Tag: UTAS

Posted on

TUSA State Elections: Voting Insights & Debate Night Roundup

a blue graphic with drawings of triangular flags and the text TUSA State Elections: A Voting Guide

Please note: a previous version of this article incorrectly implied that Imran Khan had not commented on the issue of paid placement when it comes to medical students during the debate. This has been corrected.

If you’re not one to keep up with student politics (and really, how many of us have the time to), you may not have yet heard that voting has opened for the election of student representatives to the TUSA State Council for 2025. There are nine roles up for grabs this year, plus a number of National Union of Students (NUS) delegate positions to vote for, which have been about since TUSA’s reaffiliation with the NUS in 2023. The roles to be filled include State President, General Secretary, Equity President, Education Presidents for both Undergraduate & Postgraduate, and Campus Presidents for the South, North, Cradle Coast, & Rozelle. If that sounds like an awful lot to keep track of and too much to bother worrying about, despair not, dear reader, bear with me, and read on. 

There are lengthy and proper descriptions of each role (and each candidate) to be found on TUSA’s website here and here, but the most important thing to be aware of going into these elections is that the purpose of the student State Council is to represent UTAS’ student body, foster student community, and give students a voice when it comes to university decision making. The whole point of student representation is to accurately embody the needs and wants of you, the student, and while the State Council elections tend to suffer from a bit of obscurity, voting in them is still an excellent way to improve your student experience. Voting does, however, require some knowledge of the candidates, but worry not—to fight out who is best suited to occupy the lofty positions on the Council, TUSA held an Election Debate night on Thursday 19 September, an event attended by yours truly, and which I have helpfully summarised for you below. Though if you’d prefer to skip the debate coverage and see who I’m planning on voting for, scroll down to my personal Voting Guide! 

The official air of the election debate, moderated by David Bartlett, with the gravitas of his political career, a mic pinned firmly to lapel, and Carrie Chapman Catt quote at the ready, was undermined slightly by the less-than-impressive turnout of punters (at least the ones I could see in person—perhaps the zoom room was filled to overflowing with keen listeners).  My pointing out of the small crowd is not meant to dismiss the importance of the election debates or imply that they are a trifling or trivial matter, but rather to highlight the ever-present issue of the relevance & student awareness of TUSA and the State Council. This problem was a common theme of both the questions and answers on the night, with more than one candidate reminding the room that usually only about 5% of the UTAS student body vote in the TUSA State Council elections each year, a reality which in part garnered the questions asked of candidates across the board about whether TUSA accurately represents the student body, and if they’re adequately engaging students and cultivating community (spoiler alert: the answers from candidates to those questions were mostly “no”, “not really”, or “not enough”). 

Student community and engagement was a concern brought up by many of the State Council candidates, including candidates for Northern Campus President, Terenz Batac and Hanna Pour (third candidate Anjia Ye was not present at the debate), and the candidate for Cradle Coast President, Angus Stewart. Batac and Pour both expressed concern over the problems of safety and isolation on the northern campuses, with Pour explicitly citing a lack of student community, and sharing her vision for increasing regular events, activities, and general TUSA engagement on the campus to foster student connection. Stewart was similarly passionate about increasing community and connection to fight isolation on the Cradle Coast, looking to increase TUSA presence and services, and give students the opportunity to forge networks of support. 

For the Southern Campus President candidates, Ruby Fox and Matt Haubrick (third candidate Oscar Wadsley not present), community was also a primary concern, but in the specific context of the campus move away from Sandy Bay, and the problem of “micro” or “satellite” campuses (e.g., IMAS, The Hedburg, etc). Both Fox and Haubrick believe that students (and staff) have not been consulted properly, or adequately involved in the decision-making process when it comes to the campus move, with Haubrick explicitly naming it as a plan for the uni to make money off the land at the Sandy Bay campus. Fox referenced the structure of Notre Dame uni in Fremantle as a framework for satellite campuses, in order to get the best of both worlds when it comes to both course specialisation and central hubs of connection. Overall the greatest concern for every potential campus president was community, engagement, and the explicit involvement of student voice in decision-making processes at UTAS. 

For the Undergraduate and Postgraduate candidates, student wellbeing and financial support was a huge talking point. Sam Campbell, Namesh Kumar, and Jeppe van der Lee, candidates for Postgrad President (Anjia Ye not present), all said in no uncertain terms that the stipend for postgrad students is nowhere near enough to live on, with all three agreeing that a lack of support, in financial, mental health & wellbeing, and academic areas, is the greatest issue for postgrad students. Campbell and van der Lee put a focus on a “bottom-up” rather than top down approach, with van der Lee sharing his idea of holding regular open panel student forums to guide the formation of strategy and supports. Campbell emphasised the need for postgrad students to be able to pace themselves in order to avoid burnout, and that necessary financial and wellbeing assistance must be put in place in order for this to be a reality. 

Adequate payment and protections were big topics for the Undergraduate President candidates, too: Siska-Lut Buelens, Imran Khan, and Vaness Yap. All three lauded the introduction of paid placement for some university courses, but expressed concern over the lack of paid placements for medical and pharmacy students, and the paltry protections and pay for those who will begin to receive compensation for their required placement hours. Online vs in person learning and problems of students not having opportunity to form connections with each other was another leading topic of discussion, with Buelens and Yap focused on improving the quality of learning for both modes, and giving students the chance to network and interact in real time, whether through in person lectures and tutorials or real time zoom lectures as opposed to pre-recorded ones. Khan had less of a vision when it came to solving the online vs in person issue, seeming to suggest compulsory on-campus time, which does not take into account the access needs associated with hybrid learning. 

The question of accurate and adequate representation of students was an important issue for Equity President candidates Mark Warrington and Ranae Zollner. Warrington, who has held the position this year and is running for re-election, is looking to build upon his work and create an equity committee with eight equity officers to increase the representation of students in the TUSA council and UTAS processes. Zollner agreed that students, especially those with disabilities, are sorely underrepresented and that more needs to be done to create support, but had less practical visions on how they plan to achieve this. Warrington also shared his (and TUSA’s) plan to form a First Nations reconciliation plan and develop a framework for support and representation of First Nations students, as well as leveraging UTAS itself to engage more with First Nations staff & students and develop their own reconciliation plan. 

The debate over online vs in person learning and adequate representation resurfaced in the questions posed to General Secretary candidates Lucian Beattie and Belle Smith. Both Beattie and Smith come from excellent backgrounds to fulfil the role of Secretary, having both worked in areas of student rep before. Beattie brought up the 5% vote figure, while Smith also emphasised the scant knowledge of TUSA among students as reasons for a dearth of accurate representation of the student body. TUSA’s effectiveness in online spaces was also found lacking for both candidates, with Smith suggesting a push towards developing explicitly online clubs & societies as a way to encourage community for online and distance students. 

