Your search for
Section 37
returned 46 results.
-
M and Department of Justice
On 2 December 2024, the primary applicant in this matter submitted an assessed disclosure application under the Right to Information Act 2009 (Tas) (the Act) to the Department of Justice (the Department). This application sought access to all information relating to complaints, concerns and disputes involving M and associated corporations.
Pursuant to s37(2) of the Act, the Department consulted M to obtain their view as to whether the information should be released. Despite M’s objections, the Department decided that the information should be released. M subsequently sought external review of the Department’s decision, arguing that all information proposed to be released was exempt under ss30, 36 and 37.
The Ombudsman determined that the relevant information was not exempt, affirming the Department’s decision.
M and Department of Justice (PDF, 251.9 KB)
-
Robert Hogan and University of Tasmania
Mr Robert Hogan is a member of the community who has an interest in actions of the University of Tasmania (the University). On 23 September 2024, he made an application to the University for assessed disclosure under s13 of the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) seeking information relating to communications between the University and the Australian Labor Party.
The University identified 174 documents and relied on ss35, 36, 37 and 38 of the Act to exempt some information. Mr Hogan sought internal review.
On internal review the University identified some further documents, and maintained its reliance on ss35, 36 and 37 but no longer relied on s38. Mr Hogan sought external review, querying the use of exemptions and the sufficiency of searching for relevant information.
The Ombudsman determined;
- exemptions claimed pursuant to ss36 and 37 were varied;
- exemptions claimed pursuant to s35 were not made out; and
- a sufficient search for information was ultimately conducted.
Robert Hogan and University of Tasmania (PDF, 236.6 KB)
-
Meg Webb and Department of Treasury and Finance
The Honourable Meg Webb MLC is the Member for Nelson in the Legislative Council. On 3 June 2024, she submitted an application for assessed disclosure under s13 of the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to the Department of Treasury and Finance (the Department). She sought information relating to the proposed universal player card gambling system for poker machines.
The Department relied on ss31, 35, 36 and 37 of the Act to exempt some information. Ms Webb sought internal review and the Department largely maintained its position on internal review. Ms Webb sought external review.
The Ombudsman determined:
- exemptions claimed pursuant to ss31, 35 and 36 were varied; and
- the exemption claimed pursuant to s37 was not made out.
Meg Webb and Department of Treasury and Finance (PDF, 259.3 KB)
-
Malcolm Gardam and Devonport City Council
Mr Malcolm Gardam is a resident of the Devonport local government area. On 21 February 2024, he submitted an application for assessed disclosure to Devonport City Council (Council) under s13 of the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) seeking information about the Waterfront Parkland Redevelopment.
Council relied upon s37 of the Act to exempt a contract with an external party and determined other information did not exist. Council maintained this position on internal review and Mr Gardam sought external review.
The Ombudsman determined:
- exemptions claimed pursuant to s37 were varied; and
- Council had conducted a sufficient search for information.
Malcolm Gardam and Devonport City Council (PDF, 180.3 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)
-
Adam Holmes and Department of State Growth
Mr Adam Holmes is a journalist with the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. On 31 May 2024, he submitted an application for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to the Department of Premier and Cabinet seeking information regarding a proposed ‘Chocolate Experience’ tourism development.
The Department of Premier and Cabinet transferred part of the application to Department of State Growth (the Department). On 19 September 2024, Mr Holmes sought external review as he had not received a decision within the statutory timeframe. A subsequent decision from the Department applied exemptions under ss35, 36, 37 and 39. Mr Holmes only sought external review of the application of s37 to one document.
The Acting Ombudsman determined that exemptions claimed pursuant to s37 should be varied.
Adam Holmes and Department of State Growth (PDF, 196.1 KB)
-
James Davis and Circular Head Council
On 21 November 2024, Mr James Davis submitted an assessed disclosure application to Circular Head Council (Council) under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act). Mr Davis requested information related to the proposed northern and western boundary consolidation and lease expansion of Stanley Caravan Park.
Council issued a decision to Mr Davis in three parts, redacting some information and releasing the remainder. Mr Davis sought internal review and then external review when a decision was not provided within the statutory timeframe. This request was accepted and Council was directed to provide better reasons for decision under s47(1)(n) of the Act. In these additional reasons it advised that it relied on exemptions under ss32, 36 and 37 of the Act.
