(NB: Frequently when I refer to UTAS in my writings I am referring only to the clique who make the big decisions for the University and, it seems, some of the big decisions for Tasmania; my meaning can normally be judged from the context).
Photo below: The redacted Farrelly-Winter letter
On 6 December 2024, I received some 500 pages of documents from UTAS in response to a Right to Information (RTI) request for records of communications between UTAS and ALP MPs from 1 January 2024.
Jumbled up among these documents are a number of communications by UTAS to Labor (Opposition) Members of the Tasmanian State Parliament that are totally inappropriate for a public institution – communications in which UTAS actively engaged in State politics, providing briefing hostile to the Government and its University of Tasmania Protection of Land Bill 2024 (No. 31).
Apart from the political activism of these communications, there is another striking feature. Just like its evidence to the Legislative Council Select Committee on the Provisions of the University of Tasmania Act 1992 (the LegCo Committee), and its evidence to the Public Accounts Committee, UTAS’ communications with the State Opposition are full of errors, distortions, omissions and misleading statements. (I will have much more to say about these, but this is my analysis of one example: Senior UTAS officer misled Public Accounts Committee)
Later in January, I will publish a selection of UTAS’ inappropriate communications with the Sate Opposition from among the 500 pages, arranged chronologically and with annotations.
In the meantime, I want to draw particular attention to an email and letter from Professor Nicholas Farrelly to the Leader of the State Opposition, Dean Winter MHA (the Farrelly-Winter letter).
- Farrelly’s covering email and the letter itself indicate the substance of the letter was also provided to the crossbench in the House of Assembly and, possibly, the Legislative Council.
The Farrelly-Winter letter is only a small part of UTAS’ inappropriate communications with members of the State Opposition. But what’s particularly revealing, in this case, are the redactions made to the letter by UTAS in providing the document to me under RTI (see Appendix 1).
These redactions (exemptions) were supposedly made under section 38 of the Right to Information Act 2009 with UTAS claiming that the exempted material was:
“information relating to business affairs of public authority and likely to cause competitive disadvantage. Release may harm the business or financial interests of the University”
I also have an unredacted version of the letter (see Appendix 2) and what was redacted is telling in relation to UTAS’ approach to RTI applications and, more fundamentally, to its willingness to use falsehoods and nonsense to make a case.
The Farrelly-Winter letter was almost certainly based on some extremely imaginative legal advice (see commentary on the second redaction (2) below).
The redactions
(1) The first redacted paragraph, with redacted text restored, is:
This is quite simply false.
I have previously obtained a copy of the documentation under RTI that UTAS provided to the Department of Treasury and Finance (Treasury) for the debt approval and “revenue from the Sandy Bay campus development” was not a part of the debt maturity profile. That documentation was provided to Treasury in 2019, while UTAS’ proposal for a Sandy Bay campus development was only put together in late 2021.
- I note however that UTAS’ $350 million Green Bond breaches the debt maturity profile and I suggest that the UTAS Council and Tasmania’s politicians concern themselves a bit more with that fact than the falsehoods and distortions pedalled by UTAS. See, for example, my blog post: RTI papers fully expose UTAS Green Bond mess – VC, Treasurer should accept responsibility.
(2) The second redacted paragraph, with the redacted text restored, is:
Like much of the rest of the Farrelly-Winter letter, this is just legalistic nonsense. The letter appears to have been either drafted by a lawyer or to be based on legal advice. Either way, it appears the responsible lawyer was asked to come up with as many criticisms of the University of Tasmania Protection of Land Bill 2024 (No. 31) as they could think of, no matter how far-fetched they were. Note the use of wishy-washy phrases in the letter such as “University Council’s concern”, “looks to be”, “the Chancellor is also concerned” “creates uncertainty”, “would not appear to be”, “of serious concern”, “This could require”. I think most lawyers would appreciate that such wording marks entry into the realms of fiction.
- It is notable that while the Government capitulated to UTAS and the Labor Opposition by tabling an amendment to the Bill on 28 November 2024 that would rezone the Sandy Bay campus above Churchill Avenue, aimed at facilitating sale or development by UTAS, there were no amendments to the Bill to address the criticisms raised in the Farrelly-Winter letter, confirming that they lacked merit.
UTAS and the Right to Information
I have won four out of four RTI cases against UTAS, for withholding information, when I took them to review by the Ombudsman.
I do not believe that either of the redactions (exemptions) made by UTAS will withstand scrutiny on review, and wonder whether – rather than being made to shield sensitive material – the redactions were made to cover up a falsehood and a piece of nonsense. However, I note that if all the nonsense in this letter were redacted, there would be very little left of the first page.
- The four cases were:
- Robert Hogan and the University of Tasmania, 2 June 2023, in which case UTAS’ use of section 38 was a central element
- Robert Hogan and the University of Tasmania, 30 June 2023,
- Robert Hogan and the University of Tasmania, 23 October 2023, in which case UTAS vacated section 38 as a basis for exemption
- Robert Hogan and the University of Tasmania, 16 July 2024
- I will shortly be seeking review of the redacted (exempted) text in Farrelly-Winter letter together with other highly questionable redactions made in the 500 odd pages of documents that I received from UTAS.
Appendix 1 – Redacted version of the Farrelly-Winter letter
Source: Released documents, pages 213, 141-142
Appendix 2 – Unredacted version of the Farrelly-Winter letter
