Qantas will move 850 domestic positions overseas under an outsourcing deal with technology giant Accenture. On Thursday, the federal government released a draft AI workplace guide that nobody has to follow.
That's the sequence. Hundreds of local jobs get shipped out, and Canberra answers with a voluntary document.
Qantas isn't alone. NAB and Officeworks are among companies that have announced hundreds of local jobs axed and shifted overseas, citing the AI boom and tech skills shortages. The workers on the receiving end weren't asked. They were told.
Who Has the Power
The federal government says its draft, billed as Australia's first best-practice guide on AI in the workplace, followed months of departmental roundtable talks with unions, employer groups and major companies including Microsoft, Commonwealth Bank, Telstra and Kmart. Read that guest list again. The corporations that build and deploy the technology sat at the table that wrote the rules for the technology.
The guide is voluntary. It aims, in the base document's own framing, to balance AI regulation with its productivity potential. It urges companies to give human workers a say in AI decisions, to provide training for new skills or tasks if roles change because of AI, and to share the technology's benefits through higher pay or shorter work hours. It calls for direct consultation with staff about the technology and its careful implementation.
Urges. Calls for. Nothing compels.
What They're Calling 'Protection'
Employment Minister Amanda Rishworth says the guide will help with job retention and upskilling. The federal Minister for Employment says it has the potential to save hundreds of people from losing their jobs. Potential is doing heavy lifting there. Qantas has already lost 850 domestic positions to the Accenture deal, and the guide hasn't stopped a single one.
The pitch is familiar: ask the people who profit from automation to share the gains with the people automation replaces. A worker who wants a say in how AI is used on the job gets, at best, a polite invitation for management to consult. Management decides whether to accept it.
The Regulator Trap
Separately, the prime minister announced this week a new regulator with the power to enforce significant penalties. An Australian Financial Review opinion piece by Anna-Maria Arabia calls the accompanying obligations for AI companies world-leading and describes the announcement as a major step forward on AI safety.
The obligations run like this: companies will have to maintain security controls, manage the risks from their models, notify governments rapidly of incidents, submit to independent evaluation, publish their safety and security frameworks, and keep pace as standards change.
Notice who that list is written for. It's about incidents reported to governments, frameworks published for regulators, evaluations that satisfy the state. It speaks to the security of the systems and the comfort of the authorities. The Qantas workers, the NAB workers, the Officeworks workers don't appear in it. A regulator can fine a company over a model's risks. It can't give a laid-off worker their job back.
What Actually Gets Decided, and By Whom
Two documents landed in the same week. One is voluntary and asks employers to be nice. The other creates a state body to police the companies building the tools. Neither hands workers any control over whether their jobs survive. The decision to cut 850 positions was made in a boardroom and signed with Accenture, and no consultation guide reaches back to undo it.
The companies that cited the AI boom and tech skills shortages while axing local jobs will now read a draft guide encouraging them to share the gains. They'll consult at their own pace, on their own terms, with the people they've already decided to cut.
- artificial intelligence
- ai in the workplace
- australian government
- ai regulation
- amanda rishworth
- job losses
- qantas
- microsoft