Introduction

There is only one way to definitively stop UTAS’ relocation of its southern campus from its Sandy Bay site to the Hobart CBD and that is to amend the University of Tasmania Act 1992 (UTAS Act), to prohibit UTAS from selling or developing the Sandy Bay site.

This needs to be done as soon as possible, as UTAS is working ceaselessly to reach the point where it can argue that the CBD move is irreversible – this includes its input to the Central Hobart Precincts Plan, over which it has undue influence, if not control.

  • The Australian Universities Accord process is not on a timetable that will stop UTAS’ CBD move, even if it ends up having direct bearing on the move, which realistically it will not.

  • While the Legislative Council Select Committee Inquiry into the Provisions of the University of Tasmania Act 1992 (LegCo) has been of huge importance in shining a light on issues in the UTAS Act, and the flawed views and processes of UTAS and the Government, its reporting timeline is unclear and it has powers of recommendation only.

  • Any idea that UTAS can continue its move into the Hobart CBD, and that the Sandy Bay campus site can somehow still be saved, is wrong. As UTAS has constantly indicated, funding of the UTAS’ CBD move is totally reliant on UTAS maximising income from the Sandy Bay site (subject to major financial risk as its plan may be). I will deal with this issue in my coming post – Business Basket Case.

The passage of an amendment to the UTAS Act will require majority support in both the House of Assembly and the Legislative Council.

The chaos affecting the (now) minority Government in the House of Assembly – the House of Government – provides opportunities, but it does not fundamentally change the maths of the current situation, with the Liberal and Labor parties both supportive and enabling of UTAS’ CBD move.

  • There would be 19 votes, at least, against any proposed amendment to the UTAS Act, based on the current makeup of the House of Assembly (11 Liberal, 8 Labor, 2 Greens and 4 independents) and continuation of the current bipartisan approach by the Government and Opposition on the UTAS issue.

With the change, however, from five to seven seat electorates for the House of Assembly next State election – currently scheduled for 2025, but increasingly likely to occur sooner – now is the time for the formation of a new political party (called the ‘Better UTAS Party‘ throughout this post for convenience) that will upset the current political dynamic.

The prospect of a new party may even force the Government and Opposition to rethink their unquestioning support of the UTAS hierarchy now.

In this post I will look at the state of the parties in relation to UTAS before briefly considering how the Better UTAS Party might work.

  • One point to be made here however – I do not believe that it is enough to oppose UTAS’ proposed move to the Hobart CBD; the ‘Better UTAS Party’ must offer a positive vision for UTAS’ southern campus and the University as whole, with prominence given to the views of academics and students.

Before continuing, I would stress that in focusing on numbers in the House of Assembly, I am not suggesting ‘downing tools’ on other activities. Efforts to engage the public, impact Hobart City Council planning processes, lobby the Commonwealth Government, correct UTAS misinformation and obtain full transparency on key issues are all vital in adding weight to the scales in ensuring the best future possible for UTAS.

And of course, as I indicated above, the LegCo Inquiry has a major capacity to shine a light on issues, as Education Minister Roger Jaensch’s appearance on 12 May 2023 showed in a rather startling manner (Whatever happened to the proper function of Cabinet or even just normal consultation between Ministers?). All opportunities to provide accurate information to the Committee should be taken.

  • There are some additional comments on Minister Jaensch’s appearance before the LegCo in the next section (under The Liberal Party – the Government since 2014 heading). Here are the transcript and the video of Mr Jaensch’s appearance.

The State of the Parties

VC Black reveals all

I have already written how VC Black revealed all in his radio interview with Leon Compton on Monday 6 March 2023, but here are the highlights again.

Leon Compton 

“I look around, Vice Chancellor, and wonder where the political support is for your move into Hobart CBD. We had the Education Minister [Jaensch] on before news at 9 o’clock. I can’t think of a time when the Premier has come out and given you his imprimatur. Who are your supporters in Government for this move?“

VC Black

“Well Government has remained, government has remained, both parties have, Liberal and Labor, have remained supportive of, have remained supportive of, the move.“

Leon Compton 

“Supportive or silent?“

VC Black

“Well, I understand why when it’s a highly contentious community issue governments have to pick the issues where they’re going to kind of weigh in and spend their, you know, and spend their capital and campaign; they’ve got other things that they’re particularly focused on, so they’ve been supportive, they’ve been enabling. We haven’t felt any lack of that at any point, any point, in this process.“