As for the candidate for State President, Jack Oates Pryor, student advocacy and representation when it comes to the politically charged realities of being a uni student were a big focus, with Pryor commenting on the valuable connection that TUSA has re-established with the NUS. Pryor also looked ahead to a potential restructuring of TUSA in light of the new government legislation mandating that 40% of SSAF funding go to student-led organisations, to ensure that TUSA receives the funding it needs to achieve the levels of student engagement, community, and representation that it strives for. 

Engaging in student rep (as a candidate or an average joe) is hard when so many students are too busy to put their hand up for or care about it—we’re all studying, working, attempting to maintain some baseline of wellbeing and/or social life, & often scrabbling to survive amongst the rising costs of living and soaring levels of exhaustion that come with existing in the late-stage capitalism hellscape. Who has time to care about which students sit on a council that you don’t even necessarily have any direct interaction with? It’s easy to push the matter of student elections far down the priority list when there are essays to be writing instead, but I implore you to cast some votes anyway in these student rep elections. While it often feels like there is a huge disconnect between actions like voting for state council and actually feeling the effects of what your reps are working for, they really are working for you—in fact quite literally, since TUSA is funded with your SSAF money! And the more people vote, the greater the awareness of what TUSA does, the more accurate the representation is, and the more likely they are to get enough funding to actually, you know, make sure you get to enjoy the outcomes of their work. TUSA and the State Council aren’t perfect, but based on the responses I heard at the debate night, there is an awful lot of passion, drive, and capability amongst the candidates to fight for the authentic representation of every single student, and bring about some tangible improvements. 

*     *     *   

A Voting Guide

If you’re not sure where to place your votes, I’ve shared the placements of my own votes below as something of a guide (and I know it’s supposedly impolite to share how you vote, but we all know that really that’s a taboo simply meant to stymie political discussion). To vote, check your uni email for the voting link sent by TUSA! Voting closes Thursday 26 September at 11:59pm. 

State President

While there’s only one candidate running for the position of State President, I’d confidently cast a vote for him regardless. Jack Oates Pryor was 2024’s Southern Campus President, and has been extremely passionate and capable in the role. They also served as Deputy State President for a period this year, so he has a wealth of experience to carry him into the role next year. Well-spoken, approachable, and willing to step into the ring for those they represent, Jack’s a sure bet for a better student experience. 

General Secretary

Gen Sec is a close race, with Beattie and Smith both well-qualified for the position. Smith just wins out for me, on having more experience, and giving me the impression of being extremely capable, well-spoken, and powerful in the role. 

Equity President

I’ve been sold on Warrington’s plans for increased student representation and ideas for First Nations reconciliation both at TUSA and more widely at UTAS, so I’m going no.1 Warrington and no.2 Zollner on this one. 

Education President – Undergraduate

Undergraduate President is a tricky pick. For me, I’m choosing from two frontrunners: Buelens and Yap. I’m leaning towards giving my no.1 vote to Yap, who left me with an impression of an efficient, passionate, and extremely capable individual with a spirited interest in the wellbeing and financial support of students. Buelens is a very close no. 2, sharing many values and attributes with Yap, and Khan no.3, as I felt some of his ideas about how to integrate online/offline learning disregarded very necessary access considerations. 

Education President – Postgraduate

This is another difficult choice—Campbell and van der Lee are the two favourites for me, both with practical ideas on how to improve postgrad representation and wellbeing. Campbell is edging out just in front for my no.1, with van der Lee a very close no.2, and Kumar no.3. 

Southern Campus President

Yet another tough decision! Fox and Haubrick both have substantial plans on involving students in decision making and ensuring the southern campuses will properly serve the needs of staff and students. I’m leaning towards no.1 Fox and no.2 Haubrick, but it’s such a tricky choice I think it will really come down to my decision in the moment when I vote!

Northern Campus President

I was most impressed by Pour’s capability and practicality when it comes to bettering the experience of students and creation of community on the northern campuses, so my vote’s sitting at no.1 Pour and no. 2 Batac. 

Cradle Coast President

There’s also only one candidate for Cradle Coast, but I’d be confidently casting a yes vote for him either way. Stewart was passionate, informed, and pragmatic when it came to ideas for ensuring connection and excellent student experience on the Cradle Coast—you’ll be in very good hands.

Posted on

Why Isn’t UTAS Doing More: What the Recent Reporting On Campus Sexual Violence Tells Us

CW: discusses sexual violence

Please note that this piece was written for feature in Edition 2 of Togatus, released earlier this year. Interestingly, certain information—and public access to certain information—has been subject to change since the time of writing.

Another year passes by and yet another report is released on campus sexual violence. Each report is damning, and each report calls for change. When is it time, as students, to demand action be taken against the inexcusably high rates of sexual violence on-campus?

According to the National Student Safety Survey (NSSS) released last year, 275 students are sexually assaulted in a university setting each week in Australia. This equates to 14,000 sexual assaults occurring in a university setting each year. The issue of sexual assault on-campus has been widely addressed in recent history with actions following the Australian Human Rights Commission’s Change the Course report. This report was released in 2017 and addressed sexual assault and harassment at Australian universities. The release of this report resulted in actionable responses from universities Australia-wide. 

In 2018, we saw our own university (UTAS) directly respond to this report through an overhaul of its sexual assault and harassment policies. Some of these actions included an independent, expert-led review of existing policies and response pathways regarding sexual assault and harassment. What seemed like the beginning of a nationwide change for universities now feels like a forgotten era. 

So, What Exactly is UTAS Doing Now?

The short answer: very little. 

There has been a clear breakdown of all policy and operational actions to combat on-campus sexual violence that was implemented in 2017. The following year, UTAS declared an ongoing commitment to end sexual violence in response to the Change the Course report. Presently, UTAS has no up-to-date resources regarding sexual violence on-campus that are publicly accessible. The university-run webpage for these resources has not been observably updated since 2022. Moreover, UTAS no longer has any independent action plans or groups surrounding sexual violence. 

UTAS’s lack of observable action on sexual violence can be linked to the dissolution of the SASH (Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment) Independent Oversight Committee. This committee was set up by UTAS to oversee the implementation of all recommendations made regarding the Change the Course report. The SASH Independent Oversight Committee was dissolved in 2020, as the goals set in their initial action plan were achieved. 

Some of these items included: creating effective communication strategies to inform students regarding sexually violent acts; developing and creating new training modules for staff and students surrounding sexual violence; and researching other Australian universities’ security measures surrounding sexual violence. However, many of these goals require ongoing attention to functionally serve the student population.

UTAS has since replaced the SASH Independent Oversight Committee with the SaFCU (Safe and Fair Communities Unit) Governance Group. Unlike the publicly available SASH Independent Oversight Committee’s action plan, there is a lack of transparency regarding what the SaFCU Governance Group intends to address. Additionally, the SaFCU Governance Group contains only internal UTAS staff members and is therefore not an independent body from the university. 

While the Governance Group claims to be active, meeting quarterly, they do not report any data publicly. The only exception to this is a single-page document published in 2021. In this document, the SaFCU Governance Group claimed to be committed to the ongoing reporting of deidentified statistics regarding sexual violence at UTAS. The intent of this commitment was to create greater transparency between the public and the Governance Group. There has been no continuation of this commitment. 

