In short – I do not support the rezoning of land above Churchill Ave in the University of Tasmania (Protection of Land) Bill 2024 and, more generally, I do not support the selling off, leasing or disposal of the land of the Sandy Bay campus that was gifted to the University.

It would be irresponsible for elected decision-makers to agree to relinquishing invaluable public land – gifted for a specific community-focused purpose – in the absence of:

• Genuine, and comprehensive community consultation and inclusion;

• Development of a transparent and robust business case with measurable deliverables, benchmarks and timeframes; and

• Independent assessment of social, economic and environmental cost-benefit analysis.

 – none of which has occurred to date regarding the fate of this public asset.

A range of concerns have been raised with me personally, as well as through the Select Committee process, and they are concerns I share, including but not limited to:

• The divergence of the Liberal Government’s legislation from what was promised by the Liberal candidates at the March 2024 state election.
• The setting aside of the comprehensive rezoning process in our current planning scheme.
• The absence of a full environmental assessment before rezoning and developing native bushland.
• That this was public land gifted to the University for educational purposes.
• The significant biological sciences facilities and equipment in the area in question, which would need to be moved or may be lost.
• No indication that any housing development in the area in question would include social and affordable housing.
• That the City of Hobart has consulted on and is in the process of developing the Mount Nelson and Sandy Bay Neighbourhood Plan. 

My Consideration of this Issue

This matter of rezoning parts of the Sandy Bay campus via a rushed and inadequate parliamentary process is important not just because of the impact it will have on the local community in Mount Nelson and Sandy Bay (both suburbs in the electorate of Nelson which I represent), but also more broadly as a disturbing further precedent of state government setting aside good governance and appropriate democratic processes.

I also regard the proposal to relocate STEMM facilities from above to below Churchill Ave as questionable, both on the likelihood of securing the $500 million of Federal funding to enable it to occur, and on the practicality of actually relocating such substantial facilities – so far, the plan to do so has been described to me by the University as a ‘mud map’ which is evolving. This is an unacceptable level of detail to present to the Parliament in seeking to justify the disposal of a substantial proportion of the Sandy Bay campus.

As part of continually seeking input on this matter, I have recently had a series of briefings and site tours from both UTAS Management and from concerned academics and community members, to assist in my comprehensive consideration of new developments and proposed moves on the Sandy Bay campus.