Australian Companies Face AI Washing Claims as Job Cuts and Offshoring Surge

Australian Companies Cut Jobs Citing AI Adoption

Australian companies are increasingly attributing job cuts to AI adoption, raising concerns about transparency and worker protections. Qantas announced 850 job cuts1

1

on Tuesday, outsourcing corporate functions offshore through a partnership with consulting firm Accenture. The airline's restructuring primarily targets finance, human resources, and marketing roles2

2

. Tech companies WiseTech and Atlassian have similarly reduced headcounts this year, explicitly linking the losses to AI1

1

. Telecommunications firm Telstra cut positions from an AI joint venture with Accenture, transferring some operations to India1

1

. National Australian Bank announced 2,500 job losses while Canva revealed 1,200 layoffs, both partially linked to AI-driven restructuring2

2

.

Unions Challenge AI Washing Claims

Labour unions have challenged the narrative that AI is directly replacing workers, arguing that Australian companies are using automation as justification for cost-cutting measures and offshoring to lower-wage countries. "Unions are concerned about the risk of companies using AI simply as a cover to cut Australian jobs with no accountability," said Australian Council of Trade Unions Secretary Melissa Donnelly1

1

. The Australian Services Union accused Qantas of "using AI to launder their cuts to Australian jobs"1

1

. Senator Barbara Pocock from the Australian Greens party expressed concern about major corporations engaging in AI washing, using technology as an excuse to eliminate positions1

1

.

Corporate Restructuring Raises Questions About AI's Role

Uri Gal, a professor at the University of Sydney Business School, noted that companies face real incentives to engage in AI washing. "A company that announces job cuts to reduce costs may face criticism, whereas one that presents the same decision as part of an AI transformation can appear innovative and forward-looking,"1

1

he explained. Gal questioned the Qantas restructuring, pointing out that the airline announced corporate functions would transfer to Accenture employees in India before being transformed through AI and automation. "If AI is making these jobs redundant, why does the work first need to be transferred to another group of employees?"1

1

he asked. This sequence suggests conventional outsourcing rather than genuine automation-driven redundancy.

Government Launches AI in the Workplace Guidelines

Workplace relations minister Amanda Rishworth launched a best practice guide on AI in the workplace2

2

, urging employers to provide workers with clear plans about how automation could affect their jobs. The guide warns that entry-level work may be the first to be automated2

2

and highlights that younger, older, and First Nations workers, along with women and people with disabilities, face disproportionate impacts. While the document presents an optimistic vision of improved productivity and potentially shorter working hours with higher wages, it also acknowledges potential hazards including intrusive workplace surveillance, poor rostering practices, intensified performance standards, and discrimination2

2

.

Impact of Automation on Workers and Economic Outlook

The Reserve Bank of Australia reported little evidence to date of AI disrupting the labour market2

2

, though it identified tentative signs of adjustment, with job advertisements weakening in AI-exposed occupations like clerks, computer programmers, and call centre workers1

1

. The central bank has raised interest rates five times this year to their highest level in 18 years amid persistent inflation, while unemployment reached a five-year high of 4.7%1

1

. Former industry minister Ed Husic questioned who would benefit from the AI revolution, asking whether it would mean better services and lower prices for customers, secure jobs with higher wages for workers, or simply lower labour costs and higher returns for companies2

2

. Greens leader David Shoebridge criticized the government for "watching from the sidelines" and demanded legal protections against surveillance and job cuts, arguing that optional guidelines are insufficient2

2

.