-
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)
-
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)
-
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)
-
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)
-
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)
-
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)
-
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)
-
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)
-
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)
-
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)
-
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)
-
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)
-
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)
-
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)
-
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)