Mr Davis only sought external review regarding Council’s use of exemptions under ss32 and 37 in a lease agreement, and whether Council’s search for information was sufficient.
The Ombudsman determined that:
- exemptions claimed pursuant to s32 did not apply;
- exemptions claimed by Council pursuant to s37 should be varied; and
- Council’s search for information was sufficient.
James Davis and Circular Head Council (PDF, 331.3 KB)
-
Selby Cooper and Department of State Growth
On 31 October 2023, Mr Selby Cooper submitted an assessed disclosure application under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to the Department of State Growth (the Department). This application sought information concerning mobile speed cameras operating in Tasmania.
The Department’s decision held that exemptions pursuant to ss30, 36 and 37 of the Act applied to the information responsive to Mr Cooper’s request. Mr Cooper sought external review of this decision.
The Ombudsman determined that:
- exemptions claimed pursuant to s36 are affirmed; and
- exemptions claimed pursuant to ss30 and 37 are varied.
Selby Cooper and Department of State Growth (PDF, 366.0 KB)
-
Environmental Defenders Office and Environment Protection Authority
On 27 August 2024, the Environmental Defenders Office (EDO) submitted an assessed disclosure application under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to the Environment Protection Authority (EPA). It sought environmental management planning information that each Macquarie Harbour salmon farm environmental licence holder was required to submit to the EPA by 24 April 2024.
The EPA original decision deferred the release of the relevant draft plans pursuant to s17 of the Act. This original decision was upheld on internal review. The EDO sought external review.
Following early resolution efforts by Ombudsman Tasmania, the EPA issued a fresh decision in relation to the draft plan, finding the draft plan in its entirety was exempt pursuant to s37.
The Ombudsman determined that the exemptions claimed pursuant to s37 were set aside.
Environmental Defenders Office and Environment Protection Authority (PDF, 437.8 KB)
-
Chris Billing 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 Creative Property Holdings (CPH).
On 8 January 2024, Mr Chris Billing sought external review of Council’s decision. Mr Billing is the director of CPH and held concerns that the release of the relevant information would be likely to expose CPH to a competitive disadvantage.
The Ombudsman required Council to consult with Mr Billing about the release of the BBRF application, as it had failed to do so in coming to its decision. Council conducted the required consultation with Mr Billing 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.
Chris Billing and City of Launceston (PDF, 206.2 KB)
-
John Perry 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) to the City of Launceston (Council). This application sought Council’s application for the $10m Building Better Regions Fund grant (the BBRF application).
Pursuant to s37(2) of the Act, Council consulted Mr John Perry, Tasmania’s Coordinator-General, to obtain his view as to whether the BBRF application should be released.
Despite Mr Perry’s objections, Council decided that the BBRF application should be released. Mr Perry subsequently sought external review of Council’s decision.
The Ombudsman determined that some information within the BBRF application was exempt from disclosure pursuant to s37 of the Act. However, the Ombudsman found that neither ss38, 39 or 41 applied.
John Perry and City of Launceston (PDF, 299.3 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)
-
Huon Aquaculture and Department of Natural Resources and Environment
The Department of Natural Resources and Environment (the Department) received an application for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) from a not-for-profit organisation. The information responsive to the request included information that related to Huon Aquaculture Group Pty Ltd (Huon) and salmon mortality in its operations in Macquarie Harbour.
In accordance with s37(2) of the Act, the Department contacted Huon seeking its view on whether the information should be released. Huon’s position was that the information should be exempt under s37 of the Act and therefore requested the information not be released to the original Applicant.
The Department made a decision to release the information sought, but in an aggregated form combined with data from the two other major salmon farming companies operating in Macquarie Harbour. Huon sought internal review but the Department maintained its position.
On 9 August 2024, Huon sought external review. The Ombudsman determined that the relevant information was not exempt pursuant to s37 of the Act and should be released to the original applicant.
Huon Aquaculture and Department of Natural Resources and Environment (PDF, 229.9 KB)
-
Malcolm Gardam and Devonport City Council
On 22 May 2022, Mr Malcolm Gardam made an application for assessed disclosure under Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to the Devonport City Council. He sought information regarding lease agreements and contracts between Council and key stakeholders in relation to the Living City development in the Devonport area.
On 24 June 2022, Council issued a decision to Mr Gardam. No documents were released and information was claimed to be exempt under ss32 (closed meetings of council) and 37 (business affairs of a third party).