Not only has UTAS’s SaFCU Governance Group failed to continue reporting deidentified statistics, but the only data reported (in 2021) is questionable. This data suggests that only 19 individuals reported experiencing sexual harassment on-campus in 2021. This does not align with NSSS’s statistic that 8.1 per cent of students experience sexual harassment in a university setting per year. The data provided by SaFCU Governance Group suggests that roughly, less than 0.1 per cent of UTAS students reported experiencing sexual harassment at university in 2021. Data regarding reported incidents of sexual assault in 2021 also reflects the same discrepancy (only 17 individual reports). Thus, it is fair to assume that students of UTAS are less inclined to report experiencing sexual violence than the average university student (as indicated by NSSS). Could the low levels of reporting be an indication of ineffective or inaccessible reporting procedures? 

There has been very little observable acknowledgment of the low level of reports from students regarding sexual violence by UTAS since this data was released. As there has been no further public reporting of deidentified data, there is no way of knowing—as students or members of the general public—whether this issue has prevailed, let alone whether this issue is being investigated. 

Since the dissolution of the SASH Independent Oversight Committee, there has been no independent governing body to ensure the sexual safety and support of UTAS students. Subsequently, there has been a lack of continued prioritisation of student sexual safety made by UTAS, leading to students under-reporting sexual harassment and sexual assault on-campus. A solution lies within the development of an ongoing independent body dedicated specifically to issues surrounding sexual violence at UTAS. While there is current federal discourse surrounding the development of a national independent body of this kind, it is unacceptable for the safety of UTAS students to be sacrificed in the interim.

Support & Resources

Sexual Assault Support Service (SASS) is a Hobart-based, free and confidential service in Tasmania for people of all ages who have been affected by any form of sexual violence.

Website: https://www.sass.org.au/ 

24/7 Crisis Support Line: 1800 697 877

Laurel House is a not-for-profit, community-based sexual assault support service that operates across the North, North-East and North-West Tasmania. 

Website: https://laurelhouse.org.au/

24/7 Crisis Support Line: 1800 697 877

SaFCU

Website: www.utas.edu.au/about/safety-security-and-wellbeing/safe-and-fair-community-unit 

Phone: +61 3 6226 2560

Statement from SaFCU

There will never be a time when we have done enough to combat sexual assault and sexual harassment at the University.

The University has a strong position of zero tolerance for sexual assault or sexual harassment of any kind.

We have acted. Our efforts to make our community and our campuses as safe as possible have been sustained.

Over the past five years, we have implemented every recommendation from the national Change the Course report and the independent, expert review of our own approach that followed. 

Among a range of steps, we increased counselling, developed staff and student training, which we are updating following student feedback, implemented a new policy framework, and established the Safe and Fair Community Unit (SaFCU).

SaFCU is an experienced team, skilled at investigations with an absolute commitment to victim-centred, trauma-informed management of disclosures and complaints. They remain in constant discussions with external specialists and counterparts across the sector.

Following the release of the National Student Safety Survey results last year, a series of focus groups with students informed our ongoing efforts. 

However, inherent in our position of zero-tolerance is the fact that a single incident is one too many. 

In the coming months we will engage an independent expert to do a stocktake and audit of our governance, processes and procedures in responding to sexual assault and sexual harassment. This work will inform what we do next. 

We can always do more. It is right that you expect concerted action from us. It is a credit to students and Togatus that you are making those expectations clear.

– Professor Ian Anderson, Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic)

Posted on

The 2023 Uni Revue: Now Scheming to Deliver its 76th Year of Uniquely Tasmanian Comedy

Running since 1948, the Uni Revue has become a fixture in many a student diary—a riotous comic event anticipated by all. Many UTAS students and alumni have performed in the Uni Revue over the years, while others continue to attend the show on an annual basis. 

The Old Nick Company’s Uni Revue is both the oldest and longest running revue in Australia, woven into the fabric of Tasmanian theatre. Packed with provocative observational comedy that dares to hack down the tall poppies, the Uni Revue celebrates our ability to satirise those who think they’re immune. Perhaps that’s why a growing number of UTAS students continue to support a rare brand of comedy. 

In 2023 as we (hopefully) enter the post-Covid resurrection of live theatre, the Uni Revue is back—bigger, better, faster and ruder than ever. Fast-tracked from Old Nick Headquarters in North Hobart, Now Scheming is the binge-worthy, must-see comedy of the year—coming live to the stage at Hobart’s Theatre Royal and the Princess Theatre in Launceston.

This year’s show is directed by young Uni Revue stalwarts: Ben Stoneman and UTAS alum Rhys Prestedge. With a combined eleven revues between them, Ben and Rhys have honed their comedy skills on the Uni Revue factory floor.

Now Scheming is packed with young Tasmanian talent, including current UTAS students, both on stage and across the full comic production. The Uni Revue team is dedicated to bringing a high energy show every single night. It’s as much fun as you can have with your clothes on… or off!

Focussing on the rapid growth in streamed, on-demand media, Now Scheming tackles ‘binge’ culture, merging the absurdity of current events with a contemporary parody of your favourite streamed TV and movies.

  • Can Jeremy Rockliff create a master plan to finally give Tassie its place in the AFL without haemorrhaging millions of public funds?
  • Plus, that Dutton bloke. Why does he look like a potato that we can no longer afford?
  • From Tasmania’s skyrocketing cost of living, housing affordability that is unaffordable, a health system that’s sick—nothing is sacred and nobody can escape from the 2023 Uni Revue.

Loved by Tasmanians, loathed by politicians, the Uni Revue dares to speak the words we all think—live on stage and sure to generate loads of laughter (and maybe a few groans).

Now Scheming tickets are Now Selling, and they cost way less than filling up your car. So why not skip out on petrol for a week, lower your carbon footprint, and support local theatre while you’re at it? Get on board and make the 2023 Uni Revue part of your UTAS experience. We’ll see you there!

WHAT: Uni Revue 2023: Now Scheming

WHERE: Hobart (Theatre Royal) – 12 SHOWS ONLY – May 5-20

Launceston (Princess Theatre) – 4 SHOWS ONLY – May 24-27

TICKETS: www.oldnick.com.au/2023-now-scheming 

Ian Pirkis and Bianca Paine

Posted on

Rathjen, The City Move and the “Corporatisation” of UTAS

Controversy reigns as the University of Tasmania’s (‘UTAS’) proposed move into the city continues to take shape and the 2022 local government elections in Hobart loom. A dividing line has been drawn between candidates who support UTAS’ move and those who oppose it. Many candidates opposing the UTAS move have been vocal on Save UTAS Campus Supporters Facebook pages, accusing the Lord Mayor (‘LM’) Anna Reynolds and many of her Greens colleagues of collaborating with UTAS and refusing to consult with the broader public on this issue. But how much of the city move progress is LM Reynolds’, and even Rufus Black’s, doing?

