Unions urge AI workplace protections in Senate inquiry

The Australian Council of Trade Unions has urged a Senate inquiry to support stronger protections for workers facing risks from artificial intelligence.

The peak union body said employees had little control over how the technology was introduced at work.

Appearing before the Joint Senate Select Committee on AI, ACTU Secretary Melissa Donnelly said existing workplace rules did not adequately protect staff from job losses, surveillance or the use of their work to train systems without proper consent.

She said workers were being exposed to intrusive monitoring and opaque decision-making, with little meaningful consultation. Donnelly also called for a regulator with enforcement powers to oversee the use of AI in workplaces and uphold labour protections.

Regulation call

The ACTU wants any regulatory framework in place before major US AI developers are allowed to train models in Australia. It is also seeking stronger rights for workers in what it describes as the AI age, alongside national investment in domestic AI development to reduce reliance on large American technology groups.

The intervention draws organised labour more directly into the policy debate over AI, which in Australia has focused heavily on innovation, productivity and public sector safeguards. The ACTU argues that workplace effects, including job security and data collection, should be central to the regulatory response.

Donnelly linked those concerns to a recent announcement by National Australia Bank that 2,500 roles would be cut. She said unions had sought clarification on whether AI had contributed to the decision but had not received confirmation.

“It is the fundamental responsibility of this inquiry and our political leaders to ensure the fair go is protected in the digital age, that workers are safe, that rights and conditions are protected, and that we have meaningful careers we can build, especially for young workers joining the workforce.

“Just this week, National Australia Bank announced a decision to axe 2,500 staff. Many of these workers are facing job cuts right before Christmas. NAB management refused to confirm to the union whether the cuts were associated with AI.

“This is a perfect example of the lack of transparency around these decisions that working people have experienced in workplace after workplace, in industry after industry.

“Despite NAB and other banks saying we need to grow and develop tech skills in Australia, they are slashing tech and engineering jobs in these cuts. Now in damage-control mode, NAB Chief Executive Officer Andrew Irvine has gone to the media to deny a connection with AI. If that is the case, why did he not communicate with workers about it?

“Also this week, the Transport Workers Union released research showing that widespread deployment of robotaxis without protections would put $220 million in wages at risk during early-stage rollout, along with up to 85,600 job losses.

“Working people are listening to what the big AI companies are telling us about their plans for this technology, and are watching what big Australian employers are doing with it. They are asking themselves: Will my job be safe? Will I have to relearn everything just to stay in work? Is my boss tracking me in the changeroom? What data are they collecting on me? What are they doing with it? If I lose this job, how will I get another one? Will AI decide whether I am hired? Will my children even be able to have a meaningful career?

“The Medicare breach was another watershed moment. Not just because it showed the capabilities of these technologies and how dangerous they can be, but because it showed the irresponsibility of the companies developing them, some of the largest and richest in the world.

“OpenAI keeps telling us what we must do to make it easier for them to develop their products here. We know they have lobbied hard for changes when it suited them. But when the risk was to Australians, they could not even be bothered to send an email to the right address. It is not good enough.

“The tech bros want us to believe that we as a country are powerless. But we are not. We absolutely can be an AI maker, not a taker. But we must do this based on our values and our social contract. This means protecting the fair go so we can pass it on to the next generation,” Donnelly said.

The union movement has warned that the spread of automation and AI across banking, transport and white-collar work could alter job design well before governments establish clear rules for accountability. The ACTU's evidence to the inquiry adds to pressure on ministers and lawmakers to decide whether existing industrial relations, privacy and consumer laws can cover AI-driven decisions at work.

Workplace risks

The issues raised by unions extend beyond redundancies. The ACTU said workers were reporting more intensive management practices, poorer job quality and greater safety risks when employers deployed systems without explaining how they operated or what data they collected.

That concern reflects a broader debate over algorithmic management, in which software can influence rostering, hiring, performance assessment and discipline. For unions, the challenge is not only job losses but also the loss of worker oversight in decisions that shape pay, conditions and career progression.

The ACTU is also making an economic argument, saying Australia should invest in sovereign AI development so the benefits of new technology, including jobs and commercial returns, remain in the domestic economy rather than flowing offshore.

Its position suggests the union movement sees AI policy as both an industrial and an industry issue, involving labour standards, data rights and the structure of the local technology sector. By tying worker protections to market access for foreign model developers, the ACTU is calling for a more interventionist approach than one based on voluntary guardrails alone.

The Senate inquiry is examining how Australia should respond to the spread of AI across the economy and public services. Donnelly told the committee that workers needed enforceable rights and a regulator with enough authority to act when employers or technology providers failed to meet them.

She said workers had “strikingly little trust” in how AI was affecting their jobs and urged lawmakers to ensure the “fair go is protected in the digital age”.