Your search returned 209 results.
-
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)
-
Bob Burton and the Premier of Tasmania
On 15 December 2020, the Commonwealth and Tasmanian Governments signed a Commonwealth-Tasmania Bilateral Energy and Emissions Reduction Agreement Memorandum of Understanding (the MOU).
On 18 December 2020, Mr Bob Burton applied under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to the Tasmanian Premier for a copy of the MOU as well as any records and/or communication plans relating to the announcement of the MOU.
On 29 January 2021, Mr Burton received a decision. As the MOU was publicly available, Mr Burton was provided with an electronic link to the document. With regard to records of the announcement of the MOU, six records were identified as being responsive to Mr Burton’s application. Four documents were claimed to be exempt in full pursuant to s35 as internal deliberative information and two documents were claimed to be partially exempt pursuant to s36 as containing personal information of another person.
Mr Burton sought external review. The Ombudsman found that exemptions under s35 should be varied and that exemptions under s36 were not made out.
Bob Burton and the Premier of Tasmania (PDF, 221.1 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)
-
Ruth Forrest and Waratah-Wynyard Council
On 29 September 2020, the Honourable Member for Murchison, Ruth Forrest MLC, made an application for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to the Department of Justice (the Department). The information requested related to two development applications received by Waratah-Wynyard Council (Council) concerning a proposed development at 30B Old Bass Hwy, Wynyard. Ms Forrest’s application was transferred by the Department to Council as the request related more closely to Council’s functions. Council issued a decision on 4 November 2020.
On 13 January 2021, due to irregularities in the decision, Council issued a fresh decision to Ms Forrest. Council made some information available for inspection in accordance with s18(1)(a) of the Act and applied s35 to exempt other relevant information from disclosure.
Ms Forrest sought an external review of this decision. The Ombudsman determined that exemptions claimed pursuant to s35 were not made out and information was not exempt pursuant to s39.
Ruth Forrest and Waratah-Wynyard Council (PDF, 156.6 KB)
-
Linda Poulton and Department of Justice
On 23 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 information related to a proposed prison development at Westbury.
On 12 October 2020, Ms Poulton received a decision on her application for assessed disclosure and some information was released to her. Some other information was deemed to be partially exempt from disclosure pursuant to s39(1)(a) of the Act, as information provided in confidence. Some aspects of Ms Poulton’s application were also transferred to the then Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment in accordance with s14 of the Act. This decision was upheld on internal review.
Ms Poulton sought the external review of this decision by the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman determined that, while the Department did not claim information to be exempt under those provisions, exemptions pursuant to ss35 and 36 were applicable. He further determined that exemptions pursuant to s39 should be varied.
Linda Poulton and Department of Justice (PDF, 221.9 KB)
-
Stephen Crothers and Department of Health
Mr Stephen Crothers identifies as a scientist, occupational hygienist and forensic investigator. On 11 October 2021, he applied to the Department of Health (the Department) under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) for assessed disclosure of information related to the COVID-19 pandemic.
On 15 February 2022, the Department released a decision to Mr Crothers, refusing his request under s20(b) of the Act, on the basis that the application was vexatious. Mr Crothers sought external review on 21 February 2022.
The Ombudsman determined that the Department was not entitled to refuse this application under s20(b) of the Act and directed the Department to assess the information requested for disclosure in accordance with the provisions of the Act.
Stephen Crothers and Department of Health (PDF, 180.4 KB)
-
O and TT-Line Company Pty Ltd
On 6 January 2022, O submitted an application for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to TT-Line Company Pty Ltd (TT-Line). O requested passenger and car registration information relating to the Spirit of Tasmania ferry.
TT-Line released a decision and held that the requested information was exempt from disclosure in full pursuant to s36 of the Act (personal information). O sought an internal review of the decision regarding car registration details, accepting the finding regarding passenger details.
The original decision was upheld on internal review and O sought external review.
The Ombudsman affirmed TT-Line’s exemption of car registration details under s36 of the Act, finding their release would be contrary to the public interest in the circumstances.
