During the last few weeks, a number of people have written to Premier Rockliff regarding UTAS’ proposed move to the CBD.

They have received a standard letter ‘signed’ by the Premier (copy here), in response. This includes a number of questionable claims and an egregious error of fact, namely the statement that:

“…decisions on the relocation of the southern UTAS campus, and how that may align with the university’s educational priorities, sit with the university as a private organisation.” [my bolding]

The characterisation of UTAS as “a private organisation”, is of course totally wrong:

  • UTAS is a public authority, established under the University of Tasmania Act 1992 (the UTAS Act)
  • The UTAS Act is administered by the Minister for Education and the Department of Education (section 28 of the UTAS Act). Roger Jaensch is the current Minister for Education. Jeremy Rockliff was Minister for Education from 2014 to 2021.
  • UTAS is required to seek the written approval of the Treasurer to borrow money (section 7(2) of the UTAS Act).
  • UTAS is required to provide an annual report to the Minister for Education, for tabling in Parliament (section 12 of the UTAS Act).
  • The Minister for Education is responsible for appointing two members (out of 13 or 14) to the UTAS Council, the governing body of UTAS (section 8(1)(d) of the UTAS Act).
  • UTAS is covered by relevant state legislation including: the Right to Information (RTI) Act 2009, the Integrity Commission Act 2009 and the Public Interest Disclosures Act 2001. (See UTAS’ own paper on its regulatory obligations).
  • UTAS receives grant funding from the Tasmanian Government (and local government) ($24 million in 2021).

(NB: I provide further comments on the processing and contents of the Premier’s letter at the end of this post).

The Premier misled Parliament

Including the statement that UTAS is “a private organisation” in a letter is bad enough, but in question time on 27 October – reading from his brief – Premier Rockliff repeated a number of sentences from the standard letter, including this egregious error of fact, in response to a question from Cassy O’Connor. The question and answer can be watched by clicking here and then clicking on the video tab. Ms O’Connor starts asking her question 45 minutes into the video. As the Hansard record for 27 October has not yet been released, here also is my transcript of Ms O’Connor’s question and Premier Rockliff’s answer (also see the ABC’s article).

  • The only significant divergence from the text of the letter, in the Premier’s answer, is an acknowledgement of the Legislative Council inquiry: “There is also now an inquiry into the provisions of the UTAS Act through the Legislative Council, which can consider a wide range of UTAS activity, and of course the Government will consider the outcomes from the inquiry in due course.” This implicitly contradicts the Premier’s claim that UTAS is “a private organisation,” without him seeming to recognise the fact.

While the reaction in the House of Assembly indicated that a number of the Members were aware of Premier Rockliff’s egregious error, if he has not already made a formal correction, he should immediately seek to correct his mistake by writing to the Clerk of the House. As a former Minister for Education, who should be well across the status of UTAS, there is also a question of whether the Premier was seeking to mislead the Parliament, in which case the issue of contempt of Parliament may arise.

I give the Premier the benefit of the doubt in this matter and conclude that he did not intend to mislead the Parliament. That he can make such an error, however, indicates a lack of attention to what he was reading in his brief and a lack of care and concern with UTAS’ proposed CBD move that has been all too typical of the Government (when it has not been actively complicit with UTAS). It also indicates serious deficiencies in the Premier’s office and the Tasmanian public service that, in the case of the latter, are again all too typical in regard to UTAS.

In a future post, I will discuss in detail how this point has been reached with the Government and the public service. I will also look in detail at possible remedies to a situation in which UTAS, as a public authority, has been allowed to exercise far too much autonomy.

The Premier needs to act now

The prepared letter issued to staff by VC Black and Chancellor Watkins yesterday, with its focus on consultation, should be treated with the absolute skepticism it deserves (see the detailed comments by Peter Bicevskis).

The Black/Watkins letter certainly should not be taken as an excuse by the Government to maintain a ‘hands-off’ approach:

  • I have written previously, as has Peter Bicevskis, about the quality and genuineness of UTAS’ consultation processes, which are constructed to achieve a pre-determined outcome (or closed down when they do not).

While I appreciate the demands of his office, the Premier needs to seriously engage now with UTAS’ proposed CBD move and the general issue of the University’s future. In light of the conclusive results of the Hobart elector poll and the Hobart City Council (HCC) election, for now I suggest that the Premier:

  • Give urgent attention to the submissions to the Legislative Council Inquiry, which raise many serious issues about UTAS – particularly regarding teaching and research; student welfare; and how UTAS is run.
  • Initiate an immediate, and fully independent inquiry, into the governance, and accountability structures, of UTAS. (See my submission the Legislative Council inquiry, especially pages 4-7, and my more recent blog post on this issue for background).
  • In the meantime, pass a (relatively simple) amendment to increase the size of the UTAS Council by two – comprising, for example, one additional elected representative from UTAS’ academic staff and a respected community representative appointed by the Minister for Education. Direct election of a further academic staff representative, two student representatives (rather than one student appointed by the UTAS Council) and an alumni representative should also be considered further down the track.

