Report on Restructuring at Western Sydney University and its Implications for Sustainable Development Goals

1.0 Introduction and Executive Summary

Western Sydney University (WSU) has formally announced a significant workforce reduction, eliminating approximately 238 positions, which constitutes nearly 10% of its staff. This restructuring, part of a broader “Reset Western” and “WESTERN 2030” strategy, raises substantial concerns regarding the university’s alignment with several key United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). This report analyzes the workforce changes and their direct impact on SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth), SDG 4 (Quality Education), SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities), and SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions).

2.0 Workforce Reduction and Impact on SDG 8: Decent Work

The announced job cuts directly challenge the principles of SDG 8, which advocates for full, productive employment and decent work for all. The university’s actions represent a significant loss of secure employment within the public education sector.

• Job Elimination: A total of 238 jobs are slated for elimination, with additional staff impacted by position “disestablishment,” forcing them to compete for reclassified roles.
• Redundancy Process: Management aims to achieve 70% of the cuts through voluntary redundancies (VRs). However, forced redundancies are confirmed for administrative and support staff whose VR applications did not align with the new organizational design.
• Institutional Collaboration: The announcement followed an agreement between WSU management and campus unions (NTEU and CPSU) to avert industrial action, facilitating the implementation of the job cuts through enterprise bargaining agreements. This collaboration framework has resulted in job losses rather than the preservation of decent work.

3.0 Strategic Realignment and Challenges to SDG 4: Quality Education

The university justifies the restructuring as a necessary step to align with its “WESTERN 2030” strategy. This strategic shift, however, may compromise the delivery of inclusive and equitable quality education as outlined in SDG 4.

1. Curriculum Focus: The new strategy emphasizes a narrow focus on “careers, employability, work integrated learning and placements.” This prioritizes vocational outcomes for industry over broader critical educational experiences, potentially narrowing the scope and quality of education.
2. Financial Pressures and Policy: The university cites declining revenue per student due to the government’s “Job-ready Graduates” package. This policy has increased fees for humanities and social sciences, creating financial barriers that undermine equitable access to diverse fields of study, a core tenet of SDG 4.
3. Resource Allocation: The reduction of academic and support staff threatens the quality of teaching, student support, and research, which are fundamental to a high-quality tertiary education system.

4.0 Socio-Economic Context and Implications for SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

The restructuring at WSU, a university serving a predominantly working-class population, has significant implications for SDG 10, which aims to reduce inequality within and among countries.

• Impact on a Key Community: Job losses and service reductions at a major local employer and educational institution can exacerbate economic and social inequalities in the Western Sydney region.
• Government Policy Influence: The continuation of the “Job-ready Graduates” program and new caps on international students, which universities rely on for revenue, disproportionately affect institutions like WSU. These policies create systemic financial instability that leads to measures like job cuts, further entrenching educational inequality.

5.0 Governance, Partnerships, and SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

The process of implementing the cuts and the broader national context for university reform raise questions about the accountability and purpose of public institutions, as addressed in SDG 16.

• Institutional Accountability: The collaboration between management and unions to implement job cuts while preventing member-supported industrial action points to a potential deficit in transparent and accountable governance where stakeholder voices are concerned.
• National Agenda Alignment: The Australian government’s Universities Accord demands that universities align their missions with the needs of business and war-related industries, such as the AUKUS submarine plan. This policy subordinates the goal of education for public good to corporate and military interests.
• Resource Prioritization: The diversion of public funds and institutional focus towards military-industrial objectives instead of securing and enhancing free, high-quality public education runs counter to the promotion of peaceful and inclusive societies envisioned in SDG 16.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