O and TT-Line Company Pty Ltd (PDF, 162.5 KB)
-
Christine Wright and Department of Police, Fire and Emergency Management
Ms Christine Wright is an employee of the Department of Police, Fire and Emergency Management (the Department). On 19 October 2022 she made an application to the Department for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) seeking information about herself contained in briefing notes to the Minister.
The Department relied upon s27 of the Act to exempt a small amount of information on the grounds that it constituted opinions contained in internal briefing information for a Minister. Ms Wright sought external review.
The Ombudsman determined that the exemptions claimed pursuant to s27 were varied.
Christine Wright and Department of Police, Fire and Emergency Management (PDF, 97.8 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)
-
T and Department of Health
On 14 June 2023, T made a request to access his medical records. This request was taken to be an application for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) by the Department of Health (the Department).
The Department released 21 pages of information to T in full and found 53 pages to be partially exempt from release pursuant to s36 of the Act. This was on the basis that it was the personal information of third parties. T sought internal review, and the Department affirmed its decision regarding s36.
On 30 November 2023, T sought external review to Ombudsman Tasmania. The Ombudsman determined that the Department’s use of s36 of the act be varied, overturning the majority of applications of the exemption.
The Ombudsman also criticised the Department for initially offering to provide requested information far more quickly and without redactions if T’s legal representative made an undertaking that the requested information would not be used in litigation against the State. He emphasised that this approach is not in accordance with the Act.
T and Department of Health (PDF, 161.0 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)
-
Alison Sandy and Department of Police, Fire and Emergency Management
Ms Alison Sandy is the FOI Editor of Seven Network. On 20 October 2020, Ms Sandy made an assessed disclosure application under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to the Department of Police, Fire and Emergency Management (the Department). She sought video and audio recordings and transcripts from 1996 of interactions between Tasmania Police and Martin Bryant.
The Department found the information to be exempt in full, relying on s30 of the Act, information relating to law enforcement. Ms Sandy sought internal review and the Department affirmed its decision. Ms Sandy then sought external review.
The Ombudsman affirmed the Department’s decision and determined that the information was exempt in full pursuant to s30(1)(c) and (d) of the Act.
Alison Sandy and Department of Police, Fire and Emergency Management (PDF, 186.1 KB)
-
Malcolm Gardam and Devonport City Council
On 11 September 2020, Mr Malcolm Gardam made an application for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to the Devonport City Council (Council). He sought information regarding the lease agreement between Council and Providore Place (Devonport) Pty Ltd.
On 8 October 2020, Council issued a decision to Mr Gardam. No documents were released but some responses were provided to matters raised by Mr Gardam. Information was claimed to be exempt under ss31 (legal professional privilege), 32 (closed meetings of council) and 36 (personal information). He sought internal review and Council issued an internal review decision on 22 October 2020. This decision affirmed Council’s first decision in full.
Mr Gardam then sought external review. Council advised during the external review process that it now relied on s37 (information relating to the business affairs of a third party) instead of s32 in relation to some documents.
The Ombudsman determined that:
- Exemptions claimed pursuant to s31 were upheld;
- Exemptions claimed pursuant to ss32 and 36 were varied;
- Exemptions claimed pursuant to s37 were not made out; and
- Information identifying parties to leases was to be redacted by agreement between the parties.
Malcolm Gardam and Devonport City Council (PDF, 295.9 KB)
-
Carlo Di Falco and City of Hobart
On 10 March 2020, Mr Carlo Di Falco applied for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to the City of Hobart (Council). He sought information regarding a workplace incident which occurred in 2004. On 24 August 2020, Council released a partial decision and some information to Mr Di Falco. Some further information was claimed to be exempt under s31 of the Act and he was advised that third parties were being consulted under s36(2). Mr Di Falco did not lodge an external review request within the required timeframes regarding this partial decision.
On 25 November 2020, Council issued a final decision to Mr Di Falco and claimed that information was exempt under s36 (personal information of a person), after considering the views of third parties consulted. Mr Di Falco sought external review of this decision on 30 November 2020.
The Ombudsman determined that exemptions claimed by Council pursuant to s36 should be varied.
