UTAS’ relationship with former Labor Premier, Paul Lennon AO, warrants scrutiny

Key Points

Over the last three years I have submitted a number of Right to Information (RTI) applications to UTAS.

My general experience is that UTAS has a culture of secrecy and that it has frequently sought to delay and obstruct provision of the information that I have requested, including through a failure to ‘find’ material relevant to my applications.

• In consequence, I have won four out four cases against UTAS on referral to the Tasmanian Ombudsman.

• For more detail on my RTI dealings with UTAS, see my submission to the Independent Review of Tasmania’s Right to Information Framework.

In September and December 2024, I submitted two RTI applications to UTAS that – among other things – sought material relating to UTAS’ dealings with the former Labor Premier, the Hon Paul Lennon AO.

In response, I received a total of three totally disconnected documents (copies of the documents and brief comments are in the Appendix at the end of this post) that suggest that:

(1) UTAS failed to ‘find’ many other relevant documents; and

(2) UTAS has some sort of substantive (paid or unpaid) relationship with Mr Lennon, with him perhaps acting as a lobbyist, an advocate or intermediary for UTAS.

Accordingly, on 24 July 2025, I submitted a further RTI application to UTAS, with the following detailed request for information:

UTAS accepted the application on 6 August 2025, from which date it has 20 working days to respond.

I will keep readers informed of results, but it is open to Tasmanian journalists to pursue this matter in the interim.

On a – perhaps – unrelated matter, I note that talk is strong in Hobart that Dean Winter’s sudden strong and ill-informed advocacy last year of UTAS completely abandoning its Sandy Bay campus to developers, and moving to the CBD came, at the prompting of unions. Talk is also strong that Mr Winter’s advocacy (parading as policy) was a so-called captain’s call and surprised a number of members of Labor’s state parliamentary caucus.

• Quite independent of its relationship with Mr Lennon, UTAS has a deep relationship with Mr Winter; see my blog post RTI reveals UTAS and Labor Opposition collusion preceded Government backflip on UTAS Bill.

Appendix

Document 1 – Meeting with Mr Lennon on 25 July 2024

Comment: This document was provided in response to my September 2024 RTI application. UTAS did not release any other documents to me relating to this meeting, even though I requested briefs prepared for meetings and records of meetings. UTAS also failed to reveal with whom from UTAS Paul Lennon met and why.

Document 2 – Email to Mr Lennon providing (misleading) material relating to the University of Tasmania (Protection of Land) Bill 2024

Comment: This document was provided in response to my September 2024 RTI application. The schedule of documents provided in UTAS’ RTI decision – accidentally? – revealed that the Paul addressed here was Mr Lennon The redactions were poorly justified in UTAS’ decision and were not seriously addressed in UTAS’ internal review process.

It is difficult to see why UTAS would have been sending Mr Lennon material relating to the University of Tasmania (Protection of Land) Bill 2024 (the Bill) unless he had a significant relationship with UTAS. UTAS also provided Mr Lennon with a copy of the Bill (see pages 375-86).

The material provided to Mr Lennon related to the version of the Bill introduced in the House of Assembly on 20 June 2024. Subsequently, the Government moved an amendment to the Bill on second reading on 28 November 2024 which turned the purpose of the Bill on its head. The amended Bill passed the House with the Government and Labor Opposition voting together, seemingly as part of a larger deal (see my blog post Correspondence with the Premier (and Minister Ogilvie)).

Document 3 – Email to Mr Lennon, providing a copy of a staff announcement

Comment: This document was provided in response to my December 2024 RTI application. It is not clear why UTAS would provide a staff announcement to Mr Lennon. As with Document 1 and 2, I suspect there are related documents that UTAS failed to ‘find’. Or does UTAS’ relationship with Mr Lennon operate at a largely informal level? That might be even more of a concern.