(This post is supported by my detailed analysis).

When does a claim cease being merely misleading and deceptive and become a lie?  I’ll leave that for the reader to judge.

The Claim

From, at least, March 2022 UTAS has been claiming that 1,500 UTAS staff will bring expenditure of $15 million a year ($10,000 a year each) to the Hobart CBD, linking the figure to the consultancy firm Urbis to signify that the claim was underpinned by solid research.

The claim has appeared in three different formats of which I am aware:

  1. In response to the question “Will the University being in the city have a negative impact on city traders?” under Frequently Asked Questions on its Transforming our southern campus page.
  2. In a full-page advertisement, featuring Chancellor Alison Watkins, which appeared in The Mercury on, for example, 28 August and 3 September. (The ad may also have appeared on other dates, including in a cut down form).
  3. On page 28 of the Tasmanian Electoral Commission (TEC) booklet, City of Hobart Local Government elections and elector poll, where UTAS states its case for the CBD move.

To look at these in turn, the response to the question (mentioned at 1. above) includes sidelined, indented text, which might easily be mistaken as taken from Urbis’ work:

  • “The average city worker spends over $10,000 per year at nearby businesses. With 1,500 staff moving to the city, that’s an extra $15 million spent at small businesses in the area – cafes, restaurants, hairdressers and retail stores. And that doesn’t even include students.”

The Watkins ad states that with a CBD move:

  • “Local small business will benefit, with our staff alone forecast to spend $15 million a year.” [UTAS’ bolding]

UTAS’ text in the TEC booklet states that one reason for voting for the CBD move is to:

  • “Support local businesses. Staff are forecast to spend $15 million a year.”

Significantly, however, the reference link/footnote is different in each of the three formats. This is set out fully, and explored, in my detailed analysis.

The importance of the $15 million claim

UTAS provides three main arguments for its relocation to the Hobart CBD: to ensure its financial viability (this includes issues such as building costs); to improve student access; and to reinvigorate the city.

The $15 million claim is absolutely central to UTAS’ claim that the CBD move will reinvigorate the city – being the only thing close to ‘sourced’ material that UTAS has put into the public domain on this issue.

And its importance goes well beyond this.  As I indicated in Gun for Hire Hickey rides into town – UTAS has put little by way of evidence (as distinct from glib assertions) into the public domain for any of its various claims. 

If you cannot trust the $15 million claim, what can you trust? How credible is UTAS?

The facts

Many people have – from time to time – queried the $15 million claim, applying their common sense or knowledge of retail spending.

The $15 million claim first grabbed my attention in March 2022.  I inferred, as I believe I was intended to by UTAS, that it had commissioned research from Urbis.  Still, the $10,000 a year figure seemed absurdly high, and I wanted to get to the bottom of it.

I lodged two Right to Information (RTI) applications in April:

  • An application to UTAS about Urbis research, which was refused by UTAS, and which I have now referred to the Ombudsman for external review.
  • An application to the Hobart City Council (HCC), in which I sought a copy of a report that I hoped would provide average Hobart CBD expenditure figures. After a protracted search for the report, the HCC has now located it but declared it fully exempt from release. I lodged an application for external review of the HCC’s decision to the Ombudsman yesterday.

As set out in my detailed analysis, as well as varying the content and link/footnotes of its three different $15 million claim formats, UTAS has repeatedly changed its story about the source of its claim in its correspondence with me over my RTI application.

I do not believe UTAS commissioned Urbis to do research on likely UTAS staff expenditure in the Hobart CBD.

I think it likely UTAS has used a page on the Urbis website to do a ‘back of the envelope’ calculation. I believe this is the page (or something like it). This is an ad for participants in the 2017 Urbis Office Worker Survey. It includes the following text:

  • “The [2013] survey found that nationally, each office worker spent close to $10,500 per annum on retail goods and services while they were at work. The level of expenditure varied quite substantially by capital city and type of location.” [my bolding]

The Urbis survey cannot simply be assumed to apply to UTAS staff moving to Hobart. It would also be irresponsible to use the figure without a full understanding of Urbis’ methodology (the figure still sounds absurdly high to me).

Questions

If I am wrong on the source of UTAS’ $10,000 per person per year claim, and therefore UTAS’ $15 million claim, I will happily accept correction by UTAS.

However, I would also ask it to address the following questions:

  • Does UTAS have a copy of the Urbis City Workers Survey – or results from that Survey – for any year?
  • If so, what year?
  • Did Urbis undertake any city workers research for UTAS?
  • Did Urbis conduct research in Hobart?
  • If so, when?
  • Did Urbis provide a breakdown – for Hobart – of the “over $10,000 [per person] per year” figure used on its website?
  • If so, what was that breakdown?
  • Does Urbis include carparking?
  • What was Urbis’ methodology?
  • What suburbs would ‘lose’ the $15 million a year expenditure to the Hobart CBD and what would the impact be on those suburbs?
  • Is the $15 million figure net of expenditure that would be made in the CBD anyway, eg, by staff working in Sandy Bay?  

As a final question, if UTAS did commission research by Urbis, why did it keep changing its story to me in relation to my Right to Information application?

If I am right about the $15 million claim, or if UTAS cannot satisfactorily address my questions, it should immediately cease making the $15 million claim and delete all published versions of that claim.

It should also publish a retraction.

For information

On 30 August, I submitted a letter to the Editor of The Mercury about the Watkins ad, but it was not published.

In September, I raised the issue of UTAS possibly making a “false and misleading claim in advertising” with the TEC, but was informed:

  • “The Commissioner is indeed conducting an elector poll on behalf of the Hobart City Council, in conjunction with the 2022 local government elections, in accordance with sections 60C and 60D the Local Government Act 1993 (“the Act”). However it is important to note that the Act does not regulate truth in political advertising, so the truth or otherwise of case material such as you have raised is not within the jurisdiction of this office. Further, the electoral advertising provisions in the Act and Regulations specifically apply to material in respect for a campaign for election by a candidate and advertisements etc relating to an election, and thus do not include elector poll advertising.”

By : Robert Hogan