Mr Gardam sought internal review. The internal review decision affirmed Council’s original decision, except for in relation to one contract which was released with redactions.
On 3 August 2022, Mr Gardam sought external review. The Ombudsman determined that exemptions claimed pursuant to ss32 and 37 of the Act were not made out.
Malcolm Gardam and Devonport City Council (PDF, 326.3 KB)
-
Scott Bell and Department of State Growth
Dr Scott Bell has an interest in environmental issues. On 23 September 2021 he lodged an application for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) with the Department of State Growth (the Department) seeking information concerning a mining exploration licence issued to Kassem Holdings Pty Ltd for an area near Bridport.
The Department released some information but relied upon ss35 (internal deliberative information), 36 (personal information), 37 (information relating to the business affairs of a third party) and 42 (information likely to affect the cultural, heritage or natural resources of the State) of the Act to exempt other information. Dr Bell sought internal review but the Department did not change its position. Dr Bell then sought external review.
The Ombudsman determined that:
- exemptions claimed pursuant to s35 were set aside;
- exemptions claimed pursuant to ss36 and 37 were varied; and
- exemptions claimed pursuant to s42 were upheld
Scott Bell and Department of State Growth (PDF, 307.6 KB)
-
Graham Murray and City of Hobart
Mr Graham Murray has an interest in the cable car project (the project) that was proposed for kunanyi/Mt Wellington. On 2 November 2020 he made an assessed disclosure application to the City of Hobart (Council), under the Right to Information Act 2009, for a range of information about the project, including a planned burn off.
There was a significant volume of information identified, collated and assessed. Mr Nick Heath, the then principal officer and CEO of the Council, delivered his decision in four parts, releasing some information and relying on s35 (internal deliberative information) and s37 (information relating to business affairs of third party) to exempt other information. In relation to the burn off, he found that there was no information responsive to the request, which gave rise to a question about the sufficiency of Council’s searching for relevant information.
The Ombudsman determined that:
* the exemptions claimed pursuant to ss35 and 37 were varied; and
* the searching undertaken in relation to the burn off was sufficient.
Graham Murray and City of Hobart (PDF, 457.8 KB)
-
C and Department of State Growth
On 28 August 2020, C filed a request for information under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) with the Department of State Growth (the Department) concerning Screen Tasmania’s funding of the Wild Things documentary.
On 30 October 2020, C received a decision. Some information was released, some information was considered already publicly available and a substantial amount of information was considered to be exempt pursuant to ss 27, 30, 35, 37 and 39 of the Act. C sought internal review.
On internal review, the Department released additional information to the applicant that had been claimed exempt under s30 but raised a new ground for exemption of other information, specifically, s38.
C sought external review of this decision. The Ombudsman upheld the exemptions claimed by the Department pursuant to s27 and determined that the exemptions claimed pursuant to ss35, 37, 38 and 39 should be varied.
C and Department of State Growth (PDF, 308.6 KB)
-
Warren Davis and City of Launceston
In March 2021, an application for assessed disclosure was received by the City of Launceston (Council) under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act). The application sought information relating to the development of a new creative precinct in central Launceston and included information relating to Mr Warren Davis as a director of Bricktop (an investment firm). Council ultimately decided to release the information and Mr Davis sought external review on the basis that he would be adversely affected by this decision.
The Ombudsman determined that Council was entitled to release the relevant information, as it was not exempt under s37 of the Act.
Warren Davis and City of Launceston (PDF, 155.9 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)
-
Mount Wellington Cableway Company and City of Hobart
Mount Wellington Cableway Company (MWCC) sought to construct a cable car on kunanyi/Mt Wellington, which evoked strong views within the Tasmanian community.
The City of Hobart (Council) received three applications for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) from the primary applicant on 31 December 2019 and 21 January 2020. Some of the information identified by Council as being responsive to these applications was provided to Council by MWCC. Council consulted with MWCC under s37(2) of the Act to seek its input as to whether this information should be released. MWCC did not provide any input and on 7 April 2023 Council notified MWCC that it had decided to release this information to the primary applicant.
On the same day MWCC wrote to Ombudsman Tasmania to seek an external review of Council’s decision, on the basis that the release of requested information provided to Council by MWCC would cause it a competitive disadvantage.
