STEM staff need to reject the con and demand that STEM facilities at Sandy Bay be upgraded immediately (at a cost of c$110 million)

Section 1: Key Points

Faced with the introduction of legislation that would require parliamentary approval for sale or leasing of part or all of its Sandy Bay campus, UTAS is currently trying to build staff, community and – particularly – Government support for a new $500 million STEM facility, on the basis that funding will be provided (largely, if not totally) by the Commonwealth Government.

This is a total con job, aimed at ensuring UTAS’ plan to relocate its southern campus to the Hobart CBD and to redevelop the Sandy Bay campus as “a micro-suburb” (in VC Black’s phrase) proceeds, when Commonwealth funding does not eventuate.

  • UTAS will have a plan B – to fund new STEM buildings and consolidation of the Sandy Bay campus below Churchill Avenue, from revenue gained by developing the area above Churchill Avenue up to John Fisher College.

  • Of course, UTAS is also trying to stop the legislation going ahead as well.

The con job has three main elements.

First, UTAS is seeking to ‘play’ (manipulate) the Government and Parliament, into a situation where they have no option but to allow UTAS to continue with its plan to relocate its southern campus to the Hobart CBD.

There is no way UTAS or the State will obtain $500 million, or anything like this, from the Commonwealth for a new STEM facility – UTAS has still not obtained one cent of the $240 million requested from the Commonwealth in 2016 for a STEM facility in the Hobart CBD.

UTAS managment knows this.

UTAS will wait maybe two or three years (which may also involve a change of government) and then mount the argument to the Tasmanian Government and Parliament that it (UTAS) has to have parliamentary approval to monetise the Sandy Bay campus site through redevelopment of the site, as there is no other way to pay for a new STEM facility – an argument that will be much harder to resist at that time.

  • UTAS is encouraging the current State Government to put its credibility on the line and commit to obtaining Commonwealth funding, maximising Government embarrassment when it fails to do so.

  • I understand that Treasurer Ferguson has already ruled out a State funding contribution.

Second, UTAS is promoting a completely fatuous notion that a new STEM facility is required and – at a cost of $500 million – would be superior to refurbishment/upgrading of the current STEM facilities at Sandy Bay.

As shown in detail in Section 2A below from UTAS’ own documents, a new $500 million STEM facility – whether in the CBD or below Churchill Avenue – would be a major downgrade on the current STEM facilities, with much reduced ground floor area: limited car parking spaces; distant locations for glasshouses and other outdoor facilities; and questionable arrangements for sensitive equipment, collections and hazardous material, including nuclear waste.

A new STEM facility would also be competing with an AFL stadium at Macquarie Point for construction resources, if the stadium goes ahead, pushing construction prices for both projects much higher, so that $500 million would buy even less.

  • The occurrence of major UTAS building works at the same time as construction of a stadium would also turn traffic in the Hobart CBD into a nightmare.

UTAS can and should initiate an immediate refurbishment and upgrade of the  Sandy Bay campus, starting with a three year priority upgrade of the STEM facilities, which – on UTAS’ own figures –  might cost in the order of $110 million (see Sections 2A-B below).

Such an upgrade would be affordable now, in contrast to relocation of the southern campus to the Hobart CBD, and redevelopment of the Sandy Bay campus site, which would bring about UTAS’ financial ruin if persisted with.

Upgrade of thecurrent Sandy Bay STEM facilities also fits well with the vision of Minister Ogilvie to turn the Sandy Bay campus into a regional science hub (see Appendix A).

If UTAS upgrades the STEM facilities at Sandy Bay, and commits to a future at Sandy Bay, there would be ample space and incentive for science based industries and research centres to locate operations around a vibrant campus, with an assured future.

Third, UTAS management is going through a pretence of conducting a meaningful process of consultation with STEM staff. 

UTAS management has a poor record on consultation and is not suddenly to be trusted. The survey form it issued to staff last week proves this (see Section 2E below; a copy of the complete survey form is provided in Appendix B).

The survey form is a vapid, ‘wishy washy’ document that was clearly designed to avoid – rather than to seriously engage with – issues, allowing UTAS to selectively curate ‘results’ in the future. 

It is particularly notable that the survey form did not include a question about where STEM should be located.  This was because UTAS management already knows that the majority of STEM staff at Sandy Bay wish to remain at Sandy Bay and management do not want this to be a matter of record.