Letters between former Vice Chancellor (‘VC’) of UTAS Peter Rathjen and former LM Sue Hickey have been released which suggest UTAS’ move to the city might have been envisioned by those in power as early as 2015. In late 2016, VC Rathjen invited members of the Hobart City Council (‘HCC’) to attend the University Cities Conference in Budapest, as well as visit the university cities of Freiburg and Cambridge. This trip, which went ahead and cost approximately $14 000, was intended as research to support what is cited in the report as UTAS’ ‘clear desire to move into the inner city’ (Supporting Information Council Meeting 30/5/2022, p421).

Following the trip, LM Hickey wrote back to Rathjen assuring him that the HCC was ‘committed to and absolutely share[d] UTAS’s aspirations to move into the inner city.’ She mentioned the report provided by Aldermen Burnet, Briscoe and the General Manager on their trip to Budapest, Freiburg and Cambridge and their enthusiasm. Hickey concluded the letter by recommending that the Memorandum of Understanding between HCC and UTAS be strengthened and that ‘socio-economic analysis of the University’s possible move into the city’ (Hickey-Rathjen Letter 7/3/2017, p1) be undertaken.

This position was not officially adopted by UTAS until August 2017, when a letter was sent from LM Hickey to then Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull requesting his commitment to progressing a City Deal for Hobart, with the UTAS STEM Precinct Proposal as its centrepiece (Supporting Information Council Meeting 30/5/2022, p526).

All of this suggests that LM Reynolds and VC Black have not been as instrumental in UTAS’ proposed city move as initially thought, instead merely implementing the visions of their predecessors. It also can be noted that UTAS has largely failed to maintain or upgrade many of its lecture theatres, classrooms and infrastructure on the Sandy Bay campus for decades, leaving many buildings no longer fit for use without costly repairs and renovation.

The disclosed information provides an insight into the potential mind-states of those who initially kick-started UTAS’ move into the city. The proposal was certainly not viewed with the controversy that it is marred with today, and a lot of optimism was present in discussions about its potential to develop Hobart as a city.

However, at some point post-COVID a new, negative attitude has settled towards the city move held by many students and staff at UTAS. Whether this reflects a broader discontent towards UTAS and the direction it is taking, or actually based on the merits of the idea of moving into the city, is another question.

From my point of view, the dissatisfaction with UTAS and its treatment of staff and students has been building well before the city move was unveiled. UTAS, along with many other Australian universities, have been moving further and further away from focussing on educational outcomes for students as their foremost goal. What has replaced this is a strange neoliberal mindset which resembles that of a Frankenstein-esque corporation, focussing on securing financial independence from a government which has largely abandoned public funding for universities and ultimately aiming to run at a profit.

The odd thing about UTAS’ neoliberalism is that it does not quite contain the same mechanisms for safeguarding accountability, transparency and good financial practices that regular corporations are bound to observe. The recent renewal of VC Black’s contract on an indefinite basis demonstrates this, with no room for performance review or clear standards set for what is expected of him in return for his million-dollar salary. UTAS’ purchase of property within the Hobart CBD for up to three times market value and exemption from paying rates to council are other examples.

At the same time, UTAS and other modern universities no longer represent the democratic institutions they once were in the 20th century, where meaningful student and staff consultation was pursued and information such as contracts of high-ranking officials was freely disclosed. Students, now stuck somewhere in the grey area between shareholders and constituents, are paying the price for this shift.

The upcoming Tasmanian University Student Association (‘TUSA’) State Council elections and its topical focus on the city move and whether TUSA has truly represented student concerns on this matter highlight the complexities of the relationship that now exists between student and university. In the past, TUSA’s independence and ability to voice student concerns has been diminished by the fragile position in which it finds itself, dependent on its allocation of Student Services and Amenities Fees (‘SSAF’) – roughly 17% of SSAF income – and therefore on an element of goodwill on the part of UTAS.

Now TUSA and many of its candidates have expressed a desire to move away from its dependence on UTAS for funding and begin agitating for positive change. This is a promising development, but its potential for success is dependent on a lot of interlocking factors. First and foremost is the mobilisation of the broader student body behind TUSA and its vision, which will go a long way to convincing UTAS of the association’s legitimacy as the representative of student concerns.

How to conclude this long, rambling behemoth of a piece?

I would say that it is important to keep context in mind when scrutinising UTAS, Rufus Black and their actions and decision-making. The city move has long been in the works, for at least the last 5 or so years, and has involved a whole array of proponents, from Sue Hickey and Peter Rathjen to present-day leaders Anna Reynolds and Rufus Black. The proposal and the lack of meaningful public consultation associated with it is symbolic of UTAS’ broader shift away from democratic principles towards principles fitting the mould of a corporation. It will be difficult to have an influence as students on this shift, which is ultimately leading to poorer educational outcomes for students and working conditions for lecturers and staff but there is no harm in trying.

Although I personally have my doubts about many candidates for local council currently running on anti-UTAS city move platforms and where their true interests lie, perhaps this broader movement can be harnessed to achieve something good for students. In many ways we as students are the customers of UTAS, so maybe it is us that can have the biggest say with good old-fashioned consumer power.

Since mid-2021 the debate around UTAS’ city move has been infiltrated by a large number of parties with different interests, all uniting to oppose the so-called “corporate behemoth’s” planned expansion into real estate and away from educational outcomes for students. While all of this may be true, the way in which many council candidates have tacked on “anti-UTAS” labels to their campaigns is largely uncritical and may be a reactionary move to attract votes in upcoming elections.

All of this begs the question whether a large portion of the group claiming to “defend” educational outcomes, adequate facilities and in-person learning for students would be doing so with the same vigour if not for their interests being affected. Maybe a little more nuance is needed in this particular debate so as to ensure UTAS is made perfectly aware that their proposal threatens more than just the property values of neighbouring Sandy Bay properties?

Posted on

University of Tasmania’s CBD Move Incites a Diverse ‘Chorus of Voices’

The University of Tasmania’s proposed move from Sandy Bay to the nipaluna/Hobart CBD has been a subject of much contention since it was tentatively ‘announced’ in 2019. In the past few months, new tensions have arisen from a string of public statements from the University and Vice Chancellor Rufus Black about the move, as well as in the diverse chorus of voices opposed. 

On ABC’s Mornings with Leon Compton, Black went on the record to note that the move to the CBD was “at its core […] about access to education first and foremost”. In doing this, he cited University data on prospective UTAS students who struggle with “distance issues” and finances in attaining university level education. 

In a sense, Black is correct. As of 2021, Productivity Commission figures detail that only an alarming 58% of college aged students in lutruwita/Tasmania reach year 12 educational attainment (as compared to a 72% national average). This is all before students will even reach university enrolment, and in rural and working-class communities, the data suggests that access issues are even more pertinent. As Black and the University suggest, lutruwita/Tasmania is sorely lacking in appeal to these prospective students. So where does UTAS’ proposed move fit in with this? 