The Ombudsman determined that this information was not exempt from disclosure pursuant to s37 of the Act.
Mount Wellington Cableway Company and City of Hobart (PDF, 171.4 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)
-
Manuel Sessink and Meander Valley Council
On 23 December 2019, Mr Manuel Sessink submitted an application for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to Meander Valley Council (Council) requesting 12 items of information regarding the Tasmanian Northern Prison project.
On 23 January 2020, Council issued a decision to Mr Sessink on some parts of his application. Council found information exempt, either in full or in part, pursuant to ss36, 37, 38, and 39 of the Act.
As Council had not issued a decision on the balance of his application within the prescribed timeframes under the Act, Mr Sessink made an application for external review to Ombudsman Tasmania on 1 March 2020. On 30 June 2020, Council issued a second decision on the remainder of Mr Sessink’s application, this time applying ss36 and 37 of the Act to partially exempt information from disclosure.
On external review, the Ombudsman determined that:
- Exemptions claimed pursuant to ss36 and 39 should be varied; and
- Exemptions claimed pursuant to ss37 and 38 should be set aside.
Manuel Sessink and Meander Valley Council (PDF, 227.6 KB)
-
Lake Maintenance Pty Ltd and Homes Tasmania
In 2018, the then Department of Communities issued a request for tender (RFT) that sought to engage contractors for the provision of maintenance services for social housing properties in Tasmania. The RFT attracted 13 applications, one of which was submitted by the applicant, Lake Maintenance Pty Ltd.
The applicant was unsuccessful in this tender process and on 15 February 2019 submitted an application for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) seeking information regarding the selection process.
On 10 April 2019, a decision was issued to the applicant. 1,434 pages of information was identified as being responsive to the applicant’s request with the substantial majority of this information was released in full. However, the evaluation report regarding the tender process was found to be partially exempt from disclosure under s37(1)(b) of the Act. This decision was affirmed on internal review.
On 18 July 2019, the applicant submitted an application for external review. Homes Tasmania is now the relevant public authority following the disbandment of the Department of Communities.
The Ombudsman determined that some information contained in the report was exempt under ss35 and 37 of the Act.
Lake Maintenance Pty Ltd and Homes Tasmania (PDF, 217.8 KB)
-
The Eaves Family and Department of State Growth
On 2 September 2019, the Eaves family made an application for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to the Department of State Growth (the Department). The Eaves family sought information relating to the Department’s processes for assessing Expressions of Interest in relation to leasing a property in the Burnie area for the accommodation of the Department’s Transport Groups operations. On 20 November 2019, the Department released a decision to the Eaves family. It determined to release the information in part, with some information found to be exempt under ss35, 36, 37 and 39 of the Act.
The Eaves family applied for internal review and sought answers to further questions. On 16 January 2021 the Department released its decision. While the Secretary of the Department did provide some further answers and clarification to the Eaves family, the Department relied on the same provisions of the Act to exempt the remaining information. The Eaves family then sought external review, though they did not contest the exemption of information under s36 of the Act.
The Ombudsman determined that exemptions claimed pursuant to s35, 37 and 39 were varied.
The Eaves Family and Department of State Growth (PDF, 404.7 KB)
-
Robert Hogan and University of Tasmania
Mr Robert Hogan is opposed to the plan to relocate the campus of the University of Tasmania (the University) to central Hobart. On 24 March 2022, Mr Hogan made an application for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to the University for copies of the minutes of meetings of the University Council.
On 27 May 2022, the University released a decision to Mr Hogan. He was provided with some information but other information was found to be exempt under ss37 and 38 of the Act. Mr Hogan sought internal review and on 18 July 2022, the University released an internal review decision which affirmed the original decision. Mr Hogan sought external review of that decision.
The Ombudsman found that exemptions claimed by the University under s37 were not made out and those claimed under s38 were to be varied.
Robert Hogan and University of Tasmania (PDF, 267.4 KB)
-
Manuel Sessink and Department of Justice
On 13 October 2019, Mr Manuel Sessink made an application for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to the Department of Justice (the Department) seeking information relating to the siting of the proposed northern prison. On 20 November 2019, Mr Sessink sought external review under s45(1)(f) of the Act because the timeframe for a decision to be provided by the Department had elapsed and he was not in receipt of that decision.