Key Sources

While I summarise key source material in the Background section below, I strongly recommend that STEM staff and students in particular read the following documents:

  • UTAS’ STEM Business Case, which was submitted to Infrastructure Australia in 2016, to seek funding from the Commonwealth Government;

  • The Southern Future Business Case, which was the basis of the UTAS Council’s decision to relocate from Sandy Bay to the Hobart CBD on 5 April 2019;
    • NOTE: As Commonwealth funding had not been obtained, this included a reduced STEM option to be funded by sale and leaseback (UTAS Council Minutes 2019-2022, bottom section of page 21).

These documents were only released in 2023 following Right to Information applications and intervention by the Ombudsman and his Office, after I appealed UTAS’ refusal to provide the documents.

Section 2. Background

2A. Previous UTAS STEM options

In the table below I have summarised key elements of the STEM options set out in UTAS’ STEM Business Case (2016), Southern Future Business Case (2019) and Southern Future Business Case: Appendix 8: Southern Infrastructure Gross Floor Area Requirement Analysis. In the final column of the table, I have adjusted UTAS’ cost estimates for inflation (to the end of March 2024) and applied a realistic construction cost contingency of 50%.

Notes: A copy of this table is reproduced with detailed notes in Appendix C.  One matter to note here, however, is that it is not totally clear why the gross floor areas are greater in the three 2016 options than for the existing STEM facilities in 2019 (40,429 square metres).  This may be due to inclusion of car parking space in the two Sandy Bay options in 2016, while in relation to the CBD option in 2016 the Southern Future Business Case (page 60) states that “the previously proposed STEM building estimated at $400 million included significant floor space allocated to student experience and library space in addition to the needs of the COSE, Pharmacy and Psychology.” As noted there were only 50 car parks in this option.

It is clear from the table that $500 million, whether it be spent in the CBD or in a Sandy Bay campus consolidated below Churchill Avenue, would buy reduced and fragmented STEM facilities compared to those currently available on the Sandy Bay campus. This is especially the case with further increases in construction costs inevitable before construction could commence and likely competition for construction resources with an AFL stadium at Macquarie Point blowing out costs.

In particular, I note that:

  • The gross floor area of STEM would be significantly reduced – the figures for 2019 show a 25% decrease in gross floor area between current Sandy Bay facilities and the CBD option.

  • Facilities such as glasshouses would be located off campus – most likely at Cambridge.

  • The number of car parking spaces would be slashed – especially if STEM/the southern campus moves into the CBD. The Southern Future Business Case envisaged UTAS providing only 200 spaces for all the transplanted staff and students to the CBD. Experience with the College of Business and Economics and the Forestry Building suggests even fewer places would be provided by UTAS, with the University making a ‘virtue’ of on-line learning when it should, at least, be a practical option for students to chose face to face learning.

  • No cost or space allocation appears to have previously been made for issues such as movement of collections and sensitive equipment and handling of hazardous materials (including nuclear waste) – and VC Black had no answers on this issue when it was raised in the Legislative Council Select Committee into the Provisions of the University of Tasmania Act 1992 (see UTAS’ proposed CBD relocation would lead to financial disaster – stop the move now!, Appendix 6). The lack of ability or willingness of UTAS management to engage seriously with this issue should cause serious concern.

When Geoffrey Hills and I met with senior UTAS management (including Chief Operating Officer Craig Barling) on 17 June 2024, I asked where the $500 million figure for a new STEM had come from. The initial response was that it represented an updating on the $400 million figure used in the STEM Business Case in 2016. When I pointed out that my calculations suggested a much higher figure, the story changed.  Among other things, we were told that STEM no longer required as much floor space as in 2019 and that the way of doing science education had changed.  Reference was also made to the capacity to grow the Launceston campus and the (already funded) move of the Tasmanian Institute of Agriculture to Launceston.

STEM staff should demand to see what UTAS management believes could be bought for $500 million, when and where.

An approximately $110 million three-year refurbishment/upgrade of the current Sandy Bay facilities could begin immediately and would provide much better facilities, while also allowing for future development. Any possible conflict with AFL stadium construction could also be largely avoided.

2B. Where does the $110 million figure for a three year refurbishment/upgrade of current STEM facilities come from?

As set out in the table above, UTAS’ cost estimates of 2016 and 2019, adjusted for inflation, and with a realistic construction cost contingency of 50% applied, suggest a cost of between $112 million to $119 million to refurbish/upgrade current STEM facilities.

However, UTAS has already budgeted $27 million for the move of the Tasmanian Institute of Agriculture to Launceston, so this facility will not require refurbishment.

