Current Proposal
On the 30th of September, 2025, management at QUT unveiled their 'Faculty of Science Proposal for Change' - a plan to shrink the Faculty of Science by 16%, or 21 academic and administrative roles by the end of the year through a mixture of voluntary, and if need be, forced redundancies.
This is only the tip of the iceberg of those affected, as countless postgraduate students, industry connections, sessional staff, and undergraduate students who branch off from these roles also stand to lose their mentors, teachers, and colleagues.
​
Read the full proposal here, with a summary below:
Summary of Proposed Changes
Redundancies
The proposal is seeking to shrink the Faculty of Science by 21 full-time equivalent academic (18) and administrative staff (3), or by 16% of the current total. While management is starting with voluntary redundancies, they are not ruling out involuntary (forced) redundancies if they do not meet their quotas.
Merging Schools
The schools of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences and Information Technology are proposed to merge with the schools of Biology and Environmental Sciences and Computer Sciences respectively. This will lead to fewer administrative staff looking after larger schools.
Quick turnaround
Management is intending to execute this plan by the end of the year, giving staff minimal time - through the busiest part of the year - to oppose it.
Reasons for changes
The given reason for these changes was declining domestic enrolments in courses under the Faculty of Science and limits on international enrolments stifling student revenue, despite excellent external research funding.
However, these enrolment and revenue statistics are never presented or cited, meaning we are must simply trust that stakes are dire and there are no other ways forward.
If you've ever published/ submitted an academic paper, you will know that 'just trust me on this' does NOT pass the bar...
Issues with proposal
Timing
This proposal was sprung upon staff during the busy end of semester two period - meaning that most people are too busy wrapping up classes, finalising marking, and applying for research funding for the next year to fight back.
​
With only a month for feedback submissions and an intended execution date by the end of the year, management seem intent to rush this proposal through with the littlest amount of resistance. We won't let that happen.
Lack of data
As mentioned above, the stated reasoning behind this proposal is that student revenue is down and thus cuts must be made. However, no hard numbers are provided to back this up - no student enrolments, no budgets, no nothing. We are simply meant to trust that nothing else can be done and lay down our jobs.
Risk assessment
The accompanying risk assessment for this proposal rates all protentional hazards as either of 'low' or 'medium' severity, which seems like a stretch when people's whole careers are on the line.
Disrespectful tone
In the accompanying 'Understanding reactions to change' document - aimed at providing staff with a mental framework for processing changes - the reader is asked to consider what aspects of the proposed change are they most interested/ enthusiastic about?
​
In the context of forced redundancies, this reads as extremely tone-death.