Back to BlogFrom casualisation to compliance: Solving workforce challenges in Australian universities
Understanding workforce challenges in Australian universities
The rise of casualisation in higher education
The workforce needs of Australian universities have grown more complex over the past couple of decades. A lot has happened in the sector. There’s been funding volatility, extreme competition for international students and shortened research grant cycles. All these factors have encouraged institutions to treat labour as a flexible resource. In reality, this has led to widespread use of workers in casual and fixed term contracts across all areas of university jobs: teaching, research and professional roles. The National Tertiary Education Union (NTEU) estimates that fewer than one in three university workers hold secure employment, while most teaching staff rely on either short-term contracts or hourly paid work.
A discussion paper from the Australian Universities Accord on workplace relations in universities notes that around 16 percent of the workforce are in casual roles, on a full time equivalent basis. This number is higher when total headcount is factored in. Many institutions now depend on sessional teachers for core subjects, and on rolling fixed-term contracts for research and student support.
The human and organisational impact of casual employment
Sessional teaching, fixed term contracts and casual jobs, are categories of work deemed to be “insecure”; a term that defines the short-term nature of the working arrangement. And its impact is significant, from reshaping careers, reducing teaching quality to impact on institution’s capacity.
Casual and fixed term staff often juggle multiple contracts across campuses to meet their desired earning potential, a scenario that comes with multiple downsides. Like limited access to professional development or paid time to offer student support. According to a report from QT Academy at the University of Newcastle, between 50 and 80 percent of undergraduate teaching relies on casual or sessional staff engaged, shockingly, for a mere semester at a time. And they deem this precarity to now be the norm.
Many of these staff members have no office, no assured hours and few opportunities for truly stable careers in academia. If Australian universities are to be deemed worthy of a Go8 ranking or a high standing on the World University Rankings, their workforce planning must cater for student success, research capabilities and digital education.
The organisational impact is equally significant. Heavy reliance on insecure roles fragments curriculum ownership and disrupts research programs. Knowledge walks out the door each time a limited employment contract ends. Permanent staff end up absorbing coordination and mentoring work without the requisite time allocations. This impacts research continuity and increases the risk of burnout.
Given all this evidence, the workforce challenges in Australian universities affect governance, operations, and academic research, not just human resources.
The policy and public perception shift around casualisation
And these changes are being noticed. There’s been a shift in workforce policy and public attention towards insecure work in higher education. The Universities Accord from the Australian Government’s Department of Education, describe casualisation as a structural issue affecting learning and teaching quality as well as impacting the sustainability of universities. NTEU’s response to the Accord argues that the sector requires solutions to an insecure work crisis in order to protect teaching and educational quality and to retain staff.
Media coverage of wage theft and insecure work in the sector has also shifted public sentiment. Stories of experienced academics on short, irregular contracts sit alongside news of universities reporting large surpluses or commencing capital projects. The result? Parents and community stakeholders start to connect the dots between workforce challenges in Australian universities with declining student experience and sector-based trust. The result? A combination of policy focus and public scrutiny has moved workforce casualisation from an internal staffing topic to a broader strategic risk for the sector.
The hidden costs of insecure employment in universities
Financial risks and operational inefficiency
Flexible hiring often appears fiscally efficient on paper, but hidden costs quickly emerge. These include:
- High turnover among casual and short-term contract staff requires constant recruitment, onboarding and training.
- Teaching programs that change timetables every semester, reduces continuity for students and creates administrative overheads.
- A semester-by-semester staffing approach undermines Australian universities’ multi-year curriculum plans, robbing students of a cohesive learning journey.
Also, operational inefficiency arises due to the increasing need for rework: for example, professional staff on short-term contracts will need to repeat induction and systems training instead of building long-term process improvement.
Compliance exposure — wage theft and misclassification
Compliance risk has become one of the most visible consequences of insecure work in higher education. The Federal Government’s Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency, TEQSA, with a focus on compliance and underpayment of wages, has revealed large scale underpayment of staff across multiple Australian universities and links this to concerns about quality of education and the risks to uni’s reputations.
In 2024, an NTEU commissioned review by Grant Thornton uncovered at least $159 million in underpayments across the sector, affecting more than 97,000 staff and 30 employers. It was a watershed moment.
And enforcement actions are showing just how exposed the sector really is. Here are two examples:
- The University of Melbourne faces a total remediation bill of over $72 million for wage underpayment to more than 25,000 workers over the decade to December 2024, under an enforceable undertaking with the Fair Work Ombudsman.
- Griffith University will repay over $8.3 million to more than 5,400 staff after admitting to widespread underpayments for workers performing tutorials, subject coordination and research assistance.
Underpayment comes from multiple actions or inactions, including misinterpreted enterprise agreements, poor data and payroll systems and weak workplace governance and oversight. Not only do universities suffer financial penalties when non-compliant, they incur contrition payments and brand damage.
Strategic repercussions — talent retention and institutional reputation
The strategic repercussions of adopting insecure work models impacts workforce planning and hiring decisions.
