A root and branch reform of governance at University of Technology Sydney should be prioritised, fed-up staff have said, after a damning parliamentary inquiry found university management “appeared to overstate” financial pressures to justify major job cuts.

The NSW parliamentary inquiry into the university sector, which wrapped up on September 21, also raised concerns about how UTS Council responded to alternative financial evidence during the university’s restructure.

“The committee observed that numerous universities – UTS, UOW, UON, CSU, WSU and MQ – all provided inadequate justification for their large-scale restructures,” according to the final report.

“Each appeared to overstate their financial crises and correspondingly, to overreach in their restructures and cuts to staff, at the ultimate expense of their institutional and public purpose.”

The inquiry also singled out Vice-Chancellor Professor Andrew Parfitt’s secret early reappointment in August 2024, which it said occurred with “no public transparency”, as an example of the need for stronger accountability around senior university appointments.

Parfitt’s $935,000 annual salary was extended by five years, two years before his contract was due to expire. However, the decision was not announced to university staff and was only revealed during a NSW inquiry more than a year later. 

The Legislative Council’s Standing Committee on Social Issues said evidence from UTS showed that governing bodies may not always remain responsive to new information or alternative viewpoints once a preferred course of action has been established.

Dr Robert Czernkowski, an accounting academic and elected UTS Council member, said concerns he raised through council structures received little response.

“I’ve approached chairs of committees about issues that I’ve found, and in no case [did] I get any meaningful response,” Czernkowski added.

“You do not interfere with the operations. That’s the Vice-Chancellor’s responsibility. But you hold the executive accountable for what they do.”

All the evidence in that report shows that this [financial situation] was severely overstated… good to see that in writing.

Dr Sarah Attfield, NTEU branch president

Speaking at an NTEU forum after the report’s release, inquiry chair Dr Sarah Kaine said evidence across the sector showed “something drastically wrong with how things were being managed”.

She said a recurring problem was “pure managerial prerogative from the top” and that “universities were being treated, particularly by management and executives, less as a public good and more like personal fiefdoms in which corporate values are what matter most”.

UTS began its Operational Sustainability Initiative after reporting expenditure exceeded revenue by about $100 million in 2024, initially estimating around 400 jobs — roughly 10 per cent of its workforce — could be lost while targeting $100 million in annual savings.

The plan was later scaled back to 121 full-time academic equivalent positions and 146 full-time professional equivalent positions, while 143 courses and 839 subjects were ultimately slated for discontinuation. Staff feedback also resulted in the retention or redesign of programs including teacher education and International Studies.

UTS also engaged KPMG to advise on the initiative, with the firm telling the inquiry it received about $7 million for its work. KPMG said it was one input into the process and that staffing and organisational decisions remained the responsibility of UTS leadership.

NTEU UTS branch president Dr Sarah Attfield said the finding reflected concerns staff had raised throughout the restructure.

“All the evidence in that report shows that this was severely overstated,” Attfield said, adding it was “good to see that in writing”.

Six UTS Business School academics, including Czernkowski, subsequently developed an alternative financial plan challenging the scale and urgency of the university’s position.

“If you focus on profit, the university looks bad,” Czernkowski said. “But when you look at what’s happening in cash flows, it’s not as bad.”

The group also challenged UTS’s plan to repay a $300 million bond when it matured in 2027. Professor Peter Docherty told the inquiry the alternative plan proposed repaying half from cash reserves and refinancing the remainder for two years, arguing that UTS could reach a similar debt position by 2030 without the originally proposed scale of redundancies.

UTS argued continuing to carry that level of debt was too risky and that its ability to refinance depended on returning the university to surplus.

UTS’s Finance Committee considered the alternative proposal in September 2025 and Parfitt later met its authors. In written answers to the inquiry, UTS rejected independent assessment of the competing plans.

“We trust the financial modelling and analysis of our chief financial officer and finance team,” the university said.

The restructure was accompanied by sustained staff opposition. In December 2025, 95 per cent of more than 1,500 participants in an NTEU-run all-staff ballot voted no confidence in Parfitt. Union members also staged protected industrial action during enterprise bargaining, including strikes in late 2025 and 2026.

UTS told Central News it had operated with a structural deficit for five years and said pandemic impacts and government policy changes had constrained its capacity to grow revenue.

“The challenges facing UTS were sector-wide, with UTS adversely impacted by the global pandemic and government policy changes outside its control,” a spokesperson said, adding that “The university has also undertaken an external review of UTS’ governance this year and is committed to open, accountable and transparent governance arrangements”.

As of publication, UTS has yet to issue a public statement addressing the inquiry’s findings.

Main image by Central News.