17 April 2026

The Legislative Council’s passing of the bill for the university to sell land above Churchill Avenue has three undesirable consequences, among others. It:

1. Confirms the Legislative Council is a planning authority
2. A business case isn’t required for a major project to be approved
3. A project’s proponent doesn’t need evidence to support its claims.

None of these bode well for good governance in our state and should be deplored.

The passing of the University of Tasmania (Protection of Land) bill is the third time in two years that the Legislative Council has acted as a planning authority. On 27 November 2024 the Council approved an up-to-$60 million proposal by a Sydney company, Tipalea Partners, to build a supermarket at Stony Rise in Devonport. The Tasmanian Planning Commission (TPC) had rejected the proposal, but the Devonport City Council and community supported the development.

The issue here isn’t the pros and cons of the development which would bring many benefits, including the creation of jobs. The issue is the disregard of proper process.

As Murchison MLC Ruth Forrest said during the debate: “We have a duty here to make sure that our processes that are agreed by this parliament are not trashed.”

“If we continue to trash our planning approvals process, which is how it can be seen, then everyone loses. Once you undermine a robust planning system, then it is a free for all.”

Ms Forrest asked a Tipalea Partner representative if the company had donated to the Liberal party. He confirmed it had but could not say how much.

The second project was the billion-dollar-plus AFL stadium. The proposal was rejected by the TPC, opposed by the Hobart City Council, and independent economists Nicholas Gruen, and Saul Eslake. Treasury, in its June 2025 Pre-Election Financial Outlook Report, said the stadium would increase net debt, created unfunded risk if federal money cannot be used, and contributes to pressure on the state’s credit rating.

There was a business case of the stadium but it was criticised by Nicholas Gruen for over-estimating the benefits and underestimating the “disbenefits”. Saul Eslake warned borrowing for the stadium would make state debt and interest burdens unsustainable. KPMG’s cost-benefit analysis found there would be a 50-cent return for every dollar invested argued there was “no thorough, evidence‑based analysis”.

The government put the Legislative Council in the invidious position of forcing it to decide the fate of the stadium. It was an adroit political move: it moved responsibility for the proposal’s future from the government to the Legislative Council. If the Upper House rejected it, the government could blame it for the project not going ahead. In terms of good governance, accountability, transparency and respect for proper process, it was a reprehensible move.

That same cavalier attitude characterised the passing of the legislation for the university to sell land above Churchill Avenue. For the third time, the Legislative Council was forced to be  a planning authority and to wear the opprobrium if it rejected the university’s proposal. There was no business plan – despite promises made by Clark MHA and minister Madeline Ogilvie, who, on 7 November 2024, told Leon Compton on ABC Radio Mornings: “What I have said is I want to see the full business case of what the proposal is. And my view is that business case ought to come through parliament. So, that’s our position.”

The land above Churchill Avenue was part of a large parcel of land given to the university in 1951 for educational purposes. A week before the bill was to be debated in the House of Assembly, the government changed the bill to rezone university-owned land above Churchill Avenue to inner residential. The change enables the university to sell or lease the land, rather than preserving it solely for university purposes. And when the bill was introduced there was no business case.

And there was no evidence to support claims such as the land would sell for a total $100 million. The amount had not been independently verified, wasn’t supported by a current market valuation that has been made public, and  there’s no buyer. 

People have been led to believe most of the land at Sandy Bay will be protected except that identified for inner-residential development. Any sale would have to be approved by Parliament but this is not the case.

Independent MLC and integrity campaigner Meg Webb says 57 percent of the Sandy Bay campus land is not protected. University management can rezone and sell that land without Parliament’s approval.  

Developers could justifiably ask should they should go through the planning process when they can go to the government and get a bill passed for what they want without a business case or evidence for their claims.

This cavalier attitude undermines people’s faith in governing and regulatory processes which ultimately undermines our system of government.