Lower hours and higher wages—or more burnout and surveillance

Australia’s Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, Amanda Rishworth, has released guidance for employers on adopting AI. The document says entry-level roles could be among the first affected by automation, and that workers should be told in advance how their duties may change and offered a path into new roles. AI could raise wages, reduce working hours and make work more meaningful, but it could also increase workloads, surveillance and discrimination. The guidance comes amid job cuts at Qantas, Canva, NAB and ANZ.

AI could shorten the workweek—or increase workloads and surveillance

Conditions for adoption

Presenting the guidance on Thursday, Rishworth said AI should benefit both companies and employees. Employers adopting automation, she said, should tell workers how it could affect their roles and give them the opportunity to move into other positions.

The document outlines potential benefits for businesses: higher productivity, better service quality and increased profitability. For employees, AI could mean higher pay, shorter and more flexible working hours, or more meaningful work.

But the guidance also warns of risks: intrusive employee monitoring, poorly designed schedules, excessive or unrealistic performance expectations, and discrimination. If simple tasks are automated, people may be left with more complex and stressful duties. Employers could also use expanded surveillance capabilities to assess performance.

At a business forum in Sydney, Rishworth said some companies were already using AI to automate tedious tasks and save time and money. But simply adding AI to workflows without consulting employees could increase workloads: people would have to take on an extra step.

The minister added that many workers were willing to use AI if they could see how it would improve their working lives. But employers, she said, should not take that willingness for granted. Employees need to know whether they will receive support and opportunities to develop their skills, whether their knowledge and experience will remain in demand, and whether they will share in the benefits of adopting the technology. Without answers to these questions, people may lose trust and be unwilling to learn new tools.

Who benefits

At parliamentary hearings on the country’s four largest banks, former industry minister Ed Husic asked who would benefit from productivity gains. He listed possible outcomes: better services and lower prices for customers, secure jobs and higher wages for workers—or lower labour costs and higher company revenues.

Greens leader David Shoebridge accused the government of standing by while large companies cut staff. He called for workers to be protected from surveillance and dismissals. Asking employers to consult employees, he said, does not give people legal protections if an algorithm takes their job.

Shoebridge said Qantas, Canva, NAB and ANZ had laid off employees in Australia amid the transfer of work overseas and the adoption of AI. He believes voluntary guidance is no longer enough. The distribution of AI’s benefits through higher wages and shorter working hours, he said, should be enshrined in law rather than left to employers’ discretion.

Job cuts and uncertainty

The Reserve Bank of Australia said this week that it had so far seen little evidence that AI was changing the country’s labour market. The scale and nature of its future effects, the bank said, remain highly uncertain. It did, however, note early signs of change in some occupations, including clerical workers, programmers and call-centre employees.

Last week, the Reserve Bank warned that data-centre construction and AI investment were fuelling inflation. Against this backdrop, Qantas announced cuts to 850 positions in its finance, human resources and marketing divisions. National Australian Bank reported 2,500 job cuts, while Canva announced 1,200. All three companies link the cuts in part to the spread of AI.

Rishworth’s guidance says little about possible AI-related job losses. Instead, it urges employers to discuss the adoption of the technology and its effects on employees’ roles with them. It gives particular attention to entry-level positions, which the document says may be among the first to be automated.

Dataist’s take: the guidance describes potential benefits for workers but does not set out binding protections against job cuts or increased surveillance. That leaves open the question raised by both Ed Husic and David Shoebridge: will the benefits of AI be secured for employees, or remain with companies?