Artificial intelligence is often described in apocalyptic tones. Depending on who you listen to, it is either about to take every job, or end work as we know it. But there's a less dramatic, and more useful, way of looking at the future. Across advanced economies, the real problem isn't too few jobs, but too few workers. Populations are ageing, birth rates are falling, and shortages are widespread. From hospitals to construction sites, demand for human expertise is growing. AI can help meet it - if we get the choices right.
The Productivity Commission has found that AI could underpin a new wave of productivity growth in Australia. That's not an abstract number on a spreadsheet. It's a reminder that technology, used wisely, can lift living standards. MIT economist David Autor argues that AI isn't just about rules and routines. Done well, it helps workers combine knowledge, judgment and data to make better decisions. Imagine nurses using AI to interpret scans more quickly. Or technicians overseeing complex manufacturing processes. Or caseworkers solving problems that once needed a lawyer. These are not examples of robots replacing people. They are examples of workers becoming more effective, and better paid, because machines help them do more. Autor calls it restoring the "middle‑skill, middle‑class heart" of the labour market. That should be our national ambition.
This isn't the first time new technology has disrupted the world of work. During the Industrial Revolution, artisanal trades gave way to mass production. At first, the consequences were grim: 12‑hour days, unsafe factories, child labour. But over time, unions and reformers fought for safety laws, reasonable hours and fair pay. The result was a new era of skilled machinists, typists and operators, and the growth of a thriving middle class. The computer age shifted things again. Computers raised the productivity of professionals, but eroded middle‑skill roles. Wages at the top grew faster than those in the middle, and inequality widened. The lesson is obvious: technology alone does not guarantee fair outcomes. Fairness comes from strong institutions and a labour movement willing to insist that workers share in the gains.
That remains true today. Unions are already negotiating agreements to ensure that AI serves workers, not just employers. They are demanding transparency when algorithms are used in rostering or hiring, and fighting for training so workers can use AI to do higher‑value work. At last month's Economic Reform Roundtable in Parliament House, the Australian Council of Trade Unions argued that workers must be partners in how AI is introduced, not passive recipients of decisions made in boardrooms. The government has responded by beginning work on a national AI capability plan and an AI plan for the public service. These measures are about ensuring that AI serves the common good.
When introduced responsibly, AI can make work better. In healthcare, it can help nurses and midwives interpret scans and track patient data, meaning more time for patients and less time on paperwork. In aged care, smart monitoring systems can detect early signs of health problems, helping carers step in before small issues become major ones. In construction, AI‑powered cameras can identify hazards on building sites in real time, preventing accidents and saving lives. In transport and logistics, route‑planning algorithms cut fuel use, reduce fatigue for drivers and lower emissions. In public services, automating routine approvals allows frontline workers to spend less time shuffling forms and more time helping people. The pattern is consistent: AI as a complement, not a substitute. A lever for human expertise, not a replacement for it.
Jobs and Skills Australia estimates that nearly 9 out of 10 current jobs are more exposed to augmentation by AI than to full automation. That means most jobs will change, not vanish. The challenge is to manage change so it makes work more rewarding, not more stressful. But there are darker paths. We know AI can be misused, for surveillance, for union‑busting, for reducing skilled roles to button‑pressing. That's why we need to ensure workers have a say in how AI is introduced, that training is a universal right, and that AI lifts standards in safety, quality and service rather than driving a race to the bottom. These are not abstract principles. They are what will determine whether AI helps rebuild the middle class or erodes it further.
The Australian ideal of the "fair go" is that prosperity is shared. Technology should serve people, not the other way around. The real risk of AI is not mass unemployment, but the devaluation of expertise. If every task is treated as generic, no job is valued - and inequality soars. But if AI is harnessed to extend expertise, work becomes more meaningful, more dignified and more fairly rewarded.
AI could take us down two starkly different roads. One is a "WALL‑E meets Mad Max" world - humans sidelined, wealth concentrated in a few hands. The other is a society where healthcare and aged care are more affordable, jobs are more rewarding, and millions more people enjoy the pride that comes from meaningful work. Which road we take will not be decided in Silicon Valley boardrooms. It will be decided here in Australia.
Work is more than a pay cheque. It is about purpose, dignity and community. For too many Australians, that dignity has been undermined by casualisation and inequality. But with AI, we have a once‑in‑a‑generation chance to restore it. If we get this right - if governments listen, if workers' voices are at the centre - then AI can help us build an economy where expertise is widespread, middle‑class jobs are plentiful, and the fair go is stronger than ever. The story of technology is not destiny. The future of AI is not written. It is ours to shape, and we should shape it so that work in the AI age is fairer, safer and more rewarding for all Australians.
