Your search for
Section 35
returned 74 results.
-
Nathanael Elcock and Kingborough Council
Mr Nathanael Elcock submitted an assessed disclosure application under the Right to Information Act 2009 (Tas) (the Act) to the Kingborough Council (the Council) requesting correspondence sent between Council staff.
The Council’s initial decision did not release any information, stating it was exempt from disclosure under ss35 and 36 of the Act. It also refused one aspect of his request under s19(1)(a). Mr Elcock sought internal review. On internal review, Council partially released 10 pages of information, redacting parts as exempt under ss35 and 36 of the Act. The internal review decision upheld the partial refusal under s19(1)(a).
Mr Elcock sought external review and the Ombudsman determined:
- section 19 did not apply;
- exemptions claimed pursuant to s35 were not made out;
- exemptions claimed pursuant to s36 should be varied.
Nathanael Elcock and Kingborough Council (PDF, 338.6 KB)
-
Kelvin Derksen-Luelf and Department of Premier and Cabinet
Mr Kelvin Derksen-Luelf is an entrepreneur with a business within the Derwent Valley local government area. He submitted an application for assessed disclosure to Derwent Valley Council (Council) under the Right to Information Act 2009 (Tas) (the Act) seeking a copy of a statutory declaration submitted by a Council officer.
Council transferred the application to the Department of Premier and Cabinet (the Department) which applied exemptions under ss35, 36 and 39 to parts of the document. Mr Derksen-Luelf sought internal review. On internal review the Department maintained that information was exempt under ss35 and 36, no longer relied on s39 and released some further information.
Mr Derksen-Luelf sought external review and the Ombudsman determined:
- exemptions claimed pursuant to s35 were not made out; and
- information was exempt under s36.
Kelvin Derksen-Luelf and Department of Premier and Cabinet (PDF, 223.1 KB)
-
O & P and Department of Police, Fire and Emergency Management
O and P requested information from the Department of Police, Fire and Emergency Management (the Department) under the Right to Information Act 2009 (Tas) (the Act) regarding an alleged property theft.
On 27 March 2025, the Department issued its original decision to both applicants. This found relevant information partially exempt under ss30, 35, 36 and 39 of the Act. The applicants sought internal review and the Department maintained its findings.
The applicants sought external review and the Ombudsman determined that exemptions claimed under ss35 and 36 should be varied. He further determined that it was not necessary to review exemptions claimed under ss30 or 39 beyond indicating that they were not applicable to information to be released.
O & P and Department of Police, Fire and Emergency Management (PDF, 288.6 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)
-
J and TasTAFE
On 26 November 2024, J made an application for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (Tas) (the Act) to TasTAFE. They requested information related to the processes and procedures followed in terminating their employment at TasTAFE.
On 16 April 2025, TasTAFE’s then Chief Executive Officer issued a decision to J, finding the relevant information was exempt from disclosure pursuant to s31 of the Act.
J was not satisfied by this decision and sought external review by the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman determined:
- exemptions claimed pursuant to s31 should be varied;
- exemptions pursuant to s35 apply.
J and TasTAFE (PDF, 266.7 KB)
-
Robert Hogan and University of Tasmania
Mr Robert Hogan is a member of the community who has an interest in actions of the University of Tasmania (the University). On 23 September 2024, he made an application to the University for assessed disclosure under s13 of the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) seeking information relating to communications between the University and the Australian Labor Party.
The University identified 174 documents and relied on ss35, 36, 37 and 38 of the Act to exempt some information. Mr Hogan sought internal review.
On internal review the University identified some further documents, and maintained its reliance on ss35, 36 and 37 but no longer relied on s38. Mr Hogan sought external review, querying the use of exemptions and the sufficiency of searching for relevant information.
The Ombudsman determined;
- exemptions claimed pursuant to ss36 and 37 were varied;
- exemptions claimed pursuant to s35 were not made out; and
- a sufficient search for information was ultimately conducted.
