Staff demand Deakin suspend job cuts after shock v-c resignation

Deakin University is under pressure to pause plans for job cuts following the unexplained departure of its vice-chancellor.

The Victorian university is not acknowledging media enquiries and appears not to have responded to a staff and student petition demanding that the “major workforce change” proposals be shelved, at least until an acting vice-chancellor has been appointed.

The stand-off follows the shock “resignation” of substantive vice-chancellor Iain Martin, who exited without notice and no stated reasons for leaving, in a sector where leaders’ departures are often announced a year in advance. Martin’s LinkedIn account appears to have been withdrawn from public view, although many references to his Deakin role – including his profile as vice-chancellor – remain on the university’s website.

Last August, Deakin’s “White Paper” on universities’ social licence – co-written by Martin – highlighted the importance of “being accessible, delivering a clear message and not hiding. As with many aspects of social licence, clarity is crucial,” the document says.

Staff are baffled by the restructure proposals, which appear to lack obvious financial or operational drivers and are occurring in the middle of a state parliamentary inquiry into universities’ accountability and transparency, among other governance issues.

Deakin says it plans to realign its teaching and student support activities with its “Education and employability guiding plan 2026-2030”, which does not appear to be visible on the university’s website and is not referenced in the university’s strategic plan or annual report. A second proposal aims to make the university’s physical and digital services “more sustainable”.

A brief statement posted on the university’s website on 4 June, five days before Martin’s departure was revealed, promised 15 days of “genuine consultation” on both proposals.

The National Tertiary Education Union (NTEU) said the university has distributed almost 400 pages of “word salad” which do not reveal a rationale for major restructuring. Branch president Reece Walters said the proposals were apparently based on a review. “We don’t know who did the review. We don’t know if it’s a written review. We certainly haven’t seen it.”

He said approximately 1,800 people worked in the affected areas. Some 580 were not included in new proposed structures and would have to apply for about 430 positions, leaving roughly 150 jobless. People without designated positions in the new structures have been given until 19 June – the end of the consultation period – to submit applications for voluntary redundancy, the union said.

Walters said Deakin had been “fiscally very efficient during really difficult times”. Its annual report shows that it posted a A$56 million (£29 million) surplus last year and boosted its reserve funds by A$263 million to A$1.15 billion. It has recorded the highest overall Student Experience Survey ratings of any public university in Victoria for seven of the past eight years.

“Yet [the restructure is] targeting, in the main…frontline delivery personnel for students without any justification other than ‘trust us, we’re going to be better off’,” Walters said. “We’re seeing librarians being targeted, student disability officers. We’ve got 6,000 students with disabilities at Deakin. The whole unit are now going to fight for their jobs. I’ve been working in universities now for 32 years – seven universities across four countries – and I’ve never seen anything like this. It’s just so brutal.”

The NTEU petition demands the suspension of the restructures until a vice-chancellor or confirmed acting vice-chancellor is in place, and – should the proposals then proceed – “genuine” consultation including longer timelines, staff involvement and “empirical evidence supporting the proposed changes”.

The union also wants staff involvement in leadership appointments and an independent review of “executive governance”.

An open letter from Deakin University Student Association, attached to the petition, expresses “serious concerns” about the restructures. “These changes are occurring without evidence the proposed model will deliver equal or better outcomes for students, and without the transparent and collaborative process that major decisions of this magnitude require.”

A second open letter, from two local disability groups, says the proposals are “antithetical” to the “stated targets” of Deakin’s recently updated disability action plan.

The Deakin restructure was announced on the same day that a damning audit report found that job-cutting proposals at the Australian National University (ANU) had been approved without clear evidence that they were needed or achievable. The now abandoned ANU restructures sowed division within both the executive and the governing council and inflicted lasting damage on the institution’s reputation, finances and enrolments.

john.ross@timeshighereducation.com