Complaint to the Ombudsman
I have today submitted a “Complaint of Possible Maladministration under the Ombudsman Act 1978: Premier Rockliff and DPAC ‘s conduct in relation to the University of Tasmania (Protection of Land) Bill 2024, Right to Information and UTAS’ STEM Proposal”
You can read it here.
With-redaction-Final-Ombudsman-Act-submission_RedactedThis is Attachment 1 to the Complaint.
This is Attachment 2 to the Complaint.
I redacted a paragraph of the Complaint on page 9 which included confidential material.
Email to MLCs
I have also written to all Members of the Legislative Council along the following lines.
Dear Minister [this was to Kerry Vincent]
Together with Emeritus Distinguished Professor Jeffrey Malpas, I will be presenting to the Legislative Council on the University of Tasmania (Protection of Land) Bill 2025 (UTAS Land Bill) on Wednesday 25 March 2026, and we look forward to meeting you and answering your questions.
Below are some key points, and we will also provide a PowerPoint presentation and handouts on Wednesday.
Some key points on the UTAS Land Bill and UTAS’ closely related STEM proposal:
- The how, when and why of the rezoning/sale amendments to the UTAS Land Bill came about remains unclear, even after extensive RTI efforts. It is clear, however, that Premier Rockliff supplanted Minister Palmer and Minister Ogilvie (to some extent), in the legislative process, without transparency or accountability.
- DPAC has, in particular, played an obstructive role in the RTI process, and many important documents, including key communications, records of meetings and briefs, have not only been withheld but not even identified.
- I submitted RTI applications to several parties on 4 and 20 December 2024. The Ombudsman’s office repeatedly directed DPAC and Minister Ogilvie to respond. DPAC did so on 22 May 2025, and Minister Ogilvie finally responded on 29 January 2026. Careful analysis shows that many key documents are still missing.
- The rezoning/sale amendments involved significant process failures.
- UTAS’ STEM proposal is unfunded and missed any realistic chance of significant Commonwealth funding by not being ready for the Federal election campaign of 2025 – election campaigns sometimes produce funding outside normal program funding criteria. It is therefore unviable.
- The assumption of $100 million in State Government funding in the business case was unsound, as the State Government has confirmed that it made no such commitment, and the $100 million value put on the Sandy Bay campus land above Churchill Avenue is not based on a market valuation.
- UTAS’ STEM proposal is also significantly undercosted.
- The Tasmanian Government appears to have had little awareness of the contents of UTAS’ STEM business case and certainly exercised no quality control, despite providing its “full support” for the business case when submitting it to the Commonwealth (minus a State Government funding commitment).
- I am concerned that maladministration, and the flawed logic underpinning the rezoning/sale amendments to the UTAS Land Bill, has effectively cost two years of wasted time during which UTAS could have been upgrading and revitalising STEM facilities at Sandy Bay instead of allowing them to degrade. This waste could end now through rejection of the rezoning/sale amendments to the UTAS Land Bill.
Complaint to the Ombudsman
For your further information, I have today submitted a formal complaint of maladministration by Premier Rockliff (and his office) and DPAC to the Ombudsman, which contains detailed information on the points above. These are links to the submission and its attachments:
Submission: https://theutaspapers.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/With-redaction-Final-Ombudsman-Act-submission_Redacted.pdf (Note a paragraph on page 9 is redacted for confidentiality reasons).
Attachment 1: https://theutaspapers.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/Attachment-1-Timeline.pdf
Attachment 2: https://theutaspapers.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/Attachment-2.pdf
Yours sincerely
Robert Hogan
(normally Canberra)