Carlo Di Falco and City of Hobart (PDF, 179.6 KB)
-
Carlo Di Falco and City of Hobart (No. 2)
On 25 October 2020, Mr Di Falco applied for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to City of Hobart (Council). He sought information regarding a workplace incident in 2004.
On 26 November 2020 Council released a decision to Mr Di Falco, refusing his request under s20(a) of the Act, on the basis that it was a repeat of a previous request for information Mr Di Falco had lodged on 10 March 2020. He sought external review on 30 November 2020.
The Ombudsman determined that Council was entitled to refuse repeated aspects of Mr Di Falco’s request under s20(a) of the Act. He determined that Council was not entitled to refuse the remainder of the request, as it was not a repeat request. Council was directed to re-assess the new part of the request against the provisions of the Act.
Carlo Di Falco and City of Hobart (No. 2) (PDF, 174.1 KB)
-
Gerry Willis and Department of Health
Mr Gerry Willis is a Furneaux Group resident who is interested in improving health outcomes for residents. On 24 January 2020, he made an application under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) for information regarding the Patient Travel Assistance Scheme operated by the Department of Health (the Department). On 18 September 2020, a decision was issued by the Department to release some of the information to him. This was in a different format to what Mr Willis sought. Mr Willis requested an internal review and, on 20 November 2020, the Department issued an internal review decision. It claimed the information which had not been released to date was exempt under s36 (personal information of a person). Mr Willis sought external review.
The Ombudsman determined that the majority of the information was not exempt under s36, but some of the data was validly exempt as patients could potentially be identified.
Gerry Willis and Department of Health (PDF, 159.0 KB)
-
Emma Hamilton and Department of Natural Resources and Environment Tasmania
In 2019 the Tasmanian Government announced plans to build a prison on Birralee Road in Westbury in Tasmania’s north. Ms Emma Hamilton is a Westbury resident opposed to the construction of this prison.
On 25 June 2020, Ms Hamilton submitted an application for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to the Department of Natural Resources and Environment Tasmania, then known as the Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and the Environment (the Department), requesting information related to the transfer of a property on Birralee Road in Westbury from the Crown to the Tasmanian Land Conservancy.
In its original decision, the Department redacted information responsive to Ms Hamilton’s application pursuant to ss26, 31, and 36. The Department’s original decision was affirmed on internal review.
On external review, the Ombudsman determined that:
- exemptions claimed pursuant to ss26, 31 and 36 should be varied; and
- information is exempt pursuant to s35.
Emma Hamilton and Department of Natural Resources and Environment Tasmania (PDF, 358.0 KB)
-
Linda Poulton and Department of Natural Resources and Environment Tasmania
In 2019 the Tasmanian Government announced plans to build a prison on Birralee Road in Westbury, Tasmania. Ms Linda Poulton is a Westbury resident opposed to the construction of this prison.
On 18 August 2020, Ms Poulton submitted an application for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to the then Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment, now the Department of Natural Resources and Environment Tasmania (the Department), requesting information related to the transfer of a Birralee Road property from the Crown to Tasmanian Land Conservancy.
In its original decision, the Department found information responsive to Ms Poulton’s application exempt from disclosure, in full or in part, pursuant to ss27, 31 and 36. On internal review, the Department again found that these exemption provisions applied to exempt, in full or in part, to information responsive to Ms Poulton’s application.
On external review, the Ombudsman determined:
- exemptions claimed pursuant to s27 should be affirmed;
- exemptions claimed pursuant to ss31 and 36 should be varied; and
- exemptions under s35 apply.
Linda Poulton and Department of Natural Resources and Environment Tasmania (PDF, 195.3 KB)
-
R and Department of Health
On 29 January 2020, the applicant, R, sought access to information on her employment file under the Personal Information Protection Act 2004. Access was granted except for three pages. Through her lawyer, the applicant then sought access to these pages under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act).
The Department of Health did not release a decision within the required timeframe and R made an application for review under s45(1)(f) of the Act. On 11 September 2020, the Department released a decision which released some information but found part to be exempt under s35 (internal deliberative information). R sought internal review.