The proposed CBD move, an approximate three kilometres up the road, will according to Black’s logic, remove barriers to transport and job prospects for its students. UTAS’ vision for the city will see students able to balance work and University seamlessly, with more job opportunities available for casual and part-time work in the CBD. Black and UTAS also believe it will cut down transport times for students in underrepresented educational demographics like those from the outer Northern Suburbs and Eastern Shore, thus encouraging enrolment. Although substantial and qualitative evidence has not been presented from the University to support this. Tasmanian University Student Association State President, Sophie Crothers, told Togatus that “For many students the move would also allow them to be closer to their workplaces and internships, and have larger communal spaces for students to come together to study and socialise”. She also expressed the advantages of having new “purpose built” buildings for the student population. 

Recent UTAS law graduate and Young Labor President Benjamin Dudman, who moved to the Northern Suburbs of nipaluna/Hobart from the rural Central North of lutruwita/Tasmania to attend university, says that the CBD move “would not have made it easier to access university”. He believes that “It would have effectively been the same, perhaps worse if parking isn’t adequately dealt with.  Rural students often don’t have the luxury of public transport so parking is essential for them”.  Current UTAS student James Crossin also believes that the added CBD congestion will negatively impact his commute from the Northern nipaluna/Hobart suburb of Brighton, “If anything I would rather the campus remain in Sandy Bay. The parking situation is so much easier than in the city”.  He also cites the lack of public transport alongside the lack of “time effective” transport going into the city for students in the area. 

Bob Cotgrove, a local urban planner and expert in ecological development, has also called the move “a failure of urban planning”, claiming that “the notion that staff and students will arrive on buses, bikes and e-scooters is sheer fantasy”. Anecdotally, students we interviewed who live on the outskirts of nipaluna/Hobart share a similar viewpoint. Cotgrove also notes that the proposed CBD redevelopment would involve placing different departments in scattered buildings and isolated areas of the city, rather than in a central and collegial campus. According to him, this limits student interaction and affects the prospect of community building central to the university experience.

Consultation with students and the greater nipaluna/Hobart community has been a hotly contested issue in the campus debate.  Indeed, despite the University’s claims it has engaged the community about the campus move, when the decision was first ‘announced’ in 2019, the University had already purchased upwards of $60 million in CBD real-estate.  Even Crothers’ said she was aghast at the “very little tangible student input into decision making” involved in the consultation process between UTAS and the broader community. 

Concerns that the University’s priorities are misplaced have also been raised over the campus move.  Indeed, Black’s CBD cash splash comes after the University was forced to cut hundreds of courses in 2020 as a cost-saving exercise after the advent of coronavirus.  This streamlining in courses has also coincided with the University’s decision to largely scrap in-person lectures in favour of online delivery as well as its controversial support of the ‘Job-Ready Graduates Package’ which will include fee hikes of 113% to humanities degrees. 

The costly CBD decision also comes at a time when UTAS’ labour practices have come heavily under fire.  Earlier this year, the University was accused of wide-scale wage theft dating back to 2013, with underpayments related to penalty rates being misapplied and minimum engagement periods not being honoured.  More recently, the UTAS Law Faculty administration has made headlines for their high rate of staff turnover, with many staff members across the University also employed in precarious contracts.

With some then questioning whether money would be better spent improving student experience and labour standards at the University, when asked if renovations could simply be made to upgrade the existing campus, Black simply told Compton “no”. Some, like Save UTAS proponent Ben Lohberger, allege a strategy of “forced obsolescence” in regards to the current Sandy Bay campus, with the aim of justifying the city move. 

Amid the public relations disaster over the University’s controversial move, Black has invested in efforts to sway worsening public opinion.  This has included promoting the CBD move through regular newspaper advertisements and sponsored posts on Facebook.  The University has also enlisted the help of Instagram influencer Lillian ‘FlexMami’ Ahenkan to bolster their image.  In a move that has baffled some, UTAS has gone so far as to hire controversial former Glenorchy Mayor and Liberal/Independent MP Sue Hickey to win over those opposed to the move.

A petition from the Save UTAS Campus group that has attracted 1732 signatures has prompted a public meeting at the City Hall that will be held on May 11th at 7pm.  All are invited to attend the free event to discuss the future of the University.

Posted on

Disability Rights at UTAS

Education is a right that every person should have access to, however, institutions are often hostile environments for the disabled; UTAS is no exception. This has been exemplified during the Covid-19 pandemic which has been referred to as a “mass-disabling” event. 

In my first year of University I was dealing with several undiagnosed conditions which were impeding my progress in the classroom. Until recently, courses within the Fine Arts at UTAS have had a maximum of three absences before an automatic failure of the unit; each day of nausea, migraines or pain I would evaluate whether I should skip the class, or save my absence for a “worse” day. One morning, I lay on the (filthy) floor of the Art School’s bathrooms in a foetal position in an attempt not to vomit. Realising the day would amount to nothing, I went to talk to my tutor. He looked me up and down with an air of disappointment and let me go home. I was judged on my ability to be in the classroom that day. 

While UTAS does have accommodations for its disabled students, these can be difficult to access and are not always adequate. Often you will need a doctor to sign off on your illnesses, this relies on diagnoses which are, in and of themselves, inaccessible. During the writing of this article I invited other disabled and chronically ill students or alumni to weigh in on UTAS’s practices in regards to disabled students. Several current and past students cited feeling “traumatised” after interactions with disability officers, while others have been ignored completely. This is alarming; our first suggested course of action when joining the university as disabled students is direction to obtaining a LAP (Learning Access Plan). Even in these supposed supportive environments, we still feel the burden of ableism.

LAPs cover many issues which might affect disabled people which can include transcription of lectures, extra time during assignments and exams, and access to specialised equipment. As helpful as some of these resources can be there are many gaps which are unfilled. Some disorders under the Neurodivergent umbrella, ADHD (Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder), for example, can leave students unable to keep up with coursework due to issues with memory and executive functioning. With the focus of university shifting to self-directed learning during the pandemic, some students feel abandoned and directionless. 

Coursework is taught never with a neurodivergent person in mind. Information is retained better by many people through doing hands on tasks and peer-to-peer interaction. Many course structures do not include these various modes of learning. Grading criteria also feels exclusionary of neurodivergence, with rubrics that have little distinction between grades and unit outlines being difficult to navigate. An individual with ASD (autism spectrum disorder) told me of their struggle of being graded on demeanor and eye contact while doing a presentation, things which are a struggle for autistic individuals. 

One past student described being forced into attendance at the Hedberg whilst no lifts accommodated for their electric wheelchair. Hunter Street’s main access lift is small and outdated, late last year it would stop working seemingly at random for months on end. This lift would be extremely difficult to navigate with any larger adaptive or mobility devices. Another student spoke of being dismissed when requesting the ability to do part time during an honors program, forcing them to leave university altogether. 

