Your search for
Section 36
returned 99 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)
-
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)
-
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)
-
Rosemary Schneider and Department of Health
The Department of Health (the Department) received an application for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (Tas) (the Act) from a member of the community. The relevant information included personal information of Dr Schneider.
In accordance with s36(2) of the Act, the Department sought Dr Schneider’s view on whether the information should be released. She raised some concerns but the Department decided that the majority of the information could be released to the original applicant.
Dr Schneider sought internal review and the Department maintained its decision. Dr Schneider then sought external review. The Ombudsman determined that some additional information was exempt under s36 of the Act but the remainder could be released to the original applicant.
Rosemary Schneider and Department of Health (PDF, 215.6 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)
-
Q and Department for Education, Children and Young People
Q submitted an assessed disclosure application under the Right to Information Act 2009 (Tas) (the Act) to the Department for Education, Children and Young People (the Department). They sought information relating to a complaint they had made as a child while in State care.
Though some information was released to Q, the Department decided that some requested information should be withheld under of the Act and s16 of the Children Young Persons and Their Families Act 1997 (Tas). Q sought internal review and the Department did not alter its decision.
Q was not satisfied the Department’s decision and so sought external review. The Ombudsman decided that the Department’s use of s36 should be varied.
Q and Department for Education, Children and Young People (PDF, 241.7 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)
-
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)
-
K and Department of Health
K was employed by the Department of Health (the Department) in a management role. A union representative applied under the Right to Information Act 2009 for access to a workplace culture review report concerning K’s team. The Department determined to release the report in full.
K objected, submitting that the report was exempt in its entirety under s36 (personal information) as it contained personal information, that their identity was reasonably ascertainable and that disclosure would harm their mental health, reputation and employment prospects. The Department maintained that the report was not exempt and that disclosure was in the public interest.
On external review, the Ombudsman determined that the majority of the report could be released but that some information was exempt under s36.
K and Department of Health (PDF, 243.1 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)
-
H and The Department for Education, Children and Young People
H requested information from the Department for Education, Children and Young People (the Department) under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) regarding an investigation into childhood sexual abuse allegations.
On 21 May 2025, the Department issued its original decision to H. It found some information was exempt personal information under s36 of the Act, some information was not permitted to be released under the Children, Young Persons and Their Families Act 1997. This decision was affirmed on internal review.
H was not satisfied by the Department’s decisions and sought external review. The Ombudsman determined that the Department’s use of s36 should be varied.
H and The Department for Education, Children and Young People (PDF, 280.9 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)
-
Kiera Salerno and Tasracing
On 25 October 2024, Ms Salerno submitted an assessed disclosure application to Tasracing. This application was subsequently refined to a request for Any videos sent to ORI [Office of Racing Integrity Tasmania] or relied upon when determining euthanasia of any greyhounds from July 2023.
On 5 December 2024, Tasracing issued a decision to Ms Salerno. Tasracing held that two of six videos identified as responding to Ms Salerno’s application were exempt from disclosure in full under s36 of the Act, on the basis that they contained the personal information of a person other than the applicant. This decision was affirmed on internal review.
Ms Salerno was not satisfied by Tasracing’s internal review and so sought external review by the Ombudsman on 2 January 2025. The Ombudsman decided that Tasracing’s use of s36 should be varied.
Kiera Salerno and Tasracing (PDF, 200.7 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)
-
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)
-
D and Department of Justice
D is a victim-survivor who made a submission to the Commission of Inquiry into the Tasmanian Government’s Responses to Child Sexual Abuse in Institutional Settings.
On 11 September 2024, D contacted the Department of Justice (the Department) seeking other information provided to the Commission of Inquiry regarding their abuser.
The Department released some information but claimed another statement was exempt under ss36 and 39 of the Act. D sought internal review and the Department largely maintained its position. D then sought external review.
The Ombudsman determined that exemptions claimed pursuant to s39 were affirmed.
D and Department of Justice (PDF, 243.0 KB)
-
Z and City of Launceston
On 4 December 2024, the City of Launceston (Council) received an application for assessed disclosure under s13 of the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) in relation to correspondence sent from and received by Z’s email address at Council.
In accordance with s36(2) of the Act, Council sought Z’s view as to whether the information should be released. Although Z objected to the release of the information, Council notified Z that it had decided to release the majority of the information, exempting some pursuant to ss31 and 36.
