Well, a whole week has passed since Michael Field’s Talking Point article was published. A couple of critiques have been published in The Mercury (by Pam Sharpe and Rex Beamish), but judging by the UTAS Campus Supporters’ Facebook site, more were not published.
In his article, Mr Field spread himself very thin, making – on my count – 12 different arguments for the CBD move, but providing evidence for none. Indeed, there is an overwhelming mass of material contradicting Mr Field’s various claims (see the links in Part 1).
Here, I will address some of Mr Field’s arguments where they specifically intersect with my various Right to Information (RTI) applications.
Examination of universities around the world was part of the UTAS Council’s careful decision to move to the Hobart CBD in April 2019
I lodged an RTI application on 21 March 2022 on UTAS’ critical overseas trips in 2016 and 2017.
As I have shown, Vice-Chancellor (VC) Rathjen had already decided on a CBD move by the time of these trips and I believe they were largely about enlisting support from city councillors, and others, involved in the trips rather than real fact finding.
Prompted, I believe, by the Ombudsman, UTAS has recently – at last – provided me with some information on the overseas trips; information that I believe raises more questions than it answers. I intend to write on this at length in coming weeks.
Two major related points I make now, however:
- overseas trips in 2016 and 2017 cost UTAS over $250,000 ($199,305.92 in 2016 and $53,453.69 in 2017);
- despite this, according to the information provided to me by UTAS: “A search on all University Council meetings (Agenda papers and Minutes) for the years 2015 – 2017 inclusive was undertaken as per the search request above [my RTI application] and no references have been found in any of the search categories.”
So, these very expensive trips were not considered by the UTAS Council, despite the fact that Mr Field participated in 2016 and VC Rathjen in both 2016 and 2017.
This means that Mr Field is wrong that examination of universities around the world formed part of the UTAS Council’s careful decision. What else was not included in the UTAS Council’s careful decision?
Who, anyway, believes that the likes of Cambridge University, established in the 13th Century with a city that has grown up around it, is in any way comparable to UTAS and the Hobart CBD?
“we consulted with stakeholders, we laid out the options, and sought feedback, we listened to staff and students about what was important”
If Mr Field really believes this, then I believe that he has been duped.
I lodged an RTI application on 12 April about the consultative processes undertaken by UTAS in the critical period late 2018-early 2019.
I addressed the consultation process at length in my post “A Black Day for the Truth“.
I made my RTI application in April, because I had been told by participants that:
- the display of options in the Southern Future Room had been biased towards the CBD move, which is hardly surprising given VC Rathjen had been set on the CBD move, at the latest, since 2016.
- the eight focus groups – which had consisted of only 72 people – had been hostile to the CBD move.
UTAS has not responded to the specific requests in my RTI application. In the absence of anything substantive from UTAS, the NTEU survey of well over 200 members of staff of March 2019 should be considered an authoritative source on staff views on the proposed CBD move. These views were overwhelmingly against the move.
The CBD move will boost retail trade
UTAS has provided no credible evidence for this claim whatsoever.
UTAS has, however, repeatedly sought to give the impression that its claim that 1,500 staff would spend $15 million a year ($10,000 each) in the CBD was supported by evidence.
I sought to explore this with an RTI application to UTAS on 20 April and UTAS’ refusal to address this matter directly is now with the Ombudsman.
Despite UTAS’ refusal, I have gathered significant information on its $15 million claim, which I wrote about in “UTAS $15 million lie?” I can say with certainty that the claim is deliberately misleading and deceptive.
I take much more notice of people like Dennis McLoughlin in his speech to the Vote No Rally than Michael Field on the generality of the retail boost claim.
The CBD move will Increase student accessibility
At no stage has UTAS sought to provide substantive evidence on this point.
Insofar as the UTAS Council has seen evidence on this matter, I would expect it to have been produced in:
- The Hobart STEM facility Business Case submitted to the UTAS Council on 23 September 2016 – a key document in Vice-Chancellor Rathjen’s agenda for a complete CBD move; and
- The Business Case upon which the UTAS Council made its decision to adopt a ‘City-Centric Campus’ model at its meeting of 5 April 2019.
As I noted in Part 1, I have recently submitted an application to UTAS for internal review of UTAS’ decision to refuse my RTI request to provide me with these critical documents. I say again, perhaps Mr Field could use his good offices with UTAS to seek publication of these documents, if he is so sure of his case.
(Note: An internal review application must generally be made to the agency that makes an RTI decision before an application for external review can be made to the Ombudsman).
The University Council is the right and proper body to have made the decision on 5 April 2019 to move to the CBD
Quite simply, “No, it is not.”
This is a matter on which I have written at length in my submission to the Legislative Council inquiry and “RTI papers reveal Government left governing to UTAS“.
My view rests on two main points
- 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.
- Even if one could accept – through a feat of mental gymnastics – that such a policy decision is not a matter for the Government, the UTAS Council is a singularly inappropriate body to determine the matter. It is unaccountable, unelected, unrepresentative and able to be dominated by a small clique.
To spell this last comment out a bit more:
- UTAS’ accountability to the Government, and the representative nature of the UTAS Council, has 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 has enabled the Government to abrogate responsibility and take a ‘hands off’ approach.
- The amended process for appointment to the UTAS Council, 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.
- A full time Chief Executive, with supportive senior staff, is well placed to exercise a strong, if not dominant, influence over the UTAS Council.
It now also seems clear, from the information that UTAS has provided to me on the overseas trips in 2016 and 2017, that the UTAS Council were kept in the dark on matters that were, according to Mr Field, part of the Council’s careful decision.