The ABC can reveal the University of Tasmania forked out almost $7 million to refurbish Hobart's MidCity Hotel for student accommodation only to turn it back into a hotel after the pandemic hit.
The figure has come to light following a three-year right to information battle between the ABC and UTAS.
The university paid $25.8 million for the MidCity Hotel in 2018, which it used for student accommodation that year and again in 2019, before the coronavirus pandemic stemmed the flow of international students into the state.
New figures reveal the university spent $6.8 million refurbishing the MidCity Hotel building, before the arrival of the pandemic left it sitting vacant for nearly two years.
It was signed over on a long-term lease to Vision Hotels last November, with the new leaseholders upgrading the rooms again.
In its right for information request, the ABC had requested details on the costs of refurbishing the MidCity, Fountainside and Theatre Royal hotels, as well as the amount the university paid in rates to the Hobart City Council.
The university twice refused to release the information, arguing it would be exposed to "competitive disadvantage".
It was ultimately directed to release details about the MidCity's refurbishment and rates payments by the state's ombudsman in February this year, but was exempted from providing the planned costs of refurbishing the Fountainside and Theatre Royal hotels.
Students to return to MidCity in future
University of Tasmania vice-chancellor Rufus Black said the hotel renovations were required to ensure the building was code compliant and safe.
"We refurbished that hotel to relieve pressure on Hobart's housing market," he said.
"That was done pre-COVID, [it is] really important for us to make sure we're providing for students.
"Student numbers will return, so we will see it once again being used to make sure that student housing doesn't put pressure on the Hobart housing market."
The documents also reveal the university paid $4.1 million in rates to Hobart City Council since 2017.
The university agreed to begin paying rates following an uproar over its rapidly increasing city-based property portfolio, given the institution is entitled to exemptions for properties used for educational purposes.
University missed deadline to disclose
A final decision on the release of information was only made by the ombudsman in February this year, three years after the ABC lodged its initial request.
The decision directed the university to release most of the information by March 25 — a deadline the university failed to meet when an email scheduled for 4pm that day did not send.
It is unclear why the email was scheduled for 4pm on Friday, March 25, given the information letter it contained was dated Tuesday, March 22.
In its arguments to the ombudsman, the university disputed that the figures should be made available, saying that it was being sought as a result of self-interest, rather than because it was generally in the public interest.
"The perceived need of the applicant, even though she is a journalist, does not equate to the 'general public need,' the university argued to the ombudsman.
Ombudsman Richard Connock said he was "not persuaded" by that argument.
"There is always a need for information to be accessible to the general public and a public authority's view on the ultimate use of the information by the applicant (or apparently poor opinion of journalists) should not reduce the weight of this factor," he said.
"Similarly, scrutiny of government decision-making processes is an ongoing process and it would be illogical if such scrutiny were only considered of significant value prior to decisions being made."
Mr Connock did agree that there were valid concerns that the release of information could harm the business or financial interests of the university.
'Like they were protecting the crown jewels'
Rick Snell, the university's law school Adjunct Associate Professor, assisted the ABC with applications throughout the appeals process.
He said the outcome showed the university needed to overhaul its right to information activities.
"For [the university] to fight for three years, tooth and nail for as long as it has, is outrageous," he said.
"It's like they were protecting the crown jewels, rather than several pieces of fairly innocuous but important pieces of information.
Associate Professor Snell said the decision was a reminder that there's a public interest in education, public accountability and scrutiny of public institutions in Tasmania.
"The major outcome has been a complete rebuttal of the university's arguments that its primary purpose and objective is effectively commercialisation and acting as a commercial entity in its delivery of educational services," he said.
Speaking on Sunday, vice-chancellor Rufus Black said he was pleased the information was in the public domain.
"We're very happy that the information [the ABC has] received is in the public interest, and that's why I'm happy talking about it today," he said.
"We need to make sure we are providing for the public any information which helps them understand what we are seeking to do, which is provide accessible education right here in the heart of the city and ensure we're looking after Hobart's greater interests like we're doing on housing."
