Key Points
I urge readers to lobby for release of UTAS’ financial justification for the CBD move, as set out in the bolded text below.
UTAS’ principal argument for relocating its southern campus to the Hobart CBD, and redeveloping its current Sandy Bay site as – in effect –a new suburb, is that this is necessary for UTAS’ financial sustainability.
UTAS has, however, failed to produce meaningful evidence to support this argument.
Given the importance of, and public interest in, UTAS’ proposed relocation this is a scandal, particularly as:
- On evidence that I have obtained under Right to Information, it is clear that the Government and Government agencies have undertaken no independent analysis of UTAS’ self-interested case to move to the Hobart CBD; rather, they have accepted UTAS’ claims without question – a clear abrogation of responsibility.
- As I will show in my coming blog post
BusinessBasket Case, you could drive a truck through the flawed and superficial material that has been published by UTAS to support its financial sustainability argument.
- As with all public institutions, the risk of any financial losses by UTAS will be carried by the public.
Notwithstanding UTAS’ nonsense claim to have published (online) the entire Southern Future Business Case (the business case which served as the basis for the UTAS Council’s 2019 decision to relocate the southern campus), some 66% of that document was redacted, including the most critical material in the body of the business case and the detail of key assumptions in the attachments to the business case.
- On 23 August 2022, I submitted a Right to Information (RTI) application to UTAS for the Southern Future Business Case. After UTAS refused both my initial application and my internal review application, I submitted a request for external review to the Ombudsman on 8 December 2022.
- I believe the online release of the heavily redacted version of the Southern Future Business Case on around 16 January 2023 was (1) due to pressure from the Ombudsman’s office; and (2) intended to forestall and/or pre-empt a formal decision by the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman’s office is continuing with its review.
In its 335-page submission to the Legislative Council Select Committee’s Inquiry into the Provisions of the University of Tasmania Act 1992 (LegCo Inquiry), UTAS devoted less than half a page to financial sustainability.
In this brief treatment (reproduced fully below), UTAS stated that “a great deal of further work” had been done since the Southern Future Business Case and cited Deloitte Access Economics (DAE) as producing new, and more favourable, estimates of the financial gains to be made from moving to the Hobart CDB “compared to the long-term redevelopment of Sandy Bay.”
Note: Document image sourced from page 8 of Attachment 1 of Part 13 of UTAS’ submission to the LegCo Inquiry.
Given this superficial treatment of such an important subject, on 26 January 2023, I submitted an RTI application in which I sought, “a copy of the DAE research and all related documents (working papers etc)”.
On 17 March 2023, UTAS sent me its decision letter together with a schedule of documents identified as meeting the terms of my application, but which UTAS totally exempted from release:
I have today sent a letter to Vice-Chancellor Black, seeking an internal review of UTAS’ decision. I have provided the full text of my letter in the Background section below. However, I would make the following points here:
- Two of three documents in the table (above) are listed as “draft” or “preliminary” and dated March 2022 and November 2021 respectively. It is not clear whether the third document is a final document and no date is provided.
- As UTAS has placed such emphasis on the financial case for its CBD move, and DAE’s work is critical in the statement of UTAS’ financial case to the LegCo Inquiry, I would consider it both astounding and derelict in the extreme if UTAS had relied on draft or preliminary assessments by DAE.
- The failure to date the third document is contrary to guidance provided on page 61 of the Ombudsman’s Manual (section 8.5).
- I have it on good advice that DAE were still working on the financial case for UTAS’ move in August 2022.
- The second part of my request for “all related documents (working papers etc)”, which should include all input materials provided by UTAS to DAE, has been totally ignored.
- The argument for exempting the three identified documents from disclosure is severely flawed.
- UTAS seems to take no account of relevant Ombudsman and Supreme Court determinations.
- UTAS’ broad-brush approach of completely exempting information goes against the presumption of disclosure found in the Right to Information Act 2009 (the RTI Act).
