FOI determinations

A selection of FOI determinations which you may find useful in understanding the scope of the Ombudsman’s work and responsibilities. You will need to have the Acrobat Reader http://get.adobe.com/reader/ to view the documents. These determinations are also available from AustLII.

2017

August 2017: Department of State Development
The applicant sought access to documents received by the agency from Alinta Energy during a specified time period.  The agency identified two documents within the scope of the applicant’s request.  The agency refused access to documents on the basis that they were exempt under a number of clauses, including clause 13(1)(a).  The agency submitted that the documents were subject to a confidentiality agreement.  The Ombudsman determined that while the existence of the confidentiality agreement was a relevant consideration, it could not be determinative as clause 13(1)(a) required all of the elements of an equitable breach of confidence to be present.  The Ombudsman determined that the elements for breach of confidence were present and the documents were therefore exempt under clause 13(1)(a).  The Ombudsman confirmed the agency’s determination.

July 2017: Yorke Peninsula Council
The applicant sought access to legal advice received by the council in connection with its consideration of a development issue. The council identified nine documents within the scope of the applicant’s request. The council refused access to seven of these documents on the basis that they were exempt under clause 10(1) of Schedule 1 of the FOI Act. The council submitted that these documents were the subject of legal professional privilege. The Ombudsman determined that while each of the documents (but not their attachments) was originally the subject of legal professional privilege, the privilege attaching to five of the documents had been waived by the council’s decision to refer to the existence and effect of its legal advice in an earlier letter to the applicant. The Ombudsman determined that these five documents were not exempt under clause 10(1) and varied the agency’s determination accordingly.

April 2017: Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure
The applicant sought access to any ‘plans or other documents’ tending to indicate the potential route(s) through Mile End of the proposed North-South Corridor.  The agency refused to process the applicant’s request on the basis the work involved in dealing with it within any reasonable period of time would, if carried out, substantially and unreasonably divert the agency’s resources from their use by the agency in the exercise of its functions.  At external review the Ombudsman considered the agency’s document management practices together with the nature of the records in question and ultimately determined to confirm the agency’s determination.  The Ombudsman expressed the view that a document located by the agency with the greatest potential to satisfy the applicant’s request (the project Planning Study) was in any case exempt under clause 1(1) of Schedule 1 of the FOI Act.

April 2017: TAFE SA
The applicant sought access to minutes and agendas of TAFE SA Board meetings, and access to those documents was refused by the agency in full.  The Ombudsman considered whether the following exemption clauses under the Freedom of Information Act 1991 (the FOI Act) applied to those documents: Clause 1(1)(e), Clause 2(1)(e), Clause 4(2)(a)(vi), Clause 5(1), Clause 6(1), Clause 6(2), Clause 7(1)(c), Clause 10(1) and Clause 16(1)(iv)-(v).  Clause 1(1)(e) was considered in significant detail, and the Ombudsman highlighted that this clause has a specific purpose under the FOI Act, in that it is intended to protect the so called ‘Cabinet oyster’.  It is not intended to apply to all documents submitted to Cabinet.  The agency’s determination was varied by the Ombudsman, and it was proposed that the documents be released, with the exception of information within certain documents that was considered exempt under Clause 1(1)(e), Clause 6(1) and Clause 10(1).

January 2017:  Southern Adelaide Local Health Network
The applicant sought access to medical records relating to a deceased relative. The agency refused the request on the basis that provision of access to the applicant would constitute commission of an offence under section 93(2) of the Health Care Act 2008. The Ombudsman considered clause 12 of the FOI Act, which provides that a document is exempt if it contains matter the disclosure of which would constitute an offence against an Act. On external review, the Ombudsman confirmed the agency’s determination that the medical records were exempt from disclosure under clause 12. The Ombudsman’s determination was subsequently upheld by the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal.

January 2017:  Attorney-General’s Department and Department of the Premier and Cabinet
The agencies refused access to documents in relation to a review by the Internal Consultancy Services Group of the General Code of Practice and the Late Night Trading Code of Practice established under the Liquor Licensing Act 1997, handed down on 30 April 2015.  The agencies and interested parties claimed that the documents were exempt under clauses 1(1)(e), 4(3), 6(1), 7(1)(c), 8(1), 9(1), 13(1)(a) and 13(1)(b) of Schedule 1 of the FOI Act.  The Ombudsman determined that some documents and parts of documents were exempt under clauses 1(1)(e), 7(1)(c), 9(1) and 13(1)(b), but that the considerable additional documents and parts of documents could be released in accordance with section 20(4) of the FOI Act.  He varied the agencies’ determinations accordingly.  The Ombudsman also considered the sufficiency of searches for documents.