Finding work as a disabled person is difficult and demoralizing. To obtain AUS Study you must be doing a “full course load” (three or more units). This is simply impossible for a lot of disabled students; we are completely capable of doing well but get fatigued and overwhelmed when expected to do as much as our abled peers. This results in us having little to no income during our degrees unless we have employment, which, as stated, is difficult to obtain. Jobseeker payments are an option, but are frustrating even with a disability provider, attending bi-weekly appointments is a hurdle we shouldn’t have to jump. Personally I have seen many members of my cohort move on to other universities where they have more support. 

How could UTAS help accommodate students?

Disability officers at each campus who are trained in nuances of chronic health issues and impairments.

A reduced focus on diagnoses to prove disability. 

An overhaul of each campus to make them safe for all to navigate.

Flexibility with what constitutes “full-time” schooling.

Flexibility with attendance and the entire set of coursework being accessible online for students who cannot attend class in person.

Making classrooms safer for students with sensory issues, i.e. less fluorescent lighting. 

UTAS is financially capable of better supporting its disabled students and cohort but consistently chooses to spend money elsewhere. UTAS is complicit in the oppression of disabled people. Disabaled students are sick of self advocating, putting in extra effort to meet the school’s demands and pressure to conform to ableist ideas of education.

Posted on

University of Tasmania Students and Staff “Stressed, Anxious and Confused” Amongst Law Faculty Fallout

Students and stakeholders in the University of Tasmania’s Law Faculty have expressed concerns about the quality of legal education this semester amid heightened tensions regarding the proposed change to the Legal Practice Course. The current Legal Practice Course, a five month “hands on” postgraduate course, allows graduates to develop their critical legal skills in a face-to-face environment and remains highly regarded amongst the Tasmanian legal and academic community. Last year alone, it boasted a one hundred per cent employment rate. However, former governor Kate Warner, Chief Justice Alan Blow and Law Society of Tasmania President, Simon Gates (among other distinguished stakeholders) reportedly met in February to express their concerns over new proposed changes to both undergraduate and postgraduate law courses, which were to lean heavily on online teaching delivery. Opponents of the course restructuring cite their concern amongst a devastating raft of sixteen academic teaching staff who have left the faculty since March 2020, and recently surfaced allegations about the decline of legal education across the board in the state’s only face-to-face university. 

Current law student and Tasmanian University Law Society (TULS) President, Fletcher Clarke, also met earlier this month with the Dean of the Law Faculty, Professor Michael Stuckey, Vice President (Education), Eli Bowe, and Secretary Lucy Milne to air his concerns given the recent controversies. Clarke has noted the “high levels of stress, anxiety and confusion” this latest restructuring has caused amongst his fellow students, which he believes “undermines the University of Tasmania’s ability to provide a quality legal education”. Clarke and TULS have lobbied for greater resourcing and support for students and staff of the law school, quality assurance in the deliverance of a new teaching model, limiting where possible the resignation of remaining law faculty academic staff and speeding up the recruiting process for new appointments (which so far has allegedly only filled two of five vacant positions at the time of writing). He says that students have “exhausted all available internal University means to rectify these issues”, which he notes students were not adequately informed of in the first place.

Following strong and well documented pushback to the Legal Practice Course change, the University has guaranteed a return to the in-person Legal Practice Course in 2023. Professor Stuckey however noted the improved “access” and “flexibility” of the proposed online course on ABC Hobart’s ‘Mornings’. Access and flexibility a seemingly central value in the University’s controversial proposed Southern campus move, too. Many proponents of the current Legal Practice Course argue however, that disallowing graduates from commencing the course in person may be considered inflexible if they are to learn “real world” and interpersonal legal skills. They are advocating for either a co-existence of face-to-face and online or a complete return to face-to-face rather than the entirely online shift. And although it is encouraging that the University has reformed their policy on the course restructuring based on student feedback, it begs the question, why was it changed at all without adequate student, staff or legal community consultation? 

Miles Kahles, fourth year UTas law student, told Togatus that “it has become clear” to him that the university “does not prioritise educational outcomes as its foremost goal” and that as such this has had “visible consequences” for his degree. Kahles alleges that the university has become enamoured in cost cutting strategy, which according to him “has meant that no new staff have been employed on a part-time or full-time basis since 2015, reflecting a broader trend of casualisation of jobs in academia”. He cites severely limited feedback and constrained timeliness of marking on student assessment as well as staff “stretched thin” when trying to deliver “quality lectures, tutorials, assessment tasks and learning for students while also taking up several additional roles”. Kahles reports that as a result, “one lecturer last year had to take on over 200 students in a unit without support from any additional tutors or marking help”, calling his current studies in the law faculty a “disorganised, under-resourced and disheartening experience” which will inevitably “worsen if current proposals for changing the Tasmanian legal practice course are implemented”. 

Concerns from at least 80 other law students have been echoed in two recent open letters on staffing, senior management and course delivery obtained by Togatus. These letters paint a stark picture of the staffing conditions alleged within the law school, one letter stating that academic staff were told at an open staff meeting, “if they did not like the way the law school was being run, they could leave as there were 40,000 unemployed academics that could fill their roles.” This is alongside alleged ‘non-disparagement’ clauses in academic contracts which prevent former staff from being able to criticise the university under significant financial penalty, what may be considered hostile treatment of PhD candidates in the faculty and new staff that have been hired “mere days before the beginning of semester” without induction, guidance on setting up their courses, or “clear guidelines on the expectation and content of the courses they are teaching”. 

For now the legal practice course has been saved, although students and stakeholders still remain apprehensive over its future in coming years. Law students with ongoing concerns are also encouraged to contact the TULS committee on education@tuls.com.au, which they are able to under anonymity if required. Alongside this, undergraduate law students were welcomed to attend a session addressing course delivery on Monday the 4th of April from 2:30pm in Lecture Theatre One of the Law School.

As it stands, only time will tell how student’s concerns will be addressed. 

Posted on

Beyond Seen & Heard : Transgender Day of Visibility 2022

A large crowd of people with placards and messages of support for the transgender community, gathered in a park near Hobart Town Hall.

The transgender community has certainly been visible lately, and while prejudice seems to be the order of the decade, progress and potential are too. This Transgender Day of Visibility (TDoV) I will  reflect on where I believe the University of Tasmania (UTAS) is at in terms of transgender  liberation. I will also take the opportunity to introduce myself. 

I am transgender, transmasculine to be precise, and am in my first year of study at UTAS, though it is not my first time studying. My partner and I planned to move to Tasmania this year in time for my first semester, but like many Tasmanians, were unable to secure suitable housing, so I am studying via distance on the mainland, dreaming of the day I can call myself a ‘Trans-Tasman’. 

I digress.  

Tasmania has an interesting history when it comes to transgender people. The state has arguably, out of anywhere else in Australia, the strongest protections against discrimination and vilification, courtesy of the Tasmanian Anti-Discrimination Act 1998. There are also advocacy organisations for transgender people in Tasmania including Transforming Tasmania and Tasmanian Families for  Trans Kids. In 2019, Tasmania implemented gender optional birth certificate laws, the most  progressive in the world to date, according to Tasmanian transgender activist Martine Delaney  (she/her). However, the state was not always so progressive. 

