UTAS lacks any credibility on CBD move

As I have stated a number of times at the start of my blog posts, when I refer to UTAS in my writings, I am generally referring only to the clique who make the big decisions for the University and, it seems, some of the big decisions for Tasmania. My meaning can normally be judged from the context.

I feel a particular need to repeat this statement here because of this claim in Chancellor Alison Watkins’ Christmas message to UTAS staff:

“Finally, as we turn to the holiday season, on behalf of the University Council, I extend our deepest appreciation for your contribution this year. It has been challenging and we are profoundly aware of the effect of the public criticism of the University has had on staff, students and community members.”

This could be seen as a crass, cynical and patronising attempt by Watkins to make staff and students feel as if criticism directed against UTAS’ ruling clique is also directed against them. It is not. Most UTAS staff and students oppose UTAS’ proposed CBD move (for that is surely what Watkins is primarily talking about) but, even where they do not, I am sure they are capable of distinguishing between criticism of decisions by UTAS’ ruling clique and the University they serve or attend.

UTAS lacks any credibility on CBD move

Introduction

In March last year I began researching UTAS’ proposed move to the CBD (and redevelopment of the Sandy Bay campus site as a new suburb for perhaps 8000 people) in depth. This has involved numerous Right to Information (RTI) applications to UTAS, government agencies and the Hobart City Council and collection of a vast hoard of documents – some acquired under RTI, some leaked to me, and others available publicly (although frequently requiring extensive searches).

While I have a number of RTI applications still on foot (most now with the Ombudsman as responses have generally been unsatisfactory) and many document searches to complete or conduct, the main issue I face at the moment is analysing all the material I have and making it readily accessible to readers. I am also constantly revisiting material acquired some time ago in light of material acquired more recently – a process which frequently reveals fresh contradictions or inconsistencies in what UTAS has said/done.

• I have not updated The UTAS Papers page of my website since I launched it. There is much to add.

On three important points, however, I am absolutely certain:

• UTAS lacks credibility both in word and deed when it comes to the Hobart CBD move – UTAS is not to be trusted and its claims should never be taken at face value.

• UTAS has not presented evidence for its three central arguments for the move, namely that: (1) it is necessary for UTAS’ financial viability; (2) it will increase access for students; and (3) it will reinvigorate the Hobart CBD.
  • Where UTAS claims to have evidence, it is strangely resistant to publication of that evidence, if it exists.
  • By evidence I mean substantive information that allows testing of sources, assumptions and calculations; not glib assertions.
  • UTAS’ reputation for secrecy is well earned.

• A policy decision of the magnitude of UTAS’ proposed move to the Hobart CBD, and redevelopment of the Sandy Bay Campus as a new suburb, should be the preserve of the Government and, by extension, the Parliament and the people of Tasmania. However, the Government has been silently acquiescent (or more likely complicit), while the Parliament – at least until 2022 – has been asleep on the matter. (I will deal with the role of the Government and Parliament in a coming post).

These three points have been constant themes of my previous writings and they will continue to be constant themes.

At some stage, I hope to fully document the occasions when – based on my experience and research – UTAS has failed to pass the credibility and/or evidence test. As this will take considerable time, for now I just want to focus on four instances where I call UTAS’ credibility on the CBD move into question. If UTAS can provide an evidence-based explanation or rebuttal in respect of any of these instances, I will happily publish it.

(1) UTAS the ‘Artless Dodger’ – a sneaky development application

UTAS has on many occasions committed itself to meaningful consultation and, indeed, the Premier has stated his trust in that commitment as a substitute for involvement by the Government in matters that, as I said above, should be the preserve of the Government (see, for example, the Premier’s recent letter to me).

What then is to be made of the publication on 22 December 2022 of UTAS’ application for alterations to its development application for the Forestry Building at 83 Melville Street, with a public comment period provided to 12 January 2023?

Putting material out for comment over the Christmas/New Year period – when people are generally intensely focused on other matters – is a well-known dodge. Far from being committed to meaningful consultation, UTAS appears to have sought to avoid meaningful consultation.

This is consistent with the faux consultation process of Shake Up.

