lane and Tasmania Police (PDF, 1.9 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)
-
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)
-
Christine Smart and City of Launceston
Ms Smart requested information relating to the legal costs incurred by Council in relation to her property, specifically her fence line that bordered an alleyway, that had historically been there for decades. A review of the boundaries identified the discrepancy and Ms Smart was asked to correct it.
Ms Smart's application for assessed disclosure sought the amount of legal costs incurred by Council after she challenged Council's decision. This matter primarily looks at whether or not the legal costs incurred constitute privileged information.
Christine Smart and City of Launceston (PDF, 1.1 MB)
-
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)