Tasmania is infamous for being the last state in Australia to have decriminalised homosexuality, in the year I was born, 1997. Additionally, the lesser known criminalisation of cross-dressing in  Tasmania was so until 2000, which endangered transgender people particularly, given their expression of identity could be misconstrued as cross-dressing. I would argue (jokingly, clothes  are genderless), that most transgender people ‘cross-dressed’ as their assigned gender until coming out, so would we have been following the law in pre-2000s Tasmania by dressing in a  gender affirming fashion? We love to see accidental transgender affirmation, even if it is the recently redacted phallic logo of the Federal Government’s Women’s Network.

So, with the state being (mostly) great, what can be said about its only university? Here are some  of my thoughts, referencing the results of a student research report conducted last year by Aisling  McCullough (they/them) and QUEENS of UTAS (Queers’ Unique Experiences of the Educational  Networks and Spaces of the University of Tasmania). 

My impression is that UTAS has potential. It has the basics of transgender inclusion and protection, but there is plenty to do to make the university truly welcoming and supportive of  transgender students, employees and the general public. There are policies, statements and  guidelines published on the official website relating to transgender students and employees. The  online learning platform currently used by the university, MYLO, has capacity to display and  update customised pronouns. Where employees are concerned, UTAS recently indicated support for paid transition leave in employee agreements, but has back-peddled as of yesterday, according to the National Tertiary Education Union (NTEU), offering only ten days of special leave, casual employees excluded.  The Pride Society of TUSA has three openly transgender board  members (myself included), and is proactively supporting transgender people though education and advocacy. We will release a video featuring our transgender board members in honour of  Transgender Day of Visibility 2022. It is clear that there is movement, but there must be more, as  evidenced by the recent student led research project, QUEENS of UTAS.  

QUEENS of UTAS (Queers’ Unique Experiences of the Educational Networks and Spaces of the  University of Tasmania) was a student led research project conducted by Aisling McCullough (they/them) which sought to understand the experiences and aspirations of LGBTQIA+ students  at UTAS. Its main findings as they relate to transgender people were that improvements to pronoun usage, gender-neutral bathrooms, and general experiences of LGBTQIA+ people at  UTAS are required. 

Currently, the majority of employees and students at UTAS do not display their pronouns in  communications such as in email signatures, on name badges, in presentations or in online  studies. The explicit use of gendered pronouns encourages people to not assume gender on  account of appearances, and assists in the destigmatisation of transgender identities. The report  in question found that pronoun usage was the most common response among all respondents,  including cisgender respondents. This communicates an interest from the broader LGBTQIA+ community at UTAS in supporting the transgender community and challenging gendered  assumptions. McCullough recommends that TUSA “…directly lobby senior administration staff at  the university to include their gender pronouns in the signature on all email communication, and on their professional biography pages, and consider adding them on an opt-out basis to official  university templates.” While I agree with their recommendation, I would argue that an opt-out for  pronoun usage would perpetuate the current complacency on pronoun usage, and that it should  be a mandatory field, as all people have pronouns. To oppose this position would indicate implicit  bias against transgender people. 

Second, the existence of accessible gender neutral bathrooms is integral to transgender inclusion  and protection. It was once so in Australia, that public toilets were designed exclusively for able bodied cisgender men, so advocacy on accessible bathrooms is far from novel. QUEENS of UTAS found that gender neutral bathrooms and changing rooms on campus were of particular importance to all LGBTQIA+ respondents, yet just under half of them were unaware that such facilities existed. Strangely, only 18.8% of transgender respondents were aware that gender neutral bathrooms and changing facilities existed on UTAS campuses. This indicates to me, a lack of appropriate communication between the university, its student union and to transgender students. McCullough, the researcher, recommended that TUSA be “…an active voice for the rights of  transgender constituents regarding bathroom and changing facilities on campus…” and that “… [gender-neutral] bathroom arrangements [must be kept] in mind when [UTAS is] considering its  future location(s)…”. I agree, and this is of particular relevance as UTAS considers relocating its  Sandy Bay campus to Hobart CBD, which in itself has demonstrated the importance of co-design.  

Finally, McCullough recommends that TUSA “…conduct further targeted research into the  wellbeing of LGBTQIA+ students at the University of Tasmania, including directly addressing  outness and community self-identification and participation.”, which is of course important, however research recommendations, such as those published in the QUEENS of UTAS report must be seriously considered, developed and implemented into meaningful improvements to the  experiences of transgender people and the broader LGBTQIA+ community at UTAS. Overall, it is  not enough to be seen and heard. Transgender Day of Visibility is about being seen and heard,  but also accepted, included and celebrated. We deserve this, and most of all, liberation. And I believe we can get there.

Posted on

100% Dodges

In my long twenty four years, I’ve lived in three houses. For all but my first eight months, I’ve lived in the same place, near a (mostly) calm stretch of water that flows onto sandy shores and at the feet of boat sheds. As I sit here and write this, I can hear the the loose rigging of a sailing boat tinkering in the wind and the chirps of flying seagulls. And if my parents weren’t talking about the price of real estate, I’d be able to hear the waves lapping on the beach. 

When I look out of the window, I can almost see those two other houses I’ve lived in, hidden amongst the trees and reno-ed shacks. Below the brush is the beach that I used to walk along to get to primary school, collecting shells along the way. Just past the school is my Uncle’s house, which overlooks Tickle-Belly-Flats (aptly named for its infestation of crabs). And if you kept walking along the coastline, you’d get to the place where I learnt how to swim. Twelve years later, I used that skill in the waterway it overlooks, as I paddled back to our boat having just crashed while learning how to water ski. It was in  that same bay I saw dolphins for the first time, jumping up and under the water. And around the corner, which I’ve walked and rode to more times than I can count, is the surf break where I’ve frozen my fingers off sitting in the water, waiting for a wave to come in. 

My Dad and Uncle first rode those waves and walked along those beaches thirty years before me. My family have had some sort of place to stay in Dodges for the last sixty years, starting with a small cinder-block shack behind the shop. Dad spent a lot of time there when he was young, living off Chiko rolls and chips. It was while staying at the shack, at a party of one of the other shackies, that Mum and Dad first saw each other. Like a lot of the other children of shack owners, they became part of a new wave of full-time inhabitants of this coastal town. 

So, as the stickers that the local pizza van gave out a few years ago said, I’m ‘100% Dodges’. But the area has changed a lot even in the last twenty four years. 

As you take the Highway home from town (that’s what we call the big city, Hobart) to Dodges, you’ll get stuck in traffic that’s backed up before the Airport and stretches all the way to the Midway Point Roundabout. While travelling between zero and five kilometres, you’ll have plenty of time to take in the roadworks, which we all hope will fix the traffic problems. You’ll see the trees that’ve been cleared laying along the roadside, the piles of dirt with steel sticking out of them and a small fleet of diggers.

