.png)
A First in Australia
SafeWork NSW has taken an unprecedented step, halting the University of Technology Sydney’s restructure due to “serious and imminent risk of psychological harm.”
The notice is in effect “until SafeWork NSW is satisfied that appropriate safety measures have been put in place as a result of consultation with workers.” UTS has 14 days to apply for a review.
It's a first and it shows how SafeWork can halt operations and cost millions each month if processes don’t withstand scrutiny.
Breaking down the financial implications
SafeWork’s prohibition carries significant implications. Below is a conservative view to how this could be costing $3m-$4m every month.
- Payroll drag: With 150 academic roles frozen, at an average of ~$130k per year, UTS is carrying = $1.6m per month in salaries it expected to cut.
- Consultants & legal: The $5m already spent on KPMG is sunk. Add rework, legal responses to SafeWork and the Fair Work Commission, and the bill rises by another $500,000 – $700,000 per month.
- Delayed savings: The restructure was designed to deliver $100m in cuts by 2029. Each month’s delay pushes those savings further out, worth = $1m+ per month in lost benefit.
In total, the pause could be conservatively costing $3m–$4m every month. Extend that across a three-month stall and you’re looking at $10m+ in unplanned costs - not including the reputational damage and cultural fallout of being stopped mid-restructure.
What SafeWork is checking
SafeWork NSW’s prohibition notice on UTS is not about whether consultation happened in form, but whether it was genuine and resulted in adequate controls.
The regulator is asking four key questions:
- Have psychosocial hazards (job insecurity, workload, organisational justice) been identified?
- Have the risks been assessed properly?
- Has consultation with workers been genuine and meaningful?
- Have controls been put in place to reduce or eliminate risks?
Until SafeWork is satisfied on these points, the notice is likely to remain in effect.
Important message for leaders
Can your processes withstand regulator scrutiny?
SafeWork is now halting business decisions until psychosocial risks are effectively controlled. The regulator has demonstrated it will intervene directly across all industries.
For leaders, the issue is straightforward: if your processes cannot withstand regulatory scrutiny, the costs can be millions every month.
Tension between operational needs and legal requirements
A UTS spokesperson noted that management was “frustrated by the ongoing delays” and “very concerned about the impact this is having on our community.” The university maintains that it cannot move forward with meaningful consultation until its proposal is formally released, pointing to a tension between legal obligations, operational needs, and regulator requirements.
The spokesperson added that management of psychosocial risks and staff wellbeing were of “paramount importance” and that they wanted to have “full and meaningful consultation” with workers. However, they couldn’t do this until the change proposal was formally released.
Free Resource: Evidence of Genuine Consultation
SafeWork’s notice made clear: consultation must be genuine and lead to controls. Without evidence, even well-intended efforts can be judged insufficient.
To support organisations, we’re offering a free resource that helps bring consultation data together into a clear report. This template makes it easier to:
- Capture feedback from staff and health & safety representatives.
- Show how concerns were assessed and addressed.
- Demonstrate to boards and regulators that consultation was genuine and informed controls.
You can access it for free, just fill this form out HERE
Example controls
Beyond genuine consultation. Evidence of controls is important. Examples in this case may include the below, aimed to address the following hazards:
1. Job Security
- Redeployment opportunities across business units.
- Voluntary redundancies before compulsory ones.
- Clear timelines so staff aren’t left in uncertainty.
2. Organisational Justice
- Transparent criteria for role changes and redundancies.
- Fair appeals or review processes.
- Consistent messaging from leaders to avoid perceptions of bias.
3. Job Demands (for those remaining)
- Adjust workloads to reflect reduced staff numbers.
- Phase in changes gradually instead of sudden increases in demand.
- Provide additional resources or training where duties expand.
We hope you found this useful and as always, thank you for reading.
.png)
.png)