Leon Compton

“So they support your plans to move into the CBD?“

VC Black

“They have, they have to date, supported those, supported those plans on both Liberal and Labor sides of politics.“

[my bolding throughout]

The Liberal Party – the Government since 2014

While the Government has not articulated a formal policy in support of the UTAS’ proposed move, which would at least provide transparency, it has been actively supportive of UTAS’ CBD move since 2015. To list a few examples:

  • The Hobart City Deal – UTAS’ inclusion in the Hobart City Deal, first in the context of building a new STEM building in the Hobart CBD, but now in the context of relocation to the CBD, could not have occurred without active support from the Government. See the following, for example, where the Tasmanian Government is listed first (and note also the reference to the Central Hobart Precinct Plan):

(Source: Hobart City Deal Implementation Plan Update April 2022, page 23)

In addition to its active support for the CBD move, the Government has given constant passive support. In particular, it has conducted no independent analysis of UTAS’ plan to move to the Hobart CBD and redevelop Sandy Bay as a new suburb, adopting an unquestioning approach to everything UTAS says.

  • This is totally inappropriate for a matter of high policy importance for UTAS, Hobart and Tasmania, which involves significant risk to State finances. For more detail see my blog post DPAC Secretary confirms UTAS totally runs the show, and its supporting documentation.

To this, I can add that in their evidence to the LegCo on 12 May 2023, Minister Jaensch and the Secretary of the Education Department, Mr Tim Bullard, confirmed my view that UTAS now effectively controls who the Minister for Education appoints as his/her two representatives to the UTAS Council. (See my post UTAS – the Lords of Misrule – the University Council Membership Procedure).

  • Mr Jaensch also seemed ignorant of the fact that the Education Minister has the responsibility for appointing two members of the UTAS Council precisely to ensure direct accountability to the Government and Parliament. Premier Rockliff and Treasurer Ferguson clearly understood this when they supported the 2012 amendment to the UTAS Act, although they seem to have lost their way since. (See my post How UTAS got out of control – Part 3: accountability lost)

  • Mr Jaensch also suggested that provision of accountability to Government/Parliament and acting in the best interests of UTAS (as required under section 8(c) of the UTAS Act) are somehow dichotomous. They are not, as I know from serving as a Commonwealth representative on the Board of ANCAP Australasia Limited for five years.

  • Mr Jaensch’s evidence also pointed to a complete breakdown in the role of Cabinet and, indeed, consultation between Ministers in the Government, suggesting that it may just be a matter of powerful Government Premiers/Ministers (say, Will Hodgman, Peter Gutwein, Jeremy Rockliff and Michael Ferguson) determining the Government’s support for the UTAS hierarchy and the rest of the Ministry/caucus following. This also appears to have been the case over the proposed AFL stadium at Macquarie Point.

  • Another striking aspect of Mr Jaensch’s appearance was the way Nick Duigan MLC vigorously signaled to him to wind up the hearing (2.00.30 into the video) – a puzzling gesture by an MLC to a Minister of the Crown.

The Government – or should I now say the clique who appear to run the Government – is altogether too close to the UTAS hierarchy, with the appointment of VC Black and UTAS General Counsel Jane Beaumont, formerly a Deputy Secretary of Treasury, to the Premier’s Governance and Reference Group in 2019 and VC Black’s appointment to the Premier’s Economic and Social Recovery Advisory Council in 2020, and regular meetings between the Premier and VC Black, providing examples of this. (On the regular meetings see: “Professor Rufus Black Presented on the Strategic Direction to Heads of Agencies in August 2019. He also meets with the Premier on a regular basis.” DPAC Document 1).

With VC Black’s maladministration of UTAS now seemingly obvious, a Premier seeking advice from the VC might be likened to the Titanic asking the iceberg for directions.

  • At some stage I may do a deep dive into some other questionable connections between the Government and the UTAS hierarchy.

There has been some positive comment on a change of approach to UTAS in Premier Rockliff’s latest response to correspondence on UTAS’ proposed CBD move. I have provided a copy of this document in Appendix 1 at the end of this post. While the best drafted letter Premier Rockliff’s Department/staff have so far produced for him, it is a classic ‘deflect and delay’ response. As I have indicated above, UTAS is continually moving forward on its CBD plans, and the Government knows it.

