Photo: Current Leader of the Tasmanian State Labor Opposition, Dean Winter
In December 2024, I received some 500 pages of documents from UTAS in response to a Right to Information (RTI) request for copies of records relating to communications between members of UTAS staff and ALP MPs in the Tasmanian and Federal Parliaments, and their staff, in the period between 1 January 2024 and 23 September 2024 (the date of my application). This has been supplemented by a handful of additional documents that I received in February 2025, after I sought internal review of UTAS’ initial response to my RTI application.
- My RTI request included details of the types of records that I was seeking (for example internal UTAS briefing documents relating to communications with ALP MPs and staff). My request also extended to former ALP MPs Michael Field and Paul Lennon. For more information on my initial RTI application and my review application see the Appendix.
UTAS provided the 500 pages in a total jumble in neither date nor thematic order. Whether this was deliberate or not, it made it extremely difficult to construct a chronological sequence or to detect gaps in the documentation provided.
However, when I put some of the communications between UTAS and the State Labor Opposition in chronological order, and also listed major external events (such as the calling of the State election), a clear pattern of collusion emerged, in which it is obvious that UTAS and the Labor Opposition worked actively together against the Government.
This was particularly apparent in their joint effort to attack the policy the Government took to the electorate in March 2024 to require UTAS to bring forward proposals to both houses of Parliament to sell or lease UTAS property – a policy that was reflected in the the University of Tasmania (Protection of Land) Bill 2024 (UTAS Land Bill), in the form it was first introduced in the Tasmanian House of Assembly on 20 June 2024.
I have reproduced some relevant documents below in chronological order, with key external events listed and commentary provided where warranted (although I have largely left the documents to speak for themselves).
While I am aware that UTAS provided variants of some of these documents to other MPs in the Tasmanian Parliament, it is the totality of the communications between UTAS and the State Labor Opposition – reproduced below – that readers should consider.
It is one thing for UTAS to provide briefing to, or even lobby, politicians (overwrought and erroneous though much of the material UTAS provides frequently is). It is another thing entirely for UTAS, a public institution established under an Act of the Tasmanian Parliament, to engage so fully in political activism on the side of the State Labor Opposition as UTAS did.
- I also note that this strong picture of UTAS/State Labor Opposition collusion has emerged despite UTAS redacting (blacking out) some of the key material below, conspicuous gaps in the documentation provided and a failure to seriously address some of the key categories of documents that I requested – matters I will raise in a request to the Ombudsman for external review of UTAS’ response to my RTI application (see the Appendix).
Some of the more questionable communications/records
While I have already said the communications below should be read in their totality, these are some of the more questionable communications/records, which can be found in date order:
- Emails between Kate Huntington, Executive Director of UTAS Strategic Communications, and Dean Winter, the Leader of the State Labor Opposition, of 10 May and 27 May 2024. (Ms Huntington appears to have maintained a ceaseless flow of communication with the State Labor Opposition, well beyond what I would consider appropriate for her position).
- The bare diary entry of 28 May 2024 for a meeting between UTAS (including Vice-Chancelor Black) and the State Labor Opposition (including Dean Winter). Despite my explicit request on this point, UTAS has provided me with no meeting briefs or records of this meeting.
- 12-16 July 2024 – Records of events up to and including Dean Winter’s policy speech on UTAS on 16 July 2024 at a UTAS venue, with many of the attendees being senior UTAS staff.
- Chancellor Alison Watkin’s email of 17 July 2024 and the large scale redactions in the associated documents.
- Professor Nicholas Farrelly’s email and letter to Dean Winter of 19 July 2024. I have provided extensive commentary on this letter in a previous post.
- The meeting of an unidentified UTAS person with Labor power broker Paul Lennon on 25 July 2024, and the provision to Lennon of (heavily redacted) briefing on the UTAS Land Bill on 1 August 2024.
- The pronounced gap in communications around Dean Winter’s UTAS motion in the House of Assembly on 7 August 2024 – given the general flow of communication between UTAS and the State Labor Opposition, this gap is simply not credible and will be a matter I particularly request the Ombudsman to scrutinise.
- The provision of substantial briefing (totally redacted) by Kate Huntington to Dean Winter and Sarah Lovell on 25 August 2024 ahead of their meeting with Madeleine Ogilvie on UTAS the following day. I will particularly request the Ombudsman to review all redactions.
