AI Workplace Shift Raises Jobs and Workers’ Rights Concerns

Artificial intelligence is expected to transform workplaces across Australia, but its growing use is raising difficult questions about job security, wages, working hours and employee privacy. The Australian government has warned employers that automation could create opportunities for higher pay, shorter working weeks and more meaningful work, but it could also increase pressure on employees through tighter surveillance, unrealistic performance targets and heavier workloads.

Workplace Relations Minister Amanda Rishworth has urged businesses to prepare workers for the changes by providing clear information about how artificial intelligence will affect their roles and offering opportunities to develop new skills. Her warning comes as major Australian companies, including Qantas and Canva, announce substantial workforce reductions as part of restructuring plans partly associated with technological changes and the expansion of AI.

The debate has intensified following the release of a new government document titled the “Best Practice Guide on the Adoption of AI in the Workplace”. Launched by Rishworth on Thursday, the guidance outlines how businesses should introduce artificial intelligence while considering the interests, rights and welfare of employees.

The document presents AI as a technology capable of improving productivity, strengthening business performance and changing the nature of everyday work. However, it also acknowledges that the benefits will not necessarily be shared equally. Without proper planning and consultation, automation could leave some employees facing greater uncertainty, reduced opportunities and increasingly demanding working conditions.

One of the government’s central concerns is the future of entry-level employment. The guide warns that positions involving basic or repetitive tasks may be among the first to be automated. This could affect younger workers attempting to enter the labour market, particularly those whose initial professional experience traditionally comes from administrative, customer service and routine support roles.

Entry-level jobs often provide an important starting point for people developing professional skills. They allow employees to gain experience, understand workplace expectations and gradually move into more specialised positions. If artificial intelligence replaces a significant proportion of these tasks, employers and policymakers may need to reconsider how younger workers will gain the experience required to progress in their careers.

The guide also identifies groups that could face disproportionate consequences from the transition. Younger and older employees, First Nations workers, women and people with disabilities are among those highlighted as potentially more vulnerable to the effects of workplace automation.

Rishworth said employers should provide workers with a clear plan explaining how AI adoption could affect their positions. Employees should also have opportunities to retrain and move into new roles rather than simply being informed that technology has made their existing work unnecessary.

Speaking at a business forum in Sydney, she argued that introducing artificial intelligence without properly consulting employees could create additional problems instead of improving efficiency. Some businesses have used AI to remove repetitive tasks and save time, but simply adding new technology to existing systems can make employees’ responsibilities more complicated.

Workers may have to manage additional processes, check automated outputs and correct mistakes while continuing to meet their previous performance expectations. In such circumstances, AI could increase workloads rather than reduce them.

Rishworth said employees were generally more willing to accept new technology when they could see clear improvements in their working lives. However, she warned that employers should not assume workers would automatically support automation.

She raised several important questions about the transition, including whether employees would receive training, whether their professional knowledge would continue to be valued and whether they would share in the financial benefits generated by higher productivity.

The minister argued that workers needed meaningful answers before businesses moved ahead with major technological changes. Without proper support and opportunities, employees could lose confidence in the process and become reluctant to engage with AI systems.

The government’s guide outlines a more positive possibility for the future of work. If automation removes repetitive duties, employees could spend more time on complex responsibilities requiring human judgement, creativity and communication. Businesses could improve the quality of their services while employees benefit from more flexible schedules and potentially higher wages.

However, the document also highlights serious risks. These include intrusive employee surveillance, poor rostering practices, unrealistic performance standards and discrimination arising from the use of automated systems.

Workplace surveillance is a particularly sensitive issue because AI tools can make it easier for employers to monitor employee activities, measure performance and analyse working patterns. While some monitoring may be intended to improve efficiency or protect business operations, excessive oversight could undermine privacy and create a stressful working environment.

The guide also warns that automation may intensify the responsibilities of employees who remain after routine tasks have been removed. Workers could be expected to complete more complicated assignments within shorter periods, while automated monitoring systems measure their performance against increasingly demanding targets.