On 17 February 2025, Z submitted an application for external review. The Ombudsman determined that some additional information proposed by Council to be released was exempt from disclosure pursuant to s36 of the Act.
Z and City of Launceston (PDF, 172.3 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)
-
Damien Matcham and Brighton Council
Mr Damien Matcham has a keen interest in the governance of Brighton Council (Council). On 10 April 2024, Mr Matcham submitted an assessed disclosure application to Council under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) requesting a broad range of information, most of which was related to the expenditure of public money by Council.
After assessing information responsive to Mr Matcham’s application, Council decided that some of the information requested was exempt from disclosure pursuant to ss32 and 36 of the Act.
Mr Matcham sought an external review of Council’s decision by the Ombudsman, who determined that:
- exemptions claimed pursuant to s32 were affirmed; and
- exemptions claimed pursuant to s36 were varied.
Damien Matcham and Brighton Council (PDF, 253.4 KB)
-
Damien Matcham and Brighton Council
Mr Damien Matcham is a longstanding resident of the Brighton municipal area and has an interest in the administration of Brighton Council (Council).
On 24 April 2024, Mr Matcham submitted an assessed disclosure application to Council under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) for information regarding payments to Council employees.
Council relied on s36 of the Act to exempt the release of the information responsive to this request. Mr Matcham sought external review.
The Ombudsman determined that the exemptions claimed pursuant to s36 should be varied.
Damien Matcham and Brighton Council (PDF, 208.6 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)
-
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)
-
Z and City of Launceston
Z is a senior officer of City of Launceston (Council).
On 27 September 2024, Council received an application for assessed disclosure under s13 of the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) seeking information concerning emails sent to and from Z’s official email account.
Pursuant to s36(2) of the Act, Council sought Z’s view as to whether the information should be released. Although Z objected to the release on the grounds that the information was personal and unrelated to their official duties, Council notified Z that it had decided to release the majority of the information.
On 11 December 2024, Z sought external review. The Ombudsman determined that some information proposed by Council to be released was exempt from disclosure pursuant to s36 of the Act.
Z and City of Launceston (PDF, 191.7 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)
-
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)
-
W, X, Y and City of Launceston
On 11 October 2023, the primary applicant in this matter submitted an assessed disclosure application under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) for the City of Launceston (Council)’s application for a Building Better Regions Fund grant (the BBRF application). Council decided that the BBRF application should be released, which included information about W, X and Y.
On 20 December 2023, W, X, and Y sought external review of Council’s decision by the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman required Council to consult with W, X, and Y about the release of the BBRF application, as it had failed to do so in coming to its decision. Council conducted the required consultation but nonetheless affirmed its decision to release the BBRF application.
The Ombudsman determined that some information in the BBRF application was exempt from disclosure pursuant to s37 of the Act, but that the remainder of the information, with the exception of a telephone number, should be released.
W, X, Y and City of Launceston (PDF, 257.8 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)
-
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)
-
Rebecca White and the Premier of Tasmania
On 9 May 2023, the Honourable Ms Rebecca White MP submitted an assessed disclosure application under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to the Office of the Premier seeking information relating to correspondence between the Premier or any of his staff with the Tasmanian Anti-Discrimination Commissioner Sarah Bolt.
The application was initially refused but a fresh decision was eventually issued on 16 January 2024, following intervention from Ombudsman Tasmania. A delegate of the Premier, having identified six items of information responsive to Ms White’s application, determined that three of these items were exempt pursuant to sections 36 and 39 of the Act.
On 22 January 2024, Ms White sought external review of this decision.
The Ombudsman determined that exemptions claimed pursuant to ss36 and 39 should be varied.
Rebecca White and the Premier of Tasmania (PDF, 199.4 KB)
-
Robert Hogan and Department for Education, Children and Young People
On 4 May 2022, Mr Robert Hogan sought information through assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) regarding the 2019 decision made by the University of Tasmania to relocate its campus from Sandy Bay to central Hobart. The relevant part of his request regarding appointments to the University Council was assessed by the then Department of Education, now the Department for Education, Children and Young People (the Department).
On 4 July 2022, the Department released a decision to Mr Hogan, determining that no information relevant to the application was found. In response to Mr Hogan’s request for an internal review, the Department released 39 pages of information and applied s36 of the Act to exempt some personal information.