Here and now: the Government’s backflip on its UTAS policy and Bill
In the documents below, it is obvious that UTAS and the State Labor Opposition were working together to pressure the Government over its UTAS election policy and the UTAS Land Bill.
Initially the Government simply rebutted the UTAS/State Labor Opposition attacks, for example rejecting their arguments both after Dean Winter’s major policy speech on 16 July 2024 and in debate on his motion on UTAS in the House of Assembly on 7 August (see Minister Madeleine Ogilvie’s media release of 16 July 2024 and the Hansard of the debate, pages 93 to 116).
However, on 28 November 2024, the Government (Minister Ogilvie) tabled an amendment as part of the second reading of the UTAS Land Bill (see Section 7) that subverted the Government’s previous policy and overrode due process, by seeking to pre-emptively rezone half of UTAS’ built Sandy Bay campus area, thereby doing UTAS’ work for it although – among other things – no business case had been provided. (For more on this see my detailed letter of 21 January 2025 to Premier Jeremy Rockliff, with its attachments).
- Notably, the rezoning amendment did not seek to address UTAS/the State Labor Opposition’s many fatuous and shrill claims about legal issues purportedly raised by the Government’s UTAS policy/UTAS Land Bill, underlining the vapidity of those claims.
What happened between 23 September 2024 and 28 November 2024 to explain the Government’s stunning backflip in the face of UTAS/the State Labor Opposition’s attacks? A cave in to sustained pressure? Some sort of deal allowing the Government to feel it had had a win? A bit of both?
I am trying to get to the bottom of why the Government was willing to trash its own policy and start doing UTAS/the State Labor Opposition’s bidding through six RTI applications that I submitted to the Premier, Ministers and Government agencies on 4 December 2024. I also submitted an RTI application that included this matter to UTAS on 20 December 2024.
It should be a matter of concern to all Tasmanians that as of today’s date I have received little by way of meaningful response to these RTI applications (well over three months on in the case of those directed to Government and nearly three months in UTAS’ case – a long way outside the legislated deadlines in the RTI Act).
UTAS’ collusion with the State Opposition, and the Government’s trashing of its UTAS policy, was rewarded with the amended UTAS Land Bill being passed by the House of Assembly on 28 November 2024, with the Government and Labor Opposition voting together.
The Legislative Council will have a key role in March 2025 to ensure bad politics, bad policy and bad process is not further rewarded.
THE UTAS – STATE LABOR OPPOSITION COMMUNICATION
The documents released to me indicate that there was a constant stream of communication between UTAS and the State Labor Opposition in the period 1 January 2024 to 23 September 2024, of which the following is only a small part.
8 February 2024
Source: Released documents, page 396
Comment: The State Labor Opposition’s Support for Study Scholarships was an election commitment first announced in 2023. It was entirely inappropriate of the State Labor Opposition to be seeking UTAS’ support (including use of students) for an election commitment in this way. UTAS did not provide its response to me.
14 February 2024 – Premier Rockliff called State Election
27 February 2024 – Release of Liberal Party Policy on UTAS
(The policy: Majority Rockliff Liberal Government will keep UTAS in Sandy Bay; see also ABC interview with Madeleine Ogilvie including transcript)
Source: Released documents, page 208 (NB: The 6 July link is to a transcript of the Treasurer’s evidence).
Comment: Marcus Atkinson was a senior member of then State Labor Leader Rebecca White’s staff. Sent on the same day as the release of the Liberal Party’s policy, it is not clear why UTAS was doing the State Labor Opposition’s homework for it in this email, rather than Labor staff. I did not receive any other communications around this item in the documents provided to me by UTAS.
28 February 2024
Source: Released documents, page 445.
Source: Released documents, page 449 (the release by the Launceston Chamber of Commerce is on page 450).
Comment: It is unclear why, in an election campaign, UTAS was providing the State Labor Opposition with statements by the Master Builders and the Launceston Chamber of Commerce against the Liberal Party’s policy or the extent to which those statements were co-ordinated by, or drafted independently of, UTAS.
1 March 2024
Source: Released documents, pages 308-309.
Comment: It is unclear why or to what extent UTAS was involved in this major State Labor policy speech in the midst of the State election campaign period. Any related communications were not released to me.
23 March 2024 – Election Day
6 April 2024 – Voting finalised
9 April 2024 – Declaration of the Poll; formation of Liberal Minority Government
17 April 2024
Source: Released documents, page 420.
