26 March 2026

Mr GAFFNEY (Mersey) - Mr President, I appreciate the contributions from members already. I rise to speak on the proposed University of Tasmania (Protection of Land) Bill 2025. I've heard from both sides of the debate: for those in favour of the sale and associated legislation, and for those against. For all perspectives I give thanks. I've had the opportunity to discuss this proposal at length with both UTAS and the proponents of the sale, as well as with many of those who staunchly oppose it.

It's quite frustrating that the government has, once again, proposed legislation which would allow UTAS to sell off a good chunk of its land. This is especially given the clear community opposition, the lack of a strong business case, the prior UTAS land sale fiasco and the effort that the Legislative Council has gone into reviewing and recommending changes to the UTAS land-protection process. Using the guise of protecting land, which was gifted to the UTAS for a public purpose, a substantial portion of land will be auctioned.

I have, in this speech, addressed the sale of the land as the core issue, and that is because it is exactly that. Despite being just a singular section of the bill, it is the crux of the issue. Nobody has an issue with the idea that parliament should approve the sale of particularly important public land. It costs nothing and entrenches our education system against the risks of having a private education system. It is a hedge against bad faith, profit-centric sale of land that could eventuate under private ownership, or even simply against poorly thought-out ideas. This is a fair and rational premise.

It is unfortunate such an idea with widespread support has been co-opted for the government to sneak in exactly the sale of land it is designed to prevent. Suffice to say I would support this bill if the sale of UTAS land above Churchill Ave were not included, as I'm sure most other members possibly would. Again, it would cost nothing and provide an important check to ensure the university's land is put to the best use.

Moving to the sale of land issue proper, it's likely to have important ramifications for the future of Tasmanian higher education. As such, I view it as an important issue not for only those situated in Hobart, but rather statewide. Young people from across the state aspire in a variety of areas. Many of those aspirations involve the stepping stone of higher education. For many Tasmanians, as well as for Australians from other states and international students, UTAS provides that stepping stone. As the only university in Tasmania, UTAS will often be the first university to be considered by students graduating from year 12, as well as by many Tasmanian mature-age students. Consequently, it is important that UTAS makes decisions which are the interests of all current and future Tasmanians.

At the end of the day, the interests of current and future Tasmanian students should remain at the forefront of this decision. In fact, the President of the Tasmanian University Students Association put it succinctly to me in an e-mail, that we in the Legislative Council must vote in favour of the students, staff and community we represent, as well as the long-term interests of Tasmania. For the record, the TUSA Union student president was very much in favour of the legislation.

Ms Webb - He's here in the Chamber.

Mr GAFFNEY - I know he's here. Thank you. I met with him for a coffee.

A quality university offering in Tasmania promotes retention of young Tasmanians, providing a realistic social mobility opportunity for even the poorest of Tasmanians, and promoting positive educational and economic outcomes in the state. Of course, this is not to mention the value to Tasmania which the institution of UTAS offers. For instance, the institution for Marine and Antarctic studies and its high global rankings, which have admittedly slipped in the past few years, are evidence of this.

Whilst these benefits may seem obvious, it is important to ensure that they are the forefront of any conversation regarding the future of UTAS. Simply put, the future of these associated benefits is contingent on the sound management of UTAS.

This is also what informs my speaking on the sale of land located in Hobart. As member for Mersey, the good governance of UTAS will have positive ramifications for the state as a whole, and for young people and all aspiring students across Tasmania.

Most Hobart residents, and indeed residents with interest across the state, were opposed to this move in 2022. I cannot see a reason why they would have changed opinion.

Regarding the amended bill, specifically, I'm concerned with the sale of any of the Sandy Bay campus which, if passed, this legislation will allow. The Tasmanian government somewhat reversed its position on this. A position, mind you, that it touted in the second to last election.

I'm particularly concerned with what I view as holes in the business case, the inconsistency of the proposal with the aims of UTAS as an institution, opposition to the sale by public, and the variety of more sustainable and beneficial options which appear available to UTAS. We all know that this is a hallmark of the current government.

I do, however, recognise the unfortunate position which UTAS finds itself in, within the broader context of modern higher-educational offerings. It is my view that there is a larger issue at play here with the commerciality, the viability and final decision-making at all universities in Australia. Moreover, UTAS is in the circular position where it must find funding to make a case for the sale but make a case for the sale to find funding.

However, even with the sympathy for the position of UTAS, I cannot support a bill that would allow the sale of this section of the campus. While I can appreciate the goal of the sale, I'm not convinced that selling or excising this land is the best thing to do. Instead, I urge Tasmania, the government and UTAS to pursue more suitable, less damaging avenues.
I would like to briefly bring attention to the concerns I have with the sale of parts of the UTAS Sandy Bay campus. My key concern is with the business case itself. The sale does not appear to me to be an effective use of land, nor is it a suitable end for land gifted to UTAS, which already houses purpose-built university facilities, as well as having environmental value. Selling this land with the mind to rebuilding the same facilities for hundreds of millions of dollars, to me, does not make sense. The sale relies on funding from the Tasmanian and federal governments to the tunes of hundreds of millions, neither of which has been guaranteed. While I appreciate that UTAS would benefit from such legislation in its case to seek such funding again, it is unrealistic to expect legislative intervention before you have even got the money together?

