Mr BAYLEY (Clark) – Honourable Speaker, I thank the Leader of the Opposition for bringing this motion forward. It is good to have an opportunity to discuss these issues ahead of future debates, including public debates and debates in this House. The Tasmanian Greens have significant concerns about the state of the university which go above and beyond the issue of the move. Yes, we are concerned about the move and have a position on it. We also have concerns around the university’s accessibility for students, the decisions and accountability of the university itself and, of course, the concerns of the community.
We have a clear position statement: we believe that the University of Tasmania, as Tasmania’s only university, must be a leader in tertiary education, community standing and transparent decision‑making. The University of Tasmania Act 1992 needs to be reviewed and amended to improve governance, accountability, decision‑making and academic outcomes. There are deliberations in the other place looking into that.
The state government should use opportunities to ensure that UTAS halts the relocation to the CBD and confirms an ongoing commitment to the maintenance of the Sandy Bay campus for educational purposes. This commitment must respect the built heritage, public open space and natural environment of the site. The concerns of academic staff, students and the broader community must be genuinely considered and addressed by the University Council. All UTAS decisions must be based on credible public engagement and accountable decision‑making processes, and any statutory planning approvals provide for third-party rights of appeal.
That is our position on the university. It is a clear position, founded on the fact that the university is our only tertiary education facility. It needs to succeed; it needs to be focused on academic outcomes and academic excellence.
There are also principles about the land and the site. This is public land that was gifted to the university in 1944, 1951, ultimately. There are significant amounts of taxpayer’s money that shift across to the university every single year and the University of Tasmania Act is a statute that arises from this place. There are significant issues which drive a lot of the public concerns about the institution – not just the move but the performance of the institution, full stop.
We support the order contained in this motion to increase transparency, and I will talk a little bit more about the motion itself. We certainly support more transparency. We would welcome the opportunity for more information to be put on the table, but we do not support the move as it stands at the moment. We want the Sandy Bay site retained for educational purposes. That does not mean we give blanket support to the Liberals’ legislation as it is drafted at the moment. We do not automatically think that is the answer. I am sure all members have received the same correspondence I have had from the university that flags some initial legal advice around its concerns about the effect of this legislation. I will read it into Hansard for the benefit of those reading this in the future. This is a letter from Pro Vice‑Chancellor Nicholas Farrelly to, I think, all members:
Our initial legal advice is this bill looks to be inconsistent with the fundamental principles of land ownership in Tasmania, amounting to a reverse compulsory acquisition that effectively prohibits the sale in order to force land use which the University Council would otherwise have decided is not in the best interest of the university, deprives the university of the value of the land, imposes an ongoing cost burden on the university through ongoing holding and upkeeping costs of the land and buildings which it is prohibited from disposing, and inhibits the council’s long-term planning for the university to achieve the objective set out under the act.
I have not seen that legal advice and we have not sought our own legal advice. I am unsure whether the government has legal advice about the legalities and implications of this legislation regarding the responsibilities of University Council members and other issues. The Greens certainly do not want to be involved in anything that cuts across any legal responsibilities or any other issues about other of statutes or the responsibilities of the university. We broadly support the intent of the legislation, but we have significant concerns that we will need to see addressed.
From the Greens’ perspective, the UTAS move into the city looks completely untenable at the moment for a range of different reasons. It looks like the Labor Party has jumped on a horse that has already bolted.
Mr Winter – Yes, because it is already there, it is already in the city.
Mr BAYLEY – We will get to that, Mr Winter. I will anchor back to 74 per cent of Hobart residents who voted no to this in the elector poll. This is not every council in the state, it was not a plebiscite of every single person in the state, but both the Sandy Bay site and the city are in the Hobart municipality. By any measure, 74 per cent is an unequivocal result, an unequivocal condemnation of this as an approach. We do not understand the motives, and people will cast pejoratives as to why a lot of people voted that way. However, the reality is that 74 per cent of people did not support this and that needs to earn an element of respect from this House and the University of Tasmania.
There are also the financial issues. Mr Winter raised the finances. I will read into Hansard some commentary from Mr John Lawrence. He is a well‑respected retired economist and accountant. On 5 July he wrote:
The primary focus should be on arresting the decline in earnings from core operations. Moving to Hobart will only defer and exacerbate the problem. Building STEM facilities with a sale‑and‑leaseback arrangement will not fix negative earnings from the core activities of teaching and research. It will make it worse, as any investor lessor will want a rate of return well in excess of the rate at which UTAS could borrow, if only Treasurer Ferguson will approve an increase in UTAS’s borrowing limit. UTAS knows this but its sheer bloody‑mindedness has led it to deliberately pursue the reckless course of taking UTAS to the brink of insolvency by trying to force the hand of parliament and the government to allow it to sell parts of Sandy Bay so that it continues with its vanity project whilst ignoring the wishes of most other stakeholders.
