News
Calls grow for the resignation of UTS vice-chancellor Andrew Parfitt, who knew of the KPMG-produced list targeting ‘underperforming’ staff even as his office denied it existed. By Rick Morton.
‘Kicking and screaming’: UTS admits to secret spreadsheet
University of Technology Sydney vice-chancellor Professor Andrew Parfitt has told a federal government inquiry he knew about a secret list of “underperforming” researchers produced by consulting firm KPMG as part of a $100 million cost-cutting drive, but his office claimed on his behalf it did not exist.
The contortions over whether the spreadsheet was ever produced as part of a $7 million program of work by the consulting giant has drawn both the VC and his deputy vice-chancellor (research), Professor Kate McGrath, into an integrity scandal and raised questions among staff about whether the series of denials were dishonest.
At issue is a New South Wales Government Information (Public Access) Act, or GIPA, request made in April for documents relating to work provided by KPMG. The application returned a bundle of reports but not the spreadsheet, which had been listed as paid for and complete under a contract extension signed by the vice-chancellor.
When National Tertiary Education Union branch representatives at the university wrote to Parfitt to ask why the spreadsheet hadn’t been disclosed, the vice-chancellor forwarded the correspondence to his chief counsel, Kylie Gould, and asked for advice.
“Happy to discuss,” he wrote on July 16.
On July 23, Parfitt approved a response drafted for him and to be sent by his acting chief of staff, Danielle Woolley, a former KPMG partner.
“OK with me,” he wrote.
In that response, sent the following day, Woolley said no spreadsheet ever existed.
“I can confirm that no master spreadsheet of research staff as referred to was produced or delivered in partnership with KPMG,” she wrote.
That wasn’t true.
Now, Parfitt has confirmed for the first time that he knew about the spreadsheet but failed to explain why it wasn’t disclosed even as he was personally drawn into correspondence about it.
“The Vice-Chancellor became aware of a spreadsheet on 4 November 2024 when Professor Kate McGrath, Deputy Vice-Chancellor Research (DVCR) consulted him on bringing in the UTS Research Office data team as an alternative to proceeding with the KPMG analysis,” Parfitt wrote to the Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee chair, Senator Marielle Smith, responding to questions on notice from Greens Senator Mehreen Faruqi.
“Professor McGrath had by this point determined the spreadsheet prepared by KPMG was neither reliable nor required as part of developing change proposals.”
Despite this admission, Parfitt’s response to another question about why executives repeatedly denied the existence of the spreadsheet was not that it didn’t exist but because it was deliberately excluded from the search for documents.
“The search terms referred to ‘any reports of KPMG (or other third-party consultancy) regarding operational sustainability, including those informing the initial consultation phase, and any thereafter’,” Parfitt wrote to the committee, which is due to deliver its final report this coming week.
“Stand-alone spreadsheets of data were not considered to be ‘reports’.”
What should have been a minor discussion point in a sweeping sustainability drive that sought to remove more than 400 academic and professional staff, axe 1100 subjects and remove entire courses, has instead become an emblem of the lack of transparency in the university sector.
Staff at the university say even with the vice-chancellor’s new admission, the story still doesn’t add up.
“The vice-chancellor knew that people were seeking it because he was asked directly repeatedly, including in meetings in May, and via email,” one staff member says. “Many people were involved with decisions relating to denying the existence of the spreadsheet who would’ve known that it existed.”
Another said the saga of the missing document – which might have represented a breach of the university’s bargaining obligations, as it was drawn up for use in a redundancy effort and not for performance management processes – is a reminder that trust in the sector has been shattered.
“Whether you look at the ANU crisis, where the VC eventually resigned but the chancellor remains, or any number of other institutions around the country that have engaged consultants to pawn the heart and soul of universities, staff and students have been misled time and again,” the UTS academic says. “Andrew Parfitt says he knew about this spreadsheet but approved responses from his office that flat out rejected it ever existed. Well, was he being deliberately dishonest or did he forget about the key deliverable on the contract for which he paid millions?
“None of those conclusions are flattering.”
A spokesperson for UTS told The Saturday Paper “UTS and the Vice-Chancellor take GIPA obligations very seriously and act at all times to meet these obligations”.
“We absolutely reject any suggestions to the contrary,” the spokesperson said.
“As regards the spreadsheet, work on it had been discontinued and regarded as a completed activity after being reviewed by the Deputy Vice-Chancellor Research in late 2024. The DVCR determined the spreadsheet was neither reliable nor required as part of developing change proposals.
“The Vice-Chancellor and leadership team are focused on working with our staff and community to address the challenges facing the university to secure its long-term future as an exceptional university.”
