The workplace debate around AI has spent a lot of time focused on one question: will it replace jobs?

While it’s understandable, it’s increasingly not the most useful question to ask. OpenAI CEO Sam Altman recently acknowledged that fewer entry-level white-collar jobs have been eliminated than he expected and said he no longer anticipates the kind of immediate “jobs apocalypse” some have predicted. In Australia, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has similarly argued that the goal should be for AI to support and create good jobs, rather than simply replace them.

Neither view means workforce disruption is off the table. Roles will change, some forms of work will decline, and new capabilities will be required. But they reinforce an important distinction: AI can have a significant effect on employment without replacing entire jobs at once.

Our own research points in a similar direction. Job security was named as the biggest concern by just 7% of respondents, down from 25% in 2025. Meanwhile, upskilling existing employees is the most common workforce response to AI, ahead of redesigning roles or workflows and changing the skills organisations hire for.

The change is already happening inside jobs. Nearly half of the 1,505 business leaders and technology professionals surveyed for our latest research use AI daily, while 71% use it at least a few times a week. What was recently treated as an emerging workplace technology is quickly becoming part of the working day.

The bigger question for employers is therefore not simply whether AI will replace people, but what happens to roles, skills and workforce decisions as people incorporate it into how they research, draft, analyse, plan and solve problems.

Employers are beginning to reconsider what good performance looks like. Hiring managers increasingly need to distinguish between people who can access AI and those who can use it critically, safely and effectively. AI adoption may be accelerating, but many organisations are still catching up with what that means for their workforce.

AI skills are becoming a baseline workplace expectation

For many roles, AI literacy is moving in the same direction as broader digital literacy: from a specialist capability to a basic expectation.

That doesn’t mean ever employee needs to be an AI expert, but it does mean employers are increasingly likely to expect people to understand how AI can support their work, where its limitations sit and when its output needs to be challenged.

As Matthew Munson, Managing Director at Talent Sydney, explains:

“AI skills have shifted from a nice-to-have to a baseline expectation for the vast majority of roles we recruit. We’re actively advising candidates on how to keep building their AI capability and stay abreast of emerging trends.”

But there’s an important distinction to be made between familiarity and capability.

Only 36% of respondents describe themselves as using AI to produce stronger, more useful outputs. A much larger proportion primarily use it for quick answers, research or one-off tasks. This suggests that while AI access is becoming widespread, the pool of genuinely capable users remains much thinner.

For hiring managers, asking whether a candidate “uses AI” will therefore reveal very little. A more valuable conversation explores how they use it, what they use it for, how they validate the result and whether it has improved the quality of their work.

The real change is happening inside jobs

The strongest evidence of AI’s workplace impact is currently found at task level.

Eighty-five percent of respondents say AI has made them more efficient at work, and more than half report meaningful time savings, while another 32% have seen gains across smaller or more specific tasks.

While it matters, efficiency doesn’t automatically mean a role has become simpler, or that the work has disappeared.

More than one in four respondents say AI primarily helps them start tasks rather than finish them, while 18% report spending more time reviewing or correcting AI-generated work.

In practice, this redistributes effort rather than removes it, with less time spent facing a blank page, gathering basic information or producing an initial draft. More time may then be required to assess quality, test assumptions, identify errors and turn a generic output into something useful in context.

The capability employers value will change accordingly.

Employees may be expected to produce work faster, but the strongest performers won’t simply be those who generate the most output. They’ll be the people who know which work should be accelerated, which decisions still require deeper thinking, and how to recognise when an AI-assisted answer is incomplete or wrong.

Human judgement is becoming increasingly more valuable

Loss of human judgement was the most common concern among survey respondents, ahead of data security, over-reliance and job security. At the same time, 57% identified relying on AI outputs without checking them as one of the highest-risk behaviours organisations now face.

This has clear implications for recruitment and assessing candidates.

A candidate can use AI to help prepare an application, respond to a technical question or complete an initial task. Employers therefore need stronger ways to understand the capability behind the output.

That could mean placing greater emphasis on work samples, follow-up questions and role-relevant scenarios. It may involve asking candidates to explain how they reached a conclusion, what they would verify and where they would avoid using AI altogether.

The objective shouldn’t be to catch people using AI. In many roles, its use will be both expected and beneficial, and the objective is to establish whether the person can apply it with sound judgement.

AI can make an average answer appear polished, but it can’t consistently replace the technical depth, commercial context or decision-making that determines whether the answer is useful.

Workforce planning is beginning to respond

Organisations are starting to adjust their workforce strategies, although the shift remains uneven.

Upskilling existing employees is currently the most common response, cited by 44% of respondents. Thirty-seven percent are reducing manual or repetitive work, while 22% are redesigning roles or workflows and the same proportion are hiring AI specialists. However, 26% say AI has not yet changed their workforce planning at all.