It is also consistent with UTAS’ failure to provide me with the documents I requested in an RTI application on 12 April 2022, relating to the consultation it undertook in the leadup to the UTAS Council’s decision of 5 April 2019 to move to the Hobart CBD (I have good reason to believe these documents will show significant staff and student hostility to the move).

• I took UTAS’ failure to provide the documents I requested to the Ombudsman on 28 July 2022 and am awaiting a response.

• For further detail on UTAS’ attitude to consultation, see for example my blog post A Black Day for the Truth.

When UTAS talks about the results of consultation, or committing to further consultation, its audience should fully engage their critical faculties.

(2) The $15 million lie? – UTAS, no sense, no shame

UTAS continues to feature this quote on its Southern Transformation FAQ page:

“Will the University being in the city have a negative impact on city traders?“

Traders will receive a significant positive benefit from having all of the Southern Campus in the city.

The move will bring up to 8,500 students and 1,500 staff into the city, adding vibrancy and economic activity. Independent research by Urbis found that, in a typical week, virtually all city workers buy something before, during or after work. Only three per cent reported buying nothing.

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.“

• NB. I have provided the same link in the above quote as UTAS uses on its website. This is a link only to an ad inviting participation in the 2019 Urbis Office Workers Survey rather than a source that sets out results.

On 15 October 2022, I wrote a blog post called The $15 million lie? in the hope that UTAS might stop making its $15 million claim. I should have known better.

• I provided a link to a detailed analysis of UTAS’ claim in my previous post. I have updated this to include a subsequent statement by UTAS made under the auspices of the Ombudsman, but this adds nothing new to the picture.

While UTAS has used Urbis as a consultant on another matter, I believe it unlikely that UTAS has a copy of the 2019 Urbis Office Workers Survey. Instead, I believe that UTAS extrapolated the figure of $15 million from material available online, possibly relating to the 2013 Urbis Office Workers Survey and other sources. See my detailed analysis for UTAS’ possible sources.

Whether that is the case or not, I am 100 per cent certain that – whatever Urbis material is available to UTAS – it does not involve research on Hobart or the likely spending patterns of UTAS staff and that it therefore has no relevance at all to UTAS staff moving into the Hobart. UTAS’ $15 million is misleading to the point of being deceitful.

As presented in UTAS’ Say Yes ad for the Hobart Elector Poll, I consider the $15 million claim to be even more deceitful than on UTAS’ website as both the text and source are stated in more emphatic form. As her name is associated with this ad, the apparent failure by Chancellor Watkins to vet the claims in that ad represents an appalling lack of judgement, particularly in relation to the $15 million claim as it looks like poppycock (every one of the many people I have mentioned the figure to has reacted with immediate disbelief).

For the sake of this exercise, let’s assume I am wrong about what information UTAS has. I invite UTAS to answer 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?

• 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?

As with my previous blog post on this matter, I suspect UTAS’ silence will be deafening. This matter should concern both the Government and the Parliament (on behalf of the Tasmanian people).

If, on such a seemingly straightforward matter as its $15 million claim, UTAS cannot demonstrate transparency, honesty and methodological soundness, how can its assertions be accepted at face value on larger matters relating to its proposed CBD move?

(3) A Black Day for the Truth – sometimes it’s better just to admit you’re wrong

On 14 July 2022, Vice-Chancellor (VC) Black was interviewed on ABC radio by Mel Bush. The interview included a number of errors and dubious claims by VC Black.

Following that interview I wrote to the VC twice about his errors (providing a partial transcript of the Mel Bush interview with my second letter). The VC replied on both occasions with letters that were largely unresponsive and which conceded nothing. Indeed both the VC’s letters contained further errors.

• For example, in his second letter, the VC wrote “In relation to your further comments regarding the [UTAS Council] minutes and agendas, as these form part of an active Right to Information request [namely mine] which has proceeded to the Ombudsman for an external review, it is inappropriate that I comment further regarding this.“

• Thus the VC used the Ombudsman as a shield from further discussion – erroneously elevating the Ombudsman to the same status as court proceedings.