On November 27, as news filtered out that Parfitt was considering walking back some of the most savage proposals under the restructure – notably to permanently axe every teacher education course at UTS during a teacher supply shortage – NSW upper house MP and former UTS associate professor Dr Sarah Kaine called for him to resign.
“Any change that protects courses and jobs is welcome – but let’s be clear: this backflip is far too little, too late,” Kaine said in a statement.
“UTS had to be brought kicking and screaming to this decision after months of backlash from staff, students and government. That is not leadership. That is just sensitivity to public shaming.”
Kaine is the chair of the NSW Standing Committee on Social Issues Inquiry into the NSW University Sector, distinct from the federal committee, and said the state has already heard “serious questions about governance and accountability at UTS”.
“Professor Parfitt has admitted that elements of this plan were absolutely not in the public good, and were pursued in such a callous way that SafeWork NSW ordered a prohibition order due to what it deemed as ‘a serious and imminent risk of psychological harm’,” Kaine said.
“Universities exist to serve the public interest, not undermine it. Leadership that disregards this fundamental principle cannot continue. Given his central role in overseeing UTS during a so-called ‘financial crisis’ and the subsequent restructuring, it is clear that confidence in his leadership has been eroded.”
KPMG is not the only consultancy firm heavily involved in the higher education sector. The Saturday Paper has previously revealed the extent of consultancy use throughout universities in Australia, especially the slick operation at Nous, which merged with a higher education data company to become NousCubane.
Nous sells licences to use its UniForum services – Wollongong paid $1 million in February for a four-year licence – and then uses the data gleaned from this service to pitch for business in restructuring or to find “savings” when beleaguered management comes knocking.
At a hearing of the federal parliamentary inquiry on November 12, Nous Group chief executive Tim Orton and principal Paul Taylor said the firm has done consulting work with 43 universities in Australia over the past five years. Only “five or 10”, Orton said, have not commissioned the firm.
Speaking specifically about the UniForum model operated within Nous Data Insights, Orton said the data is willingly provided by universities who then pay a licence fee to access aggregated “benchmarking” against other universities around the world.
“So, yes, we receive a fee for the work that we do. Whether we buy the information or sell the information is something we could have a philosophical discussion about,” he said.
“We are paid for the work that we do, but the information is held by the university.”
The federal parliamentary inquiry’s final report is expected to detail a widespread governance malaise within higher education institutions, particularly regarding the oversight of universities between federal and state governments, the limp accountability structures between university councils and executive management, and conditions for staff and students.
As of November 20, the Fair Work Ombudsman (FWO) has recovered $237 million in underpayments owed to more than 118,000 employees in the sector since July 2019. University of Sydney has “remediated” at least $41.6 million of this total figure.
The FWO has begun litigation against two universities and has 27 ongoing investigations.
Institutions have urged the federal government to dump the disastrous Job-ready Graduates program, which remains in place from the former Coalition government and has contributed to some of the financial instability in the sector.
“This ill-conceived initiative has introduced deep inequity and unfairness into the nation’s higher education system, especially for Arts and Humanities students who now face spiralling costs of more than $50,000 for a three-year degree,” Western Sydney University said in response to questions on notice from the federal inquiry.
“Not only are students weighed down with higher fees and a lifetime of debt, but many are now dissuaded from going to university at all at the very time the nation needs more students to enrol in higher education.”
At the same time, government funding has fallen and international student income remains competitive. Universities are coming under increasing pressure to rid themselves of investments with weapons manufacturers, gambling and fossil fuel companies.
Western Sydney University said almost 23 per cent of its total investment pool is exposed to these businesses, in addition to almost $3 million in research funding from weapons companies such as Thales, BAE Systems and Northrop Grumman.
Any government response to the increasingly brittle and financially desperate governance structures at higher education institutions will need to deal with these investments, which correlate to decades of reductions in public funding.
This article was first published in the print edition of The Saturday Paper on December 6, 2025 as "‘Kicking and screaming’: UTS admits to secret spreadsheet".
For almost a decade, The Saturday Paper has published Australia’s leading writers and thinkers. We have pursued stories that are ignored elsewhere, covering them with sensitivity and depth. We have done this on refugee policy, on government integrity, on robo-debt, on aged care, on climate change, on the pandemic.
All our journalism is fiercely independent. It relies on the support of readers. By subscribing to The Saturday Paper, you are ensuring that we can continue to produce essential, issue-defining coverage, to dig out stories that take time, to doggedly hold to account politicians and the political class.
There are very few titles that have the freedom and the space to produce journalism like this. In a country with a concentration of media ownership unlike anything else in the world, it is vitally important. Your subscription helps make it possible.
Subscriber exclusive
Send this article to a friend for free.
Share this subscriber exclusive article with a friend or family member using share credits.