On 11 October 2022, Mr Hogan sought external review, which was accepted pursuant to s44(1) of the Act.
The Ombudsman determined that:
- exemptions claimed pursuant to s36 are varied; and
- while the Department initially did not undertake a sufficient search for information, by the conclusion of the external review it had taken appropriate steps to rectify the situation.
Robert Hogan and Department for Education, Children and Young People (PDF, 231.8 KB)
-
Phil Harris and Tourism Tasmania
Mr Phil Harris operates an adventure tour company, Aardvark Adventures, specialising in activities such as abseiling and white-water rafting. On 3 July 2023, he made an application for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) seeking information from Tourism Tasmania about a reported safety incident involving his company.
Tourism Tasmania issued a decision in relation to his application. It released the majority of the relevant information but relied upon s36 of the Act to exempt a small amount of personal information. It also determined other information was not in its possession. Mr Harris sought external review.
The Ombudsman determined that the exemptions claimed pursuant to s36 should be varied.
Phil Harris and Tourism Tasmania (PDF, 214.4 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)
-
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)
-
Daniel Winston and City of Hobart
Mr Daniel Winston is a resident of the City of Hobart local government area. On 7 June 2022 he made an application to City of Hobart (Council) for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) seeking the name of a person who had made a complaint to Council about an alleged environmental nuisance caused by Mr Winston.
Council relied upon s36 of the Act to exempt the name of the complainant. Mr Winston sought external review.
The Ombudsman determined that the exemption claimed pursuant to s36 was affirmed.
Daniel Winston and City of Hobart (PDF, 218.7 KB)
-
Clem Newton-Brown and Flinders Council
On 23 June 2023 Mr Clem Newton-Brown submitted an application for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to Flinders Council (Council). As part of this application Mr Newton-Brown requested three items of information related to a development application Mr Newton-Brown submitted to Council. This development application proposed to build visitor accommodation on Little Dog Island.
On 16 August 2023 a decision was issued to Mr Newton-Brown by Council’s General Manager, Mr Warren Groves. Mr Groves determined that some information responsive to Mr Newton-Brown’s application was exempt from disclosure pursuant to ss31 (legal professional privilege) and 36 (personal information) of the Act.
Mr Newton-Brown sought external review of this decision and the Ombudsman determined that Council’s use of ss31 and 36 should be varied.
Clem Newton-Brown and Flinders Council (PDF, 159.0 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)
-
V and the Department for Education, Children and Young People
V was previously employed by the Department of Communities Tasmania, now the Department for Education, Children and Young People (the Department), as a Child Safety Officer.
On 23 December 2020, V filed a request for information under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) with the Department. The request was for correspondence sent between various colleagues that related to V or contained his name. The Department held that s36 of the Act, and ss103(1) and 111A(1) of the Children Young Persons and Their Families Act 1997 applied to justify the non-disclosure of some information responsive to V’s application. V sought external review.
The Ombudsman determined that exemptions claimed by the Department pursuant to s36 of the Act should be varied.
V and the Department for Education, Children and Young People (PDF, 193.0 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)
-
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)
-
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)
-
O and TT-Line Company Pty Ltd
On 6 January 2022, O submitted an application for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to TT-Line Company Pty Ltd (TT-Line). O requested passenger and car registration information relating to the Spirit of Tasmania ferry.
TT-Line released a decision and held that the requested information was exempt from disclosure in full pursuant to s36 of the Act (personal information). O sought an internal review of the decision regarding car registration details, accepting the finding regarding passenger details.
The original decision was upheld on internal review and O sought external review.
The Ombudsman affirmed TT-Line’s exemption of car registration details under s36 of the Act, finding their release would be contrary to the public interest in the circumstances.
O and TT-Line Company Pty Ltd (PDF, 162.5 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)
-
T and Department of Health
On 14 June 2023, T made a request to access his medical records. This request was taken to be an application for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) by the Department of Health (the Department).
The Department released 21 pages of information to T in full and found 53 pages to be partially exempt from release pursuant to s36 of the Act. This was on the basis that it was the personal information of third parties. T sought internal review, and the Department affirmed its decision regarding s36.
On 30 November 2023, T sought external review to Ombudsman Tasmania. The Ombudsman determined that the Department’s use of s36 of the act be varied, overturning the majority of applications of the exemption.