This suggests a cost of around $110 million for refurbishment/upgrade of the current Sandy Bay STEM facilities is realistic.

This is readily affordable for UTAS.

Indeed, as I have shown elsewhere, refurbishment of the entire Sandy Bay campus is readily affordable for UTAS, especially if it sells all its CBD properties, in stark contrast to the totally unaffordable CBD relocation option (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).

2C. Is $500 million for a new STEM facility obtainable from the Commonwealth?

I am surprised at how easily such a large figure as $500 million is being bandied about as an amount readily obtainable from the Commonwealth.

The State/UTAS would struggle even to obtain a small part of this funding from the Commonwealth.

I note in this regard that the Commonwealth has allocated only $240 million to Macquarie Point, with even those funds to be offset against Tasmanian’s GST payments.

UTAS has made play of its 2016 STEM project proposal being on the priority list of Infrastructure Australia, a Commonwealth body. This is wilfully misleading.

In 2016 UTAS submitted a business case for $400 million for a new STEM facility in the Hobart CBD to Infrastructure Australia, as part of VC Peter Rathjen’s strategy to use a new STEM as leverage for a total move of UTAS’ southern campus  from Sandy Bay to the Hobart CBD.

The project was listed as a priority by Infrastructure Australia in 2017, but so were many other (questionable) projects from all over the country.

The fact is that eight years on, Rathjen’s strategy has been a total flop, and not one cent has been forthcoming from the Commonwealth for STEM, even though UTAS and the State were seeking only $240 million of the $400 million from the Commonwealth.

This time round, UTAS is making a show of seeking $500 million, evidently to come entirely from the Commonwealth, as I understand that the State Treasurer has already ruled out a State funding contribution.

However, Infrastructure Australia’s mandate has changed following a review and amendment to its governing legislation, and it is currently reviewing its priority list. The STEM project is outside Infrastructure Australia’s new mandate.

Even if there is a Commonwealth program that could be targeted for partial funding for a new STEM, any approach to the Commonwealth would, anyway, require development of fresh project proposal, which could wait in a queue for years (with construction costs increasing all the while) and then likely go unfunded.

I believe that UTAS/the State have little to no chance of obtaining even a moderate portion of $500 million for a new STEM. If the State Government gives credence to VC Black’s STEM con job, it would be both playing into UTAS’ hands (for UTAS’ eventual argument that the State needs to let UTAS develop the Sandy Bay campus site) and delaying funding that could and should be going into STEM now.

The Government would also be playing into the hands of the Labor Opposition.

2D. UTAS remains intent on CBD relocation

UTAS remains absolutely intent on relocating its southern campus – including the STEM – from Sandy Bay to the Hobart CBD and redeveloping Sandy Bay as “a micro-suburb”.

  • In response to Leon Compton’s question on ABC radio on 4 June 2024 whether UTAS’ “Hobart city move [was] still happening”, VC Black replied:

“Yes, very much. As you can see, the Forestry Building is progressing well. And now we’ve got this really interesting opportunity with the state government leaning into how do we fund this STEM facility.” (ABC transcript of part of the interview; importantly, the transcript did not include Leon Compton’s question, which I took from the audio recording, which the ABC has now deleted from its website)

Showing contempt for the Government’s election platform and the voters of Clark, UTAS issued a strong statement on the introduction by the Government on 20 June 2024 of the Bill to place restrictions on sale or leasing of the Sandy Bay campus site. This was followed by Chancellor Watkin’s carefully leaked letter in the Mercury on 14 July 2024. 

  • UTAS’ annual report for 2023, which was tabled in Parliament on 20 June 2024 shows the commitment of a further $111 million for capex on the Timberyards project in 2024 – this seems likely to be additional funding for the works on the Forestry Building/Freedom Furniture site.  (I recommend John Lawrence’s analysis of UTAS’ 2023 annual report and recent financial dealings here).

2E. UTAS consultation

A copy of the survey form that was issued to STEM staff last week by UTAS management is provided at Appendix B.

Very conspicuously, the survey does not include hard edged questions that would provide UTAS management with results that might be unpalatable or hard to massage towards a pre-determined outcome. For example it does not include questions such as:

1. Where should STEM be located?

2. How essential are facilities such as glasshouses and animal holdings? Where should they be located relative to teaching and research facilities?

