RTI Decisions search

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)

Jun 2017 Sections 22 37 39 Section 22 Section 37 Section 39 Department of Natural Resources and Environment

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)

Apr 2017 Sections 37 39 Section 37 Section 39 Department of Natural Resources and Environment

A and Tasmania Police

The information at issue was whether the will of the applicant’s late parent should be disclosed to them. This decision discusses the requirements of s36 (personal information of a person) of the Right to Information Act 2009 and the intersection it has with the Wills Act 2008. As these Acts appear at face value to contradict each other, the issue of implied repeal by later statute is also considered.

A and Tasmania Police (PDF, 97.5 KB)

Mar 2017 Sections 36 46 Section 36 Section 46 Department of Police, Fire and Emergency Management

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)

Mar 2017 Sections 27 36 37 Section 27 Section 36 Section 37 Department of Natural Resources and Environment

Patrick Billings & the Department of Health and Human Services

On review, Mr Billings (a journalist on ‘The Mercury’ newspaper) requested the full Operational Review in relation to Ambulance Tasmania’s State Communications Centre power failure and shutdown in July 2015. The Ombudsman determined that parts of the Operational Review were subject to exemption under s35 of the Right to Information Act 2009 - internal deliberative document - and that it was contrary to the public interest to disclose this information.

Patrick Billings & the Department of Health and Human Services (PDF, 425.1 KB)

Feb 2017 Section 35 Department of Health

Timothy Kirkwood and Tasmanian Planning Commission

Mr Kirkwood (Manager of Southern Midlands Council) requested information provided by a third party to the Commission outside of its usual hearing/determination process. The Ombudsman was satisfied that any such information held in respect of the third party related to the Commission’s ‘official business’ and hence was subject to the Right to Information Act 2009. However, all such information was exempt under s36 and it was contrary to the public interest to disclose this.

The decision also explored the interplay between information ‘otherwise available’ under s12(3)(c) of the Right to Information Act 2009 and information (written evidence and submission documents) subject to an obligation to be made public under s12 of the Tasmanian Planning Commission Act 1997.

Timothy Kirkwood and Tasmanian Planning Commission (PDF, 722.1 KB)

Feb 2017 Sections 12 36 46 Section 12 Section 36 Section 46 Tasmanian Planning Commission

Patrick Billings and Department of Health and Human Services

Mr Billings (a journalist on ‘The Mercury’ newspaper) requested CCTV footage of an event at Ashley Youth Detention Centre in July 2016. The Ombudsman determined that the footage should not be released, as various exemption grounds under s30(1) of the Right to Information Act 2009 were satisfied. Under the Act, s30 exemptions are not subject to the public interest test at s33.

Patrick Billings and Department of Health and Human Services (PDF, 448.4 KB)

Dec 2016 Sections 18 30 46 Section 18 Section 30 Section 46 Department of Health

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)

Apr 2016 Minister for Environment, Parks and Heritage