Your search for
Section 43
returned 21 results.
-
Robert Hogan and Minister for Innovation, Science and the Digital Economy
Mr Robert Hogan has an interest in matters related to the University of Tasmania. On 4 December 2024, he made an application for assessed disclosure under s13 of the Right to Information Act 2009 (Tas) (the Act) to the former Minister for innovation, Science and the Digital Economy seeking information relating to the University of Tasmania (Protection of Land) Bill 2024.
On 29 January 2026 Mr Hogan received a decision on his assessed disclosure application. The Minister’s delegate identified 103 documents and relied on ss27, 31 and 39 to not release some of this information.
Mr Hogan sought external review of this decision by the Ombudsman, requesting a review of the use of these exemptions and the sufficiency of searching for relevant information.
The Ombudsman determined the:
- use of ss27 and 31 should be varied;
- use of s39 should be affirmed; and
- search for information was sufficient.
Robert Hogan and Minister for Innovation, Science and the Digital Economy (PDF, 227.8 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)
-
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)
-
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)
-
Graham Murray and City of Hobart
On 17 February 2024, Mr Graham Murray submitted an assessed disclosure application under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to City of Hobart (Council) requesting information relating to a briefing note which referenced him.
Council issued a decision to Mr Murray on 3 June 2024. Council’s decision set out that it refused aspects of Mr Murray’s application pursuant to ss10 and 19, and that it could not locate some information requested by Mr Murray. On 6 June 2024, Mr Murray sought external review of the decision and also raised concerns about the sufficiency of Council’s search for information.
The Ombudsman determined that Council was not entitled to rely on s19. He also determined that Council did not initially undertake a sufficient search but had taken appropriate steps to rectify this by the conclusion of the external review.
Graham Murray and City of Hobart (PDF, 282.5 KB)
-
Selby Cooper and Department of Health
On 10 November 2022, Mr Selby Cooper submitted an assessed disclosure application under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act), which was responded to by the Department of Health (the Department). This application requested information related to public health directions during the COVID-19 pandemic.
There was a complex history to Mr Cooper’s application, with multiple decisions, reconsiderations and fresh decisions. However, the Department eventually released some information and determined that some information responsive to Mr Cooper’s application was exempt from disclosure pursuant to s31, s35, and s36.
Mr Cooper sought an external review of exemptions applied and queried whether the Department’s search for information was sufficient.
The Ombudsman determined that:
- exemptions claimed pursuant to s31 were affirmed;
- exemptions claimed pursuant to s35 were set aside;
- exemptions claimed pursuant to s36 were varied; and
- the Department’s search for information was sufficient.
Selby Cooper and Department of Health (PDF, 287.4 KB)
-
Jeff Briscoe and City of Hobart
On 5 October 2023, Mr Jeff Briscoe submitted an assessed disclosure application under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to the City of Hobart (Council) requesting information relating to a funding campaign regarding a statue of Dr William Crowther.
Council issued a decision claiming that the relevant information was exempt pursuant to s31, as it was subject to legal professional privilege. Mr Briscoe sought external review contesting the application of s31 and the sufficiency of searching by Council.
During the external review process, Council decided to waive privilege and release the information to Mr Briscoe. It also undertook further searching and released further information located to Mr Briscoe.
The Ombudsman determined that Council did not initially undertake a sufficient search for information responsive to the request but had taken appropriate steps to rectify this by the conclusion of the external review.
Jeff Briscoe and City of Hobart (PDF, 171.9 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)
-
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)
-
Kelvin Derksen-Luelf and Derwent Valley Council
On 7 June 2023, Mr Derksen-Luelf sought information through assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) from the Derwent Valley Council (Council). The applicant, who is involved in the New Norfolk Distillery (the Distillery), was seeking information about the dissemination of two documents regarding the project - a commercial lease agreement and a letter from the Premier’s Office.
Council located four emails responsive to the request and determined that three were exempt under s31 (legal professional privilege). Mr Derksen-Luelf sought internal review but Council maintained its position. He then sought external review regarding the exemption applied and also querying whether Council had undertaken a sufficient search for relevant information.
The Ombudsman determined that:
* exemptions claimed by Council pursuant to s31 were affirmed; and
* despite valid issues initially presenting, Council ultimately undertook a sufficient search for information responsive to the request.
Kelvin Derksen-Luelf and Derwent Valley Council (PDF, 299.0 KB)
-
Robert Hogan and University of Tasmania
The applicant, Mr Hogan, had previously made three assessed disclosure applications under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to the University of Tasmania (the University) for information relating to the University’s campus move. All three applications were refused on the basis of s12(3)(c)(ii) of the Act that the requested information will become available, in accordance with a decision that was made before receipt of the application, as routine disclosure or required disclosure.
Mr Hogan made a further application for information under the Act for the for evidence demonstrating that a prior decision had in fact been made to release the information sought in the three original applications. His application was refused initially by the University and Mr Hogan sought internal review. An explanation but no information was provided in the internal review decision. Mr Hogan then sought external review.
The review was on the basis of s45(1)(e) and whether the University has conducted a sufficient searching for relevant information. In the course of the review, the University located a file note of the relevant decision and released this to Mr Hogan.
The Ombudsman found that the University initially did not undertake a sufficient search for information responsive to the assessed disclosure request. However, by the conclusion of the external review the University had taken appropriate steps to rectify the situation.