Robert Hogan and University of Tasmania (PDF, 236.6 KB)
-
Meg Webb and Department of Treasury and Finance
The Honourable Meg Webb MLC is the Member for Nelson in the Legislative Council. On 3 June 2024, she submitted an application for assessed disclosure under s13 of the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to the Department of Treasury and Finance (the Department). She sought information relating to the proposed universal player card gambling system for poker machines.
The Department relied on ss31, 35, 36 and 37 of the Act to exempt some information. Ms Webb sought internal review and the Department largely maintained its position on internal review. Ms Webb sought external review.
The Ombudsman determined:
- exemptions claimed pursuant to ss31, 35 and 36 were varied; and
- the exemption claimed pursuant to s37 was not made out.
Meg Webb and Department of Treasury and Finance (PDF, 259.3 KB)
-
G and Department for Education, Children and Young People
G was employed by the Department for Education, Children and Young People (the Department) as a teacher. Allegations of inappropriate physical contact with students were made and G was suspended from their role. G submitted an application for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) seeking information regarding this suspension.
The Department released some information and relied upon ss6 and 35 to exclude or exempt some information. G sought internal review. Upon internal review the Department no longer relied on s6, however applied ss31, 35 and 36 to exempt some information. G then sought external review.
The Ombudsman determined that:
- exemptions claimed pursuant to ss31 and 36 were varied; and
- exemptions claimed pursuant to s35 were not made out.
G and Department for Education, Children and Young People (PDF, 244.2 KB)
-
J and Department for Education, Children and Young People
J was previously employed by the Department for Education, Children and Young People (the Department) at a school. On 18 January 2025, J made an application for assessed disclosure to the Department under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) seeking information relating to their employment.
The Department refused part of J’s application under s20(a) and relied on ss35 and 36 to exempt some other information. J then sought internal review and subsequently external review when they had not received a decision within the relevant timeframe.
The Ombudsman determined that:
- the Department was not entitled to rely on s20(a) to refuse aspects of J’s request, as there was a reasonable basis for again seeking the information;
- exemptions claimed pursuant to s35 were varied;
- exemptions claimed pursuant to s36 were affirmed; and
- the Department conducted a sufficient search for information.
J and Department for Education, Children and Young People (PDF, 233.8 KB)
-
Heather Barwick and George Town Council
Ms Heather Barwick is a resident of the George Town local government area and an elected member of George Town Council (Council). On 27 August 2024, Ms Barwick submitted an application for assessed disclosure to Council under s13 of the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) seeking information relating to communication between Council and the Ombudsman.
Council identified one letter and relied on s35 of the Act to exempt some information. Ms Barwick sought external review.
Council released some further information in a second decision, however again relied on s35 to exempt a small amount of information.
The Ombudsman determined that the exemption claimed pursuant to s35 was not made out.
Heather Barwick and George Town Council (PDF, 169.6 KB)
-
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)
-
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)
-
Isla MacGregor and Department for Education, Children and Young People
On 28 March 2025, Ms Isla MacGregor submitted an assessed disclosure application under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to the Department for Education, Children and Young People (the Department). She sought information relating to the cancellation of Womenspeak Tasmania events at the Burnie Library on 21 March 2024 and Devonport Library on 7 April 2025.
On 13 March 2025, the Department issued a decision to Ms MacGregor, finding that some of the information relating to her request was exempt from disclosure pursuant to ss35 and 36 of the Act. This decision was affirmed on internal review.
Ms MacGregor sought external review. The Acting Ombudsman determined that the Department’s use of ss35 and 36 should be varied.
Isla MacGregor and Department for Education, Children and Young People (PDF, 291.9 KB)
-
Damien Matcham and Department of Health
Mr Damien Matcham submitted an assessed disclosure application under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to the Department of Health (the Department) for information related to the closure of Greenpoint Medical Centre in Bridgewater.
On 9 February 2024 the Department issued a decision to Mr Matcham, finding that some information related to his request was exempt from disclosure pursuant to ss35 and 36 of the Act. This decision was affirmed on internal review.
