Letter to Bill

Dear Mr Shorten,

I write on behalf of a network of concerned citizens located in the Tamar-Esk region of Tasmania. Over the past four years we have become increasingly concerned about the failures of governance in our region. Worryingly, it is apparent priorities relative to the region, and northern Tasmania more generally, defy hard headed explanation. All this finds its expression in the multiple and interconnected ways – and each day it becomes more and more concerning.

Most specifically Local Government raises very serious concerns given that it is the level of governance where priorities and performance outcomes trickling down from both State and Federal governments get to be ‘up close and personal’. It is where the interfaces between Local, State and Federal governance becomes simultaneously blurred in regard to jurisdiction accountability. And, it is where it distressingly becomes increasingly clear in terms of waning administrative competence in evidence. 

All too often planning falters and when it does, typically it is at the expense of rate and tax payers – and so much for transparency and accountability.

At election times when there is lobbying for ‘voter support’, the ‘cash splashes’ distort the political debate. Increasingly, this has put in place ill-informed and imprudent planning process aimed at the political lowest common denominator – and at any development at any cost almost anywhere. 

This was most obvious in the lead up to the last Federal election that ‘trickled down’ to the State election and ultimately to the recent Local Government elections. 

It is time that such flawed political processes were confronted and dealt with.

In Launceston, the UTas relocation to Inveresk proposal emerged from the ‘political melee’ as a supposed ‘vote grabber’ – that campaign that ironically delivered Bass to Labor. This has since proven to be problematic at multiple levels not to mention the lack of outcomes four years on. 

Despite a three way ‘Memorandum of Understanding’ no sods have been turned, no business case has emerged for the UTas move, no money in the bank, nor indeed has UTas presented a development application to Council – outcome, essentially zilch. Also, at regular intervals the multiple follies embedded in the whole proposal reveal themselves.

LAUNCESTON UTAS CAMPUS AND INSTITUTIONAL CREDIBILITY

It has become increasingly evident that UTas in Launceston is losing, and many cases has already lost, credibility as an institution that is offering 21^st Century courses and programs that are ‘fit-for-purpose’. The university itself says much of this itself as it incrementally asset strips the Launceston campus’s offerings and infrastructure.

Moreover, when the university underpins its aspiration ‘to move its campus’ with experimental and ‘more accessible’ programming this further diminishes the institution’s ability to attract students – locally, nationally or internationally – seeking regionally relevant and career shaping programs. 

Clearly, the UTas operation is aiming – medium to long term – to consolidate ‘university offerings’ on its Hobart campus leaving hollowed out, introductory and token programs “in the north”.

The business case for this might well be convincing in one context but so far there is nothing that says anything in regard to lifting the level of academic outcomes in the region nor the needs of regional communities in a changing world – here there is much to be achieved. Neither is there anything being put forward that says very much for the interfacing and interactivity that is now possible via the advances in technology currently being witnessed.  

Currently, and well into the future, Tasmanian students have study choices beyond Tasmania and increasingly they are taking them. It is important to keep this front of mind.

Concerningly, the ‘Launceston fix’, that is being envisaged to change all this, is to move the university’s Newnham campus just a few kilometres towards the city’s CBD at Inveresk. That is, onto a ‘tidal flat’, into a ‘flood zone’ and at great expense. 

Moreover, this puts new, supposedly purpose built infrastructure, well within reach of whatever impacts ‘climate change’ may impose upon the city and significant components of complementary infrastructure – that is if we dare look ahead. 

In addition, the current estimated price tag on this contentious manoeuvre to move the UTas Newnham campus to the next suburb, reportedly, has grown to $400Million – up from$200Million four years ago.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           

The two most concerning considerations in all this is the waning credibility of the UTas Launceston campus’s academic offerings. Similarly, the questionable relevance of the institution’s business modelling in a 21^st Century context is of concern. This will not be lifted or changed by design apparently – rather, the converse. 

Also, the prospect that the projected programming for the northern campus might make a significant contribution to the region becomes less and less likely as time passes. Interestingly, on Saturday Feb 23 there was letter in the Mercury that cast an interesting light on this subject.

GREAT UNIVERSITIES FAR FROM CITY: OVER hundreds of years, the great universities have kept out of city centres. So, why is the University of Tasmania thrusting into central Hobart [and Launceston]? Are Harvard and Yale seeking to thrust into New York City, are Oxford and Cambridge seeking to thrust into the City of London? Perhaps UTAS sees itself now as a very large business enterprise rather than an elite seat of learning, and, as such, feels it would be better situated in the CBD. In the long run, it might not be good for UTAS, or for the City of Hobart. John Solomon, Taroona

FLOOD RISK REPORT TO CITY OF LAUNCESTON COUNCIL

Since ‘The 1929 Flood’ civic planning in Launceston and the Tamar-Esk region has been somewhat mindful of ‘the spectre of the flood’ – the 100 year flood.  Levees have been built, and albeit belatedly, planning protocols have changed to some extent and many argue not nearly enough to meet current and projected threats.