January 2017:  Environment Protection Authority
The agency refused access to correspondence between the agency and various other parties, including the City of Onkaparinga, concerning the Sellicks Beach Wastewater Treatment Plant.  At external review, the agency ultimately revised its position such that it no longer opposed the release of many of the documents to the applicant.  However, the agency maintained that information within certain documents was exempt pursuant to exemption clauses 6(1) and 12(1).  The City of Onkaparinga, an interested party, also objected to the release of any documents to the applicant on the basis that they were variously exempt under exemption clauses 4(2), 5(1), 6(1), 7(1)(c), 9(1), 13(1), 15 and 16(1).  A separate interested party also submitted that certain documents were exempt under exemption clause 8(1).  The Ombudsman varied the agency’s determination.  The Ombudsman found that while some documents were exempt under clauses 6(1), 12(1) and 16(1)(iv), the majority could be released to the applicant in full.

2016

December 2016:  Department for Health and Ageing
The agency refused access to correspondence between the agency and various other parties, including the City of Onkaparinga, concerning the Sellicks Beach Wastewater Treatment Plant.  At external review, the agency ultimately revised its position such that it no longer opposed the release of any documents to the applicant.  However, the City of Onkaparinga and another party maintained objections to the release of various documents.  The Ombudsman varied the agency’s determination.  The Ombudsman found that the documents at issue were not exempt pursuant to exemption clauses 5(1), 7(1) or 9(1).

October 2016: Minister for Racing
The Minister refused access to all documents and correspondence between Greyhound Racing SA (GRSA) and the Minister’s Office.  The Ombudsman considered whether the documents were exempt on the grounds they affected the business affairs of GRSA or that they contained information relating to personal affairs.  The Ombudsman did not find the documents were exempt and reversed the Minister’s determination.

September 2016:  Minister for Mineral Resources and Energy
The Minister refused access to correspondence between Alinta Energy Finance Pty Ltd and the Minister regarding Alinta’s Flinders operations.  The Ombudsman reversed the Minister’s determination.  The Ombudsman found that disclosure of the document could not reasonably be expected to have an adverse effect on Alinta’s business affairs or otherwise be expected to prejudice the future supply of such information to the Government.  The Ombudsman found that disclosure of the document would not be, on balance, contrary to public interest.

September 2016:  City of Adelaide
The agency refused access to documents related to/or tabled at a special meeting of the Adelaide City Council. The Ombudsman varied the agency’s determination. The Ombudsman considered whether the documents were exempt as documents subject to legal professional privilege and documents containing confidential material.

August 2016:  Department for Education and Child Development
The agency refused access to a report regarding a review of SA’s state school funding on the basis the report recommendations had yet to be considered by the Minister.  The Ombudsman upheld the agency’s determination because it was considered that the importance and primacy of Ministerial consideration and stakeholder consultation is a strong prevailing factor favouring non-disclosure of the report.

June 2016:  Department of State Development  (formerly the Department for Manufacturing, Innovation, Trade, Resources and Energy)
The agency refused access to Programs for Environmental Protection and Rehabilitation (PEPRs) relevant to a number of mining exploration licences. The Deputy Ombudsman reversed the agency’s determination. The Deputy Ombudsman considered whether the relevant documents were exempt as documents the subject of secrecy provisions (in conjunction with the Mining Act 1971); containing confidential material; and affecting business affairs.

June 2016:  TAFE SA
The agency refused access to the remuneration details of certain senior executives. The Ombudsman confirmed the agency’s determination.  Matters taken into account included the State Government policy that the remuneration details of executives (other than the Chief Executive) are to be kept confidential.  The Ombudsman commented that it appears that no other government in Australia has such a policy.

May 2016:  Central Adelaide Local Health Network
The applicant sought access to raw data from the staff survey at the Cardiology Unit at the Royal Adelaide Hospital.  The Ombudsman found that there was no evidence to establish that the disclosure of the document will result in a loss of trust in management in the agency, or a future reluctance to provide statements in future survey exercises.  The Ombudsman found that disclosure of the document would not found an action for breach of confidence.  The Ombudsman exercised his power to vary the agency’s determination

April 2016:  TAFE SA
The determination concerns an access application for the remuneration details of the Chief Executive of TAFE SA.  The agency’s determination to refuse access to the remuneration details was reversed.