The Ombudsman also criticised the Department for initially offering to provide requested information far more quickly and without redactions if T’s legal representative made an undertaking that the requested information would not be used in litigation against the State. He emphasised that this approach is not in accordance with the Act.
T and Department of Health (PDF, 161.0 KB)
-
Malcolm Gardam and Devonport City Council
On 11 September 2020, Mr Malcolm Gardam made an application for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to the Devonport City Council (Council). He sought information regarding the lease agreement between Council and Providore Place (Devonport) Pty Ltd.
On 8 October 2020, Council issued a decision to Mr Gardam. No documents were released but some responses were provided to matters raised by Mr Gardam. Information was claimed to be exempt under ss31 (legal professional privilege), 32 (closed meetings of council) and 36 (personal information). He sought internal review and Council issued an internal review decision on 22 October 2020. This decision affirmed Council’s first decision in full.
Mr Gardam then sought external review. Council advised during the external review process that it now relied on s37 (information relating to the business affairs of a third party) instead of s32 in relation to some documents.
The Ombudsman determined that:
- Exemptions claimed pursuant to s31 were upheld;
- Exemptions claimed pursuant to ss32 and 36 were varied;
- Exemptions claimed pursuant to s37 were not made out; and
- Information identifying parties to leases was to be redacted by agreement between the parties.
Malcolm Gardam and Devonport City Council (PDF, 295.9 KB)
-
Carlo Di Falco and City of Hobart
On 10 March 2020, Mr Carlo Di Falco applied for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to the City of Hobart (Council). He sought information regarding a workplace incident which occurred in 2004. On 24 August 2020, Council released a partial decision and some information to Mr Di Falco. Some further information was claimed to be exempt under s31 of the Act and he was advised that third parties were being consulted under s36(2). Mr Di Falco did not lodge an external review request within the required timeframes regarding this partial decision.
On 25 November 2020, Council issued a final decision to Mr Di Falco and claimed that information was exempt under s36 (personal information of a person), after considering the views of third parties consulted. Mr Di Falco sought external review of this decision on 30 November 2020.
The Ombudsman determined that exemptions claimed by Council pursuant to s36 should be varied.
Carlo Di Falco and City of Hobart (PDF, 179.6 KB)
-
Gerry Willis and Department of Health
Mr Gerry Willis is a Furneaux Group resident who is interested in improving health outcomes for residents. On 24 January 2020, he made an application under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) for information regarding the Patient Travel Assistance Scheme operated by the Department of Health (the Department). On 18 September 2020, a decision was issued by the Department to release some of the information to him. This was in a different format to what Mr Willis sought. Mr Willis requested an internal review and, on 20 November 2020, the Department issued an internal review decision. It claimed the information which had not been released to date was exempt under s36 (personal information of a person). Mr Willis sought external review.
The Ombudsman determined that the majority of the information was not exempt under s36, but some of the data was validly exempt as patients could potentially be identified.
Gerry Willis and Department of Health (PDF, 159.0 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)
-
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)
-
Don Allen and City of Launceston
On 16 March 2021, an application for assessed disclosure was made under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to the City of Launceston (Council) for information relating to the development of a car park site in Paterson Street, Launceston. The site is partly owned by Car Parks Super Pty Ltd, a director of which is Mr Don Allen. Council consulted with Mr Allen under s37(2) of the Act as a third party to the application for information. Mr Allen did not agree to the release of the information.
On 10 June 2021, Council information Mr Allen of its decision to release the information to the applicant. Mr Allen sought internal review of this decision. By August 2021, no internal review decision had been made and Mr Allen sought external review.
On 21 April 2023, Council issued an internal review decision notifying Mr Allen that it proposed to release four emails in part, after applying exemptions under s36 (personal information of a person) and s37 (information relating to business affairs of a third party). On 9 May 2023, Mr Allen advised that he sought a full external review, objecting to the release of parts of one email and submitting that all of that email should be exempt pursuant to ss36 and 37.
The Ombudsman determined that the information that Mr Allen sought to be exempt from release was not exempt pursuant to ss36 or 37.
Don Allen and City of Launceston (PDF, 181.7 KB)
-
Peter Jacobson and Department for Education, Children and Young People
On 8 May 2021, Mr Jacobson made an application for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to what is now the Department for Education, Children and Young People (the Department). Mr Jacobson sought information relating to all records placed on his personal file in 2020 including letters, file notes and electronic records.
