Do better, Deakin

On 4 June, affected Deakin staff across two divisions of the University – Academic Portfolio, and Infrastructure and Digital – were presented with proposals for workplace restructures impacting 1,830 positions, with 138 job cuts. Those whose positions were unmatched in the new structures were given until 19 June – the close of the consultation period – to submit applications for voluntary redundancy. 

On 9 June, staff were informed by email that Vice Chancellor Iain Martin had resigned, effective immediately, with no reasons given.

On 10 June, many staff were notified for the first time of the proposed restructure in an email from the caretaker VC, Matthew Clarke.

The nature of the proposed changes, the way in which they have been communicated, and the VC's sudden and unexplained resignation compel us to publicly express our deep dismay at the events since 4 June, and the surrounding organisational context. 

The most serious failing in these events is the simplest one: it has been cruel. 

Deputy Vice-Chancellor Academic Jessica Vanderlelie met with staff online only, presenting a confusing 200+ page document in which individual staff had to hunt for their names on coloured tiles to see if they were facing redundancy. Direct line managers were given no warning or no further information to support staff. 

The change documents are a masterclass in strategic fog, replete with corporate language that makes little sense, lacks any evidence-based justification, and fails to acknowledge the human beings affected. People are not tiles on an organisational chart. The fact that this had to be said at all is a measure of how genuinely awful this process is.

A major restructure affecting nearly 2000 positions requires accountable executive leadership, and yet our VC has departed with no explanation. 

The MWC documentation provided to staff is literally entirely devoid of any evidence. It is replete with vacuous statements imploring us to be “Vibrant by making space for innovation” and “Confident, connected and future ready.” These are not organisational diagnoses. They are slogans. 

There is no quantitative or qualitative evidence provided to support claims around past or future student demands, performance indicators for units, staff or student satisfaction survey findings, or student complaint data. There are no financials. As an academic institution we expect and deserve an appropriate standard of evidence. 

Furthermore, there is no substantiation of the nature of the new roles, meaning displaced staff cannot know what kinds of jobs they may be eligible to apply for. All staff – including academics – are in the dark about how the essential work of professional staff will be reorganised. 

We are calling on Deakin Council to deliver on their obligations under the Deakin University Act 2009, including to:

1. Order the suspension of the MWC process immediately until a VC or confirmed Acting VC is in place and can be held fully accountable.

1.1. Should a new VC wish to proceed with the proposal, to order the Executive to commit to genuine consultation including: (a) an extension of the timeline for consultation; (b) the establishment of structured dialogue mechanisms, including a working group comprising staff, students and management; (c) empirical evidence supporting the proposed changes; (d) a commitment to meeting face-to-face with affected staff; (e) provision of fit-for-purpose job descriptions for new roles.

2. Involve staff meaningfully in the appointment of new leadership, including the Acting and permanent VC positions. 

3. Commission an independent review of executive governance at Deakin. This would examine how a major restructure of this scale was designed, by whom, how it was launched, and how it is being continued under these current conditions of governance chaos. And what accountability mechanisms need to be strengthened, including discussion with those who are responsible and therefore accountable.

Deakin has extraordinary staff. Through every previous restructure, through a pandemic, through leadership changes and budget pressures, we have continued to deliver the highest quality research and the highest quality education for students. We deserve to be treated as the institution's greatest asset.

We are not opposed to change. We are opposed to change done badly, without evidence, without honesty, and without care for our people who are most affected.

*

DUSA has serious concerns with the University's proposed organisational changes and the inadequate process by which they have been communicated. Notably, DUSA was not formally included in the consultation process, something that should have occurred given the impact this change will have on students.

The proposed changes carry significant risks, particularly the shift away from in-house counselling services, which would introduce barriers to access, disrupt continuity of care, and harm vulnerable students. The dissolution of the Disability Resource Centre, which risks diluting specialist expertise at a time when demand is already outpacing capacity, is especially concerning. 

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.

*

Disabled students rely on a continuity of support, and disruptions to their established community of care can be detrimental. The lack of transparency and consultation involved in this proposal means it is not possible to determine the scale of impact this will have on the Disabled community. 

The proposal is antithetical to the stated targets of the recently updated Disability Action Plan. It fails to embed accessibility and inclusion principles and will erode the quality of currently available supports. The shock and uncertainty caused by how these proposed changes have been communicated is deeply traumatic for those directly affected and demonstrates a disregard for staff wellbeing.