Tasmania’s Ombudsman has ordered Tasracing to release two videos withheld under privacy grounds, ruling that public interest in greyhound welfare transparency outweighs the privacy concerns of the assessor featured in the footage.
Dr Grant Davies determined on 29 October 2025 that videos documenting behavioural assessments of greyhounds Billy and Expresso—later euthanised—must be disclosed with identifying features redacted. The decision follows months of review and represents a significant development in public access to information about Tasmania’s contentious greyhound racing industry.
Kiera Salerno initially sought two categories of information from Tasracing in October 2024 – details of all dogs at the Greyhound Adoption Program facility, and videos used to determine euthanasia decisions since July 2023. After negotiation, she refined her request to focus solely on the latter.
Tasracing identified six videos evidencing unsafe behaviour of two dogs. The organisation released four in full but withheld two videos—one of Billy and one of Expresso—citing section 36 of the Right to Information Act 2009, which exempts personal information of individuals other than the applicant.
Tasracing’s reasoning centred on a third-party assessor visible in both videos.
The organisation claimed specific privacy concerns and risks of harm would result from identifying this individual. Notably, Dr Martin Lenz, Tasracing’s Chief Veterinary and Animal Welfare Officer, was also identifiable in the Billy Video, but Tasracing agreed to release that footage since it showed him fulfilling his professional duties. The focus of the withholding was therefore the unidentified contractor conducting the behavioural assessments.
Davies engaged in a detailed public interest test under Schedule 1 of the Act, weighing factors both for and against disclosure. He agreed that general public access to government information favoured release.
However, he disagreed with Tasracing on two critical points – whether disclosure would contribute to public debate (it would, on animal welfare),
and whether it would inform people about decision-making reasons (it would, regarding euthanasia decisions).
Crucially, the Ombudsman rejected Tasracing’s argument that Schedule 1 matter (h)—equity and fair treatment of persons dealing with government—weighed against disclosure.
“Individuals and businesses that contract with public authorities to provide their services for profit would be aware that information related to their work, that is in the possession of public authorities, may be subject to release under the Act,” Davies stated.
He characterised this as “effectively part of the cost of doing business with the public sector.”
Davies did acknowledge that Schedule 1 matter (m)—whether disclosure would harm an individual’s interests—weighed against release. Given “significant debate and controversy regarding animal welfare in the greyhound industry” and the videos’ connection to euthanasia decisions, identifying the assessor could harm them. This acknowledgement led to the Ombudsman’s nuanced conclusion – the videos must be released, but with the third party’s identity protected through blurring or editing of their face and body where visible.
Salerno submitted her initial application on 25 October 2024. After Tasracing’s internal review upheld the withholding on 24 December 2024, she sought external review on 2 January 2025.
The Ombudsman issued a preliminary decision adverse to Tasracing on 6 October 2025, giving the organisation opportunity to respond. Tasracing’s response on 17 October 2025 made only minor suggestions for clarity rather than challenging the substantive findings. Salerno was similarly invited to respond and sought only clarification, which was provided on 27 October 2025. Davies issued his final decision on 29 October 2025.
The decision emphasises that information held by public authorities remains subject to freedom of information laws regardless of privacy sensitivities, particularly where matters of significant public interest—including animal welfare—are concerned.
Contractors and third parties cannot rely on privacy exemptions to shield their professional activities from public scrutiny simply because they are not employed by the authority. However, the decision stops short of requiring complete identification of individuals, instead permitting authorities to redact identifying features where legitimate privacy or safety concerns exist.
Tasracing has not indicated whether it will seek further review or appeal of the decision.
Tasmanian Times (TT) is a community-based news and current affairs service covering the island state of Tasmania. It exists to provide a diverse presentation of Tasmanian issues. TT creates and supports independent media content utilising the best of modern technologies and tried-and-true practices of public-interest journalism.
Support us in expanding our coverage and developing new content by and for Tasmanians.
New initiatives on the way include … what our contributors and readers suggest! Please get in touch with your suggestions.