March 2016:  Minister for Planning
The agency refused access to correspondence between the Office of the Minister for Planning and Urban Development and the Walker Corporation.  The Ombudsman reversed the agency’s determination.  Matters taken into account included whether the document had a commercial value and whether disclosure of that document could reasonably be expected to destroy or diminish any purported commercial value of the information contained in the document.

March 2016:  State Emergency Service
The agency refused access to correspondence from the Auditor-General to the agency’s Chief Executive.  The Ombudsman reversed the agency’s determination.  The determination turned on public interest considerations.

February 2016: Department of State Development
In two separate determinations, the agency refused the applicant access to agenda and minutes of meetings of the Economic Development Board. The Ombudsman considered whether documents numbered 2 to 14 were exempt as Cabinet documents (clause 1(1)(e); documents affecting business affairs (clause 7(1)(c)); internal working documents (clause 9(1)); documents containing confidential material (clause 13(1)(b)); and documents concerning the operations of agencies (clause 16(1)(a)(iv) with clause 16(1)(b)). The Ombudsman was satisfied that document 2 was exempt under clause 1(1)(e), but concluded that it was practicable to release it after redacting one item in accordance with section 20(4) of the FOI Act. The Ombudsman determined that documents 3 to 14 were not exempt and should be released in full. The agency appealed the Ombudsman’s determination with respect to document 5, maintaining that it was exempt under clause 1(1)(e). The District Court held that document 5 was not an exempt document protected by Cabinet confidentiality, and confirmed the Ombudsman’s determination.

February 2016: Urban Renewal Authority
The applicant sought access to a ‘report on CCTV review in the Central Business District’. The agency claimed that the document was specifically prepared for submission to the Capital City Committee, and by reason of section 18(1)(a) of the City of Adelaide Act 1988 was exempt for the purposes of the Freedom of Information Act 1991. The Ombudsman confirmed the agency’s determination. Nevertheless, the Ombudsman commented that reasons existed as to why the agency might give access to the document notwithstanding its exempt status.

January 2016:  Department for Education and Child Development
The applicant sought access to a report produced by the former Police Commissioner, Mr Mal Hyde in about August 2014. The agency identified one document within scope entitled ‘Residential Care Workforce Review September 2014’. The agency refused access to the document on the ground that it is a document specifically prepared for submission to Cabinet. The Ombudsman confirmed the agency’s determination to refuse access.

2015

December 2015:  Department for Correctional Services
The applicant sought access to CCTV footage taken of him during a particular incident that occurred in G-Division, Yatala Labour Prison. The agency refused access to the footage on the ground that disclosure could reasonably be expected to endanger security or have a substantial adverse effect on its functions. The Ombudsman reversed the agency’s determination to refuse access.

September 2015:  Department for Communities and Social Inclusion
The applicant sought access to a list of properties owned by Housing Trust/Housing SA (including a list of tenants) located within 11 specified suburbs.  The Ombudsman confirmed the agency’s determination to refuse access.

August 2015:  Department of the Premier and Cabinet
The Hon Robert Brokenshire MLC requested access to documents demonstrating the ‘full costs of the advertising budget’ and the stationery and graphic design costs for promoting two campaigns.  The Deputy Ombudsman varied the agency’s determination.  The applicant was also granted an extension of time to make his application for external review.

May 2015:  Urban Renewal Authority
Ms Vickie Chapman MP requested access to: ‘All valuations undertaken for land identified in the Gillman Master Plan received by, or created by, Renewal SA for the period 2009 to present’.  The Ombudsman varied the agency’s determination.

May 2015:  Department of the Premier and Cabinet
The applicant applied for:

  • ‘A list [of and] a copy of any document or thing relating to the establishment of the LPCC [Legal Profession Conduct Commissioner] and the reasons why it became an allegedly exempt agency’
  • ‘A list of and a copy of any document or thing relating to the creation of the LPCC, the changes to the Legal Practitioners Act 1981 (SA) and the reasons why the LPCC is now an exempt Agency’.

The Ombudsman was not persuaded that there were reasonable grounds to believe that the agency held any documents within the scope of the application for access. Accordingly, he confirmed the agency’s determinations.