Recently, the City of Launceston’s Council received an updated report on flooding risks in the city – https://www.launceston.tas.gov.au/News-Media/Council-releases-updated-flood-modelling-report – and it makes for salutary reading. 

Again, if this report is considered against the experiences of the unanticipated outcomes of major flood events elsewhere in Australia, its observations are quite concerning. Since Brisbane’s flood 2011, Lismore’s 2016 & 2017, Launceston’s 2016 flood event and most recently Townsville’s flood event, albeit quite slowly, consciousness of the spectre of ‘flood events’, and the future promise of devastation that comes with them, has grown – as their predictability becomes less and less clear and their inevitability grows.

There is a case to be put that whilst projected and speculative inundation levels during flooding events ring alarm bells for various reasons, it is clear that there is absolutely no reason for complacency nor is there any purpose in ignoring the risks. 

Most of the risks mitigation is unwelcomed in the context of threatening the status quo. The city narrowly escaped serious flooding in 2016 – https://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-06-07/thousands-advised-to-evacuate-as-rise-in-northern-tasmania/7487768 – due to the levees holding. 

Major inundation was missed by “a few inches”. The fortunate non-coincidence of the 'peak' and high tide saved the day. Nonetheless, several thousand residents and business people were placed on high alert and moved to high ground.

Prudent planning should be directed at mitigating against predictable infrastructure threats albeit that it might be argued that in a 21^st Century context, it is possible to engineer structures to mitigate against predicable risks. 

Yet on the Inveresk site chosen for the UTas 'relocation' the gap between what is anticipatable and unforeseeable is, arguably, far too close for comfort given the anticipated extraordinary level of expenditure. After that there are a range of planning assumptions that scant attention has been given to. There are threats to infrastructure that in turn have already compounded the serial lack of risk management considerations on the precinct since settlement in the 18th Century.

The current UTas campus site at Newnham does not require such planning considerations – others possibly, but none so dire. Rather, the planning implications of moving the campus are ‘social’ rather than ‘geographic’ – and in ways that are becoming increasingly obvious. 

Also, significant concerns arise relative to affordable student accommodation and community access to recreation and other facilities.

THE NORTHERN SUBURBS QUESTION AND CITY DEAL FUNDING

The unspoken implication – a ‘trickle down effect’– relative to shifting campuses from Newnham towards Launceston’s CBD is very much a ‘social engineering exercise’ where a social cum cultural asset is moved (removed!) from one demographic – a somewhat disadvantaged one with social and cultural issues – and transplant ‘the asset’ within another – Launceston’s CBD – to enhance it demographic at the expense of the original location, raises a range of concerns.

The very notion that the Australian Government's City Deal funding might be used towards this kind of social distortion is unpalatable to say the least. 

Moreover, when the outcome is that it is proposed to firstly displace ‘the asset’ and notionally locate it elsewhere is a problem. Then to seek funding to mitigate against the fiscal, social and cultural damage imposed, is worrisome. The impact upon a precinct and its demographic from which the asset was removed is problematic – and is deserving of very serious consideration.

From the get-go, this aspect of the Launceston City Deal negotiations has been blighted with what are distorted and flawed rationales that are ‘not by necessity’ designed and devised to advantage Launceston Tamar-Esk citizenry. 

Arguably, for many people the converse could well be the case. Clearly, the region is experiencing shifts in the fiscal, social and cultural dynamics at work and thus it is deserving of ‘government assistance’ to assist in adjusting to these changes. 

References:

• https://www.launceston.tas.gov.au/Business-and-Development/Major-Projects/My-Place-My-Future
• https://citydeals.infrastructure.gov.au/launceston/governance-city-planning-and-regulation/deliver-northern-suburbs-revitalisation-plan

DO THE PLANS FOR UTAS IN LAUNCESTON REPRESENT VALUE FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF PUBLIC MONIES?

The answer here is increasingly clear given that UTas has not yet been able to deliver to, share with, 'the community' a coherent business case or even a development application for the planned infrastructure. Clearly, on the evidence, the answer has to be no, this is not an appropriate use of public monies.

