*Pic: Inveresk nearby … Looking towards Aurora Stadium, Monday June 6 at the height of flooding …
The University of Tasmania’s northern campus relocation is supported by all levels of government and both major political parties. But why is everyone so happy for taxpayers to give UTAS more than $300 million to abandon two existing campuses worth hundreds of millions of dollars?
UTAS says it is currently losing $6 million per year at the Cradle Coast campus (Burnie), and $22 million per year at Newnham (Launceston). UTAS also revealed in its relocation proposal that it has a $70 million maintenance backlog at the Newnham campus.
So the university is proposing to relocate the campuses, based on its own estimate that the relocations will result in a major improvement in university finances, and 12,000 additional students. This estimate is almost triple the number of tertiary students currently studying in Launceston and Burnie.
The basis of UTAS’ estimate is not revealed, and it’s not clear why the huge improvement in student numbers and finances is so closely tied to the location of the campus. It is also not clear why the improvements cannot be achieved by just expanding or upgrading the existing campuses.
UTAS is certainly keen to get out of Newnham. The relocation proposal specifically claims the Newnham campus itself is the reason for declining enrolments, because it is “unattractive” and “difficult to access”. This is despite UTAS spending tens of millions of dollars upgrading the site over the past 25 years, including a Northern Campuses Revitalisation Project that finished just this year. UTAS also claims that renovating the existing buildings at Newnham would be 150 per cent more expensive than constructing new buildings.
Burnie’s existing Cradle Coast campus was built by UTAS between 1995 and 2008. It is one of the most up-to-date education facilities in Tasmania, with UTAS itself describing the Burnie campus as a modern, purpose-built teaching and learning facility.
But the relocation proposal says the “current campus footprint” is at capacity three days a week, due to “the nature of the offerings in the region”.
What that actually means is anyone’s guess (I’m guessing they mean car parking), but there is significant empty space behind the existing campus buildings. The relocation proposal does not address or even mention this space. And while the proposal includes a map of the Launceston relocation, there is none for the Burnie relocation.
UTAS also cites the revitalisation of Burnie and Launceston CBDs as a key reason for the relocations, which isn’t something that should really concern a tertiary education provider. The construction of new campuses will obviously benefit the Launceston and Burnie CBDs, hence the support of the local councils. But what will happen to the suburbs around the abandoned campuses? Will it be a case of robbing suburban Peter to pay CBD Paul? And will the abandoned campus buildings become white elephants, especially at Newnham?
A new hospital? Hobart light rail? A pay rise for paramedics? Our state and federal governments tell us they can’t afford these things.
Instead, they are blowing more than $300 million shuffling perfectly adequate university campuses from one site to another. With no real justification, other than the flow-on benefit of unnecessary construction work. All based on heroic, secretive estimates from the institution that will receive the money.
The UTAS case for relocation “Transforming Lives. Transforming Cities.” (lol) is available here: http://www.utas.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0018/809100/Northern-Proposal_A4_Booklet-March_Web.pdf
*Ben Lohberger has worked in media and politics in Tasmania for the past 15 years, most recently for the Huon Valley Council, and before that Aurora Energy. He lives in the Huon Valley, and is a longtime contributor to TasmanianTimes. Comments on this article are welcome, but any personal comments about the author must be directed to him personally at his Twitter account @benglenhuon