I have also provided in Appendix 2, a recent letter from Treasurer Ferguson to the Lord Mayor, but here is a particularly striking paragraph:

  • The UTAS hierarchy could not have written a more supportive, self-praising letter itself. The Treasurer might want to devote some of his energy to fixing the Green Bond mess, rather than sending high handed letters to the Lord Mayor (it is possible to be firm without sounding unpleasant; see the full text in Appendix 2).

The Labor Party – the Opposition since 2014

Like the Government, the Opposition has crises of its own to deal with at the moment – National ALP Executive intervention in the State ALP, a no-win situation on Macquarie Point and David O’Byrne sitting on the cross-benches.

Adding to this, Labor’s feigned neutrality on UTAS’ proposed move to the CBD was fully exposed by VC Black stating unequivocally that Labor was supportive and enabling of the CBD move.

When you know this, it’s not hard to find the evidence.

In nine years of being in Opposition, Labor has not asked one single question about UTAS’ proposed move to the Hobart CBD and redevelopment of the Sandy Bay site, the Government’s policy on the matter or the extent of independent analysis conducted on UTAS’ plans by Government agencies – not in 2015-16; not after VC Peter Rathjen publicly stated his plan for UTAS to move in July 2017; not after incoming VC, Rufus Black revealed his intention to complete the Rathjen plan in November 2017; and not even after the UTAS Council formalised the Rathjen-Black plan on 5 April 2019. This speaks of support.

How was the Opposition enabling of UTAS’ plans? If nothing else, it has enabled the Government’s active enablement of UTAS. It did not probe Government support for a new STEM facility in the CBD, it did not probe inclusion of UTAS in the Hobart City Deal and it has not probed the Government’s approval of UTAS’ borrowings or the Green Bond programme, despite the risks posed to Tasmanian’s finances.

This all goes well beyond neutrality. It might have been put down to negligence or incompetence, but we can now be certain from VC Black’s words and the Oppositions (in) actions that matters were ‘stitched up’ behind the scenes between the UTAS hierarchy and the Opposition.

After VC Black’s revelations about Labor’s support for UTAS’ proposed move to the CBD, on 8 March 2023 I wrote to the Leader of the Opposition, Rebecca White, saying that if she wished to rebut VC Black’s comments, I would amend my blog post on the matter.

In the absence of a response, I wrote to Ms White on 21 March 2023, again offering her the opportunity to rebut VC Black’s claims. In that email I stated that:

“An Opposition isn’t necessarily there to oppose, but it is there to interrogate the wisdom of Government policy, particularly when that policy is likely to impact on UTAS, Hobart and Tasmania forever.

Neutrality in the matter of UTAS’ proposed CBD move is politically bankrupt.

Feigned neutrality is something altogether worse.”

Again, I received no response. As most emails to Ms White’s email address, seem to receive a polite pro forma, the silence in this case was telling.

The most recent (as far as I know) pro forma response Ms White has provided to correspondence on UTAS might be considered worse than Premier Rockliff’s, peddling – as it does – total absurdities. In Appendix 3, I comment at length on the relevant sections of Ms White’s letter. Here I will just quote Ms White’s claim that:

“Tasmanian Parliament MPs have a limited role to play in matters relating to the University.“

What arrant nonsense. As I have constantly noted there is direct accountability from UTAS to the Government and the Parliament, as previous Labor members were fully aware. By making herself sound so impotent, Ms White also (deliberately?) minimises the power she has, or should have, as leader of the Opposition to hold the Government to account and to offer alternative policies.

It would be very interesting to know which members of the UTAS hierarchy have been talking to which members of the Opposition/Tasmanian Labor party to ‘stitch up’ the Opposition’s support and enabling of UTAS’ move to the CBD. To what extent has Ms White herself been directly involved? To what extent has Michael Field, former Labor Premier and Chancellor of UTAS during the critical period 2013 to 2021, been involved. Mr Field, as is well known, sees the CBD move as his legacy (perhaps explaining much of the tone of his evidence to the LegCo – transcript pages 11-23, video).

Besides Mr Field, there are some other questionable connections between the Labor Party and UTAS hierarchy. As with the Government, at some stage I may do a deep dive into those connections.

The Greens

The Greens do not of course have enough support to govern in their own right, but they have been part of previous coalition Governments and may soon be again.

