Photo: Why rely on Santa Claus when UTAS’ STEM facilities at Sandy Bay can be refurbished/upgraded now?
With Federal election commitment season upon us, how well/seriously have UTAS and the State Government, led by Minister Madeleine Ogilvie, been lobbying for the $400+ million they – erroneously – say is necessary from the Commonwealth Government to keep STEM at Sandy Bay.
Well, on the evidence I’ve seen, not very much.
In the 500 pages of documentation I have received under Right to Information (RTI) covering UTAS-Commonwealth Government communications in the period 1 January 2024 to 23 September 2024, there were two relevant documents – a fairly vague (not to say amateurish) letter from Vice-Chancellor (VC) Black to the Commonwealth Infrastructure Minister, Catherine King, on 9 May 2024, and Minister King’s reply of 24 June 2024 (copies below).
Source: Released documents, page 409
Source: Released documents, pages 217-218
There were two stand out points in Minister King’s letter.
First, Minister King indicated that the Tasmanian Government would need to put forward a business case on UTAS’ behalf.
Second, Minister King referred VC Black to the urban Precincts Partnership Program – a nationwide program providing $150 million a year, which was ill suited to UTAS/Minister Ogilvie’s grandiose plans (other programs referred to by Ms King were even more unsuitable).
- There were several other communications among the 500 odd pages provided by UTAS in which it lobbied for Commonwealth money – just not big dollars for STEM.
To my knowledge, Minister Ogilvie is still waiting on UTAS to provide her with its STEM business plan and, if it follows UTAS’ previous form, the business plan will be a dodgy piece of work that is constructed and submitted without any form of public scrutiny.
- I have written extensively on UTAS’ business cases. See for example: A UTAS move to the Hobart CBD would cost at least $1.19 billion more than refurbishment of the Sandy Bay campus and VC Black’s cynical $500 million STEM con job.
As for Minister Ogilvie, what has she been doing to secure money from Canberra?
When she put forward the last minute amendment to the UTAS Land Bill on 28 November 2024, Minister Ogilvie referred to “The Commonwealth’s funding of this project which, alongside UTAS, we will advocate for is predicated on a co-investment by UTAS into the project.” (Hansard, page 115; see also page 126; my bolding). So she hadn’t started advocating before then? When a Federal election was in the offing? When an election commitment is the only realistic chance of securing big Commonwealth dollars?
At least it seems from the media release below that Minister Ogilvie had started advocating for funding from the Commonwealth by 24 December 2024, even if she seemed to be putting a bit too much faith in Santa Claus.
Source: click here
- I have a series of RTI applications underway with Ministers, agencies and UTAS which might shed light on this matter, nothwithstanding that key responses are already months overdue (in breach of the RTI Act).
Fortunately, there is a superior alternative to the UTAS/Government plan
I believe that UTAS has no real interest in securing major Commonwealth funding to keep STEM at Sandy Bay. Along with the Labor Opposition it is hoping to use a failure to secure funding as a way of leveraging its dream of moving to the CBD, in the meantime conning the Government into doing much of its work for it by rezoning the UTAS campus above Churchill Avenue.
- See my blog posts: Premier Rockliff – Tasmania awaits response on Government’s UTAS policy backflip and VC Black’s cynical $500 million STEM con job.
I hope I’m wrong and the money falls from the sky (read Commonwealth), STEM remains at Sandy Bay and UTAS, the State Government and Labor Opposition are shown to have been acting in good faith all along.
However, if I’m right, and the Commonwealth money does not eventuate, it will be vital that Tasmania’s politicians are not conned into agreeing to a full CBD move for UTAS, which would be academically and financially ruinous for UTAS and the State.
Until UTAS produces a business plan worthy of the name, which has been subject to full and rigorous scrutiny, and Commonwealth funding has been secured, the Legislative Council should not contemplate voting for the amended UTAS Land Bill, quite apart from the fact that the amended Bill represents an abuse of process.
Fortunately, a much better strategy than relying on Santa Claus for $400 million+ has always been available to the management clique that runs UTAS and the Government – to refurbish/upgrade the current STEM facilities at Sandy Bay. This is affordable – a program of works can be undertaken on a staggered basis to meet STEM priorities and to fit within UTAS’ finances. It involves no financial risk (unlike UTAS’ grandiose CBD plans).
And, most importantly, it preserves UTAS’ world class location and student amenity at Sandy Bay – a key point of difference when competing for students and staff in a national and global market place.
In this scenario, any Commonwealth money that comes along would be a bonus.