The UTAS Papers

Five questions

Central to my exploration of UTAS’ proposed move of the southern campus to the Hobart CBD, and redevelopment of the Sandy Bay campus as a new suburb within a suburb, are five main questions:

1. What evidence is there to support UTAS’ contention that the proposed move of the southern campus to the Hobart CBD, and redevelopment of the Sandy Bay campus, will increase accessibility to UTAS?
2. What evidence is there to support UTAS’ contention that the proposed move of the southern campus to the Hobart CBD, and redevelopment of the Sandy Bay campus, is necessary for the financial viability of UTAS?
   • This includes looking at issues such as building costs.
3. What evidence is there to support UTAS’ (and the Hobart City Council’s) contention that the proposed move of the southern campus to the Hobart CBD, and redevelopment of the Sandy Bay campus, will help to reinvigorate the city?
4. What were the key stages in the decision-making process of the UTAS Council to move the southern campus to the Hobart CBD, and redevelop the Sandy Bay campus, and what information was available to the Council in that process?
5. To what extent has public accountability been exercised over UTAS, through the Government and Parliament?
   • This includes looking at whether UTAS’ claims for various benefits in the proposed CBD move have been critically assessed by government agencies.
   • It also includes examining UTAS’ relationship with the Hobart City Council.

The Focus of this Page

1. To document my experience with Right to Information (RTI) applications relating to UTAS’ proposal to move to the Hobart CBD and redevelop the Sandy Bay Campus as new suburb within a suburb; and
2. To provide documents from UTAS and, elsewhere, that shed light on UTAS’ proposed relocation.

RTI Applications to UTAS

I have submitted seven RTI applications to UTAS:

• In effect, five applications have been subject to internal review by UTAS, and I have now lodged applications for external review with the Ombudsman. Because of the high level of public interest in UTAS’ proposed move, the Ombudsman has accorded my applications priority consideration.
• One application has seemingly been totally misunderstood by UTAS’ initial decision maker, and I will shortly seek an internal review.
• As initial decision is still pending on one application.

The Applications

(a page will shortly be added to this site that sets out all relevant dealings with UTAS)

Documents Received from UTAS

Responses to an RTI Application to the Departments of Premier and Cabinet, State Growth and Education

(Application submitted to the Department of Premier and Cabinet on 4 May 2022)

Response to an RTI Application to the Hobart City Council (HCC)

On 14 April I submitted an RTI application to the HCC requesting:

• “A copy of the “City Marketing” report, produced for the Hobart City Council in 2021 or 2022; and

• A copy of all surveys/reports undertaken or commissioned by the Hobart City Council, between 1 January 2015 and today, on the views of residents, business operators and ratepayers in Hobart city regarding the proposed move.”

My request for the City Marketing report was based on my view that UTAS’ claim that staff would each spend $10,000 in the Hobart CBD a year was unrealistic and I was seeking objective data in the report for comparison. I received an initial decision on 6 May. After refining my request for the report, I received a decision deeming the entire report to be exempt from disclosure on 16 September. I will seek external review by the Ombudsman.

Responses Provided under RTI – Summary

As an Executive in the Commonwealth Public Service, I oversaw responses to numerous Freedom of Information applications. Responses were as complete, forthcoming and prompt as they could be made, in accordance with the principle that the Commonwealth should act as a “model litigant”, that is, as a model of best practice behaviour.

Tasmania has a poor reputation when it comes to the Right to Information: see the article below and this article from 2020.

On the basis of my experience to date, I believe that Tasmania’s poor reputation is fully justified. However, while I have been disappointed with the responses from Tasmanian Government agencies, I have been frankly appalled at the lack of responsiveness by the HCC and UTAS. Both the HCC and UTAS appear to believe it is reasonable to withhold entire documents, rather than undertake such redactions as may be necessary, even when the public interest is significantly engaged. Beyond this, I have been particularly frustrated by the delays, obstruction and obfuscation I have experienced with all seven of my RTI applications to UTAS. UTAS appears to have learnt nothing from the Ombudsman’s decision in February 2022 in its case with Humphries.

I believe UTAS’ record in handling RTI applications is a matter warranting close scrutiny by the Government and the Parliament.

I understand that my frustrating experience in dealing with UTAS over RTI applications has been shared by others. If you have lodged an RTI application with UTAS and would like to tell me about your experience, please email me at: [email protected]

I will treat any information provided as confidential.

Correspondence with the UTAS Vice-Chancellor, Rufus Black

On 14 July 2022, VC Rufus Black was interviewed on Mel Bush’s ABC morning show.

First letter and response

I was the unnamed Right to Information applicant mentioned in the interview by VC Black.

As I considered that a number of statements in the interview by VC Black were potentially misleading, I wrote to him on the day of the interview.

My letter included two attachments:

• Attachment A – the redacted extract of the UTAS Council Minutes for the meeting of 5 April 2019, at which the UTAS Council decided to the support the ‘City-Centric Campus’ model. This only included the Minutes for agenda items 6.1 to 6.6.
• Attachment B – a request to VC Black for internal review of my RTI application requesting copies of the UTAS Council Minutes. (This was declined, and the matter is now with the Ombudsman).

VC Black responded with a short letter on 18 July.

Second letter and response

After transcribing key sections of the VC Black’s interview with Mel Bush, I wrote a second letter to him on 9 August. This letter included six attachments:

• Attachment A – my previous letter to VC Black (as above).
• Attachment B – VC Black’s response (as above).
• Attachment C – my transcript of key sections of the Mel Bush interview.
• Attachment D – the NTEU staff survey, dated 22 March 2019.
• Attachment E – UTAS’ Summary of Engagement Feedback, March 2019.
• Attachment F – Judy Tierney’s photographs of Oberon Court, which VC Black had claimed was 90% occupied.

VC Black responded with a short letter on 19 August.

VC Black’s response only dealt with the issue of the UTAS Council Minutes (I consider him wrong on both points that he made on the Minutes) and did not address other issues I had raised in my letter.

I believe that the Mel Bush interview with VC Black, and my subsequent correspondence with him, raise serious issues about his credibility. I will address this subject at length in future Blog posts. In the meantime, readers are invited to go through the material here and form their own view.

Correspondence with Lord Mayor, Anna Reynolds

(coming soon)

Other Documents

HCC Documents

On 11 May a public meeting was held in the Hobart City Hall in response to a Save UTAS Campus petition. To assist the HCC in considering a Notice of Motion – UTAS Move put by the meeting, a package of papers, with Attachments, was put together by HCC staff for the HCC meeting of 30 May. These papers provide a large repository of primary documents far more expansive than anything yet provided by UTAS, including on matters on which UTAS appears to favour secrecy. While the HCC’s response to my RTI application has been disappointing, the publication of these documents was most welcome.

The Rathjen-Hickey plan, and the associated letter from Lord Mayor Hickey to VC Rathjen, discussed in my post of 6 October, were derived/copied from the HCC package.

Infrastructure Australia’s (IA’s) Evaluation of UTAS’ STEM Business Case

IA’s evaluation can be found on a project page. I will be saying considerably more about the STEM Business Case in the future, particularly as it goes to the heart of UTAS’ assertions that relocation to the Hobart CBD will lead to increased student accessibility. It is sufficient, for now, to say that I am surprised that IA released an “evaluation” accepting UTAS’ bold assumptions regarding the benefits of the STEM proposal at face value.

Many More Documents Coming Soon