30 April 2024
Source: Released documents, page 8. No other documents relating to this meeting were released to me.
Comment: This diary entry is for a meeting between Professor Nicholas Farrelly and Shadow Minister Ella Haddad. No other documents relating to this meeting were released to me.
10 May 2024
Source: Released documents, page 388.
10-13 May 2024
Source: Released documents, page 453.
Source: Released documents, page 391.
Comment: It is unclear why the Leader of the Opposition, Dean Winter, was asking UTAS to do his homework for him (asking UTAS to provide the Greens’ Policy) when he had his own office resources.
Kate Huntington’s statement about providing a list of questions appears clearly partisan and inappropriate, if – as seems almost certain – it related to the the Government’s pending UTAS Land Bill (tabled in the House of Assembly on 20 June 2024). UTAS did not provide the list of questions to me and there appear to be other gaps in this part of the communications.
27 May 2024
Source: Released documents, page 133, Will Coats’ resolution continues on the next page.
Comment: Apart from the emails below, UTAS has not released any other documents to me relating to this high level meeting, which included VC Black and Dean Winter, even though I requested briefs prepared for meetings and records of meetings. I will raise the absence of such documents in my external review request to the Ombudsman.
28 May 2024
Source: Released documents, page 454. Apart from the emails below, UTAS had not released any other documents to me relating to this high level meeting, which included VC Black and Dean Winter, even though I requested briefs prepared for meetings and records of meetings.
Source: Released documents, page 328.
Comment: Marcus Atkinson was by now a senior member of Dean Winter’s staff. Many of the claims in the second and fourth paragraphs of this email are hotly contested (refurbishment and upgrade of UTAS’ current STEM facilities is the best, least cost and least risk option for STEM). UTAS frequently deploys the phrase “contemporary teaching”, when it is seeking to obfuscate.
Source: Released documents, page 119
20 June 2024, Introduction of the University of Tasmania (Protection of Land) Bill 2024 into the House of Assembly
This is the Tasmanian Parliament Bill site for the UTAS Bill. A copy of the Bill as introduced is here. A copy of the amended Bill tabled on 28 November 2024 is here.
24 June 2024
Source: Released documents, page 315.
27 June 2024
Source: Released documents, page 9.
Comment: This diary entry is for a meeting between Professor Nicholas Farrelly and Shadow Minister Josh Willie. No other documents relating to this meeting were released to me.
2 July 2024
Source: Released documents, page 335.
3 July 2024
Source: Released documents, page 393.
Source: Released documents, page 273.
10 July 2024
Source: Released documents, page 446. The Tasmanian Chamber of Commerce and Industry’s op ed continues to page 448 and parrots many of UTAS’ standard lines.
11 July 2024
Source: Released documents, page 219 (attachments at pages 221-223)
Comment: This correspondence is clearly focused on UTAS continuing its move to the CBD.
Source: Released documents, page 430; Moody’s release is at pages 433-440.
Source: Document released as part of UTAS’ internal review decision in February 2025.
15 July 2024
Source: Released documents, page 476.
12-16 July 2024 – Dean Winter’s UTAS Policy Speech (at UTAS’ Podium Building)
Source: Released documents, pages 301-304, cf page 421 regarding venue hire and page 454 for possible initial discussion.
Source: Released documents, page 310.
Source: Document released as part of UTAS’ internal review decision in February 2025 (providing a fuller sequence of emails than initial documentation). Following is the text of Dean Winter’s speech that was attached to the first email in the thread.
Source: Released documents, pages 319-320. The full text of Dean Winter’s speech continues to page 326.
Source: Document released as part of UTAS’ internal review decision in February 2025.
Comment: This is Minister Ogilvie’s response attached to the email. This is the Greens’ media release linked in the email.
17 July 2024
Source: Document released as part of UTAS’ internal RTI review decision in February 2025.
Comment: The large scale redaction of material here was not satisfactorily justified by UTAS and I will be seeking internal review of this matter by the Ombudsman.
19 July 2024
Source: Released documents, pages 213 and 141-142.
This is the same letter again, but without the redactions:
Comment: See my previous post on this letter, The Farrelly-Winter letter – the redacted text (revealed here) says a lot about UTAS.
25 July 2024
Source: Released documents, page 456.