Robert Hogan and University of Tasmania (PDF, 299.6 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)
-
O and Department of Premier and Cabinet
On 20 September 2021, O made an assessed disclosure request under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to Digital Strategy and Services (DSS), a division of the Department of Premier and Cabinet (the Department). The information sought by O was every single email with her family surname and including the first names both her and her deceased sister. The request included any emails held by the Department but also extended to emails received or generated by the Department of Police, Fire and Emergency Management (DPFEM).
On 15 October 2021, the Department released information that it held but was unable to assist in relation to DPFEM information. O believed that metadata for emails of the whole state government was retained by DSS and could be accessed by the Department, but the Department advised that this was not correct. O sought internal review but the decision remained unchanged. She then sought external review.
The Ombudsman affirmed the Department’s decision and determined that a sufficient search was undertaken in response to the request for assessed disclosure and the information sought by the applicant was not in the possession of the Department.
O and Department of Premier and Cabinet (PDF, 190.8 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)
-
O and Department of Police, Fire and Emergency Management (No 3)
On 13 August 2020, 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). The information sought by O was records of phone calls made to St Helens Police Station over a particular period. The Department refused the request on the basis that recordings were not available. The decision was affirmed on internal review and O sought external review.
On 1 August 2023, following assisted resolution under ss47(1)(g) and (k) of the Act, the Department provided a better explanation to O about the lack of call records and provided different information in an effort to assist her.
The Ombudsman determined that:
- the information sought by the applicant was not in existence on the day the application was made; and
- the Department did not initially undertake a sufficient search for information responsive to the request but had taken appropriate steps to rectify this by the conclusion of this external review.
O and Department of Police, Fire and Emergency Management (No 3) (PDF, 114.9 KB)
-
Suzanne Pattinson and Department of Education
On 11 September 2020, Ms Suzanne Pattinson made an application for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to the Department of Education (the Department). Ms Pattinson sought information relating to the Department’s management of the Rose Bay High School 2016 European School Tour and subsequent investigations. On 14 January 2021, the Department released a decision to Ms Pattinson. It determined to release the information in part, with some information found to be exempt under ss35 and 36 of the Act.
Ms Pattinson applied for internal review and on 4 March 2021 the Department released slightly more information to Ms Pattinson but relied on the same provisions of the Act to exempt the remaining information. Ms Pattinson then sought external review of the Department’s internal review decision. As part of her external review Ms Pattinson sought a review of whether there had been an insufficiency in searching for information by the Department.
The Ombudsman determined that:
- Exemptions claimed pursuant to s35 were varied;
- Exemptions claimed pursuant to s36 were varied; and
- The Department’s search for information was sufficient.
Suzanne Pattinson and Department of Education (PDF, 292.2 KB)
-
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)
-
Cassy O’Connor MP and Department of Natural Resources and Environment Tasmania
Ms Cassy O’Connor MP made a request for information under the Right to Information Act 2009 for correspondence regarding the health and welfare of animals being transported on the Spirit of Tasmania vessels. She refined her request to restrict it to correspondence between the Department of Natural Resources and Environment (the Department), TT-Line Pty Ltd and the office of the Minister for Primary Industries, following an indication from the Department that her request was likely to be refused, due to it being a substantial and unreasonable diversion of resources from its other work, unless this occurred. On 29 March 2019, the Department released a decision to Ms O’Connor in which it found that eight pages of information were responsive to her request and all were exempt from release pursuant to s30. Ms O’Connor sought external review under s45(1)(e), on the grounds that she believed an insufficient search for information had been carried out, due to the very small quantity of information assessed. The Ombudsman directed the Department conduct an internal review under s47(1)(f) and its fresh decision affirmed the finding of the original delegate, that the information responsive was exempt under s30, and refuted that there was any insufficiency of searching.
On external review, the Ombudsman determined that the Department had conducted a sufficient search for information responsive to Ms O’Connor’s request. He noted, however, that the issues raised on external review may have been resolved through more consistent communication with Ms O’Connor and a broader interpretation of the scope of her request by the Department.
Cassy O’Connor MP and Department of Natural Resources and Environment Tasmania (PDF, 152.0 KB)
-
Ivan Dean MLC and Department of Health
The Department proposed, in a regulatory impact statement (RIS), new laws regarding e-cigarettes, tobacco licensing and smoking. It published most submissions on the RIS, but not six marked confidential. Ivan Dean MLC applied for those six submissions. The Department refused to release them. On internal review, Mr Dean sought to narrow the scope of his application to submissions by tobacco companies. The Department contested his ability to do so, reviewed all six submissions and again refused to release any. The Ombudsman determined that: an applicant is entitled to limit the scope of information sought on internal review; and the one submission by a tobacco company should be released in full. Although marked 'Private and Confidential', the submission was not, in law, ‘communicated in confidence’. Nor would its release impair the Department's ability to obtain similar information in the future. Furthermore, non-disclosure would be antithetical to Australia’s international treaty obligations and to the public interest.
Ivan Dean MLC and Department of Health (PDF, 838.8 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)
-
The Hon Cassy O'Connor MHA and the Hon Matthew Groom MHA, Minister for Environment, Parks and Heritage
The issue for determination was whether a decision made by the delegate of a Minister is subject to internal review under the Right to Information Act 2009 and whether the Ombudsman has jurisdiction under the Act to conduct an external review of such a decision. The review considered Sections 43, 44 and 45 of the Act and found that there was no right to internal review of such a decision and therefore no jurisdiction to accept an application for external review.
The Hon Cassy O'Connor MHA and the Hon Matthew Groom MHA, Minister for Environment, Parks and Heritage (PDF, 171.9 KB)