My correspondence with VC Black is fully detailed towards the bottom of The UTAS Papers page of this website under – no surprises here – the heading Correspondence with the UTAS Vice-Chancellor, Rufus Black. Following on from this correspondence I wrote a blog post called A Black Day for the Truth, which raised major questions about the credibility of the VC, but which largely focused on the issue of the VC’s dubious claims about consultation.

Here I just want to draw out another of the VC’s errors in his interview with Mel Bush. The VC’s interview with Mel Bush included the following exchange:

Mel Bush: And Oberon Court, can we just talk about that for a moment, near the Sandy Bay site; well resourced, potential homes. What’s happening with Oberon Court at the moment?

Rufus Black: I’m not sure what the question is, sorry Mel.

Mel Bush: So, so with that site, Oberon Court, is that open potentially to being able to house people from the community?

Rufus Black: Well, it’s used for housing students.

Mel Bush: And that is full?

Rufus Black: I was advised it’s sitting about 90% also.

These are some of a number of photos of Oberon Court taken by Judy Tierney around the date of the VC’s interview with Mel Bush. Oberon Court looks empty, not to say desolate.

In my second letter to the VC, I put the following to him:

“In your interview with Mel Bush you indicated that Oberon Court was 90% occupied.  I am attaching photos of Oberon Court taken by Judy Tierney around the time of your interview with Mel Bush.  Can you please provide the occupancy rate for Oberon Court and the two residences in the Hobart CBD, as at 18 July 2022?“

The VC failed to respond on this issue as he did on other issues I raised in that letter. Sometimes it’s better just to admit you got it wrong.

• Had I, as a Senior Executive in the Commonwealth public service, made the sorts of errors the VC did in his interview with Mel Bush, I would have immediately sought to correct them.

(4) Is the Green Bond actually green? – UTAS must have the evidence for this one, surely

Again for Chancellor Watkins’ sake, before I go any further with this section, let me be quite clear; I am not calling into question here the great work that I’m sure is being done by UTAS’ staff and students on climate change. Rather I am calling into question the way that UTAS parades its green credentials, without making evidence available for rigorous scrutiny.

I have previously written two blog posts on UTAS’ Green Bond – on 5 December 2022, UTAS’ Green Bond rating raises major issues; and on 11 December 2022, Why has UTAS issued a Green Bond rather than using TASCORP? These posts covered a number of different issues, but an issue I raised in both was whether the Green Bond was really green.

On 12 December 2022, the VC advised UTAS staff that UTAS’ Chief Operating Officer, David Clerk was taking a break. Among the achievements of Mr Clerk, which the VC lauded in his advice “was raising $350 million for the Hobart CBD campus via an award winning green bond, the largest of its kind secured by an Australian university.”

The reference to an “award winning green bond” prompted me to do more research on the Green Bond and I have identified a number of further interesting facts, issues and questions.

On UTAS’ own website (to be fair), I learnt that the award was not – as I might reasonably have expected – from a climate change institute; rather UTAS’ Green Bond won the Australian Sustainability Bond Deal of the Year in the KangaNews Awards 2022, based on the vote of capital market participants.

• As a sideline, Kanga News’ citation enables calculation of the ‘interest’ on UTAS’ $350 million borrowing, being $14.2 million a year for the ten years to 2032 and $3.1 million a year for the next ten years to 2042.

In a media release of 23 February 2022, UTAS stated:

“The Green Bond Framework commits the University to a minimum target reduction of 20% in the upfront carbon emissions embedded in construction of new campus buildings.“

So, I also tried to ascertain what the $350 million from the Green Bond is actually for. I had envisaged that it was for construction/modification of UTAS’ ‘green’ buildings in the Hobart CBD. However, a presentation on UTAS’ website on the IMAS facility at Taroona states that “The new lab building will be financed in part by a Green Bond.” Clearly then, the use of the Green Bond is not limited to the CBD.

I also found that UTAS’ Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Strategic Plan 2022 – 2030 includes the following at pages 36-37:

With the relatively low costs associated with greening buildings (Actions 1 and 2 above), even factoring in some lab costs for the Taroona IMAS building, the main purpose of UTAS’ $350 million Green Bond borrowings remains largely unclear (although this should have been spelled out in documents provided to investors).