UTAS is Tasmania’s only university. It is in crisis and, under VC Black and Chancellor Watkins, set on a path to terminal decline. Unless this decline is arrested, much of the blame will be laid at Premier Rockliff’s door.

Processing of letters to the Premier

I have read many questions and comments about the processing and contents of Premier Rockliff’s response letter, and it may be useful if I conclude with some remarks on these issues.

Based on my experience in the Commonwealth public service, the general process for the handling of a number of similar letters to the Premier is likely to have been along the following lines:

  • When received, an adviser would have sent the letters to the Department of Premier and Cabinet (DPAC) for response, without the Premier sighting or being aware of the letters (alternatively the Premier may have been aware, but not particularly concerned with the letters).
  • DPAC would have drafted a standard (pro forma) response that was then cleared for use, at least, at General Manager level within DPAC, but possibly at a higher level.
  • The standard letter would also have been cleared by a senior policy adviser or perhaps the chief of staff within the Premier’s office (depending on how seriously the inwards letters were regarded).
  • A stamp/electronic copy of the Premier’s signature would have been applied to all responses prior to dispatch.

A similar clearance process would probably have been used for the brief provided to the Premier for question time.

Contents of the Premier’s response letter

This section quotes the four substantive paragraphs of the Premier’s letter, providing brief comments on each in turn.

“The Australian and Tasmanian Governments and the four Greater Hobart councils released the original Hobart City Deal document in February 2019. The document supported UTAS in preparing a project plan for an enhanced science, technology, engineering and mathematics [STEM] presence in Hobart, taking into consideration the housing and transport needs of both students and staff. Given the focus of the Hobart City Deal on city shaping actions like transport, housing and precinct planning, the Tasmanian Government has maintained visibility of UTAS’s plans and progress as part of its role in the Hobart City Deal.“

  • The Hobart City Deal is no more than an agreement to do certain things. It is not a detailed planning document.
  • I take it the jargon of “maintained visibility” means that the Government kept itself informed of UTAS’ plans.
  • There is no reference here to UTAS’ ambitions extending beyond establishment of a STEM facility to relocation of its southern campus from Sandy Bay to the Hobart CBD (I believe UTAS’ intention was to use the STEM facility as the ‘thin edge of the wedge‘ for full scale relocation).
  • As I have previously stated, 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. It should definitely not be the preserve of a self-perpetuating clique in UTAS, currently accountable only to itself.

“The City Deal partners must balance the broad range of issues impacting our capital city and the State of Tasmania as a whole. This is why the first Hobart City Deal Implementation Plan, released in October 2019, includes a reference group with all three levels of government to ensure the proposed UTAS developments are strategically integrated the with broader community’s needs. This includes considering and addressing any housing and transport needs, as well as business needs of those who may be impacted by the UTAS move.“

  • I have received copies of, at least some, relevant documents from the Departments of Premier Cabinet, State Growth and Education under RTI legislation. I have written at length on this in a previous post.
  • These documents indicated that the approach of the reference group and senior officials’ group to anything UTAS said was one of unquestioning and uncritical acceptance, even as it became clear that UTAS was intent on a CBD move.
  • At no stage did any state agency seek to analyse or assess UTAS’ plans for the STEM facility or the CBD move more generally.
  • I note that, within DPAC, Ms Jenny Gale, the Secretary of the Department since 2017, is ultimately responsible for the letter being considered here. Ms Gale was a UTAS Council member in 2018 (till November) and a member of the Hobart City Deal senior officials’ group from 2019. She should have a good understanding of the legal status of UTAS and the significance of the City Deal.
  • I wrote to Ms Gale on 27 September seeking, among other things, a review of DPAC’s initial decision on an RTI application. I have not yet received a response.
  • The typographical error “the with” is indicative of the lack of care applied to the drafting of this letter.

“However, decisions on the relocation of the southern UTAS campus, and how that may align with the university’s educational priorities, sit with the university as a private organisation.”

  • I have already discussed the fact that UTAS is not a private organisation.
  • This paragraph is the ultimate abrogation of responsibility.
  • UTAS’ proposed relocation is not solely, or even, about education. Even if it was, the many submissions to the Legislative Council Inquiry on the educational dimension of UTAS’ proposed move would still indicate the need for critical engagement by the Government.
  • UTAS’ proposed move moreover has massive implications for issues such as transport, transport infrastructure, infrastructure generally and the state economy as whole. To suggest this is a matter for UTAS represents a gross dereliction of its responsibilities by the Government.

“There will always be public interest in major decisions of this nature and the Tasmanian Government is supportive of UTAS engaging in a comprehensive and thorough community consultation process. Community consultation is critical and we support the University in continuing to listen to views, such as yours, and engage further through further feedback opportunities and established processes already in place through the planning system.”

  • This is a brush off.
  • The cliches in the last paragraph almost sound like they could have been drafted by UTAS.
  • As indicated above, there are major concerns about the quality and genuineness of UTAS’ consultation processes, which are constructed to achieve a pre-determined outcome (or closed down when they do not).
  • The Government needs to come out from its hiding place and engage, especially in light of the elector poll and the result of the HCC election.

By : Robert Hogan