The internal review decision affirmed the exemption under s35 on a slightly different basis. R sought external review.
The Ombudsman determined that s35 applied but varied the use of the exemption.
R and Department of Health (PDF, 357.7 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)
-
Robert Hogan and University of Tasmania
On 26 November 2022, 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). Mr Hogan sought reports that the University relied upon in making its submissions regarding the merits of its decision to relocate its Sandy Bay Campus to the 2022 Tasmanian Legislative Council Select Committee Inquiry into the provisions of the University of Tasmania Act 1992.
On 23 February 2023, the University issued a decision to Mr Hogan, in which information was found to be exempt from disclosure ss35, 36, 37, 38 and 39 of the Act. Mr Hogan requested an internal review and the University upheld the earlier decision, however no longer relied on s38.
Mr Hogan applied for external review of the decision on 29 May 2020 and requested priority. The Ombudsman granted priority on the grounds that the matter was one of significant public interest and the time sensitive nature of raising objections to the campus move.
The Ombudsman determined that exemptions claimed pursuant to ss35, 36, 37 were not made out and the exemptions claimed under s39 were varied.
Robert Hogan and University of Tasmania (PDF, 315.6 KB)
-
Tarkine National Coalition and Department of Natural Resources and Environment Tasmania
On 13 November 2019, the Tarkine National Coalition (Tarkine) made an application for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to the Department. Tarkine sought information regarding arrangements between the mining company, Venture Minerals Ltd, and the Department, particularly with regard to the Save the Devil program. Also, information regarding any proposed amendment or variation to Venture Mineral’s Environmental Permit and any Environmental Protection Notice
On 17 January 2020, the Department issued a Decision to Tarkine, in which some information was released and some information was found to be exempt from disclosure. The Department relied on ss27, 31, 35, 36, 37 and 39 of the Act. The applicant requested an internal review and the Department consented to release a further small amount of information but for the most part upheld its earlier decision. Tarkine applied for external review of the decision on 30 March 2020. Tarkine did not seek review regarding the use of s27 of the Act and certain personal information under s36.
The Ombudsman determined that exemptions claimed pursuant to ss31, 35, 36, 37 and 39 were varied.
Tarkine National Coalition and Department of Natural Resources and Environment Tasmania (PDF, 446.5 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)
-
Lawrence Archer and Dorset Council
On 11 August 2021, Mr Lawrence Archer lodged an application for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) with the Dorset Council (Council). The request was for information relating to credit card statements used by the Mayor and General Manager and to a valuation of a parcel of Council land.
On 28 October 2021, Council released a decision to Mr Archer, refusing his application pursuant to s20(a) and (b) of the Act on the grounds it was a repeat and vexatious application. The position was affirmed on internal review released and Mr Archer applied for external review.
After receiving a preliminary view from the Ombudsman, Council reconsidered its position and issued a fresh decision, relying on s19 instead to assert that responding to the request would be an unreasonable diversion of Council’s resources from its other work. Mr Archer sought internal review and Council maintained its position. Mr Archer then sought external review.
The Ombudsman determined that Council was not entitled to refuse Mr Archer’s application for assessed disclosure pursuant to s19 of the Act.
Lawrence Archer and Dorset Council (PDF, 145.3 KB)
-
Peter Jacobson and Department for Education, Children and Young People
On 8 May 2021, Mr Jacobson made an application for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to what is now the Department for Education, Children and Young People (the Department). Mr Jacobson sought information relating to all records placed on his personal file in 2020 including letters, file notes and electronic records.
On 18 June 2021, the Department released a decision to Mr Jacobson, deciding to release some of the information, but finding other parts exempt under s36 (personal information of a person). It redacted names and work contact information. Mr Jacobson sought internal review. On 29 July 2021, the Department released an internal review decision which disclosed further information but primarily affirmed the original decision. Mr Jacobson then sought external review.
The Ombudsman determined that exemptions claimed pursuant to s36 should be varied.
Peter Jacobson and Department for Education, Children and Young People (PDF, 158.7 KB)