Mr Matcham subsequently sought external review. The Ombudsman determined that the Department’s use of ss35 and 36 should be varied.
Damien Matcham and Department of Health (PDF, 204.5 KB)
-
Heidi Sandwell and City of Hobart
Ms Sandwell is a representative of the accommodation booking platform Airbnb. On 24 July 2023, Ms Sandwell requested a range of information related to the City of Hobart’s (Council’s) decision to increase the rates payable for short stay accommodation in the Hobart municipal area.
This application was subject to various delays, however Council eventually determined to refuse aspects of Ms Sandwell’s application under s19. Council also decided that some requested information was exempt from disclosure pursuant to ss31, 32, 35, 38, 40, and 41 of the Act. Ms Sandwell sought external review.
The Ombudsman determined that:
- Council was not entitled to rely on s19 to refuse Ms Sandwell’s application;
- exemptions claimed pursuant to ss31, 32 and 35 should be varied; and
- exemptions claimed pursuant to ss38, 40 and 41 were not made out.
Heidi Sandwell and City of Hobart (PDF, 388.2 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)
-
Selby Cooper and Department of Health
On 10 November 2022, Mr Selby Cooper submitted an assessed disclosure application under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act), which was responded to by the Department of Health (the Department). This application requested information related to public health directions during the COVID-19 pandemic.
There was a complex history to Mr Cooper’s application, with multiple decisions, reconsiderations and fresh decisions. However, the Department eventually released some information and determined that some information responsive to Mr Cooper’s application was exempt from disclosure pursuant to s31, s35, and s36.
Mr Cooper sought an external review of exemptions applied and queried whether the Department’s search for information was sufficient.
The Ombudsman determined that:
- exemptions claimed pursuant to s31 were affirmed;
- exemptions claimed pursuant to s35 were set aside;
- exemptions claimed pursuant to s36 were varied; and
- the Department’s search for information was sufficient.
Selby Cooper and Department of Health (PDF, 287.4 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)
-
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)
-
Rebecca White and the Premier of Tasmania
On 28 July 2023 Ms Rebecca White, the then leader of the State Opposition, submitted an assessed disclosure application under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to the Office of the Premier. Ms White requested copies of any correspondence to or from the Premier or his office about the proposed New Norfolk Distillery or Willow Court since 1 July 2022.
On 20 September 2023, Ms White sought external review under s45(1)(f) of the Act as she had not received a decision within the statutory timeframe.
On 31 October 2023, the Premier’s delegate issued a decision to Ms White. The Premier’s delegate identified 14 relevant documents and held that some of this information was exempt from disclosure pursuant to ss35, 36, and 39 of the Act.
Upon completing this external review, the Ombudsman determined that:
- exemptions claimed pursuant to ss35 and 39 were not made out; and
- exemptions claimed pursuant to s36 should be varied.
Rebecca White and the Premier of Tasmania (PDF, 298.5 KB)
-
Rebecca White and Department of Premier and Cabinet
In June 2023, an agreement was made between the Department of Premier and Cabinet (the Department) and Font PR, a public relations company, for media liaison and support in the Office of the Premier. Concerns were raised regarding the possibility of inappropriate access to confidential information.
On 7 July 2023, Ms Rebecca White, then Leader of the Opposition, submitted an application for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to the Department seeking information regarding the appointment of Font PR.
On 20 September 2023, Ms White sought external review as the timeframe for a decision to be provided had elapsed. The Department subsequently issued a decision and applied ss 31, 35, 36 and 39 to exempt some information.
The Ombudsman determined:
- exemptions claimed pursuant to ss31, 35 and 36 were varied; and
- exemptions claimed pursuant to s39 were not made out.
Rebecca White and Department of Premier and Cabinet (PDF, 225.1 KB)
-
Rick Snell and Department of Premier and Cabinet
Mr Rick Snell is an Adjunct Associate Professor at the Law School of the University of Tasmania with an interest and expertise in the field of right to information law.
