A new statement of reasons from Kentish Council has revealed a disturbing pattern of obstruction in response to requests for information, raising questions about transparency and accountability in local government. The council has twice refused to release a report detailing an investigation into the recruitment and termination of former employee Stephen Streets, stonewalling both Streets and this media outlet in the process.

The investigation, conducted by consultant Rodney Burles of Burles Consulting, was commissioned after Streets was terminated from his position as an excavator operator. The report, identified as Document No. 970228, was finalised on June 30, 2025.

The Kentish Council’s refusal to release the report to Streets, the subject of the investigation, is particularly concerning. The council’s statement of reasons, dated August 8, 2025, cites Section 36(1) of the Right to Information Act 2009 as the basis for the refusal. This section allows a public authority to refuse an application if the information would involve the disclosure of personal information about someone other than the applicant.

However, the council applied this exemption to deny Streets access to a report about himself. The decision letter, signed by Cameron Parsons, Manager of Corporate and Business Services, states,

“Your application for assessed disclosure has been refused on the basis that the information being sought contains personal information of persons other than the applicant, yourself, Mr Stephen Streets”.

A week later, on August 11, 2025, this publication received its own statement of reasons from the Latrobe Council (which also covers the Kentish Council), after being advised to submit a formal Right to Information (RTI) request. The letter, also signed by Parsons, provided the exact same justification for refusal: that the report contains personal information of someone other than the applicant.

This raises the question of how a report about an individual’s employment can be withheld from that person on the grounds that it contains their own personal information.

In both refusal letters, the council provided a second reason for its decision, citing Section 35(1)(a) of the Right to Information Act 2009. This section exempts information that consists of an “opinion, advice or recommendation prepared by an officer of a public authority in the course of… the deliberative processes related to the official business of a public authority”.

The council argues that Rodney Burles, through his consultancy, “arguably meets the definition of ‘officer’ of a public authority on the basis that Burles through his consultancy was employed to produce the Report on Council’s behalf.”

This interpretation is being used to shield the report from public disclosure, further eroding the spirit of the Right to Information Act.

Both Streets and Tasmanian Times have been advised of their right to apply for an internal review of the decision by the General Manager of the Kentish Council within 20 working days. Following that, if the council maintains its refusal, an external review can be sought from the Office of the Ombudsman.

Tasmanian Times will continue to pursue this matter through the proper channels and will keep the public informed of any developments. This case highlights a concerning trend of councils using every possible exemption to prevent the public from accessing information that is rightfully theirs.

The people of Tasmania deserve better.

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.