(NB: When I refer to UTAS in my writings I am usually referring only to the Vice-Chancellor and management clique who make the big decisions for the University and not to UTAS staff generally, who continue to do a great job, in trying circumstances).

From my study of the Minutes of UTAS Council meetings since 1 January 2015, many of which I obtained under Right to Information (RTI), it is clear to me that UTAS Council governance has declined significantly, and is continuing to decline, with little/erratic transparency and accountability of major UTAS management actions to the UTAS Council.

The recent publication of the Minutes of the UTAS Council meeting of 22 August 2025, the first meeting following the Tasmanian election on 19 July 2025, underlines the decline in UTAS Council governance. (For ease of reference, the Minutes are provided in full in the Appendix below).

As is now usual with UTAS Council Minutes, these Minutes took about two months to be published and appear to be highly massaged – 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 (if you don’t believe me, just read them) 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.

  • I will soon publish a blog post on the treatment of VC Black’s appointment to the Board of Deloitte in the UTAS Council Minutes of 27 June 2025, which I believe was finessed for public relations purposes.

Particular issues with the Minutes of 22 August 2025

Major items not on the agenda

Consistent with a pattern that has particularly emerged under Chancellor Watkins in the last two years, the Minutes of 22 August 2025 demonstrate 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 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.

For example, the Minutes do not list as an agenda item, let alone record discussion of, UTAS’ plans for STEM. Given the submission of UTAS’ STEM business case to the Commonwealth Government in March this year, and how large STEM has loomed in UTAS’ planning and (inflated) rhetoric, this is absolutely extraordinary. STEM should be a standing item on the UTAS Council agenda, with management providing full updates at each and every meeting, and UTAS Council members should act to ensure it is. 

The Minutes do not list as an agenda item, let alone record discussion of, the University of Tasmania (Protection of Land) Bill 2024 (now 2025), another extraordinary omission given: (1) the close (albeit flawed) linkage made by UTAS with the STEM business case; and (2) the amount of attention documents obtained through RTI have shown that this matter receives from UTAS management behind the scenes.

The Minutes give flimsy treatment to the very real and substantial, but largely self-induced, financial difficulties facing UTAS. This indicates either flimsy discussion of the matter or a flimsy record of discussion (see Items 1, 4.1 and 5.1 – even here no mention of STEM).

  • Note the reference to agreement of:

“the significance of the proposed adjustment of the risk rating from high to extreme for the risk to the University’s financial operating results being unsustainable in the Institutional Risk Profile.” (Item 1)

The Minutes do not list as an agenda item, let alone record discussion of, the redundancies and course and subject reductions made by the University in July 2025, another extraordinary omission.

The Minutes do not list as an agenda item, let alone record discussion of, the brain drain of Tasmanian students to other universities. Again, this should be a standing item on the UTAS agenda and UTAS Council members should act to ensure it is.

  • The matter may be receiving some attention as part of the University Strategy Performance Report, but this is not clear (Item 5.3). UTAS Council members need to be very wary of the false narrative that UTAS management spin around this issue.

The UTAS Council’s passive role

An issue I have noted in UTAS Council Minutes, particularly since the appointment of Alison Watkins as Chancellor of UTAS, is the passive role accorded to the Council, even on the very select agenda UTAS management deigns to bring before the Council. Most of the items in the Minutes of 22 August 2025, as with previous Minutes, are for noting. There are only occasional items requiring approval or some other form of active engagement. This is reflective of the fact that UTAS management, as distinct from the UTAS Council, is making most of the decisions for the University. The passive role assigned to the UTAS Council should be of serious concern to all members.

An issue of delegation

The Minutes record the following:

I can find no reference in previous Minutes to the claimed “delegated authority” (from the UTAS Council to the UTAS management) for sale of Site 9, which is on the corner Argyle and Bathurst Streets.

Either:

(1) Reference to delegation was entirely redacted from the relevant Minutes, which would be totally inappropriate;

(2) Delegation occurred out of session – a dubious practice for important decisions, and inconsistent with claims of transparency; or

(3) The “delegated authority” was the purported broad delegation referred to by Chancellor Watkins in her correspondence to me of 8 May 2024. If so, I believe the sale, like the purported broad delegation itself, was ultra vires, being in breach of section 11(A)(2) of the University of Tasmania Act 1992, and potentially actionable.

While the purchase of K&D site was itself a poor decision, this is what an appropriate delegation looks like:

“6.5 *Binding offer – Acquisition of Kemp & Denning (K&D) site – paper tabled at the meeting

….[Discussion recorded]

Council:

    • Approved the lodgement of a binding offer for the acquisition of the K&D site comprised of 103 Melville Street & 156-163 Harrington Street
    • Approved the lodgement of a binding offer for the acquisition of the K&D site comprised of 103 Melville Street & 156-163 Harrington StreetDelegated authority to the Vice-Chancellor to sign the Agreement for Sale up to the value of $30M for the purchase of the property.”  (Minutes of the UTAS Council Meeting of 5 April 2019).“

If the UTAS Council made an appropriate delegation to sell Site 9, I suggest UTAS publish it immediately. An appropriate delegation should also have been made for the sale of K&D.

Miscellaneous

Other items of note include:

  • The appointment of Phil Leersen to the Board of Management of the Tasmanian University Student Association (TUSA), Item 1.1.1.

  • The discussion of the membership of Academic Senate, Item 3.2

  • Consideration of the 2025 Engagement survey results, Item 5.2

  • The TUSA report, Item 6.2

  • The complete redaction of Item 5.5 so that not even the heading is left. Unless this relates purely to the affairs of an individual, this is totally inappropriate and would not withstand RTI scrutiny.

  • The summary of the meeting given by UTAS Council member Dr Tania Price at item 9.1, in which praise is heaped on management. One can only hope that UTAS Council members are not really this easily satisfied, and that the deficiencies in meeting agendas and the passive role accorded the UTAS Council are causing concern.

A challenge to the status quo

To end on a positive note, after TUSA had recommended that two students be elected to the UTAS Council instead of one student representative being appointed by the Council (Item 6.2), at the end of the meeting , the elected academic representative to the UTAS Council, Associate Professor Aidan Davison, made the following comments (Item 9.1):

These comments are notable for two reasons.

First, in substance they accord with a shift in thinking around the composition of university councils favouring an increase in student and staff membership, and an increase in the use of election rather than appointment, evident in the report of the Legislative Council Select Committee Inquiry into the Provisions of the University of Tasmania Act 1992; the deliberations of the Senate inquiry into the Quality of Governance at Australian higher education providers; and the Expert Council on University Governance – Final Report and Principles and associated media release by the Commonwealth Minister for Education, Jason Clare.

Second, on my reading, Associate Professor Davison’s comments represent the first major challenge to the status quo by a UTAS Council member recorded in UTAS Council Minutes since the late Jamie Kirkpatrick registered his opposition to the CBD move on 5 April 2019. I hope this is a sign of more independent thinking emerging in a UTAS Council that has all too often just ‘gone along’ with the recommendations of UTAS management.

I look forward to seeing the Minutes for the UTAS Council meeting of 16 and 17 October 2025, preferably within two months of the meeting.

Appendix

By : Robert Hogan

2 Comments

  1. it’s shameful that the General Counsel does not attend University Council meetings……………..what is their job? Rubber stamp person. lol

  2. it’s shameful that the General Counsel does not attend University Council meetings……………..what is their job? Rubber stamp person. lol

Comments are closed.