Comment: UTAS has not released any other documents to me relating to this meeting, even though I requested briefs prepared for meetings and records of meetings. It is not clear with whom Paul Lennon met.
29 July 2024
Source: Released documents, pages 298-299.
1 August 2024
Source: Released documents, page 366 – 374.
Comment: The schedule of documents provided in UTAS’ RTI decision revealed that the Paul addressed here was Labor power broker Paul Lennon. The redactions were poorly justified in UTAS’ decision and appear not to have been seriously addressed in UTAS’ internal review process. I will be seeking external review of this issue by the Ombudsman.
7 August 2024 – Dean Winter’s motion on University of Tasmania Land in the House of Assembly
Comment: Debate on the motion is in Hansard, pages 93 to 116. Given the extensive communication between UTAS and the State Labor Opposition, including on trivial matters, in the initial 500 odd pages of documentation provided to me, I find the absence of communication between UTAS and the Labor Opposition on the motion not credible. I will raise this as a major concern in my request for external review of my RTI application to the Ombudsman.
8 August 2024
Source: Released documents, page 442.
25 August 2024
Source: Released documents, pages 259-261.
Comment: The ”questions and info” referred to here was for Dean Winter and Sarah Lovell’s briefing session with Minister Ogilvie on UTAS on 26 August 2024 referred to in records of Ministerial appointments released by the Department of Premier and Cabinet. The wholesale redaction of briefing points is highly questionable and was not seriously addressed by UTAS in its internal review of my RTI application. I will raise this as a major concern in my request for external review of my RTI application to the Ombudsman. I note that UTAS General Counsel, Jane Beaumont, was copied into this email. This is the only instance I have identified of a senior UTAS legal officer being involved in internal correspondence relating to the State Labor Opposition. This is implausible and, again, I will request the Ombudsman to scrutinise this matter.
Appendix – My RTI application
On 23 September 2024, I submitted an RTI application to UTAS, requesting copies of records relating to communications between members of UTAS staff and members of the ALP since 1 January 2024 from 1 January 2024.
In response, on 6 December 2024, I received some 500 pages of documents.
These documents were not arranged in any sort of chronological or thematic order, but analysis of the documents revealed both questionable redaction (exemption) of text, major gaps in the documentation provided and a failure to address major elements of my request.
On 7 January 2025, I sought internal review of UTAS’ initial decision on my application.
I received UTAS’ internal review decision on 7 February 2025. This resulted in the provision of a small number of additional documents, but fundamentally failed to address the issues that I had raised in my request for internal review. I will now seek external review of UTAS’ decision by the Ombudsman.
Issues raised in my internal review application
(Note: Pdf page numbers refer to this linked bundle of documents; document numbers were provided in a schedule but documents in the document bundle were not numbered.)
“Redactions (exemptions)
“….I request that the following major redactions (exemptions) be reviewed:
- Document 38 (pdf pages 141-142) – Letter from Nicholas Farrelly to Dean Winter – I was also given an unredacted copy of this letter and see no basis for the redactions made here under section 38 of the RTI Act. While the first redacted paragraph is false and the second is nonsense, they are both consistent with the sort of claims UTAS has made publicly elsewhere. I also consider the release of the redacted material to be strongly in the public interest. While I have an unredacted copy of the letter, I wish UTAS to formally consider this matter.
- Document 76 (pdf pages 260-261) – “some questions and info” provided by Kate Huntington to Dean Winter and Sarah Lovell – This material has been entirely redacted under section 35 of the RTI Act. I query how the material can be considered “internal deliberative” when it was provided to external parties, including the leader of the State Parliamentary Opposition. I also note that while there is no indication regarding the content of the redacted material, it must inevitably include factual information, redactions of which would be a contravention of the terms of section 35 of the RTI Act. As the redacted material relates to major dealings between UTAS and the State Opposition, which may or may not be appropriate, the public interest case for release of this material appears overwhelming.
- Document 117 (pdf pages 371-372) – Campus overview provided by Kate Huntington to Paul Lennon – Significant amounts of material have been redacted under section 35 of the RTI Act. Again, I query how material can be considered “internal deliberative” when it is being provided to an external party, presumably for use in lobbying. I also note that some of the redacted material must be factual. As this document was provided to Paul Lennon, a power broker in the State ALP, the public interest case for release of the material appears overwhelming.
