In February 2025, I published a number of documents obtained under Right to Information (RTI) from UTAS that showed UTAS and State Labor in an unhealthy – politically charged – relationship, in which they worked together against the Government’s original version of the University of Tasmania (Protection of Land) Bill 2024 – see my blog post RTI reveals UTAS and Labor Opposition collusion preceded Government backflip on UTAS Bill.
Faced with UTAS and Labor’s relentless politicking, the Government not only watered down a reasoned and responsible Bill, but turned the Bill on its head, to rezone parts of UTAS’ Sandy Bay campus through legislation, and abandoned every principle of good government.
- On the Government’s shabby performance, see my blog posts:
- Correspondence with the Premier (and Minister Ogilvie),
- Government fails transparency test on UTAS Bill – Min Ogilvie and DPAC breach RTI Act,
- How the State Government misled Parliament over the UTAS Bill – promised protection covers only 14% of the Sandy Bay campus, and
- particularly Formal complaint to Ombudsman re UTAS Bill and STEM proposal. I will shortly publish a supplementary complaint, which I have made to the Ombudsman.
However, while the unhealthy UTAS-State Labor relationship was clear at the big picture level from the UTAS documents that I published in February 2025, UTAS redacted a number of the more important documents and, I believe, withheld others (either that or it provides no briefs to its staff for meetings and takes no records of meetings – which would be seriously negligent/incompetent for an organisation of its size).
Following my recent win with the Ombudsman over UTAS (the sixth of six), UTAS was directed to provide the documents I drew upon in my February 2025 blog post with most of the redactions removed.
For the public record, here are the documents UTAS has provided – Package 1 and Package 2.
- As there are over 500 pages of poorly ordered documents in these two packages, I am still checking to see whether UTAS has fully complied with the Ombudsman’s directions.
Also for the public record, I am publishing in the Appendix below two key documents without their previous redactions – a UTAS brief to then Opposition Leader Dean Winter and a brief provided to former Labor Premier Paul Lennon.
To add to this, I am also publishing in the Appendix other records obtained through various RTI applications to UTAS, in order to document UTAS’ still unexplained relationship with Mr Lennon. I have previously written on this subject in UTAS’ relationship with former Labor Premier, Paul Lennon AO, warrants scrutiny, but I am providing material/information obtained since I wrote, so that it is available in one place.
According to UTAS the records presented in the Appendix are the only records it holds in relation to Mr Lennon for the entire period 1 January 2024 to 24 July 2025. UTAS declined to define its relationship with Mr Lennon throughout this period, despite me asking for a simple description, stating in an internal RTI review decision letter on 15 December 2025:
(Source: UTAS’ internal review decision letter of 15 December 2025. I have redacted an earlier decision maker’s name.)
So much for the increased transparency UTAS keeps talking about.
Questions abound. Was Mr Lennon a paid lobbyist? Where are the contract documents? Was Mr Lennon an unpaid lobbyist? Why did he such receive extensive briefing from UTAS, some so sensitive it had to be redacted? Surely the UTAS lawyer who wrote the paragraph above could have just asked Kate Huntington, UTAS’ then Executive Director of UTAS Strategic Communications, who was involved in all the communications with Mr Lennon, what Mr Lennon’s role was.
For the most part, I will leave readers to draw their own conclusions about the documents in the Appendix but here are two suggestions and a question:
- The State register of lobbyists should be extended to persons and parties lobbying the State Opposition, and not just apply to those lobbying the Government.
- If UTAS is going to continue to assert that it is solely accountable to itself, then lobbyists like UTAS’ Kate Huntington, whose lobbying activities with Tasmanian MPs are legendary, should be registered. As matters currently stand, UTAS has features of both public and private organisations without the disciplines associated with either.
- None of UTAS’ lobbyists have to register as they work for a public organisation.
- Did the UTAS Council sanction, or was it even aware of, UTAS’ aggressive, not to say manipulative and misleading, political lobbying campaign over the University of Tasmania (Protection of Land) Bill 2024 (and its 2025 iteration)?
Appendix
Heavily redacted documents
Document 1
Below is a brief provided to then Leader of the State Opposition, Dean Winter MHA, and Sarah Lovell MLC a day before they met with former Minister Ogilvie to discuss the original University of Tasmania (Protection of Land) Bill 2024 on 26 August 2024. In the documents, as originally provided to me by UTAS in 2025, the email was provided, but the brief itself was totally redacted.
Source: Package 1, pp 259-261
Comment: Much of what UTAS said here was arrant nonsense, with the comment about a “reverse compulsory acquisition” a stand out. Nevertheless it seems this sort of nonsense, and some adroit political lobbying of the Premier, was enough for the Government to renege on an election commitment and the original intent of the University of Tasmania (Protection of Land) Bill 2024.
For the full context to this communication see my blog post of 18 February 2025 RTI reveals UTAS and Labor Opposition collusion preceded Government backflip on UTAS Bill.
Document 2
Below is part of a 20 page brief on the Bill provided to Paul Lennon. In the original provided by UTAS, the name Lennon was redacted in the email, while the two pages of the briefing material provided here were heavily redacted.
Source: Package 1, pp366-386
Comment: Readers can compare these pages with the original redacted pages in UTAS’ relationship with former Labor Premier, Paul Lennon AO, warrants scrutiny to try to work out what UTAS and Ms Huntington were up to and why UTAS redacted the pages.
Other communications with Paul Lennon
Document 3
Source: Package 1, p456
Comment: While this document was not redacted when it was originally provided December 2024, it was unclear whom Mr Lennon was meeting. UTAS informed me in the letter of 15 December 2025 that this diary entry was for a luncheon engagement with Kate Huntington.
Document 4
Source: This document was obtained in April 2025 in response to a separate RTI application. See UTAS’ relationship with former Labor Premier, Paul Lennon AO, warrants scrutiny.
Document 5
Source: This was the sole additional document obtained from UTAS in October 2025 in response to an RTI application specifically about its relationship with Mr Lennon. See: UTAS’ relationship with former Labor Premier, Paul Lennon AO, warrants scrutiny.