April 2015:  District Council of Tumby Bay
The applicant made five applications to the agency simultaneously covering a broad range of topics. The agency refused to deal with the applications as it was of the view that they formed part of a pattern of conduct that amounted to an abuse of the right to access or were made for a purpose other than to obtain access (section18(2a)). The Ombudsman confirmed the determinations.

January 2015:  Department for Correctional Services
The applicant, a prisoner, sought access to documents used to determine his level of re-offending risk.  The Ombudsman confirmed the agency’s determination.

 2014

October 2014:  Department for Health and Ageing
The applicant applied for access to statistical information held by the agency’s ‘Pregnancy Outcomes Statistics Unit’ for each hospital.  In its initial and internal review determinations, the agency actively dealt with one document that it considered was within scope of the application for access.  The Acting Ombudsman reversed the agency’s determination as she was not satisfied that the agency held any documents within the scope of the application.

September 2014: Essential Services Commission of South Australia
The applicant requested access to the resignation letter of the former Chief Executive of the
Essential Services Commission of SA.  The Acting Ombudsman varied the determination.

September 2014:  Department of the Premier and Cabinet
The Hon Robert Brokenshire MLC requested access to invoices and other documents revealing the ‘full
costs of the advertising budget’ for three campaigns. The Acting Ombudsman varied the agency’s determination.

July 2014:  Kangaroo Island Council
The applicant requested access to documents.  The agency extended the period of time within which to deal with the application on the basis that it did not have the staff resources to deal with it.  The Ombudsman reversed the agency’s determination on the basis that resource constraints do not satisfy the requirements for an extension of time under the Freedom of Information Act 1991.

May 2014: Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources
The Hon Robert Brokenshire MLC requested access to documents concerning the Brinkworth animal welfare case including any report commissioned investigating the RSPCA’s handling of the case. The Ombudsman varied the determination.

May 2014:  District Council of Tumby Bay
The applicant requested access to documents from the District Council of Tumby Bay relating to the mining activities of Centrex Metals Ltd.  The Ombudsman varied the determination.

May 2014:  Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure
The Hon Mark Parnell MLC requested access to documents concerning development plans for the Riverbank precinct and/or Adelaide Festival Centre carpark.  The Ombudsman varied the determination.

May 2014:  Attorney-General’s Department
The Hon Robert Brokenshire MLC requested access to particular reports prepared by consultants.  The Ombudsman varied the determination.

February 2014:  Minister for Education and Child Development
The Hon Michelle Lensink MLC requested a review of the agency’s determination to charge more than $13,000 to deal with an FOI application for access to types of emails that referred directly or indirectly to Mr David Pisoni MP over a period of less than six months. The Ombudsman varied the fee to $3,500.

2013

November 2013:  Freedom of Information and the Nyrstar lead smelter at Port Pirie
The Ombudsman reviewed nine determinations by the Environment Protection Authority and the Department for Manufacturing, Innovation, Trade, Resources and Energy to refuse requests under the FOI Act. The determinations can be accessed below:
Environment Protection Authority – 2012/08071
Environment Protection Authority – 2012/08074
Environment Protection Authority – 2012/08076
Environment Protection Authority – 2012/07146
Environment Protection Authority – 2012/05775
Environment Protection Authority – 2012/05833
Department for Manufacturing, Innovation, Trade, Resources and Energy – 2012/08625
Department for Manufacturing, Innovation, Trade, Resources and Energy – 2012/08630
Environment Protection Authority – 2013/06815

September 2013: Department of the Premier and Cabinet – Freedom of Information determination
The applicant requested access to all records of communications between SafeWork SA representatives and the Australian Skills Quality Authority (ASQA) regarding the applicant and the applicant’s company.  The Ombudsman varied the determination.

June 2013: FOI reviews – Children’s Protection Act 1993
Please refer to the four determinations below

June 2013:  Minister for Education and Child Development
Mr David Pisoni MP requested access to documents that mention the process of notifying parents regarding an incident of sexual abuse at a particular state government school.  The Ombudsman varied the determination.

June 2013:  Minister for Education and Child Development
Mr David Pisoni MP requested access to documents that mention an incident of sexual abuse at a particular state government school. The Ombudsman varied the determination.

June 2013:  Minister for Education and Child Development
Mr David Pisoni MP requested access to documents held by the office of the Minister for Education and Child Development that had been forwarded to or requested by Mr Bruce Debelle AO, QC.  The Ombudsman varied the determination.