- Use of section 36 of the RTI Act as a basis for redaction (exemption) – In general I do not have an issue with the section 36 exemptions, the majority of which appear inconsequential. However, I challenge the use of section 36 for Documents 150 (pdf page 442), 151 (pdf page 443), 156 (pdf page 459) and 163 (pdf pages 476-477), particularly Documents 150 and 151, where the identity of the individuals involved may be significant. Were these people contacted prior to the decision not to release their names (and other redacted information concerning them)?
- On a related matter, I note that while there are no significant redactions in Document 155 (pdf pages 452-458), it is not always clear who the meeting originator/UTAS attendees were, for example the Dean Winter and Sara Lovell meeting on pdf page 458. Can this information please be provided.
Gaps in the documents provided
Unfortunately, the documents provided to me were not chronologically arranged or even cross referenced to [the document schedule in the] decision letter (that is, they do not have document numbers on them).
Consequently, I have arranged some of the documents chronologically and there appear to be some glaring gaps that have considerable public interest attached to them, and that would seem to warrant further searches. These gaps fall into two categories – general and specific.
Gaps – general
- My request (1) b) was for “Notes/records for or of meetings between staff of UTAS and any of the listed persons” – Few, if any, such notes/records have been provided in the released documents. The implication – that notes/records were not made – is implausible for a professional organisation of any size, let alone UTAS.
- My request (1) e) was for “Questions asked by any of the listed persons of UTAS staff members” – There are few such questions in the released documents. Given, for example, the amount of information provided by UTAS to ALP members, the apparent lack of follow up questions by ALP members is striking.
- My request 2 was for “Copies of all internal UTAS communications, records of meetings and briefs pertaining to any of the listed persons and request (1) since 1 January 2024.” Very few documents of this nature have been provided and I particularly note the near total absence of records of this kind involving the Vice-Chancellor (VC), the UTAS Council and other senior members of UTAS staff, such as Craig Barling. This beggars belief, particularly as the VC and Mr Barling were themselves involved in contact with ALP members and could reasonably be expected to have been ‘kept in the loop’ or engaged, at the least, with some of the other more significant contacts with ALP members. On the basis of the documents provided I would also have to conclude that the UTAS Council was kept entirely ‘in the dark’ on communications with the State Opposition, including in the lead up to the State election and in relation to the assistance provided to the State Opposition on policy and political issues. [Note: A few documents were provided as part of internal review by UTAS, showing communication with the UTAS Council; this was a very meagre result.]
Gaps – specific
Working off my chronological arrangement of some of the released documents, these are some of the more significant gaps that I have noticed, on which I seek specific attention:
- Throughout the documents, I particularly note that Ms Huntington’s correspondence with ALP members appears to frequently have had no beginning or end – there is no initiating email and no concluding email, even when Ms Huntington provided significant information or there were outstanding matters. Some instances of this are cited below.
- Documents 56 (pdf page 207) and 126 (pdf page 396) – State Opposition requests for assistance – The correspondence appears incomplete and there also appears to be no substantive internal communication on this matter, including on whether it was appropriate to assist the State Opposition with a policy release in the middle of an election campaign.
- Documents 57 (pdf page 208), 152 (pdf page 445), and 154 (pdf page 449) – Provision of material by Kate Huntington to Marcus Atkinson (a senior staff member of the State Opposition) – The correspondence appears fragmentary, and there is no indication of internal UTAS communication on the matter, as might reasonably be expected. For instance, did Ms Huntington not keep senior UTAS staff informed on what she was providing to the State Opposition, even in the middle of an election campaign?
- Document 96 (pdf pages 308-309) – Provision of speech extract by Marcus Atkinson to Kate Huntington – Was there any previous or subsequent communication? Was there any internal UTAS communication on the extract, as might reasonably be expected on a State Opposition policy statement on UTAS in the middle of an election campaign? Was the extract or the full speech provided separately to other UTAS staff members?
- Numerous released documents provide diary entries for meetings between UTAS staff and ALP members (for example Documents 4 and 155; pdf pages 8 and 451-458 respectively) – No meeting briefs for UTAS staff or records of meetings by UTAS staff have been provided; nor even internal emails on the meetings. Do no such documents exist? I note in particular the VC’s meeting with Dean Winter, Sarah Lovell and Ella Haddad on 28 May 2024. I also note Kate Huntington’s follow up email (Document 30; pdf page 119), which strongly suggests the VC received briefing for the meeting.