Consider early career researchers and professional specialists. They’re required to draw conclusions from repeated short contracts, they experience limited promotion pathways and ongoing uncertainty about future funding for their work. As a result, many choose roles in industry, government or overseas institutions where careers are more predictable and secure. This paper on de-casualisation referencing the Australian Universities Accord notes that schemes to convert casual staff into ongoing roles remain patchy, despite long standing recognition of risk.
The emerging workforce needs across Australian universities include expertise in priority areas such as climate research, health innovation and digital learning. Yet the staffing structures are impacting teaching standards and learning experiences of students.
The other impact is reputation damage. TEQSA has warned that extensive underpayment and insecure employment undermine confidence in quality assurance across the sector.Media references to wage theft influence how prospective students, staff and industry partners assess institutions. The result is that workforce challenges in Australian universities are now serious brand issues.
Building a sustainable, compliant workforce model
Workforce planning and data-driven decision-making
A sustainable workforce model starts with accurate, reliable data. Many universities hold rich information about staff, yet this data sits in separate systems for HR, payroll, timetabling, research administration and external partners. Without data integration, university executives lack a reliable picture of casual exposure, overtime, compliance and the match (or mismatch) between staffing and strategic goals. Strong analytics across the whole workforce is needed.
Integrated data allows leaders to answer questions about the share of undergraduate teaching delivered by sessional staff, the proportion of research roles on rolling fixed term contracts and the distribution of casual work across professional teams. A study by the University of Melbourne shows that casual professional roles represent around 10% of the professional workforce on a full time equivalent basis, with concentration in student services and operations. When university leadership teams see this level of detail, workforce challenges move from anecdote to quantifiable risk and ultimately, opportunity.
Redesigning employment models for long-term value
Once the data offers a clear picture, universities can redesign employment models to balance flexibility with stability. Options include:
- Converting groups of regular sessional teaching roles into fractional continuing appointments
- Creating specialist teaching positions that are aligned with long-term curriculum needs
- Expanding multi year research roles where funding patterns support continuity.
Research on job security in universities notes that casual staff once represented under 16% of the academic workforce, but as institutions respond to funding pressures, greater adoption of casual work has materialised. Addressing the emerging workforce needs of universities now requires deliberate reversal of this trend in areas where work is clearly ongoing.
Professional and technical teams also need attention. Considerations such as student success initiatives, digital learning opportunities and research capacity rely on staff with deep institutional knowledge. Long sequences of short contracts in these areas create risk for service quality and academic outputs. Redesigning the employment model can include segmented workforce strategies, where some functions shift toward more secure roles while others move into structured project or managed service arrangements.
Governance, systems, and cultural transformation
Wage underpayment across the sector highlights systemic weaknesses in oversight of wages, internal auditing protocols, and reporting accuracy and efficacy. Legal analysis by the Law Society Journal of NSW regarding underpayment at the University of Wollongong describes more than 5,300 staff underpaid over a decade, with issues traced to flawed payroll systems and limited internal scrutiny. It’s clear the industry needs robust governance frameworks for workforce compliance. And now.
To improve governance improvements, specific steps are required:
- Executive level decision-making and responsibility for workforce risk
- Regular reporting on employment categories
- Reporting on progress of any and all remediation requirements
- Establishing cross-functional committees linking HR, finance, legal and academic leadership
- Technology upgrades. Legacy payroll systems can struggle with complex academic workload formulas and multiple enterprise agreements
- Establishing new settings that reflect job security laws, so all workers are correctly classified.
NTEU guidance on recent changes to casual work laws highlighted that some universities attempt to bypass these reforms through very short contracts with irregular hours. A strategy that, without question, puts the university at risk.
Partnering with CXC to solve workforce challenges in higher education
CXC’s role in workforce compliance and transformation
Many universities engage the support of workforce partners to manage risk and compliance. CXC works with organisations around the world delivering contingent workforce programs, including sectors with complex award and enterprise agreements in place. Looking at the emerging workforce needs of Australian universities, CXC’s expertise is strongly aligned across contractor classification, payroll accuracy and governance.
For our higher education clients, CXC offers contractor compliance programs for contingent and project based roles, outsourced payroll services for sessional or project staff and managed service provider models to coordinate multiple staffing suppliers. These solutions apply standardised pay rules, engagement terms and audit processes across faculties and campuses, coupled with the detailed reporting to keep institutions informed and compliant.
Under our proven models, workforce challenges in Australian universities sit within structured frameworks where exceptions receive targeted attention.
From casualisation to compliance — a structured pathway
Our programs help higher education institutions to transition from high-risk, short-term staffing to strategic, compliant workforce models. We typically begin with a diagnostic project, reviewing current engagement methods for sessional, fixed-term and contractor roles while assessing exposure to underpayment and misclassification. This review links the university’s workforce needs with visible risk and opportunities for redesign.
From there, we help design future-state models, which is unique to each institution. This process can include channeling casual cohorts through our engagement processes, consolidating vendors under a managed service umbrella and introducing standardised onboarding, time capture and approval workflows.