The Right to Information Uplift Project was initiated by the Tasmanian government to identify opportunities to improve the provision of right to information services by the Tasmanian State Service.
Mr Snell submitted an application for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to the Department of Premier and Cabinet (the Department) seeking a copy of a discussion paper produced by the Right to Information Uplift Project Steering Committee. The Department applied s35 of the Act to exempt some information and maintained this position upon internal review. Mr Snell sought external review.
The Ombudsman determined that the exemptions claimed pursuant to s35 should be varied.
Rick Snell and Department of Premier and Cabinet (PDF, 200.1 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)
-
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)
-
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)
-
Graham Murray and City of Hobart
Mr Graham Murray has an interest in the cable car project (the project) that was proposed for kunanyi/Mt Wellington. On 2 November 2020 he made an assessed disclosure application to the City of Hobart (Council), under the Right to Information Act 2009, for a range of information about the project, including a planned burn off.
There was a significant volume of information identified, collated and assessed. Mr Nick Heath, the then principal officer and CEO of the Council, delivered his decision in four parts, releasing some information and relying on s35 (internal deliberative information) and s37 (information relating to business affairs of third party) to exempt other information. In relation to the burn off, he found that there was no information responsive to the request, which gave rise to a question about the sufficiency of Council’s searching for relevant information.
The Ombudsman determined that:
* the exemptions claimed pursuant to ss35 and 37 were varied; and
* the searching undertaken in relation to the burn off was sufficient.
Graham Murray and City of Hobart (PDF, 457.8 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)
-
Linda Poulton and Department of Justice
On 15 June 2020 Westbury resident Ms Linda Poulton submitted an application for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to the Department of Justice (the Department), requesting 10 items of information related to a proposed prison development at Westbury.
The Department’s original decision relevantly held that ss35 and 39 of the Act applied to exempt some information responsive to Ms Poulton’s application from disclosure. This original decision was upheld on internal review.
Ms Poulton sought external review of this decision by the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman determined that:
- exemptions pursuant to s36 were applicable; and
- exemptions pursuant to ss35 and 39 should be varied.
Linda Poulton and Department of Justice (PDF, 203.2 KB)
-
Meg Webb and Department of Treasury and Finance
The Hon. Meg Webb MLC is an independent member of the Parliament of Tasmania, representing the electorate of Nelson in the Legislative Council. On 19 July 2021 she made an application to the Department of Treasury and Finance (the Department) for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) seeking information regarding the Premier’s Economic and Social Recovery Advisory Council (PESRAC).
The Department initially refused the request as it claimed it was a repeat pursuant to s20(a) of the Act. However, it agreed to issue a fresh decision and released some information. It relied upon s35 of the Act to exempt other information in the minutes of PESRAC’s meetings as internal deliberative information. Ms Webb sought external review.
The Ombudsman determined that the exemptions claimed pursuant to s35 were varied.
Meg Webb and Department of Treasury and Finance (PDF, 174.1 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)
-
Bob Burton and the Premier of Tasmania
On 15 December 2020, the Commonwealth and Tasmanian Governments signed a Commonwealth-Tasmania Bilateral Energy and Emissions Reduction Agreement Memorandum of Understanding (the MOU).
On 18 December 2020, Mr Bob Burton applied under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to the Tasmanian Premier for a copy of the MOU as well as any records and/or communication plans relating to the announcement of the MOU.
On 29 January 2021, Mr Burton received a decision. As the MOU was publicly available, Mr Burton was provided with an electronic link to the document. With regard to records of the announcement of the MOU, six records were identified as being responsive to Mr Burton’s application. Four documents were claimed to be exempt in full pursuant to s35 as internal deliberative information and two documents were claimed to be partially exempt pursuant to s36 as containing personal information of another person.
Mr Burton sought external review. The Ombudsman found that exemptions under s35 should be varied and that exemptions under s36 were not made out.
