Opinion
Australian universities are being pushed towards a more differentiated, productive and teaching-focused future. Yet the sector remains constrained by enterprise agreements built around an increasingly outdated conception of academic work.
The recent Fair Work Commission decision in Baker v Macquarie University [2026] FWC 3054 has exposed that disconnect.
At the same time, the Australian Tertiary Education Commission (ATEC) is asking universities to define their missions, demonstrate greater differentiation and place renewed emphasis on teaching quality and professional practice.
Taken together, these developments make one conclusion difficult to avoid: universities need genuine continuing teaching-only academic roles, supported by credible career paths.
Baker exposes the fault line
Mr Baker had taught computing at Macquarie University since 2023. His work included lecturing in a core subject across consecutive semesters according to the university timetable.
In November 2025, he notified the university under the National Employment Standards that he no longer believed he met the statutory definition of a casual employee.
The university did not accept the notification. Among the difficulties it identified was that its enterprise agreement did not appear to provide a straightforward continuing job family for an academic performing teaching duties alone.
Commissioner Crawford found that the practical reality of Mr Baker’s teaching work was inconsistent with genuine casual employment. The work was regular, scheduled and required on an ongoing basis. The relationship was more akin to recurring periods of part-time employment.
The Commission ordered that Mr Baker be treated as a 0.1 FTE part-time employee, working 182 hours averaged over 12 months.
More significantly for the sector, the Commission rejected the proposition that an enterprise agreement could prevent an eligible employee from accessing the casual employee-choice provisions in the National Employment Standards.
Commissioner Crawford concluded that if clause 18 of the Macquarie agreement prevented Mr Baker from accessing part-time employment, it would have no effect to that extent under sections 55 and 56 of the Fair Work Act.
That is the real significance of the Baker case. An enterprise agreement cannot preserve casual employment simply because its job families and workload provisions fail to contemplate an ongoing teaching-only role.
When protection becomes precariousness
Before the Baker case, the interaction between the new casual-employment laws and restrictive university agreements risked producing a perverse result.
An academic’s teaching work might no longer satisfy the statutory definition of casual employment, but the university’s enterprise agreement might offer no practical pathway into continuing teaching-only employment.
In that situation, the supposed protection created by the legislation could make employment more precarious. A university might be unable to continue engaging the person casually, yet also be unable to place them readily into an appropriate continuing role.
The employee could lose the work the legislation was intended to make more secure.
The Baker case provides an important circuit-breaker. The National Employment Standards cannot be displaced by an enterprise agreement that offers no suitable employment category.
But relying on litigation to work around outdated agreement provisions is hardly a sensible workforce strategy. The better response is to modernise the agreements.
ATEC changes the workforce equation
The timing of the Baker case is particularly important.
ATEC has commenced negotiating 2027 mission-based compacts with universities. Its agenda expressly encompasses institutional mission, teaching quality, system performance and differentiation.
ATEC has also placed the professionalisation of higher education teaching firmly on the national agenda, including through the recent report, Enhancing Professional Practice in Australian Higher Education Teaching. At the same time, it is examining whether regulatory settings adequately support research specialisation, institutional differentiation and productivity.
These developments will inevitably have workforce consequences.
Universities will increasingly be expected to explain what they do, where they will specialise and how their staffing models support their compact commitments. A more differentiated system cannot operate efficiently if every continuing academic is required to fit substantially the same employment template.
Some institutions will expand enrolments in particular disciplines. Some will place greater emphasis on teaching and student attainment. Others will concentrate research resources in selected fields rather than expecting every academic position to carry an identical research component.
Those strategies require a workforce model capable of supporting them.
The 40:40:20 model has had its day
The traditional 40% teaching, 40% research and 20% service or leadership model—and its many local variants — should no longer be treated as mandatory for an academic.
It may remain appropriate for some roles. It should not be compulsory for all of them.
Requiring every continuing academic to undertake a prescribed combination of teaching, research and service does not necessarily protect academic careers. In some cases, it prevents universities from creating secure employment for people whose expertise, contribution and professional ambitions are centred on teaching or where teaching is an adjunct to a career in industry.
Teaching should never by regarded a lesser academic activity. It requires disciplinary knowledge, pedagogical expertise, professional development and scholarly engagement. Academics who specialise in it should have access to continuing employment.
Bargaining must catch up
The current enterprise bargaining round gives universities and unions an opportunity to respond constructively.
Enterprise Agreements should allow universities to establish continuing teaching-only and teaching-focused roles at appropriate fractions. They should provide fair and transparent workload allocation and access to professional development.
What they should not do is mandate a single academic identity or require universities to preserve inflexible workload formulas regardless of their missions, student needs or workforce strategies.
Nor should teaching-only roles be regarded simply as a cheaper substitute for traditional academic employment. Commissioner Crawford observed that part-time rates may cost less than casual teaching rates, but the broader case is not merely financial.
The benefits include greater employment security, stronger teaching careers, improved continuity for students and a more productive allocation of academic expertise.
Universities should be able to employ excellent researchers to undertake research, excellent teachers to teach, and academics who wish to combine both activities to pursue balanced careers.
The law has now demonstrated the consequences of failing to provide those choices. ATEC’s compact and teaching-quality agenda will amplify the need for them.
Restrictive workload models belong to another era. Teaching-only academic careers must be part of the sector’s future for the sector to deliver on the government’s 80% tertiary attainment goal and meet the needs of a modern Australia.
Craig Laughton is Chief Executive Officer of the Australian Higher Education Industrial Association (AHIEA)