June 2013:  Department for Education and Child Development
A member of the media requested access to documents relating to the arrest of a government school staff member for charges of a sexual nature.  The Ombudsman varied the determination.

May 2013:  District Council of the Copper Coast
An applicant requested documents relating to the development approval of their property. The agency refused access on the grounds of copyright. The Ombudsman reversed the determination of the agency.

May 2013:  Department for Education and Child Development
The Hon Robert Brokensire MLC requested access to the contents of all critical incidents arising during 2012 mentioning ‘sex’ whereby the incident involved allegations where (a) the alleged perpetrator was an adult person and (b) the alleged victim was a child.  The agency neither confirmed nor denied the existence of any documents.  The Ombudsman varied the determination of the agency.

May 2013:  Department of the Premier and Cabinet
An applicant requested documents about Maralinga Tjarutja and Oak Valley Councils and the handback of land.  The Ombudsman varied the determination of the agency.

April 2013:  Registrar of the Veterinary Surgeons Board
An applicant sought a review of the fees and charges imposed by the agency for processing an FOI application. The Ombudsman varied the determination of the agency.

April 2013: Department for Education and Child Development
Mr David Pisoni MP requested documents concerning the notification sent to the Minister for Education and Child Development regarding the arrest of a teacher for unlawful sexual intercourse. The Ombudsman varied the determination of the agency.

April 2013: Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure
Ms Vickie Chapman MP requested a review of the agency’s determination to extension the time to deal with her application. The Ombudsman reversed the determination of the agency.

February 2013: South Australian Tourism Commission 
The Hon David Ridgway MLC requested documents detailing timeframes, objectives and costs of work commissioned by the South Australian Tourism Commission to be undertaken by BDA Marketing Planning, relating to tourism in the Barossa region, for the periods 1 July 2009 to 30 June 2010 and 1 July 2010 to 30 June 2011. The Ombudsman reversed the determination of the agency.

February 2013: Minister for Education and Early Childhood Development
The Hon Michelle Lensink MLC requested access to correspondence, reports, memoranda, emails and any other relevant documents which refer directly or indirectly to Mr David Pisoni MP. The Ombudsman reversed the determination of the agency.

2012

November 2012: Department for Education and Child Development
An applicant requested documents relating to their suspension from the department’s home stay program. The Ombudsman confirmed the determination of the agency.

October 2012: Department of Further Education, Employment, Science and Technology
The application requested documents relating to an investigation of a business by the department. The Ombudsman varied the determination of the agency.

September 2012: Department for Communities and Social Inclusion
Mr David Pisoni MP requested access to supporting speech material for speeches provided by the Premier, Government Ministers or representatives to Chinese associations, East Turkistan/Uighur associations, Greek associations, Italian associations or organisation events between 1 January 2011 and 31 January 2012. The Ombudsman reversed the determination of the agency.

September 2012: Registrar of the Veterinary Surgeons Board
An applicant requested any written report in relation to them and the Veterinary Surgeons Board. The Ombudsman confirmed the determination of the agency.

May 2012: Department for Health and Ageing
Mr Peter Campbell for the Sunday Mail requested details and the numbers of crimes reported on SA hospital grounds during the past five years. The Ombudsman varied the determination of the agency.

April 2012: South Australian Water Corporation
Mr Mitch Williams MP requested correspondence between SA Water and AdelaideAqua regarding progress failure of First Water Critical Milestone and completion loan repayment. The Ombudsman reversed the determination of the agency.

March 2012: Attorney-General’s Department
The Hon Rob Lucas MLC requested documents relating to the cashing out of leave entitlements since January 2011 for staff employed under a Ministerial contract. The Ombudsman reversed the determination of the agency.

February 2012: South Australian Forestry Corporation
Mr Adrian Pederick MP requested documents revealing ForestrySA communications and concerns about the ACIL Tasman Regional Impact Assessment Statement, and the proposed sale of harvesting rights of ForestrySA plantations. The Ombudsman varied the determination of the agency.

2011

August 2011: Department for Water, Department of Education and Children’s Services, Department of Trade and Economic Development, Department for Correctional Services, Attorney-General’s Department, Department for Families and Communities, and Department of Treasury and Finance
The Hon Rob Lucas MLC requested briefing documents prepared for the Labor government.

