Tasmania 750 per cent more likely than others to refuse Right to Information requests — is it Australia's most secretive state?

The spectre of the Tamar Valley pulp mill was hanging over Tasmania's Parliament when then-premier David Bartlett announced a 10-point plan to improve trust in the state's democratic processes.

That was in 2008.

Subsequently introducing the Right to Information Act in 2009, former justice minister Lara Giddings said the laws would mean that "disclosure of information must occur unless its disclosure would be contrary to the public interest, which supports the 'push' model of proactive disclosure".

But Ombudsman Tasmania's annual report has called present-day Tasmanian authorities' interpretation of the laws into question.

Ombudsman Richard Connock has written that agencies in the state are up to 750 per cent more likely to refuse to release any information to applicants than decision-makers in Victoria and the Northern Territory.

Almost one-third of all applications for information are rejected entirely.

It is a figure that has substantially worsened over the past five years.

Mr Connock's annual report also noted that the majority of rejections that were appealed via his office were overturned last financial year.

He wrote: "Public authorities do not seem to give sufficient weight to the fact that the act creates a legally enforceable right to obtain information held by, and about the operations of, state and local government."

Shadow Attorney-General Ella Haddad was blunt when speaking on the issue in Tasmania's Parliament.

What are Right to Information laws?

Under Tasmania's Right to Information Act, people have the right to apply to access government-held documents and data that may be otherwise kept from public eyes.

Ministers, their departments, Tasmania Police, government business enterprises, local councils and the University of Tasmania — in theory, anyone who deals with taxpayer money and is therefore directly accountable to Tasmanians — are defined as "public authorities" under the Right to Information Act.

Applications can be made via a department's email address as long as the applicant provides the required information, and the information may be released for free if the applicant can prove its release is in the public interest.

Decisions on information requested under the laws should be released within about a month.

All this does not mean every request for information will be honoured—right to information officers can declare requests too onerous, not in the public interest, someone else's personal information or relating to matters that are commercial-in-confidence or Cabinet-in-confidence, for example.

Advice to ministers is similarly exempt.

Mr Connock's report is the latest to note the laws are inconsistently applied, and that decision-makers take too long, fail to provide adequate reasons for refusal and are more likely to reject applications than their counterparts in any other jurisdiction of Australia.

When are the laws used?

The ABC's reporting on the international travel of former UTAS vice-chancellor Peter Rathjen was made possible by Right to Information laws.

So was this story on family violence in Tasmania Police.

Broadly speaking, the information released for those stories are examples of the laws working as intended.

There are many instances where they do not.

Franklin Greens MP Rosalie Woodruff told Parliament it took 13 days for one decision-maker to determine whether her party's leader, Cassy O'Connor, was indeed a member of Parliament as stated in her application (MPs are automatically exempt from having to pay for their applications to be processed).

Tasmanian fly-fisher Richard Webb waited an incredible 657 days to learn the lease and licensing arrangements of Halls Island on Lake Malbena in the Walls of Jerusalem National Park.

Initially rejected by the state's Environment Department, the Ombudsman later found it was in the public interest for Tasmanians to know what a private tourism developer was paying to hold an exclusive lease over an island in Tasmania's protected Wilderness World Heritage Area (the answer was $4,000 a year).

Mr Webb is involved in legal action relating to the development.

Victim told permission needed from his abuser

It's not just journalists, MPs and advocates facing hurdles when applying for information.

In 2015, former teacher Darrel George Harington was jailed for sexually abusing boys in the 1970s, 80s and 90s.

It was later revealed the Education Department received numerous complaints about the Hobart man's conduct. At one point, Harington was moved to an all-girls' school to limit his risk of offending.

Decades after he was abused by Harington, his teacher at New Town High, Sam Leishman sought information from the Education Department through Right to Information laws in an attempt to understand who knew what when moving the paedophile between schools.

After requesting records of any meetings held between his school and his parents, matters relating to Harington's licence to teach and complaints related to his conduct, Mr Leishman was told his abuser would have to give permission for the information to be released.

"That was my last contact with the Education Department," Mr Leishman said.

"I thought, I can't engage with them if they're going to want to involve this person.

"It just seemed bizarre and unreasonable to me."

Mr Leishman said he understood some of the information he had requested was personal, but he did not understand why the Education Department did not work with him to determine what could be disclosed.

"I have a reasonable job and a roof over my head and everything's fine, but you hold onto these secrets for 40-odd years and because it's public and my siblings now know, I want to get to the bottom of it and understand what really happened," Mr Leishman said.

"If they don't know the answers, they can say: 'We don't have the records, but here's what we do know.'"

Most secretive state?

The Government has defended itself as actually improving transparency in Tasmania by routinely disclosing more information, such as Ministers' spending and gifts and benefits.

In a media release, Attorney-General Elise Archer said the Government was also proactively releasing public submissions it received on various issues. This has not yet extended to the second tranche of the Electoral Act reforms nor the Government's proposed gaming laws.

Ministers have repeatedly stated that Right to Information decisions are made at arm's length from the Government. This should be the case, but it is not always so. Journalists making requests often hear from media officers for ministers and departments soon after a request for information is made.

A former minister was found to have been given a phrase to repeat to media about a Right to Information request relating to her portfolio while her staff figured out the office's response to an issue.

Premier Peter Gutwein told Parliament he has contacted Mr Connock to meet and discuss the issue of transparency.

"Under my government we will take whatever steps we need to ensure we can provide a full, frank, open and transparent government that is accountable to the Tasmanian people," he said.

Expert Rick Snell said that on the Ombudsman's telling, it appeared Tasmania held the mantle of Australia's most secretive state, for now.

He likened Right to Information officers to players in an AFL team with Mr Gutwein their coach.

"[The coach] takes responsibility for the game plan, the strategic direction and what his expectations are, and this Premier is not yet giving those clear expectations about what's needed," Associate Professor Snell said.