AI vs Aussie workers: are we prepared?

Atlassian billionaire Scott Farquhar stresses the urgent need for employers to confront this paradox head-on, advocating for honest conversations and proactive retraining to navigate the coming technological shift rather than sending them to the unemployment queue as AI gathers pace.

Commonwealth Bank backflipped on its decision to replace 45 call centre staff with ‘voice bots’ this week, admitting its decision was an “error”.

But that doesn’t mean a wave of job losses is coming.

The Albanese government forecasts AI will inject up to $600bn per year into the national economy by 2030.

While AI has been slow to take off in Australia, with many companies struggling to deploy the much-hyped technology at scale or work out how it will generate a return on investment, it will eventually become as widespread as electricity.

And although CBA chief executive Matt Comyn learnt a costly lesson this week, the nation’s biggest bank is not turning away from its push to use AI across its business to become more competitive globally.

Mr Farquhar, who resigned as co-chief executive of Atlassian last year and is now Tech Council of Australia chair, envisages the technology being able to speed up applying for housing approvals, passports, various licences and childcare subsidies.

But, there will be job losses, and Mr Farquhar — who attended the productivity roundtable in Canberra this week — said the benefits of Australia’s strong social safety net for retrenched workers isn’t enough.

He advocates for aggressive investment in “jobs of the future” by removing regulatory barriers and boosting infrastructure, such as data centres, to create new “digital tech trades” and employers need to be upfront with staff about what that shift means.

“We talk about the theoretical future job losses due to AI, but ignore the very real jobs that are available today,” he told The Australian.

“We should invest in the jobs of the future, and part of that is by removing barriers — regulatory, government — putting data centres, other things to create those jobs. And I think we should lean into where we do think job losses are going to happen, and be honest with people about that.

“If a particular person is impacted, in a particular industry, and that industry is changing, disappearing, those jobs are going away, we have to retrain our population in those areas now. I actually think companies are very well placed to train people as long as regulatory barriers are out of the way and the appropriate incentives are in place.”

A key component of Mr Farquhar’s vision is a radical rethink of workforce training. He said the traditional “four-year apprenticeship mindset,” does not suit older workers with mortgages and families. Instead, he championed “progressive accreditation,” allowing individuals to gain specific skills and start earning sooner.

“If you’re a call centre person in your mid-30s or mid-40s, and you’re like, ‘hey, I’ve got a family, I’ve got a mortgage, I want to do something on nights and weekends to build my skill set up’, you can’t do a four-year apprenticeship that’s part time and not paid well.

“But, can someone do six months of extra training to get out there and then start installing batteries on homes that the government is subsidising at the moment? Yes, I think we can do that.

“Short, practical qualifications that can be completed in six to 12 months and get people job-ready for high-demand industries like data centre construction and battery installation. These should be stepping stones to full trades like electrician or plumber, but in the meantime, we get more Australians trained and out there working.”

Mr Farquhar places significant responsibility on industry to drive this transformation, with individual companies best positioned to identify and provide the specific training needed for their evolving workforces.

“Industry has a huge role to play in training, and I know there’s TAFE and there’s a lot of government things. But when I look at the areas I play in, it’s companies that will know the skill sets they need, and if they need a year’s worth of skills, they don’t teach people four years worth, of course. They teach people a year’s worth of course.

“So I actually think companies are very well placed to train people as long as regulatory barriers are out of the way and the appropriate incentives are in place.”

This article first appeared in The Australian as Are companies investing enough in its workers ahead of AI’s looming great retrenchment?