In terms of priorities this project does not represent value for money. Committing the kind of expenditure being advocated for the purposes articulated raises multiple concerns. Moreover, to shift a university campus approximately four kilometres on the basis of concepts projected by various UTas apologists would be laughable if  not for the fact that it appears that otherwise intelligent people are ‘out front’ doing the marketing.

Since settlement in the 18th Century, the Tamar Estuary has been treated as little more than an open sewer that you can float boats along. Indeed, we have reached a point where it has become dangerous to come into contact with its water. Indeed, along with so many waterways that have, and are being mismanaged, and over a very long time, ‘The Tamar’ represents the outcomes of serial and surreal acts of environmental abuse and mismanagement.

Putting all that to one side and returning to ‘postsecondary education and training’ in the Tamar-Esk region, the UTas’s proposition can be, and should be, questioned on multiple levels. 

Firstly, UTas has abdicated its ‘university role’ on its Newnham campus, something that has become increasingly obvious as elements of programming are announced by means of some form of ‘drip feed marketing’.

Curiously, the delivery of, and the sharing of, a business case has been resisted. Reportedly, a business case has finally been presented to Infrastructure Australia on January 31 and apparently it is 'confidential' despite the somewhat extraordinary call on the ‘public purse’. 

And, that is not to mention the millions of dollars handed to UTas by Launceston’s ratepayers in the form of high profile land only to be delivered a tardy reward of obfuscation and subterfuge.

Like so many universities struggling for 21^st Century relevance in recent years, UTas has arguably been assiduously working on a transmogrification from a ‘university’ – a purposeful community of scholars and teachers – to a ‘business’ – one with a sole purpose to exist at whatever cost to whoever and by whatever means.

Against this background it becomes quite clear that the region needs a system of 'postsecondary education' and training that is in fact delivered by a community of educators, trainers, researchers and their ‘students’ operating cooperatively, multi-dimensionally and rhizomicly in a 21^st Century context. 

It is also clear that UTas is not intending to offer such a system nor to see itself as being a part of such an operation. As likely as not UTas would regard such an arrangement in Launceston as ‘unwelcome competition’.

So, the question hanging in the air is, does the Tamar-Esk region, its postsecondary students, et al, need to fall victim to the one dimensional ‘corporate greed’ of a ‘university business’.  That is, one apparently, only interested in being able to survive. Indeed, one that is only coincidentally delivering academic outcomes of whatever quality as a by-product in the north of Tasmania?

A WAY FORWARD

Basically, we write to draw your attention to the situation in the Tamar-Esk region in Tasmania where we believe that characterising the situation as a self-perpetuating shemozzle seeking out oblivion, would not be too far off the mark. 

Economically, socially and culturally the view ahead is discouraging to say the least. The obvious lack of cooperation and collaboration between all tiers of government in regard to matters in the region that ‘really matter’ is perplexing – and distressing more often than not. Indeed, the situation set out here is but the visible symptoms of deeper political dysfunctions visible through the lens of Local Govt and with the constituents variously bearing the costs.

At the last Federal election you took part in the 'cash splash for Bass' but as it has turned out that was not the factor that saw Ross Hart unseat Andrew Nikolic in Bass. Nor did it see him cynically appointed to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. 

Now at the end of the parliamentary term most of the 'Federal cash' remains only as a 'parish pump promise'. Likewise, the pragmatics increasingly point to the follies invested in many of the components in the Nikolic/Turbull cum UTas distorted 'world vision' – aided and abetted by a sycophantic Council itself looking for re-election.

In regard to UTas, whilst 'administration' is adhering to its 'Heroic Plan' albeit that its architect has decamped to Adelaide, the 'real people on the ground' – academics and students plus Council constituents – are increasingly disenchanted with the prospect of a 'campus shift'– not to mention its implications. 

Internal surveys consistently show that 80%plus of Launceston/Newnham campus staff and students Then again, 50%plus of students surveyed do not want to be forced to move to an Inveresk campus albeit that the current campus needs development and updating. 

Neither do the city's ratepayers look too favourably upon the prospect of their rate demands growing exponentially and/or service delivery being curtailed. Rather, they are looking for transparency and accountability in governance. 

Moreover, they are increasingly weary of being sidelined in the unfolding 'City Deal costs' that add to maintenance costs medium to longer term without the prospect of commensurate income to cover them. Cargo cult funding, helicoptered in from far away, typically insidiously distorts forward planning options.

Against this background we ask that you advocate ‘stopping the clock’ in order that the restart button can be pressed so that a more productive and cooperative/collaborative outcome can yet be sought. 

Your advocacy for a reality check and a reassessment of the opportunities open to ordinary people, the business community and institutional networks in the region is needed now like at no other time, given the yawning credibility gap that is currently in evidence.