With the Liberals now forming a minority Government, there is also perhaps increased potential for the two Green members of the House of Assembly to exercise strong influence on the Government.

However, the Greens are a curious case, with representatives directly accountable to their membership and with their membership able to determine policy settings.

In the House, Cassy O’Connor has provided a presence on UTAS issues and her probing of Premier Rockliff on his incorrect labelling of UTAS as a “private organisation” in the House of Assembly on 8 November 2022 was particularly admirable (see Hansard, pages 11-12; video – 37 minutes in).

Against this has to be weighed the influence within the Green Party of Hobart City Councillor, Helen Burnett. Ms Burnett has been a rusted on supporter of VC Rathjen’s plan to relocate the Sandy Bay campus to the Hobart CBD since at least 2016 when she joined with Rathjen in visiting overseas universities. This is a copy of her report of the visit.

  • Councillor Briscoe who also went on that visit also came back strongly in favour of a CBD university, but on critical reflection changed his mind.

Green voters may wish to go on voting Green if the party decides to back Cassy O’Connor against Helen Burnett in taking a critical approach to UTAS, otherwise, like other voters, they should consider shifting their support to the ‘Better UTAS Party’, at least until the UTAS Act is amended.

The ‘Better UTAS Party‘

I have lived in Canberra since 1986 and there will be many people in Tasmania better informed and with better ideas than me, so the following might best be considered as prompts for discussion rather than prescriptions.

In the Hobart Elector Poll on UTAS in October – November 2022, 22,631 (74.38%) of voters, voted “no” to the question, “Do you support the University of Tasmania’s proposal to relocate the Sandy Bay campus into Hobart’s central business district?“

  • Contrary to some commentary, there was not a massive number of informal votes. There were 30,428 formal votes in a non-binding vote. In the Hobart City Council vote – a vote offering certainty of outcome – there were 30,708 formal votes. Not much of a difference at all.

If the level of support for the “no” vote could be harnessed in the Clark electorate in the next state election, it would guarantee two seats in a seven-seat electorate, and quite probably three depending on the vagaries of the Hare-Clark system, providing a good chance of the ‘Better UTAS Party’ holding the balance of power in the House of Assembly.

  • This is without even considering the possibility of the Party picking up seats in other electorates.

It needs to be recognised, however, that those who voted “no” in the Elector Poll will have comprised people who would normally vote Labor, Liberal or Green or independent in State elections.

So that that voters are not alienated by the formation of the ‘Better UTAS Party’, I would suggest the new party not identify with elements of other parties’ platforms. It would be better for the new party to say that, as with UTAS’ proposed CBD move, it will judge other issues on their merits

  • This seems to be largely the approach adopted by some members of the Legislative Council.

  • Having read more pages of Hansard than I would ever have wanted, I would have to say that the standard of debate in the Legislative Council seems to me of higher standard than in the House of Assembly where defined party positions/ideology are frequently parroted without much thought.

The ‘Better UTAS Party’ could also run candidates for the Legislative Council and the Hobart City Council.

The mere prospect of a ‘Better UTAS Party’ challenging for seats and potentially holding a balance of power might cause the major parties to rethink their positions on the UTAS issue.

It is of fundamental importance that the new party have a positive agenda for UTAS. It is easy to identify the negatives associated with UTAS’ move to the Hobart CBD, for example:

  • The continuing slide of UTAS into educational mediocrity;

  • The loss of students from Tasmania to other states;

  • Continuation of cultural issues within UTAS (bullying, secrecy, disrespect of academic staff and student views); and

  • The CBD move entailing much more financial risk than staying at Sandy Bay (something I will deal with in my forthcoming Business Basket Case blog post).

But a ‘Better UTAS Party’ will need to have a clear focus on what a well-supported University would mean, both with respect to its continued occupation of the Sandy Bay campus site and in general. I have provided some ideas on this on my website page, A Vision for UTAS, but I am sure that there is much more that can be added. (Please send me your ideas too as per the request on my website page).

The ultimate aim should be to provide a world class teaching and research university, which in the south just happens to already be located on a highly marketable unique world class site (and no Rufus, I mean Sandy Bay not Melville Street) – a university which values and consults its staff in meaningful ways and which offers the very best for students, educationally, socially, and amenity and health wise across the state.

Create such a university and students and staff will come – as it is they are going. Create such a university and it will really connect to the community rather than alienating it.