- UTAS fails to apply a balancing test for and against the public interest, thereby excluding from consideration a number of elements in Schedule 1 of the RTI Act that are heavily in favour of the public interest.
As regular readers will know, I believe that UTAS has an attitude that it is above the law and that – contrary to the intent of the RTI Act (see Background for more detail) – UTAS adopts a defensive approach to RTI applications employing obstruction and obfuscation to the maximum extent. (See for example UTAS doctored Council Minutes).
Realistically, I will ultimately need to seek an external review of UTAS’ decision from the Ombudsman.
- I am required by the RTI Act to seek internal (that is, UTAS) review of UTAS’ decisions on RTI applications before I can seek external review by the Ombudsman. My substantial experience of internal reviews by UTAS is that they are futile. (See for example my evidence to the LegCo Inquiry, which starts on page 41).
Given that UTAS is intent on moving to the CBD as soon as possible and that the timeline for achieving an outcome on RTI reviews is – at best – months, I request that, to inform public opinion and debate on UTAS‘ principal argument for relocation, readers lobby for release of:
- the Southern Future Business Case (2019); and
- the more recent Deloitte Access Economics research “and all related documents (working papers etc)” discussed in this post.
In particular, I urge readers to write to the Premier, the Vice-Chancellor of UTAS and/or their local state members of Parliament. To support your case, you may wish to provide the link to this blog post, which is:
https://theutaspapers.com/utas-refuses-to-provide-financial-justification-for-cbd-move/
I am providing a copy of this blog post to the LegCo Inquiry.
Background
This is the full text of my request for internal review of UTAS’ decision on my RTI application (attachments not included):
“Professor Rufus Black
Vice-Chancellor
University of Tasmania
By email: [email protected]
Dear Professor Black
Request for Internal Review of Decision relating to a Right to Information Application
I am writing to you in your capacity as Principal Officer of the University of Tasmania (UTAS), under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the RTI Act), to seek an internal review of a decision made regarding a Right to Information (RTI) application that I lodged on 26 January 2023. In my application I sought material relating to the Deloitte Access Economics (DAE) research mentioned in UTAS’ submission to the Legislative Council Select Committee Inquiry into the Provisions of the University of Tasmania Act 1992 (LegCo Inquiry). A copy of my application is at Attachment A.
Background
UTAS argues that it is necessary to relocate its southern campus to the Hobart CBD and redevelop its current Sandy Bay site, in effect, as a new suburb to maintain its financial viability.
However, in its 335-page submission to the LegCo Inquiry UTAS devoted less than half a page to this subject.
In this brief treatment, UTAS stated that “a great deal of further work” had been done since its business case in 2019 (when the UTAS Council decided on relocation) and cited DAE as producing new, and more favourable, estimates of the financial gains to be made from moving to the Hobart CDB “compared to the long-term redevelopment of Sandy Bay.”
On 26 January 2023, I submitted an RTI application in which I sought, “a copy of the DAE research and all related documents (working papers etc)” as referenced at page 8 of Attachment 1 of Part 13 of UTAS’ submission to the LegCo Inquiry.
On 2 February 2023, [the decision maker] of UTAS’ Legal Office acknowledged receipt of my application (all emails are included in Attachment B).
On 23 February 2023, [the decision maker] advised me that he had identified material within the scope of my RTI application and that third party consultation would be required.
On 17 March 2023, [the decision maker] sent me his decision letter (Attachment C) together with a schedule of documents identified as in scope, which were totally exempted (Attachment D):
Issues
Documents Identified
The document schedule identifies only three documents. Two of these are listed as “draft” or “preliminary” and dated March 2022 and November 2021 respectively. It is not clear whether the third document is a final document and no date is provided. However, in his decision letter, [the decision maker] states:
“I have determined that the material you have sought are working drafts and development feasibility assessments for modelling a range of development options. The information was sought from Deloitte and used for internal deliberations only.”
I make the following points:
- The failure to date the third document is contrary to guidance provided on page 61 of the Ombudsman’s Manual (section 8.5).