• I note that the relatively low cost of greening buildings might well also apply to UTAS’ current Sandy Bay buildings.

• I also note that it seems to be assumed that destruction/construction costs on the Sandy Bay site will have an CO2 emissions cost (NB the reduction in CO2 emissions from 20% to 70% from 2030). This may be some sort of recognition that destruction/construction on the Sandy Bay site will have some sort of CO2 cost, but this is unclear.

I remain deeply skeptical about the greenness of the UTAS’ Green Bond. I therefore repeat my questions from my previous Green Bond posts;

• What would be the level of carbon emissions and other pollution produced in further building work (including renovations) in the Hobart CBD, including additional traffic involved in that work?

• What would be the level of carbon emissions and other pollution produced by the destruction of the Sandy Bay campus site and the development of a new suburb within such confined spaces, including additional traffic involved in the work, and any requirement to transport equipment into Tasmania?

• What would be the level of carbon emissions and other pollution produced by the inevitable gridlock (idling) and traffic delays that UTAS’ proposed CBD move would bring to the Hobart CBD, Churchill Avenue and Sandy Bay Road, which are all heavily congested at peak hours now.

• In particular, what would be the level of noxious gases and other substances released by the relocation of UTAS’ Sandy Bay to the Hobart CBD?

• What impact does UTAS anticipate having on green spaces and native habitat in redeveloping the Sandy Bay campus site?

• A number of the buildings on UTAS’ campus site have clear heritage values. What will UTAS do to preserve such buildings?

To these I would now add the following questions:

• What specifically are the Green Bond funds for (item by item)?

• What evidence (substantive information that allows testing of sources, assumptions and calculations, not glib assertions) is there for all UTAS’ contentions in relation to the Green Bond and the section on Construction cited in its Strategic Plan above?

I believe UTAS should have evidence readily available for provision to the public, and to the Government and Parliament, which – if they were diligent – should have major interest in seeing such evidence.

As UTAS frequently states, it is rated by Times Higher Education (THE) as the top university in the world for climate action. The methodology for this rating is set out here, and I particularly note that the four elements for assessment as part of this methodology include:

“Commitment to carbon neutral university (23%)

• Commitment to carbon neutrality (11.5%)
• Achieve by date (11.5%)

The first indicator asks whether the university has a target date by which it will become carbon neutral, according to the Greenhouse Gas Protocol, and the second indicator asks when carbon neutrality for Scopes 1 and 2 is expected to be achieved (or whether it has already been achieved). Higher scores are given for the first indicator if the target includes all three scopes.” (For references to “scopes” and fuller methodology see this document, SDG 13).

I also note that THE defines evidence as:

“Evidence

When we ask about policies and initiatives, our metrics require universities to provide the evidence to support their claims. Evidence is evaluated against a set of criteria and decisions are cross-validated where there is uncertainty. Evidence is not required to be exhaustive – we are looking for examples that demonstrate best practice at the institutions concerned.“

If such evidence is good enough for THE, it is surely good enough for publication.

• I am, however, concerned that THE’s methodology seems to rely so heavily on self-assessment.

I have identified further issues with the Green Bond and it is a subject to which I will be returning in future posts.

I also note that on 22 November 2022, I submitted an RTI application to the Tasmanian Department of Treasury of Finance (Treasury), which included a request for information relating to the Green Bond. Following a delay by Treasury due to illness, I agreed to an extension for provision of a response to 13 January 2023. Subsequently I was advised that third party consultation was now required, and that the new target date is 14 February 2023. The third party is likely to be UTAS and, every time I hear of a need to consult with UTAS on an RTI application, a cold chill runs down my spine. This is because experience has taught me that, contrary to the requirements of the Right to Information Act 2009, UTAS will do everything possible to delay, obfuscate and obstruct RTI applications. However, Treasury should be mindful of its obligation, as a state government agency, to act as a model litigant. It should seek to release as much material as possible, irrespective of the fact that UTAS’ default position will be to seek to exempt or redact as much material as possible.

UTAS’ handling of RTI applications is another example of its lack of credibility and a matter that I will endeavour to fully document shortly.