Accidentally released document offers insight into Tasmania's Right to Information laws

Australia Broadcast Center

09-07-2025

Experts say access to information frameworks is "totally crucial" for maintaining trust in governments — and that trust can be undermined if governments have a tendency to not disclose information.
Right to Information (RTI) — similar to Freedom of Information in other jurisdictions — gives members of the public legal rights to access public-interest information from the government.
If working well, greater accountability and public trust could result, Johan Lidberg, an access to information researcher at Monash University, said.
"A well-functioning [RTI] act and system act as a check and balance and accountability mechanism on how governments use their power," he said.
A rare mistake in the government Department of Justice's redaction process meant a document was released to the ABC in full. It outlined the "stress" and "anxiety" of prison staff managing youth in watch houses.
Children as young as 10 years old can be held in adult prison watch houses while awaiting police interview, court or bail, in conditions outlined by the Tasmanian custodial inspector and by correctional officers to a parliamentary inquiry earlier this year.
The Tasmanian Greens have reiterated calls to end the detention of children in watch houses, while Liberal Party leader Jeremy Rockliff said the situation was "unacceptable".
Labor leader Dean Winter called for improved transparency.
Public authorities are meant to favour disclosing as much information as possible when dealing with RTI requests, Dr Lidberg said.
RTI offices within government departments release information in line with legislation. There are exemptions permitting some types of information to not be released if they are first deemed outside the public interest or harmful to it, or "out of scope" of the RTI request.
If the person requesting information is unhappy with the decision, they can request an internal review of it — and if still dissatisfied, an external review by the Tasmanian Ombudsman.
The past two years have seen more than 80 per cent of external reviews result in the ombudsman changing or setting aside the public authority's decision.
"This continues to reflect a very high percentage of errors in decision-making (though it is noted that some variations to decisions are of a minor nature)," the ombudsman wrote in its last annual report.
In this case, the ABC was told exemptions used were "personal details of a person" and "internal deliberative material".
Dr Lidberg said there were "no identifiers at all, so that whole exemption falls from releasing information".
"I can't see why they would argue that this is not in the highest public interest," he said.
But most redactions were made due to the information being "out of scope" of the journalist's request for "complaints, concerns or similar regarding children and young people being held in an adult remand facility".
After reviewing the document, the ABC published a story on watch houses using information the department intended to black out due to being "out of scope" but, by accident, did not.
See more details of the ABC's request, the information provided and relevant parts of the RTI Act, here.
The department was asked to respond to Dr Lidberg's comment that the "personal details" exemption should not apply. The ABC also asked why it marked information "out of scope" that appeared to relate to its request.
The department said: "A statement outlining the reasons for withholding information accompanies each decision."
"If an applicant is dissatisfied with the decision they may seek a review which can be escalated to the ombudsman for external review if required," it said.
The difficulties in accessing information in Tasmania have been previously reported on, with it more common for public authorities to refuse information in Tasmania than anywhere else in Australia.
Dr Lidberg said resourcing of RTI offices was a major issue with RTI systems across Australia.
Referencing skills gaps, backlogs and delays, the ombudsman said: "Tasmanians want, and deserve, an accountable and open government and a seeming lack of motivation to improve the RTI system is hindering that being achieved."
The Tasmanian government also acknowledged this and other issues in its current efforts to improve the RTI framework. An independent review of Tasmania's RTI system was due on June 30 this year. However, it has been delayed a month due to the state election.
Dr Lidberg said research of Australian RTI frameworks — albeit not Tasmania's — had also found instances of pressure being applied to withhold information.
"When an RTI request is seen as controversial, the FOI [or RTI] officer then flags that to the coordinator, their supervisor, and it climbs up the chain, and quite often all the way to the political department," he said.
"We have noted and there is evidence of pressure being put on FOI coordinators to use the exemption sections of the act to redact or not release information."
The Department of Justice told the ABC there was no pressure on the RTI office when assessing its request.
Dr Lidberg said governments could stop a "culture of secrecy" by addressing resourcing problems.
Applying the laws appropriately depended on how important "leaders" thought public access to information was, he said.
"We've seen multiple times with updates of acts and amendments and so on [that] when you change the letter of the law, it doesn't seem to affect culture as much," he said.
He said healthy disclosure systems could be a "win-win" for governments.
The ABC requested details of:
"Complaints, concerns or similar regarding children and young people being held in an adult remand facility and related correspondence from 2022 to 2025."
One 14-page document was given to the ABC titled "Engaging with Young People Training — Issues and Responses".
It included a one-page introduction and then a table with two columns — one outlining staff-raised issues with dealing with young people in watch houses and the other with the department's written response to the issue.
It was initially completely unredacted but with red outline boxes left around some sections, and then, minutes later a version with those boxes redacted was sent through in which almost all the document was redacted.
The initial introduction as well as some sections on pages 2 and 3 were left unredacted.
No staff or detainees were named in the document.
The department said redactions were made according to the following parts of Tasmania's Right to Information Act:
Exemptions subject to public interest test
Section 35 — 'Internal deliberative information'
I consider that disclosing the above listed items, which contain material compiled by departmental officers may contain information which is wrong or inaccurate — see clause (u) of Schedule 1. The material contains records of ongoing consultations between officers, including material which is deliberative in nature. It is also important to note that the material relates to exchanges by relatively junior Departmental employees and there is no information to indicate their views would be adopted as a formal policy.
I also consider that the nature of the comments of Departmental officers are deliberate in nature and should not be disclosed. Officers must feel free to provide their opinions, advice and recommendations, and to participate openly in consultative and deliberative processes, in order for decision and action resulting from those processes to be robust. The overriding public interest consideration is the need to ensure that there is a frank exchange of views between officers when making decisions. The disclosure of consultations or deliberations would likely prevent such exchanges from occurring, with a consequent detrimental impact on good decision-making. Further, it would also lead to a reluctance to document the reasons for decision, with a consequent loss in transparency in the decision-making process.
Section 36 — 'Personal information of a person'
I consider that disclosing the personal information of members of the public would be detrimental to the interests of those persons — see clause (m) of Schedule 1. The personal information of people who have been held at a watch-house is not in the public domain and those persons might suffer discrimination by reason of their having been in these facilities if disclosed.
As a consequence of the above, I am of the opinion that the factor favouring disclosure are outweighed by those against disclosure and it is not in the public interest to provide the personal information of a members of the public.
'Information out of scope'
I consider that part of the material contains information which is out of scope of your request. The relevant material has been redacted and marked accordingly.