In my submission to the Legislative Council Select Committee Inquiry into the Provisions of the University of Tasmania Act 1992 (LegCo Inquiry), I made a number of points relevant to the Government’s role in UTAS’ proposed relocation to the Hobart CBD:

  • A policy decision of the magnitude of UTAS’ proposed move to the Hobart CBD, and redevelopment of the Sandy Bay Campus as a suburb within a suburb, should be the preserve of the Government and, by extension, the Parliament and the people of Tasmania.
  • UTAS’ accountability to the Government, and the representative nature of the UTAS Council, had been eroded since the passage of the University of Tasmania Act 1992, by a series of amendments between 2001 and 2012.
  • This erosion of accountability had enabled the Government to abrogate responsibility and take a ‘hands off’ approach.
  • The amended process for appointment to the UTAS Council, had created the potential for the Council to self-replicate (through the appointment of people with outlooks/skills similar to the people they replaced) and the institutionalisation of group think. Moreover, a full time Chief Executive, with supportive senior staff, was well placed to exercise a strong, if not dominant, influence.
  • Vice-Chancellor Rathjen was clearly focused on relocating UTAS from Sandy Bay to the Hobart CBD by 2016, and the proposal to build a STEM facility in the CBD (and its inclusion in the Hobart City Deal) was the ‘thin edge of the wedge’.
  • The Government should have initiated a process of public consultation as soon as it became aware of UTAS’ plan to relocate.

The RTI Papers

On 4 May 2022, I submitted a Right to Information application to the Departments of Premier and Cabinet (DPAC), State Growth and Education, seeking various documents in relation to UTAS for the period 1 January 2015 to 4 May 2022.  State Growth and DPAC provided documents on 29 July and 29 August respectively. While Education initially provided a nil response, after I lodged a request for internal review, it provided documents on 13 September.

Further details of the documents (including decision letters and DPAC and State Growth document schedules) are provided on The UTAS Papers page.

In total, 154 pages of documents were provided by the three agencies. They include redactions, sometimes wholesale, and there are also obvious gaps in the documentation. I have already submitted a request to Jenny Gale, the Secretary of DPAC, for internal review of DPAC’s decision, while also raising some broader issues. I will also shortly submit an application for external review of Education’s review decision to the Ombudsman.

While the documents are incomplete, they indicate that:

  • The State Government (if only, at times, the Premier) appears to have been kept well briefed on UTAS’ plans.
  • Despite this, the Government applied no independent scrutiny to UTAS’ plans – effectively leaving UTAS to govern in its own self-appointed domain.

Government knowledge and support of UTAS plans

A letter by then Premier Will Hodgman to Vice-Chancellor Rathjen in November 2016 indicates that the Government was already active in support of STEM facilities being developed in the Hobart CBD by 2015, and not 2016 (DPAC Document 9). The same letter also suggests that Vice-Chancellor Rathjen’s (and Premier Hodgman’s?) ambitions were already stretching considerably further, as Premier Hodgman stated:

  • “By replacing ageing current infrastructure, the project would also continue the University’s long-term strategy to invest in an expanded campus in the Hobart CBD, building a critical mass of research and teaching excellence while supporting the city’s revitalisation and growth.”

It is not clear whether this was part of Premier Hodgman’s reference back to 2015 or whether it was a contemporary reference (November 2016), in which case it may represent very careful drafting. It seems almost certain that Premier Hodgman would have known of Vice-Chancellor Rathjen’s plan to relocate UTAS’ Southern Campus to the Hobart CBD by late 2016, given that:

  • The Hobart City Council was well aware of Rathjen’s plan by October 2016 and then Lord Mayor, Sue Hickey, offered her full support for the CBD move in a letter in March 2017.
  • By July 2017, Vice Chancellor Rathjen was sufficiently emboldened, to articulate his plan for a CBD move publicly, ahead of (meaningful) formal consideration of the matter by the UTAS Council in August 2017.

There appear to be large gaps in the documentation provided by the three agencies for 2016 and 2017, but by 2018, it is clear that numerous State agencies were not only aware of a likely city move but were taking their lead from UTAS on the matter (See State Growth documents in particular).

It is also notable that, after a significant break in the appointment of senior public servants to the UTAS Council, Jenny Gale, Secretary of DPAC served on the UTAS Council from January to November 2018 and was succeeded by Jennifer Burgess, Deputy Secretary, Education (from 14 February 2019 to 31 December 2020). While a member of the UTAS Council, Ms Gale was also a member of the Hobart City Deal – Senior Officials Group.

