Your search for
Section 38
returned 12 results.
-
Kiera Salerno and Tasracing
Ms Kiera Salerno lodged an assessed disclosure application under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) with Tasracing seeking information related to the Greyhounds as Pets program.
Tasracing’s decided that some information relating to Ms Salerno’s application was exempt from disclosure pursuant to ss30 and 38 of the Act. Ms Salerno sought internal review and Tasracing affirmed its decision. Ms Salerno sought external review.
The Ombudsman determined that:
- exemptions claimed under s30 should be varied; and
- exemptions claimed under s38 were not made out.
Kiera Salerno and Tasracing (PDF, 258.3 KB)
-
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)
-
Heidi Sandwell and City of Hobart
Ms Sandwell is a representative of the accommodation booking platform Airbnb. On 24 July 2023, Ms Sandwell requested a range of information related to the City of Hobart’s (Council’s) decision to increase the rates payable for short stay accommodation in the Hobart municipal area.
This application was subject to various delays, however Council eventually determined to refuse aspects of Ms Sandwell’s application under s19. Council also decided that some requested information was exempt from disclosure pursuant to ss31, 32, 35, 38, 40, and 41 of the Act. Ms Sandwell sought external review.
The Ombudsman determined that:
- Council was not entitled to rely on s19 to refuse Ms Sandwell’s application;
- exemptions claimed pursuant to ss31, 32 and 35 should be varied; and
- exemptions claimed pursuant to ss38, 40 and 41 were not made out.
Heidi Sandwell and City of Hobart (PDF, 388.2 KB)
-
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)
-
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)
-
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)
-
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)
-
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)
-
Trevor Burdon and Sustainable Timber Tasmania
Mr Trevor Burdon invested in the Managed Investment Schemes (MIS) regarding plantations grown by Gunns Plantations Limited (Gunns) on land managed by Forestry Tasmania, now Sustainable Timber Tasmania (STT). When Gunns became insolvent in 2013, legal disputes arose between STT and the liquidators for Gunns regarding issues impacting Mr Burdon. On 7 December 2018, Mr Burdon made an application for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) seeking information regarding the legal settlement of the dispute and alleged ‘gross underpayment’ of MIS investors by STT in that settlement. On 17 April 2019, STT released a decision to Mr Burdon which found that all information responsive to his request was exempt from release pursuant to ss31, 35, 37, 38 and 40 of the Act. Mr Burdon sought external review of this decision.
The Ombudsman determined that:
- Exemptions claimed pursuant to s31 were varied;
- Exemptions claimed pursuant to s38 were varied; and
- Exemptions claimed pursuant to ss35, 37 and 40 were not required to be assessed, as the relevant information was otherwise exempt.
Trevor Burdon and Sustainable Timber Tasmania (PDF, 193.1 KB)
-
Alexandra Humphries and University of Tasmania
The University of Tasmania purchased the former Fountainside, MidCity and Theatre Royal hotels in central Hobart and expressed its intention to convert the properties to student accommodation. Plans to convert the ‘Old Commerce Building’ in French Street, Sandy Bay to student accommodation were also reported in the media.
On 12 February 2019, Ms Alexandra Humphries, a journalist with the ABC, made an application to the University under the Right to Information Act 2009 for information regarding the purchase price of the Fountainside Hotel and business, refurbishment costs of the Fountainside, MidCity and Theatre Royal hotels, engineering reports regarding the French Street property and the amount the University paid in rates to the Hobart City Council. Except for an Occupancy Permit relating to the French Street property, the University did not disclose any information responsive to Ms Humphries’ request, claiming the information was exempt under s38(1)(ii). It maintained this position on internal review. Ms Humphries sought external review on 14 May 2019.
The Ombudsman determined that the University’s use of s38 should be varied and that its use of s39, in the alternative, was not made out. Some information regarding the refurbishment costs for the Fountainside and Theatre Royal hotels was found to be exempt under s38, but the Department had not discharged its onus under s47(4) to show why the remaining information should not be disclosed.
Alexandra Humphries and University of Tasmania (PDF, 232.9 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)
-
Graeme Gilmour and TT-Line
Mr Gilmour runs a caravan park in Tasmania's north west. Mr Gilmour has noticed changes over the years and so he sought information from the TT-Line in relation to the number of recreational vehicles that might be traveling to Tasmania.
TT-Line refused this information on the basis that, if its cargo carrying capacity and freight movements were revealed, it would expose it to competitive disadvantage. The Ombudsman overturned this decision and determined the information should be released.
Graeme Gilmour and TT-Line (PDF, 1.1 MB)