Look at the proposed Sandy Bay UTAS STEM design. The entire estimate in 2024 was $500 million to rebuild existing facilities in different areas. To my mind, this is not a positive or rational way forward. The most important single STEM structure above Churchill Avenue is the Life Sciences Building, which houses biological sciences and agricultural science. This building is fully functional, and several MLCs have been shown through it.

UTAS plans to relocate those two disciplines to below Churchill Avenue, but they will not get a new building. Instead, they'll be moved into the existing chemistry building, which is of a similar age to their present building. It will cost an estimated $150 million to adapt the chemistry building for its new occupants. UTAS plans to vacate and possibly demolish the perfectly functional life sciences building above Churchill to move its occupants into a building of similar age below Churchill at great cost.

This does not pass the pub test. I've been informed that the plan to move those STEM sections into the chemistry building was developed without adequate consultation with academic staff. Furthermore, fully functional glasshouses, presently above Churchill Avenue, would have to be replaced below at a cost of at least $40 million. It is believed by some that that aspect is not included in the present plan. However, on a more recent tour we were assured that functional glasshouses would be part of the new facility, albeit 2000 metres from the current ones.

Although there is a business case for keeping STEM in Sandy Bay, the business case for the sale and rezoning of the upper campus, as proposed in the amendment to the bill, still appears inadequate. If it were to fund a solid path forward to the betterment of UTAS educational outcomes, the case of the sale might be clear. There is a clear and strong argument put forward by the proponents of the sale that UTAS needs better STEM facilities and better university facilities - this is undeniably true. However, it does not need to come hand-in-hand with financial impost.

Do improved STEM facilities have to come at the massive and inefficient cost of unnecessarily moving and refitting buildings? Why can they not simply improve the buildings they have, leaving money spare for better courses, hiring more educational staff, and ensuring optimal operational inputs beyond simply building new buildings for the sake of it? It was put to us in the briefings that for $200 million at $20 million a year over 10 years, they could fully update the buildings that they already have.

Of course, this is all unknown in the current state of information regarding the sale. It's been said that this is just another instance of the Legislative Council being a blindfolded planning authority. UTAS and the government cannot come up with a proper business case and would rather place the burden of making the decision on the independent-held Legislative Council. Once again, just like in the Macquarie Point Stadium issue, we are faced with a no-win situation. Either we allow an irresponsible and poorly thought-out idea in the vague hope that it betters UTAS outcomes, or we vote it down and we become labelled 'wreckers of progress.' UTAS needs better STEM facilities, but it does not need endless rebuilds of all its facilities funded by the sale of publicly gifted land. These should not come hand-in-hand.

Unfortunately, the business case as it currently stands relies upon assumptions of government funding, assumptions that the land will be used for productive purposes or even bought and does not inspire hope for substantial improvements to UTAS offerings. Rather, it will be used to fund rebuilds and the movement of existing settled STEM offerings. Mind you, the previously mentioned assumptions of government funding come at a time when both the federal and state governments are singly focused on cutting costs and reducing outflows, excluding, of course, the Macquarie Point stadium. It was put to us in one of the briefings as well that the $100 million and $400 million split is a 20:80 ratio, where now state and federal governments or federal governments are looking at a more 50:50 ratio, which is more commonplace. Mind you, Mr President, moreover, there is not even any guarantee that the land will be used after it is sold or even sold in the first place.

Questions about the suitability of the land remain and one must query whether it will be of any use at all. When I spoke to UTAS, Mr President, they made it quite clear they did not care what happened to that land after it was out of their hands, as I put in my response to the e-mail of a concerned Tasmanian:

Given the nature of the land being sold and the unwillingness of the university to involve itself in the development of the land, another unknown is whether the land will even be used for any projects with value to Tasmania. One must question whether it will just end up unused or another set of extraordinarily priced mansions in Sandy Bay.

I would like to draw attention to the comments made by Emeritus Professor Michael Bennett in the Mercury. Particularly, he brings attention to the irrationality and misconceived nature of migrating from the Sandy Bay campus to the CBD. Consequently, Mr President, this leads one to the question which has been forwarded to me by numerous individuals, why UTAS are not simply sell off some of its prime real estate in the CBD to fund necessary retrofitting, builds and upgrades to the Sandy Bay campus, including the land above. It seems to me a much better and more fitting use of UT resources.