Bob Burton and the Premier of Tasmania (PDF, 221.1 KB)
-
Ruth Forrest and Waratah-Wynyard Council
On 29 September 2020, the Honourable Member for Murchison, Ruth Forrest MLC, made an application for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to the Department of Justice (the Department). The information requested related to two development applications received by Waratah-Wynyard Council (Council) concerning a proposed development at 30B Old Bass Hwy, Wynyard. Ms Forrest’s application was transferred by the Department to Council as the request related more closely to Council’s functions. Council issued a decision on 4 November 2020.
On 13 January 2021, due to irregularities in the decision, Council issued a fresh decision to Ms Forrest. Council made some information available for inspection in accordance with s18(1)(a) of the Act and applied s35 to exempt other relevant information from disclosure.
Ms Forrest sought an external review of this decision. The Ombudsman determined that exemptions claimed pursuant to s35 were not made out and information was not exempt pursuant to s39.
Ruth Forrest and Waratah-Wynyard Council (PDF, 156.6 KB)
-
Linda Poulton and Department of Justice
On 23 June 2020, Westbury resident Ms Linda Poulton submitted an application for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to the Department of Justice (the Department) requesting information related to a proposed prison development at Westbury.
On 12 October 2020, Ms Poulton received a decision on her application for assessed disclosure and some information was released to her. Some other information was deemed to be partially exempt from disclosure pursuant to s39(1)(a) of the Act, as information provided in confidence. Some aspects of Ms Poulton’s application were also transferred to the then Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment in accordance with s14 of the Act. This decision was upheld on internal review.
Ms Poulton sought the external review of this decision by the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman determined that, while the Department did not claim information to be exempt under those provisions, exemptions pursuant to ss35 and 36 were applicable. He further determined that exemptions pursuant to s39 should be varied.
Linda Poulton and Department of Justice (PDF, 221.9 KB)
-
Rebecca White and the Premier of Tasmania
On 18 July 2023, the Honourable Rebecca White MP submitted an application for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to the Office of the Premier. She sought information regarding the appointment of Danielle McKay to the Office of the Premier. The request was comprised of three parts.
No information responsive to parts two and three of Ms White’s application was located by the Premier’s delegate, while some information responsive to part one of Ms White’s application was deemed to be exempt pursuant to ss35 (internal deliberative information and 36 (personal information) of the Act. Ms White sought external review of this decision.
On external review, the Ombudsman determined that Premier’s delegate was entitled to decide that information requested was not in the Premier’s possession, and that exemptions claimed under ss35 and 36 should be varied.
Rebecca White and the Premier of Tasmania (PDF, 164.1 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)
-
R and Department of Health
On 29 January 2020, the applicant, R, sought access to information on her employment file under the Personal Information Protection Act 2004. Access was granted except for three pages. Through her lawyer, the applicant then sought access to these pages under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act).
The Department of Health did not release a decision within the required timeframe and R made an application for review under s45(1)(f) of the Act. On 11 September 2020, the Department released a decision which released some information but found part to be exempt under s35 (internal deliberative information). R sought internal review.
The internal review decision affirmed the exemption under s35 on a slightly different basis. R sought external review.
The Ombudsman determined that s35 applied but varied the use of the exemption.
R and Department of Health (PDF, 357.7 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)
-
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)
-
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)
-
Rosalie Woodruff and Hydro Tasmania
On 19 December 2018, Dr Rosalie Woodruff MP lodged an application for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) with Hydro Tasmania (Hydro). The request was for information relating to the Karuma Hydropower Project in Uganda that Hydro was involved with through Entura, a part of Hydro.
The parties negotiated to reach agreement on scope and, on 22 March 2019, Hydro released 146 pages of information with exemptions applied under s35 (internal deliberative information) and s36 (personal information) of the Act. Dr Woodruff queried the exemptions claimed and applied for external review after the internal review affirmed the approach taken.
The Ombudsman determined that:
- the exemptions claimed pursuant to s35 were set aside; and
- those claimed in relation to 36 were varied.