That is the view of an eminent economist and accountant who has been tracking this and reading annual reports closely. He believes the financial landscape that sits underneath the university has fundamentally changed, and we know that is the case. This decision was made many years ago, prior to any level of consultation, at a time when the university landscape was very different. It is anchored in a business model that is reliant on international students, and international students, theoretically, want a city‑based campus. However, the era of Australian universities, including the University of Tasmania, relying on international students has changed.
Whether that be through COVID, the trade wars with China, the federal caps that the federal government is currently considering on international students to universities, the landscape has changed and by any measure, whether it be community support, financial realisation or the future prospects, this move is now fundamentally untenable. Yes, students are getting courted by other universities, of course they are, it is a business, now a corporate business. When Keating and the federal government started to change the structure around the university model, when it started to charge students HECs and withdraw public support for education. It forced them into a business model and yes, they are competitive. This comes back to one of the challenges with UTAS. UTAS has effectively moved its entire course offerings online, barely offers face to face engagement with students, certainly not in a lecture context.
Mr Winter – Why do you think that is?
Mr BAYLEY – That is because it is cheaper to do. It is cheaper. They can recycle the same lecture that’s been recorded by a lecturer. It is not necessarily what kids want to do. I can speak from my own experience, my daughter. My daughter went through the last couple of years of her school in the COVID period. My daughter could think of nothing worse than doing an entire university degree in her bedroom. She chose to go to Sydney University. She had an early offer from UTAS and she ultimately got an offer from University of Sydney. She chose to go to University in Sydney because she wanted to interact with human beings face to face. That is a reality. That is one challenge.
If UTAS wants to start to become more attractive to students and academics, if it wants to up the level of academic offering that it is putting out there, it really needs to have a look again at the decision to rationalise learning, put most of it online and bring into place on face-to-face learning again. That, in my view and of lot of the young people that I talk to, is one of the key reasons that people are looking interstate or overseas for their support. Indeed, if you wanted to do a degree –
Mr Winter – Why do you think it is cheaper to teach online?
Mr BAYLEY – If you were happy to do an online degree, many people would potentially be better off looking at universities overseas.
The Leader of the Opposition flagged that UTAS has been moving for 15 years. Yes, some elements of it have been. Menzies, the Conservatorium and Hedberg, the art school, IMAS and Taroona, all of these are largely on uncontroversial moves. They are either already in the city and have been for a long time, or they were uncontroversial. Putting Menzies near the hospital makes logical sense. We did not see pushback on that. Then it comes to the Philip Smith Centre, introducing a new outdoor education faculty or course offering running out of the Philip Smith Centre on the domain makes perfect sense. We welcome that and celebrate it.
It is well beyond time that Tasmania had a Bachelor of Education with a focus on outdoor education. It is one of those niche areas that we should be offering here in this state. Most of that move has largely been uncontroversial and is replicating facilities that were already in the city. The big challenge came with a whole scale move into the city, paid for by a rationalisation of the University of Campus site at Sandy Bay, paid for by selling off that with the kind of developments that were put on the table represented a complete overreach for a whole range of people
Mr Winter – What sort of developments are you talking about? Housing?
Mr BAYLEY – Housing and a whole range of things. Look onto your motion.
The SPEAKER – I do ask that the interjections cease, you can keep it for the summing up.
Mr BAYLEY – Onto housing, Mr Winter, look at the day that the Labor Party supports the Greens in its efforts to rein in short stay accommodation to manage rentals, excessive rents to any no cause evictions to deliver minimum standards is the day we are happy to be lectured by you about housing, Mr Winter.
Just because there is a site – 100 hectares, as you say, I am not sure that it is 100 hectares because a whole lot of that is currently bush. I do not know whether you are proposing to clear all that bush and just have a wall-to-wall suburb up towards Mount Nelson, but the day you support those initiatives that we bring into this House is the day I am happy to be lectured by you.
It is not vacant land. Your motion reads as if this is vacant land – as if it is just some vacant block with birds nesting in it and so forth. It is not; it is a university campus. It is zoned for education. It has a bushland reserve. This is not your average piece of vacant land. If you were going mount an argument that this is vacant land, we should just as well mount an argument that we can build housing on Parliament House lawns or St Davids Park. It is a ridiculous argument that this is vacant land.
It is not vacant land. This is university land used for educational purposes. It has teaching on it. It has people living on it already in student housing, and it has community interest that is anchored there. There is no guarantee whatsoever that any planning authority – the Tasmanian Planning Commission – would agree to it being rezoned. There are no guarantees whatsoever. To claim that it is vacant land and that you can suddenly start turning a sod and building houses there is utterly ridiculous.
