Another Ombudsman decision against UTAS underlines the University’s culture of secrecy

(NB: When I refer to UTAS in my writings, I am generally referring to the senior decision makers in the University rather than the University, or the staff of the University in general. My meaning can normally be judged from the context).

On 25 January 2024, I submitted a Right to Information (RTI) application to UTAS requesting a copy of the UTAS Council Minutes for the period between 4 April 2022 and 23 February 2023.

In response UTAS provided me with a copy of the Minutes with major redactions of material that UTAS claimed to be exempt from public disclosure under the terms of the Right to Information Act 2009 (the RTI Act). 

I sought review of UTAS’ claimed exemptions by the Ombudsman.

On Friday (19 September 2025), the Ombudsman issued a fifth RTI decision in my favour, which set aside, or varied the extent of, the large majority of UTAS’ claimed exemptions, with a direction to UTAS to provide the missing material to me no later than 1 October 2025.

This is the fifth out of five RTI review decisions that I have won against UTAS since 2023.

There have also been two recent Ombudsman decisions against UTAS in favour of other applicants.

• For commentary on UTAS’ RTI performance, and details of the Ombudsman’s decisions against UTAS, see my submission to the Independent Review of Tasmania’s Right to Information Framework (the Independent RTI review).

By seeking review of UTAS’ decisions on my RTI applications, and engagement of the Ombudsman and his office, I have obtained a raft of material that should long since have been placed in the public domain by UTAS, including previous UTAS Council Minutes (further detail provided under the heading “UTAS’ bogus commitment to transparency” below)

Why does UTAS keep losing RTI cases reviewed by the Ombudsman? 

Ultimately, as with other aspects of its operations, the answer is because UTAS wishes to preserve its culture of secrecy and zero accountability to anyone other than itself.

This culture is currently shrouding a total breakdown in the governance of UTAS and the fact of UTAS’ ‘self-inflicted injuries’ (failures) on multiple fronts. These self-inflicted failures include needless financial difficulties, an increasing exodus of Tasmanian resident students to interstate universities and significant cuts in teaching staff and course offerings.  I will have a lot more to say on these matters in coming weeks.

Rather than reflect on its failures, and adjust course, UTAS reflexively  blames external parties and circumstances and doubles down on its mistakes.

If UTAS continues with its self inflicted failures, Tasmania will cease to have a university worthy of the name; Tasmania’s best and brightest will continue to leave the state in increasing numbers; and fundamental budget repair in Tasmania will become an impossible task.

UTAS’ submission to the Independent RTI Review says a lot about UTAS

UTAS’ fierce commitment to secrecy and zero accountability is fully apparent in its recent submission, made on behalf of Vice-Chancellor (VC) Black, to the Independent RTI Review.

This is a link to the submission, but here is my summary of UTAS’ key points (in bold), and my comments on them:

UTAS is largely self-governing and independent of the Tasmanian Government – And therein lies a problem – UTAS believes it is accountable only to itself, and has been supported in this attitude by many Tasmanian politicians who accept everything UTAS says without question, even as the current UTAS leadership takes the University down a path to ruin.

Apart from the UTAS Act, UTAS is subject to 270 state and national regulatory obligations and operates within a competitive environment without underwriting by government – UTAS is subject to the law of the land (which seems to be a problem for UTAS); is almost entirely funded by government; and has a credit rating from Moody’s that states that UTAS has an implicit Commonwealth guarantee, which UTAS has used to borrow $350m through its Green Bond. Moody’s view of a guarantee is supported by the State Treasury and, to date, State Treasurers.

UTAS is different from other public entities and should not be subject to the RTI Act (implicit) or should have a different set of rules particularly in relation to the Act’s public interest test, because of the business dimensions to its operations (explicit) – There’s that attitude of UTAS being a law unto itself again – all the more reason it should not be indulged in its exceptionalism. UTAS also has form – in 2016 it made a submission to the review of the Tasmanian Integrity Commission which argued that it should be exempt from the Integrity Commission Act 2009.

Because the RTI Act is wrong in how it applies to UTAS, the Ombudsman keeps making wrong decisions against UTAS – This is the height of arrogance by UTAS.  The Ombudsman keeps making decisions against UTAS because it is secretive and obstructive.

 UTAS is committed to transparency – No, it’s not. I can’t keep myself to a short comment here so I’ll have more to say below (see the section headed “UTAS’ bogus commitment to transparency”).

UTAS does not receive many RTI applications: where possible UTAS releases information voluntarily and only assesses information for release under RTI when it includes “information that is exempt”  – This is really a statement that UTAS can pick and choose what it releases, particularly as its view of what is “exempt” has – to put it kindly – proved almost totally unsustainable on review by the Ombudsman.  This has led to the (much delayed) publication of documents by UTAS that should always have been in the public domain. At one stage, UTAS had released a total of 48 pages to me compared to the approximately 3,620 pages it released after it was subject to scrutiny by the Ombudsman and his office. UTAS has subsequently had to release many more pages (for more detail, see the section headed “UTAS’ bogus commitment to transparency” below).

Given the low volume of RTI applications UTAS does not employ a specialist RTI officer, but RTI causes significant diversion of scarce legal resources  – This sounds just a bit contradictory. I also note that UTAS had revenue of $822 million in 2024 and it could certainly afford a specialist RTI officer, if it was genuinely committed to transparency. I also note that in my (significant) experience in dealing with RTI (or FOI as it was in the Commonwealth), it is generally faster and cheaper to process RTI applications if the attitude of an organisation is to release as much as possible rather than to withhold as much as possible.  This is in conformance with the presumption of disclosure found in section 3.4(b) of the RTI Act.