1. SDG 4: Quality Education
   • The article discusses significant changes to the university’s structure and mission, directly impacting the quality and focus of education. It mentions a shift away from “broader and critical educational experience” towards satisfying “the narrow vocational demands of employers.” Furthermore, it highlights government policies like the “Job-ready Graduates” program, which imposes “punishing fees” on certain courses, affecting accessibility and equity in education.
2. SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth
   • This is the most central SDG in the article. The core issue is the “destruction of nearly 250 jobs” at Western Sydney University, which represents “almost 10 percent of its workforce.” The article details the process of job elimination, including forced redundancies and reclassifications to “possibly at lower grades and wages,” which directly contradicts the principles of decent work and full, productive employment.
3. SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities
   • The article notes that WSU is one of Australia’s “predominantly working-class universities.” Policies and cuts affecting this institution could disproportionately impact students from less privileged backgrounds. The “Job-ready Graduates” program, which creates significant financial barriers for humanities students, introduces inequality of opportunity based on the chosen field of study.
4. SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions
   • The article critiques the decision-making process behind the job cuts. It describes an agreement between university management and unions to “head off votes by their members for industrial action” and impose the cuts. The mention of a “token three-week ‘consultation’ period” suggests a lack of responsive, inclusive, and participatory decision-making, which is a key aspect of strong institutions.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

1. Under SDG 4: Quality Education
   • Target 4.3: By 2030, ensure equal access for all women and men to affordable and quality technical, vocational and tertiary education, including university. The article challenges this target by describing the “Job-ready Graduates” program, which has set “punishing fees of $50,000 or more on domestic arts, humanities and social sciences students,” creating a financial barrier to access.
   • Target 4.4: By 2030, substantially increase the number of youth and adults who have relevant skills, including technical and vocational skills, for employment, decent jobs and entrepreneurship. The university’s new mission to consolidate work around “careers, employability, work integrated learning and placements” directly aligns with this target, but the article frames it as a narrowing of educational purpose at the expense of critical thinking.
2. Under SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth
   • Target 8.5: By 2030, achieve full and productive employment and decent work for all. The article directly counters this target by reporting the elimination of “238 jobs” at WSU and “at least 3,500 jobs” across Australia’s public universities. The mention of staff being forced to compete for reclassified jobs at “possibly at lower grades and wages” undermines the “decent work” aspect.
   • Target 8.8: Protect labour rights and promote safe and secure working environments for all workers. The article raises concerns about the protection of labour rights, detailing how union leadership made a deal with management to “avert potential industrial disputation” despite members voting for it. The “spill and fill” competition for remaining jobs described in the enterprise bargaining agreements creates an insecure working environment.
3. Under SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities
   • Target 10.3: Ensure equal opportunity and reduce inequalities of outcome. The “Job-ready Graduates” program, by imposing significantly higher fees on humanities courses, creates an unequal opportunity for students based on their academic interests and potential socioeconomic background, directly conflicting with this target.
4. Under SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions
   • Target 16.7: Ensure responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making at all levels. The article implies this target is not being met. The decision-making process involved a deal between management and unions to prevent industrial action, and the consultation period is described as a “token three-week” process, suggesting that the decisions were not inclusive or representative of the affected staff members’ views.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

1. For SDG 8 (Decent Work)
   • Number of jobs eliminated: The article provides specific figures: “238 jobs would be eliminated” at WSU, and “at least 3,500 jobs are currently being eliminated” nationally in the sector. This is a direct indicator of negative progress towards Target 8.5.
   • Proportion of workforce reduction: The cuts at WSU amount to “almost 10 percent of its workforce,” serving as an indicator of the scale of job insecurity.
2. For SDG 4 (Quality Education)
   • Cost of tuition for specific fields: The mention of “punishing fees of $50,000 or more on domestic arts, humanities and social sciences students” is a quantifiable indicator of unequal access to tertiary education (Target 4.3).
   • Change in university strategic focus: The formal adoption of the “WESTERN 2030” strategy, which prioritizes “employability and… industry experience” over a “broader and critical educational experience,” can be seen as a qualitative indicator of shifts in educational quality.
3. For SDG 16 (Strong Institutions)
   • Length and nature of consultation periods: The “token three-week ‘consultation’ period” is an indicator of the lack of participatory decision-making (Target 16.7).
   • Suppression of industrial action: The agreement between unions and management to “avert potential industrial disputation” despite members voting for it indicates a failure in representative processes within the involved institutions.

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: wsws.org