June 2011: Department of Further Education, Employment, Science and Technology; Primary Industries and Resources SA; South Australian Tourism Commission; Department for Correctional Services; Department of Planning and Local Government; Attorney-General’s Department (Mulitcultural SA); Department of Treasury and Finance; Attorney-General’s Department; Attorney-General’s Department (Office of Recreation and Sport); and Department for Water
The Hon Rob Lucas MLC requested briefing documents prepared for a possible incoming Liberal Government.

April 2011: Department of Primary Industries and Resources
The Hon Michelle Lensink MLC requested submissions on a joint project (PIRSA and DEH) – ‘Seeking a Balance – Conservation and resource use in the Northern Flinders Ranges. The Ombudsman reversed the determination of the agency.

April 2011: Department of Environment and Natural Resources
The Hon Michelle Lensink MLC requested correspondence between SA Heritage Council and the Minister for Environment and Conservation since 2009. The Ombudsman reversed the determination of the agency.

2011

March 2011: Department of Planning and Local Government
Ms Vickie Chapman MP requested access to certain public submissions to the draft 30-Year Plan for Greater Adelaide Report. The Ombudsman varied the determination of the agency.

The Ombudsman’s determination was appealed by the agency to the SA District Court. See Department of Planning & Local Government v Chapman [2012] SADC 120 (27 September 2012).

February 2011: City of Burnside
The Save the Chelsea Action Group requested access to council resolutions relating to the Chelsea Cinema. The Ombudsman varied the determination of the agency.

February 2011: Department of the Premier and Cabinet
The Hon Rob Lucas MLC requested access to documents referring to SA Progressive Business since Oct 2008. The Ombudsman reversed the determination of the agency.

February 2011: South Australian Water Corporation
Ms Vickie Chapman MP requested the contract containing confidential material regarding Adelaide Desalination Plant. The Ombudsman confirmed the determination of the agency.

2010

September 2010: Courts Administration Authority
The Hon Dennis Hood MLC requested data disclosing court sentencing outcomes in individual cases of specific offences, for instance the criminal offence of rape. The Ombudsman confirmed the determination of the agency.

July 2010: Department of Planning and Local Government
The Hon Mark Parnell MLC requested access to the Growth Investigation Areas report prepared by consultants, Connor Holmes, regarding the urban growth expansion of Greater Adelaide. The Ombudsman confirmed the determination of the agency.

July 2010: Department of Education and Children’s Services
Ms Terina Verrall requested access to the ‘Independent evaluation of the ‘family unit’ in Rose Park Primary School’ report. The Ombudsman reversed the determination of the agency.

June 2010: Minister for Families and Communities
The
Hon Rob Lucas MLC requested access to the names and positions of all staff within the Minister’s office. The Ombudsman reversed the determination of the Minister.

June 2010: Department of Planning and Local Government
The Hon Mark Parnell MLC requested access to documents prepared by consultants for the purposes of a Development Plan Amendment for Gawler East. The Ombudsman reversed the determination of the agency.

June 2010: Department of Planning and Local Government
The Hon Mark Parnell MLC requested correspondence to the department from consultants, Connor Holmes, disclosing involvement in relation to the Growth Investigation Areas tender. The Ombudsman reversed the determination of the agency.

June 2010:  Department of Planning and Local Government
The Hon Mark Parnell MLC requested correspondence from 2005 onwards between the department and developers concerning development at Mount Barker. The Ombudsman reversed the determination of the agency.

The Ombudsman’s determination was appealed to the SA District Court.  See Daycorp P/L & Ors v Parnell & Anor [2011] SADC 191 (12 December 2011).

June 2010: Department of Transport, Energy and Infrastructure
Mr Martin Hamilton-Smith MP requested inspection reports on the condition of road, rail and tram bridges in SA. The Ombudsman reversed the determination of the agency.

March 2010: Department for Families and Communities 
The Hon Iain Evans MP requested reports made about attendance at premises and a statement made by the Minister for Families and Communities in parliament. The Ombudsman varied the determination of the agency.

February 2010: Minister for Health
The Hon Rob Lucas MLC requested documents referring to ‘SA Progressive Business’ since 2005. The Ombudsman varied the determination of the agency.

2009

November 2009: Adelaide City Council
Mr Nathan Pain of the Property Council requested a CD concerning city heritage research. The Ombudsman reversed the determination of the agency.

November 2009: Adelaide City Council
Mr Kris Hanna MP requested documents relating to food outlets served with improvement notices, prohibition orders and expiations in 2006-7. The Ombudsman varied the determination of the agency.

Further information