Your search returned 209 results.
-
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)
-
Rick Snell and Department of Premier and Cabinet
Mr Rick Snell is an Adjunct Associate Professor at the Law School of the University of Tasmania with an interest and expertise in the field of right to information law.
The Right to Information Uplift Project was initiated by the Tasmanian government to identify opportunities to improve the provision of right to information services by the Tasmanian State Service.
Mr Snell submitted an application for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to the Department of Premier and Cabinet (the Department) seeking a copy of a discussion paper produced by the Right to Information Uplift Project Steering Committee. The Department applied s35 of the Act to exempt some information and maintained this position upon internal review. Mr Snell sought external review.
The Ombudsman determined that the exemptions claimed pursuant to s35 should be varied.
Rick Snell and Department of Premier and Cabinet (PDF, 200.1 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)
-
Thomas Bade and Huon Valley Council
Mr Thomas Bade is a resident of a semi-rural area within the Huon Valley local government area and has been in a dispute with a nearby landholder regarding earthworks undertaken on the nearby land. The Huon Valley Council (Council) issued an enforcement order for the nearby land and subsequently withdrew the order.
Mr Bade made an application for assessed disclosure to Council seeking information relating to the enforcement order. Council applied ss30 and 36 of the Act to exempt some information. Mr Bade sought external review.
The Ombudsman determined that:
- exemptions claimed pursuant to s30 were not made out; and
- exemptions claimed pursuant to s36 were varied.
Thomas Bade and Huon Valley Council (PDF, 248.0 KB)
-
O and Department of Police, Fire and Emergency Management
On 26 June 2023, 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). She sought information which related to the investigation into the death of her sister.
The Department found that information was excluded under s6 of the Act as it was in the possession of the Department only by virtue of the role police officers take in assisting the Coroner. There was some other relevant information to O’s request which was claimed to be exempt under ss30 and 36. O sought internal review and the decision was affirmed. O then sought external review.
The Ombudsman concluded that:
- the Department correctly relied upon s6 to exclude the jurisdiction of the Act in relation to the information it holds for the Coroner; and
- exemptions claimed pursuant to ss30 and 36 were affirmed.
O and Department of Police, Fire and Emergency Management (PDF, 290.5 KB)
-
Roland Browne and Department of Health
On 15 March 2023, Mr Roland Browne made an application for assessed disclosure to the Department of Health (the Department) under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) seeking information regarding helicopter operations at the Royal Hobart Hospital.
On 7 June 2023, the Department released a decision to Mr Browne, determining to release in full or in part 149 pages of information relevant to his request. It relied on exemptions pursuant to s27, s35 and s36 of the Act.
On 17 June 2023, Mr Browne sought internal review of the Department’s decision. The Department located and released a small amount of additional information, but largely maintained its position. Mr Browne sought external review.
The Ombudsman determined that:
- the exemption claimed pursuant to s27 was affirmed;
- the exemption claimed pursuant to s35 was set aside; and
- exemptions claimed pursuant to s36 were varied.
Roland Browne and Department of Health (PDF, 212.6 KB)
-
Rebecca White and the Premier of Tasmania
On 9 May 2023, the Honourable Ms Rebecca White MP submitted an assessed disclosure application under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to the Office of the Premier seeking information relating to correspondence between the Premier or any of his staff with the Tasmanian Anti-Discrimination Commissioner Sarah Bolt.
The application was initially refused but a fresh decision was eventually issued on 16 January 2024, following intervention from Ombudsman Tasmania. A delegate of the Premier, having identified six items of information responsive to Ms White’s application, determined that three of these items were exempt pursuant to sections 36 and 39 of the Act.
On 22 January 2024, Ms White sought external review of this decision.
The Ombudsman determined that exemptions claimed pursuant to ss36 and 39 should be varied.
Rebecca White and the Premier of Tasmania (PDF, 199.4 KB)
-
Andrew Hunter and Department of Natural Resources and Environment Tasmania
Mr Andrew Hunter is Campaigns Manager for Birdlife Australia, a bird conservation not-for-profit organisation. On 14 April 2023, he made an application for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) seeking information from the Department of Natural Resources and Environment Tasmania (the Department) regarding conversion or exchange orders of future potential production forest land to permanent timber production zone land.