On 21 November 2019, the Department issued a decision to Mr Sessink. It decided to release the requested information, in part, exempting the remainder from disclosure under ss35, 37, and 39 of the Act. Mr Sessink extended his external review request to a full review without seeking internal review.
The Ombudsman determined that exemptions claimed pursuant to ss35, 37, and 39 should be varied.
Manuel Sessink and Department of Justice (PDF, 280.3 KB)
-
Woolnorth Wind Farm Holding Pty Ltd and Department of Natural Resources and Environment
On 7 August 2019, the now the Department of Natural Resources and Environment (the Department) accepted a request for information under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) from a journalist in relation to bird strikes at wind farms. A search of the records in the Department’s possession identified some information in relation to Woolnorth Wind Farm Holding Pty Ltd (Woolnorth). The Department consulted with Woolnorth pursuant to section 37(2) of the Act and Woolnorth objected to the disclosure of certain information, claiming it was exempt under ss36 and 37. The Department notified Woolnorth on 13 September 2019 that it had decided to release all the relevant information in their possession except for information that it considered exempt under s36. Woolnorth agreed to the release of some information but sought internal review of the decision based on concerns that the release of certain photographs of bird strikes would harm its competitive position. Woolnorth believed that the information should be exempt under s37 of the Act. On 4 October 2019, the Department released an internal review decision which upheld the original decision that determined s37 did not apply. Woolnorth sought external review and the Ombudsman determined that the information was not exempt pursuant to s37.
Woolnorth Wind Farm Holding Pty Ltd and Department of Natural Resources and Environment (PDF, 215.9 KB)
-
Ari Zaetz and City of Hobart
On 6 March 2019, Mr Zaetz applied for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 with the then Hobart City Council, now City of Hobart (Council). The information requested was about the Council’s tender process for the development of a pay-by-phone application for on street car parking. EasyPark ANZ Pty Ltd (EasyPark) was awarded the contract and the information sought by Mr Zaetz was the contract between Council and EasyPark and the procurement documents. Council consulted with EasyPark pursuant to s37(3) in assessing the application for information.
On 8 April 2019, Council released the procurement documents but claimed exemption over the contract between Council and EasyPark, pursuant to s39. On 28 June 2019 the internal review decision was released, in which Council’s position changed from relying on s39 to reliance on s37 (information relating to the business affairs of the third party). Further information in the contract was released but significant portions remained redacted.
The Ombudsman determined that the exemptions claimed by Council pursuant to s37 should be varied, with information in only four clauses found to be exempt.
Ari Zaetz and City of Hobart (PDF, 162.3 KB)
-
Blue Derby Pods Ride Pty Ltd and the Department of Natural Resources and Environment Tasmania
On 31 January 2020, an applicant made an application for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to the now Department of Natural Resources and Environment Tasmania (the Department). A Lease and Business Licence Agreement (the Agreement) between Blue Derby Pods Ride Pty Ltd (Blue Derby) and the Department was responsive to this request. The Department consulted with Blue Derby pursuant to section 37(2) of the Act and Blue Derby objected to the disclosure of information in the Agreement.
The Department notified Blue Derby on 17 March 2020 that it had decided to release the majority of the Agreement except for some information it considered exempt pursuant to s37. Blue Derby sought internal review of this decision based on concerns the release of the information would reveal trade secrets and harm its competitive position. Blue Derby believed the information should be exempt pursuant to ss37 and 39. On 21 April 2020, the Department released an internal review decision which upheld its original decision and determined that s39 was not relevant. Blue Derby then sought external review of this decision.
The Ombudsman determined that:
- Exemptions claimed pursuant to s37 were not made out; and
- Exemptions claimed pursuant to s39 were varied.
Blue Derby Pods Ride Pty Ltd and the Department of Natural Resources and Environment Tasmania (PDF, 191.9 KB)
-
Cassy O’Connor MP and the Department of Natural Resources and Environment Tasmania
Ms Cassy O’Connor MP made a request for information under the Right to Information Act 2009 to the Department of Natural Resources and Environment (the Department) in May 2018, seeking copies of Reserve Activity Assessments (RAAs) regarding proposed developments in Tasmanian national parks and reserves. On 3 April 2019, the Department released a decision to Ms O’Connor regarding the RAA for the Maydena Bike Park and decided that it was exempt in full pursuant to ss36, 37 and 39. Ms O’Connor sought external review and the Department was directed to undertake an internal review. On 10 May 2019, the Department released a further decision which also exempted all the relevant information in full pursuant to s39 (or s37 in the alternative).
