Introduction
In response to a Question on Notice from the Legislative Council Select Committee Inquiry into the Provisions of the University of Tasmania Act 1992, UTAS provided the following table summarising its performance on Right to Information (RTI) applications over a five-year period.
UTAS’ table on RTI (source: this link, page 49)
The statistics don’t look too bad, but statistics on RTI cannot be relied upon to ‘tell the story’. This is particularly the case as initial decisions may be made/written in a way that acts to improperly discourage or even preclude internal or external review.
- I have copies of UTAS’ initial decisions on other peoples’ RTI applications and they received this sort of discouraging response, just as I did.
In relation to the years of which I have personal knowledge (2021-22 & 2022-23), the statistics in the table provided by UTAS appear incorrect in part and are thoroughly misleading.
My RTI applications
Here are some brief facts on my RTI applications to UTAS in the period 20 March 2022 to 26 January 2023.
- These are applications I made within the period captured by UTAS’ table; I have made subsequent RTI applications and will write about them separately.
During the period 20 March 2022 to 26 January 2023, I submitted nine RTI applications to UTAS, and received a total of 48 pages of documents from UTAS in comparison to the approximately 3,620 pages I eventually received following intervention by the Ombudsman.
In respect of UTAS’ decisions on these nine applications, I submitted four requests for external review of UTAS’ decisions on my RTI applications to the Ombudsman under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the RTI Act).
I also pursued action by the Ombudsman in respect of three other RTI applications that were, I believe, incorrectly refused by UTAS through a complaint under the Ombudsman Act 1978 (there being no scope for review under the RTI Act in respect of these refusals).
As a result of my pursuit of these seven applications to the Ombudsman:
- The Ombudsman has made three decisions in my favour against UTAS:
- The Ombudsman’s office intervened so that UTAS remade three decisions under the RTI Act.
- As noted above, UTAS has released approximately 3,620 pages of documents, due to intervention by the Ombudsman (and his office), including a number of documents that should already have been in the public domain, and which certainly should have been made available by UTAS under RTI without the need for me to pursue external review (that is, within one to two months of my application). These include a number of key documents:
- UTAS Council Minutes for the period 1 January 2015 to 4 April 2022 (Part 1 and Part 2) – my RTI application 24 March 2022; document released 16 January 2023 (see my blog post: UTAS doctored Council Minutes)
- the STEM Business Case (2016) – my RTI application 23 August 2022; released 16 January 2023
- the Southern Future Business Case which was the basis of the UTAS Council’s relocation decision of 5 April 2019 – my RTI application 23 August 2022; released 16 July 2023 (see my blog post: Tasmanians would bear cost of UTAS folly – $4 billion plus at stake)
- UTAS’ Sandy Bay Planning Scheme Amendment (PSA) and Masterplan submitted to the Hobart City Council on 6 December 2021 – my RTI application 26 January 2023; released 11 July 2023 (see my blog post: UTAS’ Masterplan for Sandy Bay 2021 – don’t expect much change)
- The research by Deloitte (2021-22) that UTAS cited in its submission to the Committee as underpinning its claim that CBD relocation (and Sandy Bay campus site redevelopment) would be profitable for UTAS – my RTI application 26 January 2023; released 1 November 2023 (see my blog post: Deloitte reports should sound death knell for UTAS relocation – Part 1. Part 2 is coming soon)
- Working papers by other consultants and UTAS Pty Ltd used by Deloitte – my RTI application 26 January 2023; provided to me on 20 December 2023
In respect of my original nine RTI applications, I have decisions pending from the Ombudsman on two RTI applications (I requested review on one of UTAS’ remade decisions and have pursued my original case in respect of another).
I also have a decision pending from the Ombudsman in relation to my complaint about the three refused applications, which related to: the consultation prior to the UTAS Council’s relocation decision of 5 April 2019; trips to Europe by UTAS and Hobart City Council members in 2016 and 2017 to attend conferences and visit ‘university cities’; and the source of UTAS’ and Chancellor Watkin’s claim that UTAS staff would spend $15 million a year in the Hobart CBD.
It is clear that UTAS has been unduly secretive and obstructive with regard to my RTI applications.
- See my blog posts: UTAS breaches Right to Information Act – again and Ombudsman delivers crushing RTI decision against UTAS – again!
UTAS’ recent institution of a so-called transparency project appears to be a response to scrutiny by the Ombudsman and what it has published appears to be largely reactive.
Certainly, UTAS continues to keep crucial information on its future plans to itself.