On 18 June 2021, the Department released a decision to Mr Jacobson, deciding to release some of the information, but finding other parts exempt under s36 (personal information of a person). It redacted names and work contact information. Mr Jacobson sought internal review. On 29 July 2021, the Department released an internal review decision which disclosed further information but primarily affirmed the original decision. Mr Jacobson then sought external review.
The Ombudsman determined that exemptions claimed pursuant to s36 should be varied.
Peter Jacobson and Department for Education, Children and Young People (PDF, 158.7 KB)
-
Q and Northern Midlands Council
On 9 July 2020, Q made an application for assessed disclosure under the under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act)to the Northern Midlands Council (Council) requesting all correspondence from John Wayne Millwood to the Northern Midlands Council referring to his criminal conviction or [Q]. The information identified as being responsive to the request was a single page letter written by Mr Millwood’s lawyer and sent to the Mayor of Council.
Consistent with s36(2), Council contacted Mr Millwood to seek his view as to whether the information could be released. He objected to the release. Council then determined the letter was exempt from release under s36. Q sought internal review and this position was maintained by Council. Q then sought external review.
The Ombudsman determined that the Council’s use of s36 should be varied, finding that the letter could be released except for two small sections which identified other parties.
Q and Northern Midlands Council (PDF, 156.0 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)
-
Linda Poulton and Meander Valley Council
Concerned Westbury resident and President of community group ‘Westbury Region Against the Prison’, Ms Linda Poulton, submitted two applications for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) requesting information relating to the proposed northern prison project. Ms Poulton lodged her first application to the Department of Justice on 25 February 2020, which was transferred to Meander Valley Council (Council) on 26 February 2020. Ms Poulton submitted her second application to Council on 19 May 2020.
On 19 May 2020, Ms Poulton also sought external review in relation to her first application, as a decision had not been received within the required timeframe.
On 24 June 2020, Council issued a single decision in relation to both applications and released some information. On 15 July 2020, Council released further information to Ms Poulton. Information was also claimed to be exempt under ss36 and 39 of the Act.
On 23 July 2020, Ms Poulton confirmed she wish to continue with her application for external review on both requests, which were considered jointly.
The Ombudsman determined that:
- Exemptions claimed by Council pursuant to s36 were varied; and
- Exemptions claimed by Council pursuant to s39 were upheld.
Linda Poulton and Meander Valley Council (PDF, 171.4 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)
-
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)
-
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)
-
Graham Murray and City of Hobart
Mr Murray is a supporter of the proposed cable car development on Kunanyi/Mt Wellington. Mr Murray was concerned that Tasmanian media outlets were provided unauthorised access to a Ministerial Authority permitting the construction of this cable car. Mr Murray had in his possession information that showed that this Ministerial Authority was scanned from a multi-functional machine within the Hobart Town Hall on 2 March 2019.
On 5 April 2019, Mr Murray submitted an application for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to the City of Hobart (Council). He requested, among other items of information, Town Hall access logs from 2 March 2019.
On 20 September 2019, Council issued a decision to Mr Murray which determined that all information identified as being responsive to this request was exempt from disclosure under s36 of the Act. As this decision was made by Council’s principal officer, there was no internal review process available.
On 18 October 2019, Mr Murray submitted an application for external review of Council’s decision regarding the access logs. The Ombudsman determined that the exemption claimed by Council pursuant to s36 of the Act was not made out.
Graham Murray and City of Hobart (PDF, 146.3 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)
-
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)
-
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)
-
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)
-
D, E and Tasmania Police
D alleges he was sexually assaulted as a child by an older man, E. E was investigated for gross indecency then later charged with indecent practices between males. He was acquitted at trial. D applied to Tasmania Police for assessed disclosure of information regarding the investigation, as he was seeking to make a civil claim against E. A proof of evidence that included E's record of interview was found to be responsive to D's request. Tasmania Police consulted E under s36(2) when considering whether to release the document. E objected to the release, but Tasmania Police decided that the document was not exempt information under s36 and should be provided to D with certain personal information redacted. E sought internal review of the decision and Tasmania Police affirmed its original decision. E sought external review of Tasmania Police's internal review decision to release the information to D.