On 14 June 2023, the Department released a decision to Mr Hunter, determining that the 88 pages of information relevant to his request was exempt in full pursuant to section 26 of the Act (cabinet information). On 12 July 2023, Mr Hunter sought external review of the Department’s decision.
The Ombudsman determined that:
- exemptions claimed pursuant to s26 were varied; and
- information was exempt under s35.
Andrew Hunter and Department of Natural Resources and Environment Tasmania (PDF, 236.5 KB)
-
Robert Hogan and Department for Education, Children and Young People
On 4 May 2022, Mr Robert Hogan sought information through assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) regarding the 2019 decision made by the University of Tasmania to relocate its campus from Sandy Bay to central Hobart. The relevant part of his request regarding appointments to the University Council was assessed by the then Department of Education, now the Department for Education, Children and Young People (the Department).
On 4 July 2022, the Department released a decision to Mr Hogan, determining that no information relevant to the application was found. In response to Mr Hogan’s request for an internal review, the Department released 39 pages of information and applied s36 of the Act to exempt some personal information.
On 11 October 2022, Mr Hogan sought external review, which was accepted pursuant to s44(1) of the Act.
The Ombudsman determined that:
- exemptions claimed pursuant to s36 are varied; and
- while the Department initially did not undertake a sufficient search for information, by the conclusion of the external review it had taken appropriate steps to rectify the situation.
Robert Hogan and Department for Education, Children and Young People (PDF, 231.8 KB)
-
Codie Hutchison and Waratah-Wynyard Council
On 28 August 2023, Mr Codie Hutchison made an application for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) from the Waratah-Wynyard Council (Council). He sought a copy of a report titled Independent Review Report (2013) into Council.
Council, having identified a document responsive to Mr Hutchison’s request, determined to exempt the document in full under s39 of the Act and referenced a 2014 external review decision of the Ombudsman relating to the same document.
Mr Hutchison sought internal review, however Council maintained its position. On 4 October 2023, Mr Hutchison sought external review.
The Ombudsman determined that exemptions claimed under s39(1)(b) should be varied.
Codie Hutchison and Waratah-Wynyard Council (PDF, 200.3 KB)
-
Phil Harris and Tourism Tasmania
Mr Phil Harris operates an adventure tour company, Aardvark Adventures, specialising in activities such as abseiling and white-water rafting. On 3 July 2023, he made an application for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) seeking information from Tourism Tasmania about a reported safety incident involving his company.
Tourism Tasmania issued a decision in relation to his application. It released the majority of the relevant information but relied upon s36 of the Act to exempt a small amount of personal information. It also determined other information was not in its possession. Mr Harris sought external review.
The Ombudsman determined that the exemptions claimed pursuant to s36 should be varied.
Phil Harris and Tourism Tasmania (PDF, 214.4 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)
-
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)
-
Peter Jacobson and Department for Education, Children and Young People
On 22 December 2022, Mr Peter Jacobson made an application to the Department for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) seeking information about his interactions with the Department.
The Department relied upon ss30, 31, 36 and 39 of the Act to exempt some information. Mr Jacobson sought internal review of this decision, but the Department maintained its position (though it released some additional information). Mr Jacobson sought external review.
The Ombudsman determined that:
* exemptions claimed pursuant to s30 were not made out;
* exemptions claimed pursuant to s31 were varied;
* exemptions claimed pursuant to s36 were affirmed; and
* exemptions claimed pursuant to s39 were not made out.
Peter Jacobson and Department for Education, Children and Young People (PDF, 297.8 KB)
-
Brett Maryniak and Derwent Valley Council
Mr Brett Maryniak is a resident of the Derwent Valley local government area. On 2 May 2023 he made an application to Derwent Valley Council (Council) for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) seeking information, documents and communications related to Derwent Valley Arts community organisation.
Council relied upon s19 of the Act to refuse the application on the grounds that the work involved in providing the information would substantially and unreasonably divert the resources of Council. Mr Maryniak sought external review.
The Ombudsman determined that Council was not entitled to rely upon s19, and directed Council to reassess the application in accordance with the Act.
