On 18 February 2026, I wrote a detailed letter to Treasurer Abetz covering four major issues. On 11 March 2026, I received, in response, a superficial letter, which confirmed my view that the State Government remains largely ‘hands off’ with UTAS, except when doing the University’s bidding, as in the case of the University of Tasmania (Protection of Land) Bill 2025 (a matter that will soon be the subject of a formal complaint to the Ombudsman under the Ombudsman Act 1978).

When dealing with the State’s only university, which is teetering on the brink on a number of fronts, this ‘hands off’ approach by the Government is both irresponsible and short-sighted.

Set out in the Appendix below are my letter to the Treasurer, the detailed attachment to my letter on UTAS’ deeply flawed $350 million Green Bond borrowing (Attachment 1), and the Treasurer’s response.

I encourage readers to work through these documents carefully and draw their own conclusions.

However, I make the following brief comments on the Treasurer’s response to the four issues raised by my letter:

(1) UTAS’ STEM Precinct Detailed Business Case (2025)

In my letter, I listed a number of issues relating to UTAS’ highly flawed Business Case. (I set these out in more detail in my complaint of 23 March 2026 to the Ombudsman under the Ombudsman Act 1978 – see my blog post: Formal complaint to Ombudsman re UTAS Bill and STEM proposal, and email to LegCo members).

In his response on this issue, the Treasurer stated, “I am not in a position to comment on your first point” and suggested I take it up with Minister Ogilvie. Hmm. See my complaint to the Ombudsman on the issue of Minister Ogilvie’s lack of understanding of UTAS’ STEM Business Case.

I note that since my exchange with the Treasurer, the Commonwealth failed to allocate any funding to UTAS’ STEM proposal for the four years 2026-27 to 2029-30 in its Budget on 12 May, and nor did last Thursday’s Tasmanian Budget.

UTAS’ STEM proposal was, is, and will remain a poorly conceived and under-costed dud. It is time for a sensible Plan B – such as a 10-year upgrading program of the current Sandy Bay campus.

(2) UTAS’ $350 million Green Bond and (3) UTAS’ financial difficulties

In my letter and its Attachment 1, I set out in detail why UTAS’ $350 million Green Bond is unsound and raised issues around UTAS’ financial difficulties.

There were a couple of small personal touches, but the Treasurer’s response largely held to standard, and on the Green Bond totally incorrect, Treasury lines stating:

“…the governance arrangements for the University are provided by the University of Tasmania Act 1992. As Treasurer, I have a limited role under the Act, whereby the University is not to exercise its power to borrow unless it has obtained my written approval.

While I acknowledge the concerns raised in your letter, I do not agree with your characterisation of the validity of the University’s borrowing program, statements made by the then Treasurer, nor Treasury’s previous analysis.

The mechanism used to borrow is a matter for the University, and the amount borrowed is consistent with the approval of the then Treasurer.

I encourage you to contact the University with your concerns regarding its financial position.” [my bolding]

 

The Treasurer did not engage with my suggestion that UTAS seek to refinance its flawed $350 million Green Bond by (soundly) refinancing the debt with Tascorp at a cost of $316 million or less – a saving of $34 million or more to UTAS.

I hope that UTAS is giving thought to an idea like this, but they are unlikely to take the suggestion well from me, whereas they might have listened to the Treasurer.

(4) The ‘brain drain’ and budget repair

On this point, the Treasurer only said, “I have noted your comments“.

On such a fundamentally important issue for the future of Tasmania, I believe a bit more than “noting” is warranted.

Appendix

Attachment 1 to my letter – a detailed analysis of UTAS’ $350 million Green Bond:

Att-1-UTAS-Green-Bond

The Treasurer’s response

By : Robert Hogan