Australia Has an AI Plan But No Plan for AI's Workers

In February 2026, a software developer at WiseTech Global got the call. His role, along with 1,999 others, was gone. He had been performing fine. His CEO had decided the era of manually writing code was over, and that was that.

Two months earlier, Australia had released its National AI Plan. $460 million in funding across adoption, safety, and skills. Not a single dollar for the person on the other end of that call. The entire middle of the plan is missing.

What does the National AI Plan actually fund?

The Plan funds the machinery of AI adoption. $29.9 million to establish an AI Safety Institute. $17 million for the AI Adopt Program to support small businesses. One million subsidised TAFE micro-scholarships for online AI skills training. $1 billion from the National Reconstruction Fund for data centre infrastructure. Every federal agency has been directed to appoint a Chief AI Officer by July 2026, according to the Department of Finance.

What it does not fund: a displacement response. No transition support for workers already made redundant by AI. No crisis pathway. No bridge between the job that just ended and the system that has not yet responded.

The Plan frames workforce risk as a future reskilling challenge. For the 2,000 people WiseTech Global cut in February 2026, it is a present crisis.

What happened to the 21 recommendations?

They remain on the shelf. The House of Representatives Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training tabled its Future of Work report in February 2025.

One of those recommendations would have made it illegal for a company to fire you based solely on an AI's assessment of your role. That alone would have changed the calculus for every employer planning a restructure this year. Another would have required employers to tell you they were using AI to evaluate your position before they made the decision.

Thirteen months later, none of the 21 have been implemented. No Fair Work Act amendments. No Code of Practice. No algorithmic bias audits. Meanwhile, Microsoft's Work Trend Index found 75% of knowledge workers globally already use generative AI, with adoption doubling in six months. Three-quarters of Australians support explicit AI regulation, according to the National AI Plan's own consultation. The appetite for action is there. The action is not.

Everything needed to move on this has been sitting in a parliamentary report for over a year. It reads like it was written for exactly this moment. Nobody has picked it up.

What is happening on the ground right now?

WiseTech Global announced 2,000 job cuts in February 2026. Roughly 29% of its global workforce. CEO Zubin Appoo: "The era of manually writing code as the core act of engineering is over." No redeployment was offered. Cuts span product, development, and customer service.

CBA cut 300 positions in the same period while posting a $5.45 billion half-year profit and investing $90 million in AI capability. CBA said AI was not the driver. You can decide for yourself what a company investing $90 million in AI and cutting 300 people in the same quarter is doing.

These are not projections. They are redundancy notices served to Australian workers this quarter. TEKVA's AI Displacement Monitor tracks these events in real time. The affected workers' default pathway is Workforce Australia. A generic employment services system. No intake category for "AI-displaced." No specialised support. No funded bridge.

How does Australia compare on AI worker protection?

The UK created a dedicated AI and Future of Work Unit with trade union involvement mandated across government. The EU passed binding AI legislation and has proposed ring-fenced labour adjustment funding, according to Carnegie Endowment (2026).

Australia has no standalone AI Act. No worker-facing transition program. No binding regulatory framework for AI in the workplace. The one million TAFE scholarships are online micro-credentials. Valuable for adoption. Irrelevant for someone who lost their job last month.

What are the states doing?

Victoria is the most active. A $30 million Digital, AI and Technology Centre of Excellence at TAFE. An $8.1 million AI career conversion pilot. These are real commitments. They are oriented toward skills formation, not crisis response.

NSW became the first Australian state to pass explicit AI workplace legislation in February 2026. The Digital Work Systems Amendment to the WHS Act requires employers to consult workers and assess risks when deploying AI systems that affect work. That is a governance requirement, not a displacement response. But it is the only binding AI-and-work regulation in the country. No state has a formal "AI-displaced worker" support category. If you lose your job to AI in Queensland, the system does not know the difference between you and someone whose factory closed.

All of this is oriented toward the economy AI will create. None of it is for the person AI displaced last Tuesday.

Where does that leave someone who just lost their job to AI?

A worker displaced by AI in Australia today has four options:

• -Workforce Australia — generic employment services, no AI-specific pathway, no recognition that your role was eliminated by automation
• -TAFE micro-scholarships — useful for upskilling, irrelevant for an empty bank account this month
• -Centrelink — available after waiting periods, assets-tested, designed for broad eligibility rather than rapid professional transition
• -Nothing — no emergency financial assessment, no creditor negotiation, no bridge support

This is the freefall gap. No federal program addresses it. No state program addresses it. TEKVA's Job Loss Action Plan and Navigator exist because this gap does.

This is the gap I built TEKVA to fill. People walk in having been cut from companies posting record results. They do not need a micro-credential. They need someone to pick up the phone to their mortgage provider, run a proper financial assessment, and stabilise the situation before it compounds. That is what we do. The infrastructure can be built. It does not require a three-year policy cycle. It requires capital, operational design, and the decision to act.

What needs to happen?

• -A dedicated federal AI workforce transition fund. Ring-fenced. Not repackaged from existing TAFE budgets. Modelled on the UK's approach: embedded trade union involvement, displacement treated as a present condition, not a future risk.
• -Implementation of the 21 Future of Work recommendations. They were right thirteen months ago. The statutory prohibition on AI-only HR decisions alone would change the calculus for every employer planning a restructure. No technical barrier to passage. What they lack is political priority.
• -Recognition that early intervention is cheaper than waiting. Fund the bridge, not just the reskilling. The person who lost their software engineering job in February does not need a micro-credential. They need their mortgage negotiated, their cash flow stabilised, and a clear path to their next income. Every week of delay compounds the damage.

OpenAI, the company whose technology is driving these cuts, has committed $1 billion annually through its Foundation to address workforce impact, with an explicit Jobs and Economic Impact pillar. They are building transition infrastructure. We are waiting for a parliamentary report to be read.

The question is whether Australia will build its response layer before the next 2,000 redundancies, or after.

Frequently asked questions