Brett Maryniak and Derwent Valley Council (PDF, 181.6 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)
-
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)
-
Daniel Winston and City of Hobart
Mr Daniel Winston is a resident of the City of Hobart local government area. On 7 June 2022 he made an application to City of Hobart (Council) for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) seeking the name of a person who had made a complaint to Council about an alleged environmental nuisance caused by Mr Winston.
Council relied upon s36 of the Act to exempt the name of the complainant. Mr Winston sought external review.
The Ombudsman determined that the exemption claimed pursuant to s36 was affirmed.
Daniel Winston and City of Hobart (PDF, 218.7 KB)
-
Clem Newton-Brown and Flinders Council
On 23 June 2023 Mr Clem Newton-Brown submitted an application for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to Flinders Council (Council). As part of this application Mr Newton-Brown requested three items of information related to a development application Mr Newton-Brown submitted to Council. This development application proposed to build visitor accommodation on Little Dog Island.
On 16 August 2023 a decision was issued to Mr Newton-Brown by Council’s General Manager, Mr Warren Groves. Mr Groves determined that some information responsive to Mr Newton-Brown’s application was exempt from disclosure pursuant to ss31 (legal professional privilege) and 36 (personal information) of the Act.
Mr Newton-Brown sought external review of this decision and the Ombudsman determined that Council’s use of ss31 and 36 should be varied.
Clem Newton-Brown and Flinders Council (PDF, 159.0 KB)
-
Lee Moyle and University of Tasmania
Mr Lee Moyle was a volunteer Amateur Radio Assessor with the Australian Maritime College of the University of Tasmania (the University). On 26 April 2021, Mr Moyle applied to the University under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) for information held by the University relating to himself.
The University’s original decision determined that some information was exempt from release under sections 31 (legal professional privilege), 35 (internal deliberative information) and 36 (personal information). Mr Moyle sought internal review. On internal review the University affirmed its initial decision and provided additional reasons in relation to the application of ss35 and 36.
Mr Moyle sought external review of this decision. The Ombudsman found that the exemptions claimed pursuant to ss31, 35, and 36 should be varied.
Lee Moyle and University of Tasmania (PDF, 263.3 KB)
-
V and the Department for Education, Children and Young People
V was previously employed by the Department of Communities Tasmania, now the Department for Education, Children and Young People (the Department), as a Child Safety Officer.
On 23 December 2020, V filed a request for information under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) with the Department. The request was for correspondence sent between various colleagues that related to V or contained his name. The Department held that s36 of the Act, and ss103(1) and 111A(1) of the Children Young Persons and Their Families Act 1997 applied to justify the non-disclosure of some information responsive to V’s application. V sought external review.
The Ombudsman determined that exemptions claimed by the Department pursuant to s36 of the Act should be varied.
V and the Department for Education, Children and Young People (PDF, 193.0 KB)
-
Linda Poulton and Department of Justice
On 15 June 2020 Westbury resident Ms Linda Poulton submitted an application for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to the Department of Justice (the Department), requesting 10 items of information related to a proposed prison development at Westbury.
The Department’s original decision relevantly held that ss35 and 39 of the Act applied to exempt some information responsive to Ms Poulton’s application from disclosure. This original decision was upheld on internal review.
Ms Poulton sought external review of this decision by the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman determined that:
- exemptions pursuant to s36 were applicable; and
- exemptions pursuant to ss35 and 39 should be varied.
Linda Poulton and Department of Justice (PDF, 203.2 KB)
-
Meg Webb and Department of Treasury and Finance
The Hon. Meg Webb MLC is an independent member of the Parliament of Tasmania, representing the electorate of Nelson in the Legislative Council. On 19 July 2021 she made an application to the Department of Treasury and Finance (the Department) for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) seeking information regarding the Premier’s Economic and Social Recovery Advisory Council (PESRAC).
The Department initially refused the request as it claimed it was a repeat pursuant to s20(a) of the Act. However, it agreed to issue a fresh decision and released some information. It relied upon s35 of the Act to exempt other information in the minutes of PESRAC’s meetings as internal deliberative information. Ms Webb sought external review.
The Ombudsman determined that the exemptions claimed pursuant to s35 were varied.
Meg Webb and Department of Treasury and Finance (PDF, 174.1 KB)