There may well be a future vision for the site. There may well be a landing point for this site that does include student housing. The Greens can totally see a vision where there is a whole lot of student housing built around that campus. Then, do you know what? No one will be able to argue that there is not a community of interest that wants a central hub on the university.
Mr Winter – You are happy if it is students living in the housing, so why are you not happy with other housing?
Mr BAYLEY – There are students living there already, Mr Winter.
Mr Winter – Why is it okay if the students live there?
The DEPUTY SPEAKER – Order. I do ask that the member is allowed to make his contribution without interjections.
Mr BAYLEY – When it comes to STEM, everyone knows there is tripartisan support. I sure there is support across this Chamber for a new STEM facility but, again, it is untenable in the city.
It is very clear that the university should and can anchor back to the Sandy Bay campus, sell its surplus facilities and land here in the city and go, cap in hand, together with tripartisan support, to the federal government and others looking for funding for a STEM facility at Sandy Bay. That is clearly a vision and part of the solution in this debate. It is about anchoring back to Sandy Bay and making sure that the facilities are there.
The reality is some of the science facilities are there already – the science labs, the geology stores and so forth. They cannot be moved anywhere. They are so big and extensive.
Mr Winter – What is your proposal for the forestry building? What a great relationship.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER – Order, I can hardly hear the member speaking. I ask members on both sides to allow the member to make his contribution.
Mr Winter – Furious agreement. It is like the same policy.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER – All interjections will stop. Thank you.
Mr BAYLEY – That is where the solution lies, with STEM in Sandy Bay. If this House and the university made a commitment back to Sandy Bay – gave a commitment to retaining Sandy Bay’s site and to building STEM in Sandy Bay – a lot of the heat would disappear out of this debate. There would be a lot of support for the university and its future anchored back to that site, and there would be a good prospect of going to the federal government and others to get the money and build the facility there.
I know we all have different positions on these different things and maybe you have had a road to Damascus moment, Mr Winter, but you have commented about this in the past. Correct me if I am wrong, but this is a comment from you from some time back:
It’s not UTAS’s role to inflate CBD numbers. It’s not UTAS’s role to fix the housing crisis. It’s not UTAS’s role to create construction jobs.
Mr Winter – No, that is not me. That is incorrect.
Mr BAYLEY – Are you happy to record that?
The DEPUTY SPEAKER – Order.
Mr WINTER – Point of order, that is not me. That is not a comment from me. You have misinterpreted a social – that is not what I have ever said.
Mr BAYLEY – It has your name on it, Mr Winter.
Mr Winter – It is incorrect.
Mr BAYLEY – Was it fabricated by a third party?
Mr Winter – No. I have never said that.
Mr BAYLEY – Fabricated?
Mr Winter – Yes.
Mr BAYLEY – By a third party, or a staff member?
Mr Winter – A staff member? What are you talking about?
Mr BAYLEY – So, someone –
The DEPUTY SPEAKER – All comments through the chair, please.
Mr Winter – No, it is not me.
Mr BAYLEY – I will continue to read this in, and Mr Winter, you are welcome to correct it.
UTAS’s role is to provide world‑class student education outcomes and research facilities for their academics and industry partners. Cross‑disciplinary STEM that requires shared resources – central science laboratories, super computing power, libraries, controlled environments, teaching resources and tools, specimen depositories – fragmented over the city is totally unviable.
Shrink Sandy Bay shore, sell the condemned buildings above Churchill Avenue and put housing on its shore, but keep the campus and take the opportunity to build it out to a STEM hub that is the envy of the nation. The solution is moving students to the classroom, not the other way around. Fix public transport. Agreed. It is three kilometres from the CBD.
Mr Winter – I have never said any of that. I would ask you to stop because I have not said this at any point.
Mr BAYLEY – Okay, I am happy to withdraw that. I will listen to your summing up.
I will not talk any further. We absolutely support paragraph (5) of this motion. We would like to see paragraph (4) of this motion; we would like to see additional transparency. I would like to move an amendment that strikes out clauses 1, 2 and 3. I move:
That the motion be amended by omitting clauses 1, 2 and 3.
The SPEAKER – I call Mr Bayley on the amendment.
Mr BAYLEY – On the amendment, I will be really quick because I do not need to say any more. This basically removes the preamble and a whole range of statements that we contest or do not believe are necessarily helpful in the context of this debate. It retains the substantive element of this motion, which is ordering the government to release a range of documentation. We certainly support that.
We have concerns about the legislation. We would be fascinated to see if there is any legal advice. We are looking forward to continuing conversations with the university about its advice and thoughts. We are all for transparency, but, as it stands, we would like to amend the motion to take out the hyperbole and the preamble and just anchor back to paragraph (4).
Ms OGILVIE – Point of order. Just so I understand, are we on the amendment or –
The SPEAKER – Yes, we are on the amendment. We are definitely debating the amendment.
