Ms O’CONNOR (Hobart) – Mr President, I have just a brief contribution. I thank the member for Murchison for bringing forward debate on this report.
UTAS, as an institution, has long held a very special place in the hearts of Tasmanians as our only university. It historically has transformed lives and contributed so much to our community, society, culture, economy and national reputation.
We just heard from the member for Murchison that UTAS is in significant financial difficulty, and the member laid out a number of reasons for UTAS being in the situation that it is in. As the parent of two – coming up on three now – young people extremely well served by UTAS, heading into careers of their choices, I want to express my gratitude to UTAS for its commitment to young people and furthering their education. That said, UTAS itself has some problems that are arguably of its own making.
It is not necessarily the responsibility or fault of the current management of UTAS; some of these problems go back a long way. The enthusiasm for the city move unfortunately came before any kind of meaningful conversation with the people who will be most impacted – a bit like the stadium really – and we have seen now an erosion of UTAS’s standing in the community. That should alarm us all.
We have now seen the information that came through from the University of Tasmania itself on 15 May that a change proposal has been circulated to staff. This brings into question the future of the Schools of Humanities, Social Sciences, and Creative Arts and Media. UTAS is proposing to merge humanities and social sciences into one. It is moving social work into the School of Paramedicine – interesting combination there.
It is proposing to separate the schools of creative arts into creative and performing arts and the Conservatorium of Music.
UTAS has informed staff that it is looking at targeted redundancies in the areas where they have seen student enrolments decline, and that is in policing, tourism, global cultures and languages, and in philosophy and gender studies. As I understand it, for example, the proposal is that UTAS would no longer provide language studies in Indonesian or German and in philosophy. I felt really sad to hear UTAS will not be offering that full philosophy degree, just in the same way it will not be having the focus on humanities that it has in the past. Asian philosophy studies is lined up for cuts; at the moment the department has no philosophy professor and is unlikely to have one. We are seeing a significant loss of staff and units.
This is happening nationally to some extent, where there has been an official decision made, if you like, that the humanities should be deprioritised and the focus should be on STEM. It is hard not to be cynical about that because conservative governments, particularly, do not like the humanities. A humanities degree is all about critical thinking and we obviously cannot have too much of that in our society. We are seeing the impacts of cuts at UTAS impacting primarily on the humanities. UTAS is also talking about voluntary redundancies in art, theatre, history, politics and international relations.
I recognise that a number of the challenges that UTAS is facing have been created by external events: changes to immigration policy, as the honourable member for Murchison said, and the arrival of a devastating pandemic definitely had an effect on UTAS’s viability.
There has been another story here too, which I am not sure is particularly well understood. There was a time when UTAS would go into community settings, rural and regional areas, urban fringe areas, and really promote all their offerings: ‘Here we have a Bachelor of Arts in Social Work; are you interested in social work? We have one of the best medical schools in the country on the north-west coast.’ We know that, and that is a popular and well-attended school, but UTAS has not been going out, for example, and saying, ‘Do you want a history major? Are you interested in philosophy?’ UTAS itself has stopped marketing those humanities-related courses and degrees. That is unarguable.
I do not think it is a badge of honour for UTAS to be the fourth-highest offerer of online degrees of any university in the country. Why would a young person in Hobart, for example, choose to study uni online unless there was a personal –
Ms Palmer – Yes, a disability or anxiety –
Ms O’CONNOR – No. I understand that. Hang on a minute. Just wait a second. Unless there was a particular personal challenge or issue, remembering that online courses are a relatively modern phenomenon, but young people today in my youngest child’s cohort, early 20s, they see an online offering and they want to go to Melbourne. Maybe they always wanted to go to Melbourne; but there is something a bit stale about what is being offered.
I interjected before on the honourable member’s contribution about an old video that is part of the tutoring curriculum of the wonderful Professor Tim McCormack, who is talking about international law, international human rights and international criminal law. When I saw that video a couple of years ago, it had been floating around for three or four years. I have not checked lately, but I do not buy that it is just as expensive to operate online degrees as it is to pay for lecturers and tutors and the spaces that are required for these teachings.
It is much cheaper to offer online courses. Of course, you still have to do all the marking and there is a level of engagement that is required, but it is much cheaper.
The current state of UTAS should concern us all and I look forward to reading the rest of that report. I am worried about the School of Humanities, apparently the business school enrolments have crashed because students do not want to go to tutorials or lectures in the new facility.
The recommendation in the report that UTAS’s finances be subject to more parliamentary scrutiny is something that must be adopted, but I do not think it should just be of UTAS’s finances. This is our university. It is a public institution. It would be good to understand with more clarity what UTAS’s plan for the future is because, like many other universities around the country and the world, what is happening to UTAS is that it is being corporatised. So, if an offering does not make money or if it costs, and that’s been the case historically for any number of courses, it is cut.
If you want an example of how harsh and petty and counterproductive this can be, the Tasmanian Tibetan Exchange Program has been axed. Now, that is sad. That is something unique that we offered here that gave young people from Tibet an opportunity to come here, study and make connections, and likewise for Tasmanian students. Something has happened to UTAS that is not good. It has become all about the money. It has become highly corporatised. There is a sense that it is disconnected from the community, which has always been proud of UTAS, and it is not just about the money.
I know the world changes. The way UTAS used to operate was much more collective. Staff had much more of a role and a say in decision-making and now, as I understand it, and that is talking to any number of people over the journey when we are looking at the UTAS land sale bill, staff are given lip service. It is a very top-down management structure. There is a lot of dissatisfaction there at UTAS, and a university that Peter Rathjen, the former vice-chancellor, used to proudly say was drawing the best from all over the world, is now losing some of the best to the rest of the world.
It is not just about the money; it is about what is happening inside UTAS. It is something we need to address and take seriously. I hope the recommendation to have it come before a committee more regularly is adopted.