The political debate over these concerns has exposed differences over whether voluntary government guidance is sufficient to protect employees. Greens leader David Shoebridge criticised the government’s approach, arguing that it was not doing enough to protect workers as large companies reduced their workforces.

Shoebridge accused the government of standing aside while major employers cut jobs and restructure operations. He argued that asking businesses to consult employees voluntarily would offer limited protection to people whose positions were eliminated because of automation.

He also raised concerns about the growing use of offshoring alongside AI adoption. Companies such as Qantas, Canva, National Australia Bank and ANZ have faced scrutiny over workforce reductions and restructuring decisions linked partly to technological changes and the movement of certain operations overseas.

According to Shoebridge, workers should have stronger legal protections against job losses and intrusive workplace surveillance. He argued that the potential benefits of AI, including improved wages and shorter working hours, should be guaranteed through legislation rather than left to employers’ discretion.

His position reflects a wider debate about who should benefit financially when businesses become more productive through technology. If AI allows companies to complete the same amount of work with fewer employees or less time, the resulting savings could be distributed in different ways.

Businesses might use the additional productivity to increase profits, reduce prices, invest in expansion or improve employee compensation. Without clear arrangements, however, workers may not receive a fair share of the benefits even when their responsibilities change substantially.

Former industry minister Ed Husic raised a similar question during a parliamentary hearing examining Australia’s four major banks. He asked whether higher productivity generated by AI would lead to better services and lower prices for customers, secure employment and higher wages for workers, or simply lower labour costs and increased returns for companies.

His comments placed the issue within a broader economic discussion about the distribution of technological gains. Productivity improvements can strengthen an economy, but their social value depends partly on whether ordinary employees and consumers experience meaningful benefits.

Recent corporate announcements have added urgency to the debate. Qantas has announced plans to cut 850 jobs, with positions in finance, human resources and marketing among those expected to be affected. The airline’s restructuring has been linked partly to its broader use of AI and plans to move certain work overseas.

Canva has announced 1,200 job cuts, while National Australia Bank has announced a restructuring involving 2,500 job losses. The changes have intensified concerns about the potential impact of automation on employment across different sectors.

Although AI is not necessarily the only reason behind these decisions, the growing role of technology in corporate restructuring has raised questions about how businesses will balance efficiency with their responsibilities towards employees.

The Reserve Bank of Australia has offered a more cautious assessment of the technology’s immediate impact. In a report released during the same week, the central bank said there was little evidence so far that AI had significantly disrupted the country’s overall labour market. However, it emphasised that the scale and nature of future changes remained highly uncertain.

The bank identified tentative signs of an impact in particular occupations, including clerical positions, computer programming and call centre work. These are areas where routine processes, information handling and repetitive communication can increasingly be supported or performed by automated systems.

The Reserve Bank’s assessment suggests that the full employment consequences may take time to emerge. While some businesses are already restructuring around AI, the technology’s wider effects will depend on how quickly companies adopt it, which tasks can realistically be automated and whether new occupations develop in response.

Another concern is whether employees will receive adequate training to move into emerging roles. Automation may reduce demand for certain tasks while increasing the need for people who can manage AI systems, assess their outputs and apply professional judgement. Workers who lack access to training could struggle to benefit from these opportunities.

The government’s guide therefore places considerable importance on consultation, skills development and responsible implementation. It encourages employers to consider how technological changes will affect employees before introducing new systems, rather than treating automation as a purely technical or financial decision.

Ultimately, Australia’s AI transition will be judged not only by how much productivity businesses achieve but also by how the gains and risks are distributed. Shorter working hours, higher wages and improved services remain possible outcomes, but so do job insecurity, workplace pressure and greater surveillance.

As companies continue to invest in artificial intelligence, the challenge for employers and policymakers will be to ensure that technological progress improves working lives rather than making employment more uncertain. The choices made during the early stages of adoption could shape the future of Australian workplaces for years to come.