(NB: Frequently when I refer to UTAS in my writings I am referring only to the clique who make the big decisions for the University; my meaning can normally be judged from the context).
Crushing defeat for UTAS in Hobart elector poll
UTAS has suffered a crushing defeat in the Hobart elector poll on UTAS’ proposed Hobart CBD move – receiving less than 26% of the vote.
At the same time, Hobart ratepayers have voted for significant change in the composition of the Hobart City Council (HCC). Some people, including some Councillors and prospective Councillors have said the Council must operate within its legislated role in respect of the UTAS move. That is true as far as it goes – but former Lord Mayor Sue Hickey was a significant player with Vice-Chancellor (VC) Peter Rathjen, and Premier Will Hodgman, in promoting UTAS’ CBD move. The HCC is also a partner in the Hobart City Deal, with the state and federal governments, and clearly has influence to wield.
Until recently, the HCC stood by while UTAS seized the initiative on issues more appropriately within its purview and uncritically accepted everything UTAS said. I’m sure this will now change.
UTAS and the elector poll
On 4 August 2022, VC Black said of the Hobart elector poll, “It won’t influence a change of mind on the move”, before gormlessly adding “but it’ll tell us very clearly what kind of things we need to be attending to, to make sure the move actually works.” (Full Mercury article).
How so VC Black? The question for the elector poll was:
“Do you support the University of Tasmania’s proposal to relocate the Sandy Bay campus into Hobart’s central business district?”
It was a “yes” or “no” vote. It was not about whether a few more pot plants or artificial grass in the Hobart CBD would make the move more palatable. It takes a special talent to read nuance into what was a Black and white question.
On 14 July, VC Black had also indicated there was “no chance” of UTAS changing its mind on the CBD move before putting in motion the consultation process called Shake Up, so well exposed by Peter Bicevskis as a total sham.
UTAS’ Dollars
With the elector poll a matter of seeming indifference to the VC, UTAS nevertheless embarked on a saturation media campaign for the “yes” case, including very expensive ads during the AFL Grand Final. Why I wonder did it do this? Wasn’t the campaign just a waste of taxpayer funds? Where does the accountability lie for the expenditure?
I have seen figures of $1-2 million quoted for the cost of UTAS’ saturation campaign – and $2 million might even be conservative when staff costs, and forward planning/preparation in case the “no” vote was successful, are factored in.
On Thursday (27 October) I lodged a Right to Information application to UTAS, which included:
“(1) I request details of UTAS’ vote “yes” campaign expenditure in the Hobart elector poll ….This expenditure should include, but not be limited to:
a) Expenditure on print advertising (The Mercury etc)
b) Expenditure on the unaddressed UTAS campaign advertising sent via Australia Post to Hobart addresses (which appears to have been timed to coincide with the arrival of postal Council ballot and elector poll papers)
c) Expenditure on TV advertising
d) Expenditure on radio advertising
e) Expenditure on YouTube advertising
f) Expenditure on social media advertising
g) Expenditure on corflutes
h) Expenditure on consultants/professional advice relating to all elements of UTAS’ campaign
i)The cost of staff time involved in UTAS’ campaign
(2) I request details of all UTAS’ expenditure to 27 October 2022 relating to planning and preparation in the event that “no” received more votes than “yes” in the Hobart elector poll.
(3) I request details of the funding sources for each item (1)a) to 1i) and (2).“
Based on my previous RTI dealings with UTAS, I don’t expect much by way of response to these requests (surprise me UTAS!), but UTAS’ massive expenditure on an elector poll of which it was going to take no notice should concern the Government and the Legislative Council Inquiry. It is also a matter begging pursuit by the media.
UTAS’ deceptiveness
UTAS’ “yes” campaign was based on deception.
I have previously analysed in detail UTAS’ claim, in its various forms, that with a UTAS CBD move “Local small business will benefit, with our staff alone forecast to spend $15 million a year” (this is the Alison Watkins ad in The Mercury version).
This is deliberately misleading and deceptive to the point that it borders on an outright lie.
The claim was featured in the Alison Watkins ad, page 28 of the Tasmanian Electoral Commission (TEC) booklet, City of Hobart Local Government elections and elector poll, and on the UTAS website, where it continues to appear.
UTAS purported to have evidence for this particular claim. I have exposed this evidence to be worth not much more (or perhaps less) than the back of a cornflakes pack.
At least UTAS seemed to recognise the need for a source for its bogus $15 million claim. For the rest of its claims in its “yes” campaign, and more generally, it has not published evidence in the public domain.
- By evidence I mean substantive information that allows testing of sources, assumptions and calculations; not glib assertions, which unless verifiable are another form of deception.
One form of deception that I found particularly insidious in UTAS’ “yes” campaign was its regular featuring in ads in The Mercury of striking photos of the music and medical schools in the city. I believe the intended implication was that the location of the music and medical schools in the Hobart CBD was under threat from a “no” vote. This was an invented issue. I am sure most, if not all, people accept that some UTAS facilities are appropriately located in the CBD and should remain there. I apologise to UTAS if I have been unduly cynical in this instance.
Time to reset
I believe the elector poll and the HCC election provide a perfect opportunity for the key players in UTAS’ proposed CBD move to re-evaluate and reset their positions:
UTAS should open itself to a full-scale and open review of its options. However, I don’t believe it will and it would not surprise me if, instead, we saw UTAS producing a new consultant’s report on the benefits of the move (NB: Consultants’ reports produced to justify decisions already made can generally be taken as worthless)
The Tasmanian Government – should definitely be resetting. My next post will look at the Government’s, and the Tasmanian public service’s, appalling performance on UTAS’ proposed move.
The State Opposition – well they just need to have a long hard look at themselves – grandstanding on a referendum on the AFL stadium, when they’ve been totally silent on the UTAS issue. Really! How long do they want to be in opposition?
The Hobart City Council – I’ve said a bit about this above, but I believe the Council’s Green members need to start taking Green positions. They should look to the example of Cassy O’Connor, who is taking a thoughtful approach to UTAS issues.
As a final comment, congratulations to Professor Pam Sharpe, the Save UTAS Supporters steering committee and the many other people involved in the “no” campaign and/or in fighting against the arrogance of the clique who make the big decisions for UTAS. (This is another matter on which I will shortly write).