The emphasis on upskilling is sensible. The people already inside an organisation understand its customers, systems, processes and operating context, and that knowledge becomes especially valuable when applying AI to real work.

However, training employees to use new tools is only one part of the equation.

Employers also need to consider whether roles have been designed around outdated ways of working. If AI removes part of a task, what should replace it? If it increases output, who is responsible for checking quality? If a capability is now required across a function, should it remain concentrated in a specialist team?

These are workforce design questions, not simply technology questions.

What AI-capable talent looks like

There will not be one universal definition of an AI-capable employee. The required capability will vary by profession, seniority and the risks attached to the work.

However, the most valuable people are likely to combine several qualities:

• Relevant technical or professional expertise
• Confidence using AI in context
• Awareness of data and risk
• The ability to validate outputs
• The judgement to know when human intervention matters

As Thomas Mackenzie, Director of Client Services at Scale by Avec, puts it:

“AI is changing what great looks like, and the real advantage sits with the organisations that back people who can combine AI with the technical expertise and commercial judgement to deliver better outcomes, not just faster outputs.”

For employers, this means looking beyond generic claims of AI proficiency. For candidates and contractors, it means being prepared to demonstrate how AI has improved a genuine piece of work, not simply listing a tool on a CV.

The workforce can’t and won’t wait for a definitive answer on how AI will reshape every role, so the organisations best placed to respond will be those that treat AI capability as a workforce issue over just a technology one. That means defining what effective use looks like, redesigning work where necessary and backing people who can combine AI with the expertise, context and judgement it cannot provide on its own.

Our latest research reveals how more than 1,500 business leaders and technology professionals across Australia and New Zealand are navigating that shift. From everyday adoption and productivity gains to skills, trust and the future workforce, access the full report to see what employers should be preparing for next.

Cybersecurity is often discussed through the language of tools, controls and technical threats. But for boards and executive leaders, the more important questions are about operational resilience, business continuity and how much risk is accumulating beneath the surface.

We recently welcomed executive leaders from across our network to the Talent Sydney office for a session with cyber security expert Dr Vladas Leonas, a career technology leader who has served as CIO eight times and is the author of Cumulative Effect: Cyber Security Guide for Directors and CEOs.

Drawing on decades of technology leadership, Dr Leonas explored why modern organisations are becoming more exposed as their reliance on technology grows, and why cyber security needs to be understood and governed as a business risk.

As he made clear at the outset:

“It’s not about the tools. It’s not about shiny dashboards.”

Here are five key takeaways from the session.

Cyber risk is cumulative

Major incidents can look sudden, but the conditions that make them possible often develop over years.

Technology estates expand, new vendors and applications are introduced, integrations multiply, exceptions become permanent, and legacy systems remain because replacing them feels too difficult or expensive.

Each decision may appear reasonable in isolation, but together they create what Dr Leonas described as a cumulative effect: a sequence of changes over time that eventually produces an outcome nobody expected.

He emphasises the need to reframe the role of executive leadership. Cyber risk can’t be managed only at the point of attack or audit. Leaders need visibility into how strategic, procurement and delivery decisions are changing the organisation’s exposure over time.

Digital dependency is operational risk

Few organisations can operate for long without their core technology. That means even a non-malicious technology failure can create consequences that resemble a cyber incident.

The session used the July 2024 CrowdStrike outage as a stark example. A faulty software update affected approximately 8.5 million Windows devices and disrupted airlines, banks, healthcare providers, retailers, media companies and payment systems around the world.

“It wasn’t a cybersecurity incident, but just a bad update,” Dr Leonas said. Yet the economic and operational impact ran into billions of dollars.

The leadership lesson is that resilience planning cannot focus only on cyberattacks. Boards should also understand where the business is highly dependent on particular systems, platforms, vendors and integrations, and what happens when one of them fails.

As Dr Leonas posed the question:

“Can you name a business that is not dependent on technology today? Probably not.”

Complexity creates its own risk

One of the strongest messages from the session was that complexity is not simply an IT management challenge. It’s a material source of cyber risk.

In many organisations, knowledge of the technology environment is fragmented. Different teams understand different systems, but nobody has a complete end-to-end view. That makes it harder to predict the consequences of change, patch vulnerabilities safely, recover from disruption and identify where exposure is building.

The shift from large monolithic systems to microservices has enabled faster and more flexible delivery, but it’s also driven rapid growth in application programming interfaces, or APIs. Every API adds another connection that must be secured, monitored and governed.

As Dr Leonas put it:

“Complexity is your enemy. Whatever you can do to simplify the IT ecosystem is very, very important.”

