Key points
Documents obtained by Hobart barrister Greg Barns from UTAS under Right to Information (RTI) reveal that Former Premier Will Hodgman received payments totalling $110,000, plus $11,000 GST, in the period between October 2023 and November 2024, under two contracts with UTAS.
The documents obtained do not include any reports made by Mr Hodgman in which he outlined the activities he undertook and his progress with respect to contract tasks (“Key Deliverables”) or, more specifically, Key Performance Indicators /Milestones.
As Mr Hodgman received lump sum payments of $15,000, $15,000, $60,000 and $20,000 (plus GST) partly, if not largely, in advance of his performance of contract tasks, the public is entitled to ask what Mr Hodgman actually did to earn his fees, particularly as this is a matter of of accountability relating to the expenditure of public funds.
I urge UTAS to release relevant documents to address this question as soon as possible. Such documents might include Mr Hodgman’s own progress reports to UTAS and assessments of his performance by his contract supervisors at UTAS.
Mr Hodgman’s second contract indicates that he was, or should have been, heavily involved in matters relating to the STEM Business Case (including community consultation) and the last minute amendment to the University of Tasmania (Protection of Land) Bill 2024 (UTAS Bill 2024), to enable rezoning and sale of UTAS’ Sandy Bay campus land above Churchill Avenue.
Not only does the general question of what Mr Hodgman actually did to earn his fees apply in relation to STEM and the amended UTAS Bill 2024, but it also needs to be questioned how successful his contributions were, given significant issues around those matters set out in more detail in the Issues section below.
However, I note here that the STEM Business Case was submitted late to the Federal Government and the last minute amendment to the UTAS Bill 2024 is highly flawed – a matter on which I will have more to say in coming weeks.
Background
On 22 November 2024, a Right to Information (RTI) application was made to UTAS seeking:
The documents in this zip file were received from UTAS on 3 February 2025.
These documents include two separate contracts (called “Service Agreements”) between Mr Hodgman and UTAS:
1. A three year contract entered into on 10 October 2023 for Mr Hodgman to perform various student related tasks (“Key Deliverables”) at a price of $15,000 (+ $1,500 GST) a year. Mr Hodgman is apparently paid up front for this work. He has already submitted two invoices for $15,000 (+$1,500 GST) each, for which he received full payment by 13 November 2023 and 22 October 2024 respectively, indicating that he has been paid largely in advance of task performance. (See Appendix 1 , which includes a contract excerpt, Mr Hodgman’s invoices and links to documentation).
2. A 12 month contract entered into on 12 March 2024 for $60,000 (+$6,000 GST), which included these Key Deliverables and KPIs [key performance indicators]/Milestones:
On 30 August 2024, this contract was varied thus:
Mr Hodgman invoiced for the full $60,000 (+$6,000 GST) amount on 10 June 2024 and for the full $20,000 (+$2,000 GST) amount on 8 October 2024, and received payment on 12 July 2024 and 8 November 2024 respectively, indicating that he was partly, if not largely, paid up front. (See Appendix 2 , which includes a contract excerpt, Mr Hodgman’s invoices and links to documentation).
Issues
I raise two particular issues relating to the two UTAS-Hodgman contracts:
1. Evidence of task completion
UTAS has not included any records of Mr Hodgman’s reporting of his activities and progress with respect to KPIs/ Milestones, or assessment of his performance by his UTAS contract supervisors, in the documents released. As Mr Hodgman received very large lump sum payments, partly – if not largely – in advance of task performance, it can be expected that UTAS will hold detailed records in this regard. UTAS should release relevant documentation as soon as possible, for the sake of transparency and accountability, and as a matter of public interest.
2. Mr Hodgman’s activities with regard to STEM, and the success of those activities
As in the excerpt from the 12 March 2024 contract above, the Key Deliverable included “Assistance in adapting STEM Business Case [of 2016 to Infrastructure Australia] into a fundable proposal”. The KPIs/Milestones were:
“a) Assistance in preparing a plan to engage Federal Government
b) STEM Proposal ready for submission to the Federal Government by end of 2024 and prior to Federal Election, May 2025
c) Liaison with key leaders around the STEM Business Case”
The contract variation of 30 August 2024 added these tasks in relation to STEM:
“Liaison with the State Government to assist the University to navigate a legislative environment with respect to Sandy Bay landholdings and the prospects for resolving current community concerns about the future of the Sandy Bay site. To work with Scott Davies to engage the Federal Government.”
As generally with Issue 1, UTAS has provided no documentation regarding Mr Hodgman’s activities and progress with respect to KPIs/ Milestones, but there are other issues.
Mr Hodgman’s contract indicates that the STEM Business Plan was to be submitted to the Federal Government by the end of 2024, presumably so that the two major parties had an opportunity to consider allocating funds in the current round of election commitments. Instead, the STEM Business Plan was not submitted by the State Infrastructure Minister Kerry Vincent to the Federal Government (and the Opposition?) until 26 March 2025, a three month delay which may have jeopardised any chance of attracting a significant funding commitment from either major party for STEM. (See copies of: STEM Business Case; Vincent cover letter).
Without the provision by UTAS of reporting on task performance by Mr Hodgman, it is unclear to what extent he was responsible for the three month delay.
It is also unclear what tasks Mr Hodgman undertook to resolve “community concerns about the future of the Sandy Bay site”. However, those community concerns remain very much unresolved.
It is equally unclear what tasks Mr Hodgman undertook to “navigate a legislative environment with respect to Sandy Bay landholdings.” If – as seems likely – Mr Hodgman was involved in the last minute amendment to the UTAS Bill 2024, to enable rezoning and sale of Sandy Bay campus land above Churchill Avenue, supposedly to raise $100 million, I note that this amendment is flawed in a number of respects and that I will have more to say about this matter in coming weeks.
The planning and lobbying activities Mr Hodgman undertook are totally opaque, providing no basis for judging his effectiveness.
It will be noted that the excerpt of the contract variation reproduced above refers to Mr Hodgman working with Scott Davies, who was to be paid $42,000 (with GST presumably additional). Another document excerpt with further information on Mr Davies’ role is in Appendix 2.
As a final point, I can find no reference to Mr Hodgman or Mr Davies in any of the UTAS Council’s minutes for 2024, once again raising issues about the extent to which the UTAS Council is kept informed by senior management and/or the comprehensiveness and transparency of the UTAS Council’s minutes.
Appendix 1 – Contract (Services Agreement) 1
The contract (Services Agreement), a 23 page document is at: zip file, document 1. Mr Hodgman’s invoices are at: zip file, documents 3 and 5. UTAS Purchase Orders (not reproduced here), indicating payment are at: zip file, documents 4 and 6.
Appendix 2 – Contract 2 and Variation
Addition of Scott Davies to the contact
The contract (Services Agreement), a 23 page document is at: zip file, document 9. The contract variation is at: zip file, document 8. Further detail on contract arrangements with Scott Davies is in zip file, document 7. Mr Hodgman’s invoices are at: zip file, documents 11 and 13. UTAS’ Remittance Advices (not reproduced here), indicating payment are at: zip file, documents 12 and 14.