The Ombudsman considered that the majority of the 184 page RAA should be released, except for 15 pages which were actually likely to expose the Maydena Bike Park proponent to competitive disadvantage. Accordingly, he determined that:
*Exemptions claimed pursuant to s39 were not made out; and
*Exemptions claimed pursuant to s37 were varied.
Cassy O’Connor MP and the Department of Natural Resources and Environment Tasmania (PDF, 238.0 KB)
-
Robert Vellacott and Devonport City Council
In October 2018, Mr Robert Vellacott made an application for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to the Devonport City Council seeking information about the Providore Place development (now re-named Market Square Pavillion). Council released a decision which provided some explanation of details regarding Council expenditure and contributions to the project, but refused under ss32 and 37 of the Act to provide the majority of information sought, including the signed lease agreement between it and Providore Place Devonport Pty Ltd, any amendments to that lease, and individual figures for fit-out of tenancies. This decision was affirmed on internal review on 24 December 2018. Mr Vellacott sought external review of the exemptions applied to the information and whether a sufficient search for information responsive to his request had been made by Council.
The Ombudsman determined that:
- Exemptions claimed by Council pursuant to s32 of the Act were varied, as the signed lease agreement was not exempt;
- Exemptions claimed by Council pursuant to s37 of the Act were upheld; and
- There had been a sufficient search for relevant information by Council.
Robert Vellacott and Devonport City Council (PDF, 258.6 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)
-
Rhiana Whitson and Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment
Ms Whitson (a journalist for the ABC) sought information from the Department about the death of 16 polo ponies in January 2018 which were transported on the Spirit of Tasmania ferry. The Department refused to provide any information responsive to the request, considering it fully exempt pursuant to s30(1)(a) of the Right to Information Act 2009, as information relating to the enforcement of the law, on the basis of an ongoing investigation and potential prosecutions relating to the incident. Since the Department’s original decision, charges have been laid under the Animal Welfare Act 1993 in relation to the incident and their prosecution remains ongoing.
The Ombudsman predominantly upheld the Department’s decision but found that some information was not exempt, consistent with a previous external review decision in Mandy Squires and Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment (March 2019). This information was nonetheless not required to be provided to Ms Whitson, as it was otherwise available under s12(3)(c)(i).
Rhiana Whitson and Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment (PDF, 162.3 KB)
-
Clive Stott and Hydro Tasmania
Mr Stott requested information from Hydro Tasmania ('Hydro') regarding the fault in the Basslink cable which caused it to shut down in 2015. Hydro released some information to Mr Stott but refused the majority of his request on the basis that it considered that: the information was already publicly available (s12); the work involved in providing the information would substantially and unreasonably divert Hydro’s resources from its other work (s19); or the information was exempt (under a section noted below). Mr Stott sought external review of this decision.
Late in the external review process, Mr Stott agreed to redaction of some personal information relating to personnel internal or external to Hydro. Hence, while the reasons consider exemptions claimed under s36, ultimately a s36 review decision was not required.
The Ombudsman found that:
1. He does not have the power to review a decision under s12 to refuse to provide information which is already publicly available.
2. Hydro had not complied with the requirements of s19 to give Mr Stott a reasonable opportunity to consult with it to refine his request to a form which would not substantially and unreasonably divert its resources. Mr Stott’s request was returned to Hydro to reassess under the Act.
3. Exemptions claimed under s31 (legal professional privilege) should be varied, releasing additional documents to Mr Stott.
4. Exemptions claimed under s37 (information relating to the business affairs of a third party) and s38 (information relating to the business affairs of a public authority) were not made out and relevant documents should be released to Mr Stott.
5. The exemption claimed over a document under s39 (information obtained in confidence) was not made out, but the document was otherwise exempt under s30 (information relating to the enforcement of the law).
Clive Stott and Hydro Tasmania (PDF, 262.1 KB)
-
Environment Tasmania and Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and the Environment
Environment Tasmania asked the Department to provide a range of information about fin-fish farming around Tasmania. The first response was a possible refusal under s19. This was due to the size and complexity of what has been sought. The scope was revised and focused on a smaller sub-set of information about Okehampton Bay. The Department refused its release claiming it would expose a third party to competitive disadvantage under s37. The Ombudsman set this decision aside. While s37 might have been able to apply, it did not satisfy the public interest test.