For boards, simplification should be treated as a strategic objective rather than a technical clean-up exercise. Dr Leonas suggested that year-on-year reduction in unnecessary complexity could become a meaningful measure of progress.

Speed without assurance creates hidden exposure

Speed creates commercial value, but delivery pressure can also compress the time available for security design, threat modelling, independent review, testing and remediation.

Dr Leonas challenged leaders to reconsider the familiar delivery constraint of fast, cheap and good. In cyber security, prioritising speed and cost without equivalent attention to assurance can result in vulnerabilities being shipped incrementally, release after release.

The issue is not that organisations should stop using agile delivery but that governance and incentives must ensure security isn’t repeatedly deferred to a later sprint, a penetration test or a future remediation program.

This requires leadership discipline. Teams need the mandate, capability and time to build security into delivery, and not simply assess it after the fact.

Compliance is a baseline, not proof of resilience

Certifications, frameworks and regulatory obligations all play an important role. But the session repeatedly returned to one warning: compliance should not be mistaken for security.

Dr Leonas shared:

“Compliance is a very good step—a foundational step—but a lot of people feel that compliance is equal to security. It is not.”

A certification only provides assurance within its defined scope and at a particular point in time. It may not cover the systems, entry points or dependencies presenting the organisation’s greatest exposure. History also provides numerous examples of compliant and certified organisations suffering major breaches.

Dr Leonas argued that organisations need to move from periodic, point-in-time assurance towards continuous assurance. Technology environments change too quickly for a six-monthly audit to provide a complete view of current risk.

Boards need to govern the trade-offs

Cyber security ultimately comes down to decisions that are often made under pressure, with incomplete information and competing priorities.

Leaders are constantly balancing operational continuity, customer trust, regulatory expectations and commercial outcomes, and there’s rarely a perfect or risk-free option. Instead, the goal is to make deliberate choices that align with the organisation’s risk appetite and long-term strategy.

This requires a shift in mindset where cyber risk is treated in the same way as financial or investment risk: something to be weighed, prioritised and governed, not simply delegated or deferred.

Without clear guardrails, technology environments will continue to expand, and with them, the organisation’s exposure. Boards play a critical role in setting those boundaries to ensure that growth, speed and innovation are matched with appropriate levels of control and assurance.

For boards and executive teams, the key questions are:

• Where are our most critical technology dependencies?
• Is our environment becoming simpler or more complex?
• Is assurance keeping pace with the speed of delivery?
• Does our compliance status reflect genuine resilience?

Cyber security has entered the boardroom because it now affects whether organisations can continue operating, protect trust and recover when something goes wrong. The organisations best positioned to respond will be those that treat it not as a technical problem to delegate, but as a business risk to understand, challenge and govern.

Talk to Talent about building the cyber, technology and transformation capability needed to strengthen resilience and manage risk.

For over 15 years, Emma Chow has been part of Australia’s morning soundtrack. She’s interviewed everyone from Jason Derulo to DJ Khaled, survived 3:50am alarms, and navigated the highs and heartbreaks that come with live radio. But, as we find out in our latest podcast episode, there’s a whole lot more to her than the voice her many listeners wake up to, but few truly know.

She laughs that her career in radio started almost by accident. “I was working at The Music Network,” she recalls. “I interviewed Charlie Fox — who was a content director at the time — and he said, ‘You’re really bubbly. Have you ever thought about getting into radio?’ I literally went, ‘LOL. Hilarious. No.’”

A few weeks later, she was on-air at Sydney’s The Edge 96.1. “I owe so much of my career success to that little station that could,” she says. “They warned me that if I went into radio, I’d never leave. And here I am, almost fifteen years later.”

The performance and the person

Radio might seem effortless from the outside, but Emma is quick to dismantle the illusion that it’s just a couple of voices chatting between songs. “It’s three hours of performing,” she says. “Even though I’m myself on air, I’m also ‘on’. You don’t really have time to stop down and have the kind of conversations we’re having now.”

Those conversations about insecurity, self-doubt, therapy, and motherhood are exactly what she’s learned to make space for, both in her life and on air. “In traditional radio, it was a lot of smoke and mirrors. You couldn’t talk too much about being married or pregnant. You were meant to be this polished, always-on version of yourself.”

Now, co-hosting with Jimmy and Nath, she says the culture is completely different. “We’re having real conversations about mental health, parenthood, relationships, and it’s so much more human. Listeners can smell fake. The only way to connect is to be yourself.”

On being ‘enough’

When the microphone switches off, Emma is a mum to two boys — Valentino, seven, and Raphael, two — and wife to Enzo. She laughs about the chaos of family life but admits it’s also her anchor.