The Ombudsman considered E's objections and relevant public interest factors. He concluded that the proof of evidence that included E's record of interview should be released to D in the redacted form provided to E in the Tasmania Police internal review decision.
D, E and Tasmania Police (PDF, 179.4 KB)
-
D, E and Department of Education
D applied for assessed disclosure from the Department of Education (the Department) of information concerning E, who is a former Departmental employee and the alleged perpetrator of child sexual abuse against D. D sought information held by the Department regarding E’s suspension from teaching duties, his subsequent reinstatement and any subsequent complaints. During the assessment of D’s application, the Department located a letter containing E’s personal information which was responsive to the request. The Department consulted E under s36(2), seeking his view on the potential disclosure of his personal information. E objected to the release of the information, but the Department proposed to release it in partially redacted form and maintained this view on internal review. E sought external review on 11 February 2019.
The Ombudsman determined that the exemption claimed by the Department under s36 should be varied, with E’s signature ordered to now be redacted in addition to his address, telephone number and email address. It is not contrary to the public interest to release the remainder of the document to D.
D, E and Department of Education (PDF, 206.1 KB)
-
C and Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment
In May 2018, C made an application to the Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment (the Department) for assessed disclosure, seeking copies of commercial filming agreements and drone use approved between 1 January 2013 and 21 May 2018 in the Arthur-Pieman Conservation Area. Consultation occurred with the commercial flying agreement applicants under s36(2) and s37(2). Following this consultation, the names and personal information relating to some entities applying for filming were redacted under s36, as well as the personal information of some Departmental staff. C sought external review of this decision.
The Ombudsman determined that the Department’s use of s36 should be varied. Some personal information of contact people listen on the commercial filming applications was validly exempt, but the Department had not discharged its onus under s47(4) to show why the names and Australian Business Numbers of some commercial entities, and the personal information of some Departmental staff, should be exempt under s36.
C and Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment (PDF, 182.5 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)
-
Patrick Billings and Department of Justice
Patrick Billings, a journalist with the Mercury newspaper, sought information from the Department of Justice regarding prisoners who had been incorrectly released. The Department located information relating to seven prisoners and released the gender and age of each prisoner, the date of early or late release, the correct earliest release date, the date each prisoner was returned to custody and the Tasmania Prison Service’s assessment of how the errors were made. Offence information relating to the prisoners was claimed to be exempt pursuant to s36 of the Right to Information Act 2009.
Mr Billings sought external review and the Ombudsman determined that offence information relating to prisoners about whom a decision or comments on passing sentence had been published is exempt under s36. Offence information relating to prisoners about whom there were no decision or comments on passing sentence published was not exempt as it did not render the identity of the prisoners reasonably ascertainable and was to be released to Mr Billings.
The Ombudsman reconsidered his decision due to the accidental omission of the opportunity for the Department to provide input on an adverse decision, but did not alter his original determinations following the reconsideration.
Patrick Billings and Department of Justice (PDF, 136.2 KB)
-
Damien Matcham, on behalf of Nigel Matcham, and Department of Justice
Mr Nigel Matcham suffered a serious head injury while working at the chocolate factory at Cadbury Road in Claremont. His brother, Mr Damien Matcham, applied on behalf of Nigel to WorkSafe Tasmania (part of the Department of Justice) for documentation it held regarding Nigel. The Department released emails, letters, medical certificates, a workplace attendance record and, on internal review, medical reports. However, it decided four statements, each signed by another person working at the factory that night then provided to WorkSafe by the employer, Mondelez Australia Pty Ltd, were exempt in full under s36.
The Ombudsman's office consulted each author of a statement (which the Department had not done). One author opposed release of their statement. The Ombudsman considered the meaning of 'personal information' as defined in s5(1). He found that each statement contained some personal information, but parts of the statements were clearly not personal information. The Ombudsman considered the public interest test under s33 and Schedule 1 of the Act. He found only matter (m) in Schedule 1 weighed, in part, against release of one statement, given its author's objection. By contrast, a number of matters weighed in favour of disclosure (including, in part, matter (m)), given the significant interests of Nigel Matcham in obtaining the statements regarding the circumstances of his injury. The Ombudsman determined the public interest test required disclosure of all four statements in full, so reversed the Department's decision regarding the statements.
The Department made no submission on the preliminary/draft decision under s48(1)(a). It noted that the 'matter dates back to 2017 and the Department now, as a general rule, releases such witness statement [sic] as a matter of course for the reasons outlined in the decision.'