Rosalie Woodruff and Hydro Tasmania (PDF, 193.6 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)
-
Janiece Bryan and Glenorchy City Council
On 21 June 2019, Ms Janiece Bryan made an application for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to the Glenorchy City Council (Council). Ms Bryan requested access to legal advice Council had received about whether it had the ability to sell the Derwent Entertainment Centre and surrounding land.
On 11 July 2019 Council issued a decision to Ms Bryan, determining that the information responsive to her request was exempt under s31 of the Act on the basis that it would be privileged from production in legal proceedings on the ground of legal professional privilege.
On 4 November 2019, Ms Bryan made a second application for assessed disclosure to Council, as she considered Council had since waived privilege over the legal advice. On 21 November 2019, Council issued a decision to Ms Bryan in relation to her second application for assessed disclosure. Council refused to accept the application under s20(a) of the Act, setting out that it was a repeat application and that there was no reasonable basis for seeking the same information again. Council also asserted that the requested information was exempt from disclosure under s31 of the Act.
This decision was affirmed on internal review and, on 16 December 2019, Ms Bryan made an application for external review. The Ombudsman determined that:
- Council was not entitled to refuse the application under s20(a);
- exemptions claimed pursuant to s31 were varied; and
- exemptions under s35 apply.
Janiece Bryan and Glenorchy City Council (PDF, 219.2 KB)
-
Alexandra Humphries and Department of Health
On 25 August 2022 Ms Alexandra Humphries, a journalist with the ABC, lodged an application for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) with the Department of Health (the Department). The request was for a report about procurements and contracting in the Hyperbaric Unit.
The original decision, released on 14 November 2022, identified a PowerPoint presentation prepared by Deloitte but disclosure was refused over the whole document as it was claimed to be exempt under s35 (internal deliberative information). The internal review decision of 17 February 2023 refused release under s18 due to a copyright argument and s39 in the alternative. In response to enquiries from the Ombudsman about whether refusal of an application under s18 was possible, the Department released a supplementary decision abandoning s18 but relying on s39 (information obtained in confidence) to exempt the PowerPoint as a whole.
The Ombudsman determined that the exemption claimed by the Department, pursuant to s39, was set aside.
Alexandra Humphries and Department of Health (PDF, 427.3 KB)
-
Lake Maintenance Pty Ltd and Homes Tasmania
In 2018, the then Department of Communities issued a request for tender (RFT) that sought to engage contractors for the provision of maintenance services for social housing properties in Tasmania. The RFT attracted 13 applications, one of which was submitted by the applicant, Lake Maintenance Pty Ltd.
The applicant was unsuccessful in this tender process and on 15 February 2019 submitted an application for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) seeking information regarding the selection process.
On 10 April 2019, a decision was issued to the applicant. 1,434 pages of information was identified as being responsive to the applicant’s request with the substantial majority of this information was released in full. However, the evaluation report regarding the tender process was found to be partially exempt from disclosure under s37(1)(b) of the Act. This decision was affirmed on internal review.
On 18 July 2019, the applicant submitted an application for external review. Homes Tasmania is now the relevant public authority following the disbandment of the Department of Communities.
The Ombudsman determined that some information contained in the report was exempt under ss35 and 37 of the Act.
Lake Maintenance Pty Ltd and Homes Tasmania (PDF, 217.8 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)
-
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)
-
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)
-
Manuel Sessink and Department of Justice
On 13 October 2019, Mr Manuel Sessink made an application for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to the Department of Justice (the Department) seeking information relating to the siting of the proposed northern prison. On 20 November 2019, Mr Sessink sought external review under s45(1)(f) of the Act because the timeframe for a decision to be provided by the Department had elapsed and he was not in receipt of that decision.
On 21 November 2019, the Department issued a decision to Mr Sessink. It decided to release the requested information, in part, exempting the remainder from disclosure under ss35, 37, and 39 of the Act. Mr Sessink extended his external review request to a full review without seeking internal review.