Appendices

Appendix 1

The Rockliff letter

This is a typical delay and deflect letter. All the while UTAS is moving forward on its planned CBD move.

Appendix 2

The Ferguson letter

This speaks for itself.

Appendix 3

Rebecca White – paragraphs on UTAS from a letter of 7 February 2023, with my commentary:

“The University of Tasmania has been providing a valuable service to the Tasmanian community for over 130 years. The quality of education services delivered by UTAS is vital to the state’s social and economic future.

The decision by UTAS to move its Sandy Bay campus to the Hobart CBD will generate significant change, including in the way education is delivered to students. My belief is that the move must not compromise education and research or student and staff wellbeing outcomes. Furthermore, as one of the largest employers in the state, the sustainability, longevity and growth of Tasmania’s only university is an important issue for all Tasmanians. There is no doubt UTAS needs to do better with its consultation with students, staff and the broader community, particularly with its plans for Sandy Bay campus.

  • [My comment – this paragraph may be read as neutral. It is not. There is tacit support for the move into the CBD. Glib words about consultation and Sandy Bay are meaningless. UTAS cannot pay for its CBD move without selling/developing the Sandy Bay site.]

However, Tasmanian Parliament MPs have a limited role to play in matters relating to the University. Planning matters are the preserve of the Hobart City Council and the Australian Government has the predominant funding and policy responsibility for the higher education sector.

  • [My comment – this is a typical attempt at deflection – the suggestion of a “limited role” is nonsense. As I have constantly said, accountability rests with the Tasmanian Parliament through the UTAS Act, as was fully recognised by the Labor Government in the debate over the 2012 amendment. Nothing will stand in the way of determined State Government support of a Hobart CBD move. The future of UTAS is a first order policy issue for the Tasmanian Government and Opposition and should be treated as such. The role of the Hobart City Council is important but limited. On the Australian Government see my next comment.]

Perhaps more important than the location of the UTAS campus is the deterioration of the higher education sector under successive federal Coalition Governments. The former Government’s 2022 budget saw real funding per student slashed by a 6.5 per cent this year, with another 9 per cent to be lost over the next four years. In addition to this, over the last decade the former Coalition Government cut research funding by $1.6 billion.

The result of this is that researchers, teaching and professional staff are leaving the sector in droves, fed up with diminishing conditions and constrained research environments.

  • [My comment – having wrongly indicated that the Australian Government has a role that exceeds that of State MPs, Ms White focuses on the past and blames the previous federal Coalition Government for UTAS’ supposed funding malaise. By Ms White’s logic, it is now in the hands of Federal Labor to fix the situation (redirection of stadium funding?). In fact, the financial argument for UTAS’ move to the Hobart CBD is weak. There is much more financial risk associated with a move to the Hobart CBD than refurbishing UTAS. Interestingly, VC Black gave more emphasis to the CBD move being necessary for renewal of facilities than to UTAS stock financial sustainability argument at UTAS’ last LegCo appearance on 4 May 2023, stating “What is fundamental is that we have renewed facilities. That is the fundamental question. That is the front and centre question of the university – to ensure that we have the teaching, learning and research spaces that are needed to deliver our mission to Tasmania. That is critical.” (transcript, page 20) I will consider this further in my coming post Business Basket Case. UTAS is subject to Australian Government regulation of higher education, but that does not change the fact that UTAS is accountable to the Tasmanian Government and Parliament through the UTAS Act and, for that matter, subject to other applicable State regulation.]

Staying mindful of the bigger picture in higher education is crucial to ensuring that young Tasmanians can study dynamic and relevant courses in their home state while we also attract people from the mainland and overseas to share in the living and learning environment Tasmania has to offer.“

  • [My comment – on its current course UTAS will lose a lot more (potentially everything) than it gains. Ms White and State Labor really are failing to look at the “bigger picture”. I suggest they start by reading the LegCo submissions by professional educators or by examining how the Forestry Building is intended to work as an educational facility.]
By : Robert Hogan

1 Comment

  1. A fantastic solution suggested by you Robert Hogan. A positive party FOR a quality education system for all young Tasmanians and their parents.
    A weak Utas offering affects All streams of education in Tasmania, right down to the youngest students.
    Parents should not have to deal with the financial stress of sending their children interstate for quality tertiary education.
    This will be a factor in attracting fewer, specialist families to Tasmania.

Comments are closed.