1. UTAS’ proposed move to the Hobart CBD is an unfolding financial disaster and a FIRST ORDER ELECTION ISSUE
On 12 March I published a blog post entitled A UTAS move to the Hobart CBD would cost at least $1.19 billion more than refurbishment of the Sandy Bay campus.
This post showed that the cost of UTAS’ proposed move of its southern campus to the Hobart CBD and redevelopment of the Sandy Bay campus site as, to quote VC Black, “a micro-suburb” would involve an outlay of $6.08 billion!
The (net) cost of UTAS’ CBD relocation would be $1.19 billion more than refurbishment of the Sandy Bay campus.
These a very large numbers. The current estimated cost of an AFL stadium at Macquarie Point is $715 million. Even assuming a more realistic estimate of $1 billion, UTAS’ proposed relocation would be six times bigger in financial terms!
UTAS’ proposed relocation should, on any reckoning, be a first order election issue.
This is especially the case as, if UTAS were to persist with its plans to move to the CBD, a bail-out by the State Government would be required and/or UTAS would be diminished as an institution. In either case, the cost would be borne by all Tasmanians.
2. Clark candidates’ positions on the proposed move
Last week I sent a link to my blog post to all candidates in the Clark electorate for whom I could find email addresses, and sought their personal (and, where relevant, party) views on UTAS’ proposed move to the Hobart CBD and redevelopment of the Sandy Bay campus.
There are 35 candidates in Clark and I have, so far, received six responses. I am providing copies of the six responses (and listing those who have not yet responded) in this linked table.
- This is the first page of the table:
In short, Vica Bayley, Louise Elliot, Kristie Johnston, Ben Lohberger and Madeleine Ogilvie all provided statements against UTAS’ proposed move to the Hobart CBD. I will leave it to readers to carefully analyse their words and, where relevant, those of their parties.
Sue Hickey provided a statement in favour of UTAS’ proposed move to the Hobart CBD.
While I am disappointed not have to heard from other Liberal and Greens candidates, I am appalled not to have heard from Labor at all on a first order election issue.
If ever evidence was wanted of VC Black’s claim that Labor had provided (covert) support and enablement of UTAS’ proposed CBD move, this is it. (On Black’s claim see: VC Black exposes Labor stance on UTAS – and his grip on politics).
3. Some advice on who NOT to vote for
Election analyst and authority, Dr Kevin Bonham, has provided a compelling case to number all candidates down to 35 in Clark in his article, How To Best Use Your Vote In The 2024 Tasmanian Election.
Dr Bonham’s article is about maximising the value of your vote, and ensuring your vote doesn’t ultimately end up with the last person you would want it to.
At this stage, I am not going to provide advice on who to vote for, but here is some advice on who NOT to vote for, with more to come.
If you vote to 35, number Josh Willie 34 and Sue Hickey 35. If you don’t vote to 35, make sure you do not put a number against Josh Willie or Sue Hickey at all.
The reason for my position on Sue Hickey is self-evident. I am writing in opposition to UTAS’ move to the CBD. Sue Hickey favours the move (but at least she declares herself and provides a case, even if I totally disagree).
In contrast, Labor has been spineless and silent, but there are facts against Mr Willie in particular:
- He is Shadow Education Minister and should know, and have done, better on the crucial UTAS issue:
- He is seeking to transition to the Lower House, and the idea that he could ever be Labor leader is disturbing, and I can’t see Bec White surviving the election.
- He is rumoured to have said that one of the reasons for not opposing UTAS’ move to the Hobart CBD was the sovereign risk issue. If he did say this, my comment on his report card is, “Must stop getting his information from the back of cornflakes packets and use reputable sources instead.”
- I will happily correct the record, if Mr Willie can convince me that this rumour is untrue. Mr Willie will, however, have to provide an alternative reason for what I understand to be his emphatic support for UTAS’ proposed move (copying from Ms Hickey’s letter not allowed).
Ogilvie’s statement means nothing because she is happy to see UTas admin, the Law School and the School of Business and Economics permanently located in the CBD instead of at Sandy Bay where they would ensure the continued viability of the campus. Don’t vote for any Liberal candidates.