I would like to also draw attention, to the submission made by Professor Campbell Middleton, an engineering professor by the University of Cambridge and UTAS's alumnus to the Mercury, which was not published.

This submission sums up many more of the concerns I have with this proposal and more.

He says:

In a highly competitive world, the current campus is attractive to students and staff from around the world who are seeking a quality of life and environment that very few, if any, other universities can offer. Having read the 92-page master plan, I was struck by the lack of any substantive evidence to support the move and particularly the lack of any financial cost benefit analysis. There's also no data from the numbers of staff, students, and alumni, along with the wider Tasmanian community who have indicated their support for and against this proposal.

What was particularly striking was that nearly every aspiration mentioned in the brochure would be far better achieved by remaining on the current Sandy Bay campus, rather than moving into the city.

Back in the 1960s, a previous generation of Tasmanians made the enlightened decision to move the University to the current Sandy Bay location, having recognised the many disadvantages of being dispersed in buildings across constrained inner-city sites.

Once we have sold this beautiful site, it will be lost forever. The University of Tasmania will lose much of its unique identity and Tasmania will have downgraded one of its premier assets.

It was also pointed out to us in the briefings, Mr President, that a lot of people don't want new shiny buildings. A perfect example of that is the University of Chicago, where it's an old world, old feel university and still one of the most popular in Chicago, even though they have new builds quite close. It is still one of the most popular because of that heritage and tradition and the feel of the university campus.

I think that we shouldn't forsake that. We heard about Cambridge and Oxford and some of the quirks of those buildings. Open plan big new shiny bubbles are only open plan big new shiny bubbles for 20 years and then design moves on.

There is something about the university campus here we must be careful that we don't lose, and we will lose it if we sell the land above Churchill.

Professor Middleton and Emeritus Professor Bennett represent a class of constituents who have a vested interest in the success of UTAS. These are not people simply opposed to change or progress, but rather people who support the very goals of the organisation which this proposal purports to support.

Many Tasmanians think this way and to have expert alumni and current professors in relevant fields speak out against the move speaks volumes to me.

Regarding the goals of UTAS, Mr President, I'm concerned that the sale of land as proposed in the amended bill is not consistent with the objects of UTAS as an educational institution. While I recognise the commercial reality which UTAS faces, is also an educational institution and receives taxation benefits, various gifts and governmental leg ups for that reason.

As such, it is important for UTAS to act within its remit as an educational institution.

Looking first to the history of the land in question: It was publicly gifted by Tasmania to UTAS for the purpose of education. This land was not simply given to UTAS as an organisation to do with it as it will, but with the purpose of directly supporting UTAS to provide the public good of education. The sale of this land is inconsistent with the purpose for which it was given to UTAS.

Moreover, the functions of the university as defined in the University of Tasmania Act 1992 are centrally focused on the advancement of knowledge, learning and research. They are not commercial and a decision to squander existing university resources does not compute with the core objectives of UTAS.

It was also pointed out to us in the briefing that in the land above Churchill Ave there are other buildings that have been built because of their association with the other buildings and courses of learning around them. I have some concerns that if we sell off up there and they go, that it's not going to be attractive for other types of investment and other opportunities that may come in the future, just because we want to move the deck chairs around, say look what we're doing, we've got this new beaut, shiny building. I'd rather that money be spent on 'new beaut', or very experienced, researchers, professors, offering different courses, those sorts of things. We have put too much money in this state into the infrastructure and not to the substance which holds that infrastructure together. I think it's really important. The government will not be funding those things that we think in Tasmania are important - that is what happens inside the building, not what the building looks like. Each of these issues and others leads me to question the efficacy of the sale of the land and whether it's the best for Tasmania.

While I am sympathetic to the position of UTAS - it doesn't sound like I am, but we do want STEM to flourish in this matter. I can understand what the sale of land is attempting to do - I simply do not think it is in the best interest of the state to sell off swathes of Sandy Bay campus land as gifted by Tasmanians. It is an unnecessary sale and it's frustrating that a no-win decision to make up for poor planning is once again being foisted on the Legislative Council. We are not a planning authority. We are making decisions on the best of our knowledge that we do not even have a sound public case. One can only wonder what is going on behind the scenes.

It's also interesting, some of us in this room can remember when the population of Tasmania was 440,000 people and now it's 570,000. If we think 30 years from now the benefits of this state and what we have to offer, that will grow. That will grow and what we're doing at the moment, we're selling off a part of the land that we have set aside for higher education, not just for now, but for 20, 30, 40, 50 years. I would hate to be in the position where my great-nephews or great-great- nephews and nieces, say 'I wish we had more space. We're all chucked up here in a corner because they sold land' back when I was in Council.

For those reasons, I will not be supporting the amendment to the bill. Of course, if the section regarding the sale of the land was removed, I would be in support of it. At this stage I'm not going to be supporting Clause 7.