Environment Tasmania and Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and the Environment (PDF, 2.5 MB)
-
Mandy Squires and Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water, and the Environment
Ms Squires (a journalist with NewsCorp) sought information from the Department about the death of 16 ponies on the Spirit of Tasmania. This was a serious incident and sparked a lot of interest among the media and the public. This is an interesting matter in that a strong public interest does not necessarily guarantee release of information in the right circumstances. The Department relied on exemptions due to enforcement of the law, third party business information, and information obtained in confidence. The decision only upholds those exemptions relating to the enforcement of the law and overturns the others.
Mandy Squires and Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water, and the Environment (PDF, 2.2 MB)
-
Christine Smart and City of Launceston
Ms Smart requested information relating to the legal costs incurred by Council in relation to her property, specifically her fence line that bordered an alleyway, that had historically been there for decades. A review of the boundaries identified the discrepancy and Ms Smart was asked to correct it.
Ms Smart's application for assessed disclosure sought the amount of legal costs incurred by Council after she challenged Council's decision. This matter primarily looks at whether or not the legal costs incurred constitute privileged information.
Christine Smart and City of Launceston (PDF, 1.1 MB)
-
Timothy Baird and Launceston City Council
Mr Baird requested information relating to the City of Launceston's plan to upgrade the Sea Port Boardwalk. Specifically, Mr Baird sought information leading to the appointment of Darcon Pty Ltd as the successful tenderer.
This decision considered the points of 'competitive disadvantage' under s37 and the balance between public interest and deliberative information.
Timothy Baird and Launceston City Council (PDF, 689.3 KB)
-
Huon Aquaculture Group Pty Ltd and Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment
On 7 November 2013, an application for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) was received by the Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment (the Department) from Tassal Operations Pty Ltd (Tassal). Tassal sought information relating to Huon Aquaculture Group Pty Ltd (Huon) and any interaction it has had with wildlife. A large number of documents were collated and the Department consulted with Huon pursuant to section 37(2) of the Act. Huon was advised that while some information was deemed exempt under the Act, the Department had decided to release a significant amount of information.
Huon sought an internal review, and the internal review decision was made on 16 July 2014. While further information was exempted, the Department’s internal review decision still proposed to release the majority of the relevant information. Huon continued to object to this and sought an external review.
The external review relates to exemptions claimed under ss37, 39 and 42 of the Act.
The Ombudsman determined that:
- Exemptions claimed pursuant to s37 were varied; and
- Exemptions claimed pursuant to ss39 and 42 were affirmed.
Huon Aquaculture Group Pty Ltd and Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment (PDF, 1.4 MB)
-
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)
-
Laura Kelly, on behalf of Environment Tasmania and the Environment Protection Agency
Environment Tasmania requested information about Huon Aquaculture’s Lonnavale Hatchery and its effect on the Russell River. Some information was released but the EPA considered that all other information was exempt under s39(1) of the Right to Information Act 2009 (Information obtained in confidence) in the first instance because it had been voluntarily provided by Huon. On review the Ombudsman determined that none of the remaining information was exempt under s39(1) as disclosure of the information would not be reasonably likely to impair the ability of a public authority or Minister to obtain similar information in the future: s39(1)(b). However, much of the information was found to be exempt under s37(1) (Information relating to business affairs of third party) and, whilst it was contrary to the public interest to release raw monitoring data, the Ombudsman determined that it was not contrary to release all other information.
Laura Kelly, on behalf of Environment Tasmania and the Environment Protection Agency (PDF, 1.6 MB)
-
Michael Atkin and Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and the Environment
Mr Atkin (a journalist with the ABC) requested information in relation to a fish mortality event in Macquarie Harbour that occurred between 1 December 2014 and 28 February 2015. Some laboratory report information as to the probable cause of the fish mortality event was released by the Department on internal review. The Ombudsman determined that information relating to the reporting of the fish mortality event by the relevant enterprise to the Department was exempt under s37 of the Right to Information Act 2009 but that, in terms of s33, it was not contrary to the public interest to disclose this. By contrast, whilst the remaining laboratory report information was exempt under s39, it was contrary to the public interest to disclose any further information from this report.
Michael Atkin and Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and the Environment (PDF, 974.8 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)