  • Scant records have been provided by Education in relation to Ms Gale’s and Ms Burgess’ appointments as UTAS Council members. It is unclear why, at this particular time, senior public servants were appointed to the UTAS Council and why, after their appointments, Ms Burgess was not replaced by another senior public servant.

There is a telling reference in a brief prepared by DPAC for the Minister for Local Government for a meeting with Vice-Chancellor Black on 30 September 2019:

DPAC Document 1

There are no briefs for the Premier for meetings with the Vice-Chancellor in the 154 pages of documents provided by the three agencies. Perhaps this is a deficiency or perhaps the meetings were informal. Either way, it is reasonable to assume that such meetings were an established event, perhaps going back to Vice-Chancellor Rathjen, if not earlier. It’s hard not to think of deals done in smoke filled rooms in days of yore.

While I noted in my submission that the UTAS Council and the Minister for Education were required to consult on Council appointments by the UTAS Act, by 2021 UTAS was advertising for nominees for the UTAS Council in its own and name and that of the Minister for Education. There is no reference to this in the papers provided by the Department of Education.

Government applied no independent scrutiny

Based on the papers provided under RTI:

  • Neither DPAC nor State Growth nor Education provided briefing to senior officers or Ministers analysing the proposed move of UTAS into the Hobart CBD and redevelopment of the Sandy Bay Campus. This represents an abrogation of responsibility by the State Government and its agencies and a gross failure of administration.
  • Neither DPAC nor State Growth nor Education undertook analysis of the proposed move of UTAS into the Hobart CBD and redevelopment of the Sandy Bay campus (indeed DPAC explicitly states that it has not undertaken such analysis).  Again, this represents a serious abrogation of responsibility by the State Government and its agencies. 
  • Neither DPAC nor State Growth nor Education undertook analysis of any aspect of the proposed move of UTAS into the Hobart CBD and redevelopment of the Sandy Bay campus. Again, this represents a serious abrogation of responsibility by the State Government and its agencies. 
  • Neither Ms Gale nor Ms Burgess received any agency briefing in relation to UTAS’ proposed relocation or the City Deal, including UTAS’ Hobart STEM precinct proposal, notwithstanding their membership of the UTAS Council.

In summation, the overall approach of departmental officers and Ministers to UTAS’ proposed relocation to the Hobart CBD was one of totally unquestioning acceptance of every claim UTAS made, including UTAS’ assertions regarding student accessibility, financial viability, traffic and parking impacts, the state of buildings at Sandy Bay and consultation, with – as far as I have noticed in the 154 pages provided – one minor exception:

  • On 26 October 2018, a senior Education official queried “whether UTas hasn’t underplayed the implications for Hobart’s transport and other infrastructure if it were to relocate from Sandy Bay entirely.”  

It is not clear from the documentation provided whether this issue was ever followed up. 

The Government’s Current Position

The Government’s public attitude to UTAS was neatly encapsulated in comments made by Minister Madeleine Ogilvie after the Vote No (to Relocation) Rally on 2 October: “We don’t control what the University does and in a sense it’s really important that the independence of our university is also guaranteed and protected.”

This is both wrong and irresponsible – UTAS is a major public institution (its income in 2021 was $865 million) established by Act of the State Parliament and independence should have clear limits – particularly when encroaching on what should be the prerogatives of Government; particularly when UTAS is about to become the largest property developer in Tasmania. Would any other party – public or private – be allowed to do what UTAS is doing?

Unless the situation changes, the Government will leave policy and governing to the UTAS Council in its self-appointed domain.

And What of the Opposition and the Parliament?

Lest it be thought that this post is just about criticising the Government, I would point out that: the amendments to the UTAS Act between 2001 and 2012, which eroded accountability and reshaped the UTAS Council so that it could self-perpetuate (without any countervailing accountability mechanisms), were all passed under Labor Governments; former Labor Premier Michael Field was Chancellor of UTAS from 1 January 2013 to 30 June 2021; and the Labor Opposition has to date been deafening in its silence on UTAS’ proposed move.

The recent establishment of the LegCo Inquiry is welcome. However, the absence – with a couple of honourable exceptions – of any questioning of, or comments on, UTAS’ proposed move to the Hobart CBD, and the redevelopment of the Sandy Bay Campus as a new suburb, up until the establishment of the Inquiry is quite shocking, given the significance of the issue. (See Hansard)

The Government has been happy for UTAS to ‘lead it by the nose’ and the Opposition and other Members of Parliament, with those honourable exceptions, have been happy to watch.

It is time for the Government, the Opposition and other Members of the Parliament to do what they were elected to do – to govern and engage.

By : Robert Hogan