The Ombudsman determined that exemptions claimed pursuant to ss35, 37, and 39 should be varied.
Manuel Sessink and Department of Justice (PDF, 280.3 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)
-
Suzanne Pattinson and Department of Education
On 11 September 2020, Ms Suzanne Pattinson made an application for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to the Department of Education (the Department). Ms Pattinson sought information relating to the Department’s management of the Rose Bay High School 2016 European School Tour and subsequent investigations. On 14 January 2021, the Department released a decision to Ms Pattinson. It determined to release the information in part, with some information found to be exempt under ss35 and 36 of the Act.
Ms Pattinson applied for internal review and on 4 March 2021 the Department released slightly more information to Ms Pattinson but relied on the same provisions of the Act to exempt the remaining information. Ms Pattinson then sought external review of the Department’s internal review decision. As part of her external review Ms Pattinson sought a review of whether there had been an insufficiency in searching for information by the Department.
The Ombudsman determined that:
- Exemptions claimed pursuant to s35 were varied;
- Exemptions claimed pursuant to s36 were varied; and
- The Department’s search for information was sufficient.
Suzanne Pattinson and Department of Education (PDF, 292.2 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)
-
Graham Murray and City of Hobart
Mr Graham Murray is a supporter of the proposal to construct and operate a cable car on kunanyi/Mount Wellington in Hobart. On 22 August 2018, Mr Murray submitted a request for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to the City of Hobart (Council). He sought information on a range of issues regarding the cable car project.
On 27 September 2018, Council released a large amount of information to Mr Murray, but refused to assess part of his application under s10 and claimed a further 324 pages were exempt pursuant to ss31, 35, 36 and 39. A second decision was released on 24 October 2018, following consultation under s36(2), and a further part of Mr Murray’s request was refused under s19. A final decision was released on 9 November 2018, which released further information and refused the remaining part of Mr Murray’s request, as there was no recognised list of ‘cable car or anti cable car websites’ to enable the information to be collated. Mr Murray then sought external review of all of Council’s decisions.
The Ombudsman determined that:
- He had no power to review Council’s decision under s10 and it remained unchanged;
- Council’s use of s19 was affirmed;
- Council’s use of section 31 was varied;
- Council’s use of s35 was varied;
- Council’s use of s36 was affirmed; and
- Council's use of s39 was varied.
Graham Murray and City of Hobart (PDF, 255.9 KB)
-
Professor Michael Rowan and Kingborough Council
Professor Michael Rowan is the co-owner of a property in the Kingborough Council (Council) municipal area. A bushfire safety bunker has been installed at the property and Council has been pursuing compliance action on the basis that proper approvals under the Building Act 2016 were not obtained for the bunker. Professor Rowan made an application on 3 December 2021 under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to Council seeking information regarding such bunkers in general and regarding the bunker at his property in particular. Council located eleven documents and released the majority of the information responsive to his request, with some redactions made pursuant to ss35 and 36. Professor Rowan sought internal review and Council’s internal review decision of 21 January 2022 primarily affirmed its original decision. Professor Rowan then sought external review disputing one s35 redaction in an email, on the basis that the information should not be exempt and was of particular importance in defending imminent enforcement action from Council.
The Ombudsman determined that the exemption claimed by Council under s35 was not made out and the information should be released to Professor Rowan.
Professor Michael Rowan and Kingborough Council (PDF, 129.0 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)
-
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)
-
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)
-
Adam Stanway and Tasmania Police
Mr Stanway sought information from Tasmania Police regarding its classification of the Warwick WFA1 bolt action rifle as a prohibited firearm and membership of its Firearms Categorisation Assessment Committee [FCAC]. Tasmania Police released some information regarding the decision to classify the WFA1 as a prohibited firearm, but claimed other information exempt under s35 or s36. Tasmania Police released information regarding most FCAC members, but not one who it had engaged from another jurisdiction. Tasmania Police decided that member's information was exempt under s34 and/or s36.