When we implement these systems, we provide support of tech integration, communication with affected staff and training for hiring managers. Our reporting then tracks spend, headcount and compliance indicators across the contingent workforce, on a frequency determined by the university.
Enabling future-ready universities with CXC’s workforce solutions
Universities need to be future-ready and adaptable to legislative change. And with many having international campuses, online programs and lifelong learning offerings alongside traditional degrees, the emerging workforce needs are more complex than ever before. Every university offering involves complex combinations of academic, professional and external, contract staff.
CXC’s global footprint and experience with employer of record and contractor solutions provides direct support for these objectives. We bring tested frameworks for role classification, pay compliance and vendor management, along with technology platforms for time capture and reporting.
For leadership teams facing workforce challenges in Australian universities, partnering with CXC offers a way to stabilise contingent staffing, demonstrate governance to regulators and free up internal resources for strategic projects.
FAQs – common questions about workforce challenges in Australian universities
Why is casualisation such a major issue in Australian universities?
The over-casualisation of staffing in Australian universities has had far-reaching effects. From teaching quality, research capacity, to fiscal penalties, reputation decline and staff wellbeing. Sessional teachers deliver much of the undergraduate curriculum, often on short contracts with limited paid time for preparation or student support. Many carry heavy marking loads for hourly pay rates that do not reflect total hours worked.
Insecure work also impacts research output and quality. Early career academics often hold a series of fixed-term contracts aligned with grant cycles, which complicates long-term projects and reduces their retention. From a governance standpoint, high rates of casual staffing creates complexity for pay compliance, job security and EBA obligations. The workforce challenges in Australian universities stem not only from the presence of casual roles, but from systemic reliance on these roles for ongoing work.
What are the biggest compliance risks universities face in workforce management?
The biggest compliance risks universities face include wage underpayment, misclassification of workers and governance failures. Sector wide analysis from TEQSA notes large scale underpayment of casual staff poses a threat to provider reputation and the student experience. The crux of underpayment is often because staffers spend hours in preparation, student consultation or assessment, hours that exceed the standard assumptions in enterprise agreements coupled with payroll systems that don’t record the actual time invested by the worker.
How can data improve workforce planning in higher education institutions?
Accurate and up-to-date data needs to connect workforce planning with strategic goals. When universities integrate HR, payroll, timetabling and research information, leaders see patterns that would otherwise remain hidden. One institution might find casual staff deliver most teaching in first year subjects with the highest attrition rates. Another might discover that professional teams with high casual exposure also report frequent process failures. Ongoing student success and efficient operations are the hallmarks of well-deployed, high-quality, accurate data.
Improved data also supports de-casualisation strategies. University leaders can identify cohorts of staff who teach the same subjects each year, or who work regular hours across multiple terms. Those roles are strong candidates for fractional continuing positions or longer fixed-term appointments. Data-driven scenarios can show the financial impacts of worker classification conversion, including reduced recruitment and training costs and lower compliance risk.
What steps can universities take to transition from casualisation to a compliance-first model?
Transition to a compliance-first model requires a strategic effort rather than isolated actions. First, institutions need a comprehensive audit across all staff categories, including casual, fixed-term, contractor and outsourced roles, so they can understand exposure across faculties and campuses.
Second, leadership teams benefit from clear principles such as stable teaching teams for core subjects and secure employment for work that repeats each year.
Third, the establishment of de-casualisation and job security provisions through enterprise bargaining, including clauses for conversion of regular casual work into ongoing or longer term roles. Research on de-casualisation schemes within the Department of Education’s Accord highlights progress where universities set explicit targets and timelines.
Fourth, technology system upgrades and process redesign help to address payroll accuracy, time recording and approval workflows. And finally, communication with staff and unions will maintain trust during the transition period.
How does CXC support universities in managing workforce transformation and compliance?
CXC supports workforce transformation through specialist services for contingent and project based staff. For Australian universities, this support includes standardised engagement processes for sessional and project workers, accurate payroll administration and regular reporting on classification, hours and pay. CXC applies detailed knowledge of awards and enterprise agreements, which reduces the risk of new underpayments arising after remediation.
Partnering with CXC also assists with governance and oversight of workers. Managed service provider models gather multiple staffing suppliers under consistent terms, service levels and compliance requirements. Reporting dashboards give HR and finance leaders a consolidated view of spend, headcount and risk indicators across their entire contingent workforce.
Workforce challenges in Australian universities become easier to oversee when external partners handle transactional complexity, leaving internal teams free to focus on strategic workforce planning and engagement.
About CXC
At CXC, we want to help you grow your business with flexible, contingent talent. But we also understand that managing a contingent workforce can be complicated, costly and time-consuming. Through our MSP solution, we can help you to fulfil all of your contingent hiring needs, including temp employees, independent contractors and SOW workers. And if your needs change? No problem. Our flexible solution is designed to scale up and down to match our clients’ requirements.