You’ll roll over the bridge that they replaced about ten years ago. While on the bridge, you can look at the rows of houses under construction. If you see a man in high vis waiving a trowel around, that’s probably my Dad. For years, Dad would have to drive a couple of hours each day to work. He’d travel to Kingston, Tranmere and even Swansea. For the last five years he’s barely gone further than Midway Point for work, building hundreds of houses for more people to live in and increase the traffic problems. Thanks Dad. 

Once you finally make it past Midway Point and into Sorell, you’ll drive past Sorell High School, which has a new science block. You’ll bypass the main streets of Sorell, to avoid the cars queuing on the main street which blocks important shops like the local Maccas. Across the road is the Coles which they built a few years ago to rival the local Woolies. Sorry to the Fresh Food People, but I have to say we’ve never looked back. On the road out of Sorell, they’re excavating a sub-division on the left hand side and a road which will bypass Sorell completely on the other side. 

And when you finally round the corner to my street, you will be as shocked as I was a few days ago to see the newly constructed road islands. The days of children dashing across the street between the numerous utes towing boats is over. And I’m sure those children will be less fulfilled without that exposure to anxiety at an early age. 

Around Dodges, the school has upgraded from the terrapin classrooms I was educated in. There’s a community garden. And as I mentioned before, there’s a pizza van alongside the usual options of fish and chips at the takeaway or a sausage roll at the bakery. We even have a Hill Street. And the final straw which I think cements Dodges’ bougieness – we now have a cafe. Two cafes, if you count the coffee van around near the fire station, which everyone does. 

So this sleepy little coastal town is starting to wake up. The shackies are almost all gone, and have been replaced with full-time residents. The car park at the Hill Street is usually full. The line up at Park Beach is too crowded. And the price of houses is rising at a scary rate. There’s houses selling for over a million dollars. The other day, a two-bedroom shack built in 1940 sold for $930,000 (its basically right on the beach, but even so). It’s certainly not the town that Mum and Dad bought into twenty five years ago.

All of these changes leave me questioning what place I have here, in my home of twenty four years. 

I’ve already stayed longer at my parents house than most people my age. As much as I appreciate being able to live with them, I don’t know how many more times I can argue about the precious resource that is my Mum’s Tupperware. And now I’m working in the city, a daily commute of almost three hours in the traffic isn’t exactly how I’d like to spend my free time. 

But you’ve probably gathered that I’m pretty attached to the area — the sand, the water and the people. In times where being in Hobart has been noisy, uncomfortable and stressful because of uni assignments or one of life’s other challenges, Dodges has also been a place of peace and quiet. So moving up to Hobart isn’t overly enticing. If I did move up to the rat race, I’d follow in the footsteps of my family decades before me, stealing whatever time I could to come back down to Dodges.

With the rising house prices, there’s no way I’m going to be able to afford to buy something in Dodges anytime soon. So I guess that leaves my hands in the fate of boomers, with the hope that they won’t decide to do-up their newly bought property and keep it as a shack.

And instead, that they’ll rent it out at an exorbitant rate, to someone who’ll take put up with living in a leaking, crumbling and cold old place, just so that they can stay in the area. 

Photos: Rachel Hay

Posted on

Republic of Amnesia

This year marks the 100th year of the Partition of Ireland. Much has been and will be written about the century of disaster that Northern Ireland has been in but there has been relatively little commentary on the first 100 years of the Free State project.

This seems logical, the Republic of Ireland appears to be a quite conventional European liberal state. It legalised gay marriage and abortion, it has a gay son of an immigrant as Taoiseach (Irish Prime Minister) and has looked comparably mature compared to the boisterous tomfoolery of the Tories during the Brexit negotiations. However, this hides a true reckoning with the history of the twenty six counties.

A massive power vacuum was left in the wake of the Irish Civil War. The Pro-Treaty forces, although victorious in the Civil War, were still regarded as treasonous and illegitimate by vast swathes of the population who saw the abandonment of the North as an abject betrayal.

To be Irish for many was to be Catholic and to be obedient to the Church. The most damning example of the Church’s overbearing stature is the collusion between the Church and State to “treat fallen women.” “Fallen” women included any women who dared to stray from the obedience that was demanded by both Church and State. Magdalene Laundries were essentially prisons run by religious orders to house these fallen women; the Nuns would isolate the inmates from the outside world, extract labour from them for minimal compensation and allegedly engage in ritual verbal, physical, psychological and even sexual abuse. The operation of the Laundries was encouraged and facilitated by the Irish State. The Laundries were largely clouded in secrecy until a mass grave was found on one of their sites in 1993 which forced the Irish State to grapple with their legacy.

It was not until 2013 that the Irish State apologised for these abuses and set up a compensation scheme for the victims. Even so the Religious orders responsible have refused to contribute to the redress scheme. This state confessionalism, although administered by the Church, was supported and facilitated by mostly Fianna Fail governments (though the Fine Gael and Labour governments were also compliant) through the first 50 years of the State.

The collapse of the Church’s dominance was self-inflicted. The passing of the Eighth Amendment to the Irish Constitution which constitutionally banned abortion in Ireland was the high-point of the Church’s power. However, the bitter and divisive campaign of the amendment allowed for open opposition to the Church to be tolerated in the Irish political sphere. Mary Robinson, one of the most public faces of the “No” campaign during the referendum, was elected president only 8 years after the referendum, beating out Fianna Fail giant Brian Lenihan in the process.

Robinson’s election is often cited as the birth of the new “liberal” Ireland but the  legacy of the collusion between the Irish State and Irish Church has largely been ignored by this “liberal” Ireland. Victims of the Church’s many abuses from the aforementioned “mother and baby” homes to the childhood sexual abuse from the church are still largely uncompensated for the wrongs done against them.

In light of the centenary of partition it is apt to reflect on the actions of the Irish “republic” on the question of republicanism. Northern Ireland up until the civil rights movement operated as a functional apartheid state; the propertied franchise, workplace and housing discrimination all operated to disenfranchise the nationalist community in the six counties.

While not expecting the South to support physical force republicanism, the relative silence on civil rights for Catholics in Northern Ireland from the Free State was deafening. As the troubles progressed the Free State rather than advocating for the Nationalist community came to collaborate with the British, especially in the extradition of republican prisoners and running an extensive informant through the Garda Siochana (the Irish police force).

Since the Peace Process, like with the influence of the church, a general amnesia has fallen over the legacy of The Troubles. The Troubles to many in the South were a peculiarity of the North in which they had no role or responsibility but the failure of Southern politics to deal with the Northern question led to an exacerbation of the conflict.

People from the North are routinely asked to reflect upon the troubled history of the six counties and the sectarianism that goes along with it. It is time now for the South to reflect upon its own misgivings; an overbearing church and the betrayal of the Irish people left behind when the rigid lines of Partition were drawn. 

One hundred years on from the Treaty, the South of Ireland remains a contradiction. It is a “republic” but has largely refused to engage with the constitutional position of Northern Ireland. It portrays itself as a modern liberal state but is reluctant to properly engage with and compensate victims for state facilitated church abuses.