During the Ombudsman's external review, Tasmania Police agreed to the release of that member's name and biographic information, after his consent. The Ombudsman therefore determined that information was not exempt under s34 or s36. That had been Mr Stanway's main concern.
Mr Stanway agreed he did not require personal information of FCAC members contained in emails between them, beyond that already released to him by Tasmania Police or by the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth). Due to that and s12(3)(c)(i), the Ombudsman was able to finalise the application on the basis of its scope and without determining the exemptions claimed by Tasmania Police pursuant to s35.
Adam Stanway and Tasmania Police (PDF, 243.7 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)
-
Ms Debbie Wisby and Ms Jennifer Crawford and Department of Premier and Cabinet
The Glamorgan Spring Bay Council’s General Manager (GM) conducted an investigation into an alleged breach of confidentiality. Two Councillors applied for all information relating to or touching upon: the investigation; or contact regarding it between the GM and specified officers of the Department’s Local Government Division (LGD). The Department released most of the information, but not emails in which the GM requested, and an officer of the LGD provided, advice regarding the investigation. These were claimed to be exempt pursuant to s35(1)(b) and, on internal review, s39(1)(b).
The Ombudsman considered the emails under both s35(1)(b) and s39(1)(b). It was arguable they came within these exemptions. However, the Ombudsman was not satisfied disclosure would be reasonably likely to impair the ability of the LGD to obtain similar information in the future, as required for exemption under s39(1)(b). Both sections are subject to the s33 public interest test. After considering a range of relevant matters, the Ombudsman determined that the emails should be disclosed as this would not harm the public interest.
Ms Debbie Wisby and Ms Jennifer Crawford and Department of Premier and Cabinet (PDF, 133.7 KB)
-
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)
-
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)
-
Ms Louise Grahame and City of Hobart
Louise Grahame ran a stall at the Salamanca Market. Conflict between Ms Grahame and a number of other stallholders saw complaints made to the Council, which manages the market, by other stallholders about Ms Grahame. She sought copies of these complaints and emails relating to her and the market. The Council released a large amount of information but exempted in full or part various documents it claimed were internal deliberative information or information obtained by Council in confidence. It also redacted some personal information. The Ombudsman determined that most of the information was not exempt, including the identities of stallholders who had made complaints about Ms Grahame. While the latter was personal information, the public interest, including reasons of procedural fairness, entitled Ms Grahame to know the identities of those who had complained about her. However, a complainant's argument that their telephone number and personal email address were exempt information was upheld.
Ms Louise Grahame and City of Hobart (PDF, 13.4 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)
-
Damon Smith and Tasmania Police
Mr Smith sought information from Tasmania Police in relation to a complaint he had made. Specifically, he sought a copy of the investigation notes and details that resulted from his complaint.
Tasmania Police exempted some information and released other pieces directly to the applicant. There was some negotiation with Police during this review that resulted in Tasmania Police voluntarily releasing extra information. As a result there were very few pieces of information the Ombudsman determined should additionally be released to the applicant.
Damon Smith and Tasmania Police (PDF, 888.3 KB)
-
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)
-
Timothy Baird and Launceston City Council
Mr Baird requested information relating to the City of Launceston's plan to upgrade the Sea Port Boardwalk. Specifically, Mr Baird sought information leading to the appointment of Darcon Pty Ltd as the successful tenderer.
This decision considered the points of 'competitive disadvantage' under s37 and the balance between public interest and deliberative information.
Timothy Baird and Launceston City Council (PDF, 689.3 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)
-
Patrick Billings & the Department of Health and Human Services
On review, Mr Billings (a journalist on ‘The Mercury’ newspaper) requested the full Operational Review in relation to Ambulance Tasmania’s State Communications Centre power failure and shutdown in July 2015. The Ombudsman determined that parts of the Operational Review were subject to exemption under s35 of the Right to Information Act 2009 - internal deliberative document - and that it was contrary to the public interest to disclose this information.
Patrick Billings & the Department of Health and Human Services (PDF, 425.1 KB)