3. What is your preferred mode of travel? Is car/vehicle parking important for you?

4. What issues are posed by collections, sensitive equipment and hazardous materials and how should they be addressed?

With regard to the location of STEM, I note that when Geoffrey Hills and I met with senior UTAS management on 17 June 2024 we were told that staff would not be asked where they preferred to be located, as UTAS management already knew what the answer would be – the clear implication being that the answer would be Sandy Bay and that management did not want this as a matter of record.

UTAS has serious ‘form’ in running consultation processes and ‘curating’ results to suit its purpose. It also has serious form in treating community sentiment – as expressed through the ballot box – with contempt, as it has the 2022 Elector Poll and the 2024 State election (results in Clark, Government and Greens policy on UTAS).

  • I have written on a number of occasions about issues with co-called consultation by UTAS, for example in A Black Day for the Truth. In April 2022, I submitted a Right to Information application to UTAS for the detailed records of the consultation that preceded the UTAS Council’s decision at its meeting of 5 April 2019 to relocate the southern campus to the Hobart CBD. Even following intervention by the Ombudsman’s office, I am still awaiting receipt of those records from UTAS.

Appendices

Appendix A – Madeleine Ogilvie’s STEM vision

Minister Ogilvie has set out a compelling vision for a Sandy Bay STEM. Rather than waiting for $500 million that will never come, her vision fits well with a $110 million refurbishment and upgrade of STEM facilities at Sandy Bay over the next three years, commencing immediately.

Significant investment would then likely follow, with science based industries and research centres establishing operations around a vibrant campus with an assured future.

Appendix B – Survey form sent to STEM staff in July 2024

(NB: Some redactions have been made to protect the identity of the survey recipient).

Appendix C – UTAS STEM Options 2016 and 2019 – with detailed notes

Notes

The following abbreviations are used in the notes: UTAS’ STEM Business Case, which was submitted to Infrastructure Australia in 2016, is abbreviated as STEMBC; the Southern Future Business Case, which was the basis of the UTAS Council’s decision to relocate from Sandy Bay to the Hobart CBD on 5 April 2019, is abbreviated as SFBC; and the Southern Future Business Case: Appendix 8: Southern Infrastructure Gross Floor Area Requirement Analysis, which is located separately from the SFBC on the UTAS website, is abbreviated as SFBCApp8.

1. It is not totally clear why the gross floor areas are greater in the three 2016 options than for the existing STEM facilities in 2019 (40,429 square metres).  This may be due to inclusion of car parking space in the two Sandy Bay options in 2016, while in relation to the CBD option of 2016 the Southern Future Business Case (page 60) states that “the previously proposed STEM building estimated at $400 million included significant floor space allocated to student experience and library space in addition to the needs of the COSE, Pharmacy and Psychology.” As noted there were only 50 car parks in that option.

2. UTAS’ figures have been adjusted for inflation (including escalation and movements in output prices of the construction industries) and a 50% construction cost contingency applied. These adjustments are in line with the methodology I used in A UTAS move to the Hobart CBD would cost at least $1.19 billion more than refurbishment of the Sandy Bay campus, Appendices 2 and 3, with figures updated to the end of March 2024.

3. The main elements of this option are set out in STEMBC, pages 31 and 59.

4. STEMBC, Appendix C (starts at page 102 of the pdf document).

5. STEMBC, page 56.

6. I have previously cited a figure of $815m.  The lower figure here reflects the fact that UTAS’ cost estimate already included a 10% construction cost contingency.

7. STEMBC, page 29.

8. STEMBC, page 27.

9. SFBC, page 61 (Note that where there is apparent conflict between SFBC and SFBCApp8, I have preferred SFBC as the principal document).

10. SFBCApp8, page 9.

11. SFBC, page 61.

12. SFBC, page 61. The $223m and $21m figures are added together.

13. SFBC, pages 50 and 61

14. SFBC, page 41

15. SFBC, page 61. The $223m and $23m figures are added together.

16. SFBCApp8, page 4

17. The SFBCApp8, page 4, shows STEM as having a gross floor area of 40,429 square metres out of a total gross floor area of 93,836 square metres (77,157+16,679). I have assumed that UTAS’ estimate of $135 million for refurbishment (SFBC, page5) would apply equally across UTAS, and then made adjustment for inflation (including escalation and movements in output prices of the construction industries) and applied a 50% construction cost contingency (see Note 2 above). While it might be argued that parts of STEM would require higher expenditure, it could equallly be argued that facilities such as glasshouses would require less.

By : Robert Hogan