Damien Matcham, on behalf of Nigel Matcham, and Department of Justice (PDF, 262.1 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)
-
X, Y and Tasmania Police
X alleges he was sexually abused as a child by an older man, Y. Y was charged with indecent assault (of a child) but this was discontinued. X applied to Tasmania Police for assessed disclosure of information relating to the indecent assault investigation and prosecution, as he was seeking to make a civil claim against Y. Tasmania Police consulted Y under s36(2) when considering whether to release a transcript of his record of interview and associated signed notes in relation to the matter. Y objected to the release, but Tasmania Police decided that the documents were not exempt information under s36 and should be provided to X with the personal information of Y and other alleged victims redacted. Y sought internal review of the decision and Tasmania Police affirmed its original decision. Y sought external review of Tasmania Police's internal review decision to release the information to X.
The Ombudsman considered Y’s objections and relevant public interest factors. He concluded that Y’s record of interview and associated signed notes should be released to X in the redacted form provided to Y with the Tasmania Police internal review decision. This would not be contrary to the public interest.
X, Y and Tasmania Police (PDF, 175.8 KB)
-
Z, C and the Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water, and Environment
In May 2018, C made an application to the Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment (the Department) for assessed disclosure, which included a request for copies of commercial filming agreements approved between 1 January 2013 and 21 May 2018 in the Arthur-Pieman Conservation Area. An application Z had made through his media company was found to be responsive to the request and he was consulted under s36(2) and s37(2) by the Department. Z did not object to the release of his commercial filming application but was concerned about the release of an associated email which he did not consider to be in the public interest. The Department decided that the email should be released to C, with Z’s personal information redacted. Z sought an internal review of this decision, which upheld the original decision except for one sentence, which was also redacted. Z then sought external review of this decision. The Ombudsman considered that the Department’s redactions struck an appropriate balance between releasing information about commercial filming agreements approved in public spaces and protecting Z’s personal information. The Ombudsman determined that the email should be released to C in the redacted form provided to Z in the Department’s internal review decision.
Z, C and the Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water, and Environment (PDF, 216.3 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)
-
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)
-
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)
-
Graham Gourlay and University of Tasmania
At the time of the request for information, Mr Gourlay was a student at UTAS. He had applied to the ethics committee for approval to undertake some research. The approval was denied. Mr Gourlay sought the names of the members of the ethics committee. The University denied this claiming it was exempt information under s36 and that the public interest test did not support its released. The Ombudsman overturned this decision.
Graham Gourlay and University of Tasmania (PDF, 1.0 MB)
-
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)
-
A and Tasmania Police
The information at issue was whether the will of the applicant’s late parent should be disclosed to them. This decision discusses the requirements of s36 (personal information of a person) of the Right to Information Act 2009 and the intersection it has with the Wills Act 2008. As these Acts appear at face value to contradict each other, the issue of implied repeal by later statute is also considered.
A and Tasmania Police (PDF, 97.5 KB)
-
Michael Atkin and Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Wildlife and the Environment
Mr Atkin (a journalist with the ABC’s 7.30 Report) requested information concerning a third party’s mussel enterprise, including personal information. The Ombudsman determined that the remaining undisclosed information was exempt in accordance with s27, s35 and s36 of the Right to Information Act 2009. On considering the public interest, the Ombudsman found that the s35 information should remain exempt, whist in the unusual circumstances of this case, it was not contrary to the public interest to disclose the personal information in question.
Michael Atkin and Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Wildlife and the Environment (PDF, 500.8 KB)
-
Timothy Kirkwood and Tasmanian Planning Commission
Mr Kirkwood (Manager of Southern Midlands Council) requested information provided by a third party to the Commission outside of its usual hearing/determination process. The Ombudsman was satisfied that any such information held in respect of the third party related to the Commission’s ‘official business’ and hence was subject to the Right to Information Act 2009. However, all such information was exempt under s36 and it was contrary to the public interest to disclose this.
The decision also explored the interplay between information ‘otherwise available’ under s12(3)(c) of the Right to Information Act 2009 and information (written evidence and submission documents) subject to an obligation to be made public under s12 of the Tasmanian Planning Commission Act 1997.
Timothy Kirkwood and Tasmanian Planning Commission (PDF, 722.1 KB)