- The status of the third document should be made clear. Is it a draft or final?
- Given their seeming importance, the documents are inadequately described in both the decision letter and the schedule.
- I have it on good advice that DAE were still working on this project in August 2022.
As UTAS has placed such emphasis on the financial case for its CBD move, and DAE’s work is critical in the statement of UTAS’ financial case to the LegCo Inquiry, it would be of major concern if UTAS had relied on draft or preliminary assessments by DAE.
Documents not identified
My RTI application requested DAE research “and all related documents (working papers etc).” The second part of my request, which should include all input materials provided by UTAS to DAE, has been totally ignored.
I note, for example, in [the decision maker’s] decision letter that he states:
“The Deloitte Working Draft and Deloitte Financial Modelling Outputs collected and utilised information from various sources both from the University and outside the University that was readily understood to have been divulged in confidence.” [my bolding]
All such information should have been included in the document schedule and considered for release.
It should have been clear to [the decision maker] that the phrase “all related documents” referred to something rather than nothing. If he was unclear on my request, he should have contacted me to discuss the matter as stated on page 22 of the Ombudsman’s Manual.
This is a serious matter as the administration of the RTI Act relies on the identification of all information relevant to the terms of RTI applications.
I reiterate my request for “all related documents” and I am happy to discuss what might be reasonably encompassed by this request, if clarification is required.
[The decision maker’s] decision
Amongst the guidance provided in the Ombudsman’s Manual is:
“In line with the title to the Act and with s 7 of the Act – a section which is central to the Act’s operation – s 3 speaks of “a right to obtain information about the operations of Government”. This statutory right has been created to assist in the better working of democracy, and should be seen as part and parcel of our democratic system of government. The administration of the Act, including the making of decisions under the Act as to whether information requested under it is or is not released, should be approached in this spirit, not defensively.” (page 3) [my bolding]
[The decision maker’s] broad-brush approach of completely exempting information goes against the presumption of disclosure found in the RTI Act. [The decision maker’s] decision to exempt this information also relies on a series of generic arguments. The documents he has identified are, for example, determined to be exempt under various sections of the RTI Act because; they are “business related confidential information of Deloitte” (RTI Act Section 37); Deloitte’s “ report is marked on each and every page as confidential” (RTI Act Section 39); they are “working drafts and development feasibility assessments for modelling a range of development options” (RTI Act Section 35); and “the information is likely to expose the University to competitive disadvantage.”
The three identified documents all undoubtedly include factual material of a nature that is not sensitive and this should be able to be freely provided. Moreover description of material as “confidential” does not make it automatically exempt under the provisions of the RTI Act.
Over and above this, [the decision maker’s] argument on the public interest in his decision letter is weak, especially as he seems to take no account of relevant Ombudsman and Supreme Court determinations. In particular he fails to apply a balancing test for and against the public interest, thereby excluding from consideration a number of elements in Schedule 1 of the Act that are heavily in favour of the public interest. Indeed, [the decision maker] fails to provide any evidence of detailed consideration of the reasons for favouring release in the public interest.
UTAS’ proposed relocation to the Hobart CBD and redevelopment of its Sandy Bay site are matters of very great public interest, as evidenced by the Elector Poll of October/November 2022 and the large majority of submissions to the LegCo Inquiry.
UTAS has relied heavily on the “financial” sustainability argument to justify its relocation and in its presentation to the LegCo inquiry it has relied heavily on DAE to make this case. UTAS should release as much relevant material as possible, in line with the objectives of the RTI Act.
Accordingly, I contest the claims for exemption in [the decision maker’s] decision and request that the review decision maker apply the public interest test to the standard required and present evidence that shows that the onus favouring release has been rebutted. I also request that the additional material I requested be identified and so considered.
Thank you for attending to the internal review of [the decision maker’s] decision on my RTI application.
Yours sincerely
Robert Hogan
17 April 2023″