Question & Answer – University of Tasmania – STEM Business Case

March 18, 2026

Ms WEBB question to LEADER for the GOVERNMENT in the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL, Ms RATTRAY

Wednesday, 18 March 2026

Noting the November 2025 responses provided by the government regarding the UTAS STEM business case have yet to resolve a range of queries surrounding inconsistencies in decision-making processes, I have further questions. Can the government:

(1) Confirm the Tasmanian Government does not intend to make a commitment of $100 million towards the UTAS STEM business case?

(2) Clarify if the government has no intention of making a commitment of $100 million to the UTAS STEM business case. If the government has no intention of making a commitment of $100 million to the UTAS STEM business case, why the government sent the Commonwealth business case in March 2025 predicated on receipt of $100 million from the state for the land above Churchill Avenue, using a formulation of words that the government’s Infrastructure Tasmania’s own consultant, Paxon Group, helped formulate?

(3) Why, in documentation provided to Infrastructure Australia by the Premier as late as 16 October 2024, did the Tasmanian government indicate the proposed STEM business case would be a refresh of the 2016 Hobart CBD STEM business case when UTAS’s plans had already switched focus to the development of STEM facilities at Sandy Bay campus below Churchill Avenue.

(4) The government’s answer to my previous question about the $100 million value ascribed to land above Churchill Avenue in the UTAS business case has not been validated in any way. It is a preliminary figure that appears in the business case. However, there’s no substantiation in the document or its appendices, and all evidence indicates otherwise. What validation did the government seek of the figure, especially given the UTAS STEM business case states that the money would come from the state government?

(5) The November answer to my question about the cost of replicating STEM facilities above Churchill Avenue to below Churchill Avenue totally misses the point. I will ask the question again, along with the request that, should the government be unable to provide a direct answer, please state that quite clearly, without misconstruing the question. How much would it cost to replicate the STEM facilities currently above Churchill Avenue to below Churchill Avenue?

(6) Is it correct that the cost of replicating the STEM facilities currently above Churchill Avenue to a location below Churchill Avenue would exceed the sale value of the land above Churchill Avenue, realisable by a market sale by a large amount? What figure has UTAS provided to the government on this?

ANSWER

(1) The Tasmanian government has not committed any funds towards the UTAS STEM business case.

(2) The Tasmanian government has not committed any funds towards the UTAS STEM business case, nor has it committed to purchasing the land above Churchill Avenue.

(3) At the time the submission to Infrastructure Australia for Tasmania’s Infrastructure Priority List (IPL) was finalised on 16 October 2024, the UTAS Hobart CBD STEM business case was the only mature business case ready for submission. The IPL submission of 16 October 2024 did, however, identify a proposed STEM precinct in either Sandy Bay or the Hobart CBD.

(4) The $100 million figure advised by UTAS represents an estimated value of the land above Churchill Ave that has been identified for rezoning. Once rezoned as inner residential, this estimate reflects its potential market value. This figure will be validated when the land is sold.

(5) This is a question for UTAS.

(6) Again, this is a question for UTAS

Ms WEBB question to LEADER for the GOVERNMENT in the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL, Ms RATTRAY

Wednesday, 18 March 2026

I asked the honourable Leader for the Government regarding the UTAS business case appendices, which are now available online, in light of Slattery’s cost estimate of the UTAS STEM business case in appendix B, the sole basis for the cost estimate for the project of $501.5 million, which states that:

this cost plan is based on preliminary information and, therefore, should be regarded as indicative only of the possible order of cost or components of the cost plan will require confirmation once further documentation is available. Refer to the accompanying letter for details of basis of cost plan and exclusions from above costs.

Can the government:

(1) Explain how the government interprets the phrase, ‘possible order of cost’, and detail any implications for the government?

(2) Please make available the accompanying letter referred to as it will contain vital information of the validity of the $501.5 million cost estimate?

(3) Detail why the state government forwarded a business case to the Commonwealth in March 2025 which assumes an 80 per cent funding contribution by the Commonwealth when Commonwealth state infrastructure funding agreements have moved to 50-50 splits?

(4) Explain why the state government sought an initial funding contribution of $50 million from the Commonwealth in its covering letter to the UTAS STEM business case of March 2025 without offering any sort of matching contribution?

ANSWER

(1) The phrase ‘possible order of cost’ provides an understanding that at the time this business case was submitted the calculated cost for this development were point in- time estimates. Once final quotes are received, some variation from the initial estimates should reasonably be expected.

(2) I’m advised that this was standard wording used by the third party on a summary document of this nature. A letter was not prepared in this instance and the reference to it was in error.

(3) The University of Tasmania’s proposed STEM campus at Sandy Bay is a significant project and as such is not restricted to a defined Commonwealth/state funding split. University capital works do not fall neatly under standard Commonwealth/state infrastructure agreements as roads and transport infrastructure do. The business case identified the significant estimated cost of the project exceeds UTAS funding capacity and it is normal for these significant projects to propose different funding splits between Commonwealth and the state.

(4) The proposed UTAS Sandy Bay STEM campus would serve as an important tertiary education asset by training students in critical STEM capabilities an initial contribution of $50 million would enable UTAS to commence stage one of the development.