UTAS' broken model

 

It cannot be stressed how crucial it is for interested parties to understand the earnings challenges confronting UTAS.

Parliament is about to resume consideration of a Bill that relates to UTAS’ Sandy Bay land which UTAS wishes to sell to fund its future plans.

It is ludicrous however to assert that Policy A will have Beneficial Effect B without an adequate understanding of UTAS’s current position.

But that’s what’s happening.  

UTAS’ unique status of being able to stack its own Board and not have to report to members as does every other public entity of any significance, has meant it has operated with less constraints than other public bodies.

As a consequence, the public understanding of UTAS’s financial position is woeful. Asking UTAS to explain the mess they’ve created for itself is unlikely to produce full and transparent disclosure.

An attempt by the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) to obtain info from UTAS about its financial position via a short inquiry led to a snow job from UTAS. UTAS took advantage of an under resourced and overworked committee dominated by party members either disinterested, unable or unwilling to look at issues other than through a party political lens and flooded the committee making it difficult for members to distinguish wood from trees.

UTAS gave PAC a slide show back in August 2024 (posted on the PAC website) which contains much useful information even though a little inaccessible at times. It was essentially a lecture from Rufus, basically telling the committee what he wanted them to hear.

UTAS' STEM is a furphy

 

There’s a eerie similarity between UTAS’s current predicament and that of the State government.

In the case of the latter, it has been made blindingly obvious by Saul Eslake and others that the State is on an unsustainable path. The Government’s Strong Plan for 2030 is not simply a smokescreen. It’s a blatant untruth. There is no possible way the State will be able to run cash deficits at any stage in the foreseeable future without radical changes. Debt servicing and paying other past liabilities is taking an increased share of the stagnant pool of State government revenue leaving less to fund current services.

The government knows it. So does the opposition. Although they don’t readily admit it. Both are united by omerta, the code of silence adopted because neither have a clue what to do.

Fortunately brush fires keep flaring which distract mug punters. The TTLine debacle for instance diverted attention and whilst symptomatic of our woes helped everyone avoid discussion of the terminal diagnosis of the body politic. For a time at least.

 Likewise, the Mac Point Stadium debate acts as a distraction. Although important as a sub-issue it lulls people into thinking it’s part of the main game. It’s just a side show. There are much more serious problems which our current head in the sand approach to future sustainability is helping us avoid.

Likewise, in the case of UTAS the elephant in the room is the lack of sustainability of its current model.  Current attention is focussed on funding a $500 million STEM building as if that is the only thing needed to secure UTAS’s future.

But just like the $775 million Mac Point Stadium the cost of STEM hasn’t changed for 8 years. Are we supposed to take these guys seriously? UTAS has been talking about new STEM facilities for at least 12 years.  Buildings at 62-82 Argyle St Hobart first valued by UTAS in 2013, purchased for STEM purposes for $9.8m in 2015 are still unused for their intended purpose.

Minister Ferguson lost his job over his failure to deliver Berth 3 on the Mersey River Devonport in time for the new Spirit ferries. STEM is UTAS’ Berth 3.