- Document 120 (pdf page 388) – Email from Kate Huntington to Sarah Lovell – There does not appear to be any previous reference to the meeting earlier in the day with Ms Lovell and Dean Winter, unless it was the tour of the Forestry Building, which also involved Craig Barling (Document 155). Was there any briefing prepared for the meeting or notes/records of the meeting? Was there any communication between UTAS staff in relation to the meeting? Were the VC and the UTAS Council kept totally ‘in the dark’ about such meetings, as would be the conclusion from the released documents?
- Document 122 (pdf page 391) – Emails between Kate Huntington and Dean Winter – Similar questions arise as in relation to the Document 120. Was there a reply to Mr Winter’s request for a copy of the Greens UTAS policy? Where are “our questions about the legislation for you guys” referred to by Ms Huntington? Are these the questions referred to in Document 76 (pdf pages 260-261)? (As this document was much later, this seems unlikely). Was there any internal communication about these questions? Why is there is there so little, if any, communication with UTAS’ legal team in the released documents, particularly given that the Government’s commitment to legislation on UTAS was a key matter for communication with the State Opposition?
- Numerous released documents relate to tours of UTAS’ Sandy Bay campus and other UTAS sites by Dean Winter, Josh Willie, Ella Haddad and Sarah Lovell (for example, Document 112; pdf page 335) – Were any briefings or itineraries prepared by UTAS staff for use by UTAS staff for the tours? Were there any notes for/records of the tours? Was there any communication between UTAS staff about the tours including in relation to the ALP members’ responses to the tours? Were the VC and the UTAS Council kept totally ‘in the dark’ about such meetings, as would be the conclusion from the released documents?
- Document 34 (pdf pages 133-134) – Email from Kate Huntington to Dean Winter – Was there any prior or subsequent communication on this matter? Was there any internal UTAS communication regarding this interaction between Ms Huntington and Mr Winter?
- Document 105 (pdf page 328) – Email from Kate Huntington to Marcus Atkinson – Was there any prior or subsequent communication on this subject matter? Was there any internal communication about this communication and its subject matter?
- Numerous released documents relate to the major policy speech on UTAS by Dean Winter delivered, with UTAS hosting, at the Podium Building on 16 July 2024 (for example Document 94; pdf pages 301-304), but the VC, senior UTAS staff – such as Craig Barling – and UTAS Council members appear not to have attended or to have been otherwise involved. This is implausible. Are there any other communications on this matter, with ALP members or internal to UTAS? [Note: A few documents were provided as part of internal review by UTAS, showing communication with the UTAS Council; this was a very meagre result.]
- Document 102 (pdf page 319) – Email from Marcus Atkinson to Kate Huntington (attaching Dean Winter’s speech) – Did UTAS provide any input to this speech at any time? In particular, did UTAS provide the 2,000 number? Did UTAS provide any input on the Government’s UTAS Bill? Was there any internal UTAS communication about Mr Winter’s speech?
- Documents 38 (pdf pages 141-142) and 61 (pdf page 213) – Email and letter from Nicholas Farrelly to Dean Winter – Was there any prior or subsequent communication? This is a highly significant letter. Was there any internal communication regarding this letter? I would expect the VC and UTAS Council to have been involved/informed. Professor Farrelly’s letter was also clearly based on UTAS legal input, but no UTAS internal communications have been provided relating to this.
- Documents 115-118 (pdf pages 366 – 386) – Email from Kate Huntington to Paul Lennon and attachments – Some of the attachments were clearly developed for briefing purposes. Were they provided to any other ALP members? Was there any internal communication relating to the email and contact with Mr Lennon more generally? Again, I would expect the VC and UTAS Council to have been involved/informed. Some of the attachments are clearly based on UTAS legal input, but no UTAS internal communications have been provided relating to this.
- Documents 75 and 76 (pdf pages 259-261) – Email from Kate Huntington to Dean Winter and Sarah Lovell attaching “some questions and info that you may find useful” for a briefing session (with Minister Ogilvie?) – I have already mentioned the “questions and info” in relation to unwarranted redactions (exemptions). Again, this appears to have been a major communication. Was there any internal communication regarding the email and attachment? I would expect the VC and UTAS Council to have been involved/informed. I believe the redacted material to have related to the Government’s UTAS Bill based on UTAS legal input, but no UTAS internal communications have been provided relating to this. I note that Jane Beaumont was copied into Ms Huntington’s email.”