There are major issues with lack of guidance from the Ombudsman and problems with the RTI Act – Here, as with UTAS’ submission generally, I note that there are two main strains in what UTAS says: (1) a strain of special pleading, defensiveness and blaming others/circumstances for UTAS’ failures, and downright whinging; and (2) a strain of constructive and detailed technical comment.  These two strains represent the difference between the pervasive senior management culture at UTAS and the ordinary staff of UTAS.

RTI has been “weaponised by applicants” – UTAS just loves to portray itself as a victim. The fact is that UTAS has created a need for RTI action, and outside scrutiny and comment, by its culture of secrecy and zero accountability to anyone other than itself.  At a time when governance is failing at UTAS, and the organisation is being run into the ground, RTI is a vital means of obtaining true insight into what is going wrong at UTAS.

UTAS’ bogus commitment to transparency

UTAS makes great play in its submission to the Independent RTI Review of its commitment to transparency.

The simple fact is that UTAS has had to be compelled to release key documents in the VC Black era, which should long since have been in the public domain, by pressure from RTI applications and the Ombudsman (and the Ombudsman’s office). These include:

• UTAS Council Minutes for the period between 1 January 2015 and 4 April 2022 – I submitted my RTI application to UTAS for these on 24 March 2022; in response, UTAS released a meagre 22 pages on 27 May 2022.  On review, UTAS released the full 513 pages, but still with redactions (claimed exemptions), under pressure from the Ombudsman on 16 January 2023.  UTAS performance on this application was frankly appalling and included some totally misleading claims made by VC Black on public radio, and to me, about UTAS’ initial 22 page release.

• UTAS’ STEM Business Case submitted to Infrastructure Australia in 2016 – I submitted my RTI application to UTAS for this on 16 August 2022; UTAS totally declined my application; the whole document was released, on review and under pressure from the Ombudsman on 16 January 2023.

• The Southern Future Business Case (SFBC) which was the basis of the UTAS Council’s decision of 5 April 2019 to relocate UTAS’ southern campus from Sandy Bay to the CBD – I submitted my RTI application to UTAS for this on 16 August 2022; the SFBC was released with significant redactions (claimed exemptions) and without the appendices on review and under pressure from the Ombudsman, on 16 January 2023; it was subsequently released by decision, and at the direction, of the Ombudsman with most redactions removed and with the critical appendices provided on 11 July 2023.

• Research by Deloitte (2021-22) cited by UTAS in August 2022 as underpinning its claim that CBD relocation would be profitable for UTAS – I submitted my RTI application to UTAS for this on 26 January 2023; it was released by decision, and at the direction, of the Ombudsman on 1 November 2023.

• Records of consultation prior to the UTAS Council’s decision to relocate UTAS’ southern campus to the CBD on 5 April 2019 – I submitted my application for these on 12 April 2022; my application was refused by UTAS – totally incorrectly, as decided by the Ombudsman; the records were finally released by UTAS in two batches on 18 October and 24 November 2024;

• UTAS Council Minutes for the period between 4 April 2022 and 23 February 2023 – As noted above, I submitted my application for these to UTAS on 25 January 2024; they were released by UTAS with heavy redactions on 26 February 2024; by decision of the Ombudsman on 19 September 2025, UTAS is to provide me with most of the redacted material by 1 October 2025, whereupon I will publish it.

In its submission to the Independent RTI Review, UTAS refers to its publication of UTAS Council Minutes as evidence of its transparency. I would make these comments:

• UTAS commenced publication of UTAS Council Minutes only in February 2023 and only after it had come under pressure from RTI applications, the Ombudsman and the Legislative Council Inquiry into the Provisions of the University of Tasmania Act 1992.

• The Minutes generally take two months or more to publish and appear to be highly massaged documents aimed more, it seems, at public relations than providing a true record of UTAS Council deliberations.

• The published UTAS Council minutes are increasing in opaqueness and must be of little value either to UTAS Council members seeking to refresh their memories on past discussion of issues or as a record of proper governance.

• The Minutes indicate that many major issues confronting UTAS are not even making it to the UTAS Council, or are making it in a haphazard way (when, it can be presumed, it suits senior UTAS management).  This indicates a breakdown in transparency from UTAS management to the UTAS Council and signifies that even the semblance of UTAS Council governance has progressively ceased to function at UTAS.

UTAS might also refer to its publication of the STEM Precinct Detailed Business Case, which was submitted to the Commonwealth Government on 26 March 2025, as another example of its transparency.

I suspect that UTAS found political and public pressure for release of this document overwhelming, but even then UTAS chose not to publish the critical appendices to the Business Case, with the result that these had to be sought under RTI (on release the most important appendix was heavily redacted).

I also note that – far from being a detailed business case – the document is largely devoid of substantive analysis, deals with a largely speculative plan (“an evolving mud map”) for STEM and, just like UTAS Council Minutes, reads very much like a public relations document.

Some initial commentary by me on the STEM Precinct Detailed Business Case was published in The Mercury on 30 April 2025, prior to my receipt of the document’s appendices. I will be providing fuller comment, taking account of the appendices and other related material, in due course.