After both pregnancies, Emma returned to work quickly nine weeks after her first son, six after her second. “It was a very quick turnaround,” she says. “I think that’s where the impostor syndrome crept in. I was trying to prove I could do it all.”

“I’m just as insecure and second-guessing as every other woman,” she says. “You try so hard and you doubt yourself at every step. There’s always that little devil on your shoulder saying, ‘Try harder, prove yourself.’”

“We need to talk to ourselves like we talk to our friends,” she says. “If your best friend came to you saying, ‘I’m overwhelmed, I’m not enough,’ you’d say, ‘You’ve got this.’ But we never do that for ourselves.”

Therapy, transitions, and letting go

Emma speaks openly about therapy. “My therapist, Monica — shout out, love Monica — said we’re focusing on transitions,” she laughs. “So, when I leave work, I literally sit in my car and shake. I take deep breaths, maybe meditate for a minute. It sounds weird, but it works.”

For someone used to the urgency of live radio where “every second counts”, that decompression is essential. “Radio has made me a really impatient person,” she admits. “You lose a second, it’s gone. I can’t always switch that off when I get home. So I’m learning to be more fluid, more relaxed. To find joy in the five-minute moments.”

That self-awareness, she says, is still a work in progress. “I can be prone to anxiety. But I’m learning to let go, to just enjoy. Because quality time is the most important thing to me, and sometimes I’m the one stopping myself from having it.”

Animated dreams and unexpected passions

For someone who’s spent her life amplifying others’ stories, Emma lights up when talking about creativity outside of radio. “We were in a PR meeting, and they asked what we’d love to do that we haven’t done yet. I said I’d love to be an animated character,” she laughs. “Everyone was like, ‘What?’ But it’s true, I’d love to voice a sassy teenage or cool young mum character.”

It’s a dream she traces back to Happy Feet and, more recently, watching Bluey with her kids. “Bluey really kicked it into gear. It’s clever, funny, and so Aussie. I love that it has jokes for the parents, too.”

She’s also a self-confessed “nerd” who journals daily as a ritual that started in therapy. “At the end of every day, I write three things I’m grateful for and three things I’m proud of myself for. It sounds lame, but it really grounds you.”

Motherhood as a mirror

For Emma, becoming a parent changed her routine, how she sees the world, and how she sees herself.

“When I was pregnant with my first, I was nervous to tell anyone,” she says. “I thought it would derail my career. But Charlie Fox said, ‘This is a great thing for your career.’ And he was right.”

She also credits radio icon Amanda Keller with helping her reframe it. “She told me, ‘This is the best job to have a baby in, it will make you a better broadcaster.’ And I get it now. Motherhood has softened me. It’s made me more empathetic, less judgemental.”

Where once she might have rushed to conclusions about callers or colleagues, she now pauses. “I don’t judge people by one stupid decision. I’m more open-minded. I think that’s because I want people to treat my kids like that — with compassion.”

That shift, she says, has made her both softer and stronger. “I’ve learned to say no. I’ve learned that protecting my energy isn’t selfish but survival.”

Perfectionism, pressure, and perspective

Emma admits she’s her own toughest critic. “Our executive producer told me recently, ‘I’ve never met anyone harder on themselves than you are,’” she says. “I cried when she said that. But it stuck with me.”

She laughs about journalling through what she calls her “48-hour break spiral.” “I did a break on air that didn’t come off the way I wanted it to. No one else noticed — not the listeners, not my co-hosts — but I beat myself up about it for two days. I wrote two pages in my journal about it,” she says. “If it was my friend, I’d say, ‘Don’t worry, it was great.’ But when it’s me, I can’t let it go.”

That self-critical streak comes with a silver lining: relentless self-awareness. “I think it’s what makes me good at my job,” she says. “But it’s also exhausting. I’m learning to be proud of myself for doing enough and not for doing everything perfectly.”

The real work behind the fun

Ask anyone outside the industry what a radio host does, and they’ll picture celebrity interviews, music, and laughs. Emma laughs at that too, because it’s only half the truth.

“What you hear on air is the fun part,” she says. “But there are so many meetings — pre-show, post-show, Sunday meetings for Monday prep. There are campaigns, clients, sales, KPIs. It’s a business.”

The behind-the-scenes grind doesn’t dull her love for it though. “That three hours of live radio — the synergy, the connection — that’s magic. That’s why I do it.”

Connecting through authenticity

Ultimately, connection is what keeps Emma going in both her work and her life. “Radio is a live communication medium,” she says. “The measure of success is how you connect with the people listening. And the only way to connect is by being yourself.”

She’s seen how the industry has evolved. “There used to be a way of doing radio that was all about image. But now, audiences want real. Social media and podcasting have changed everything. People want to feel seen.”

That’s what drives her. “If I show the bare bones of who I am — when work is hard, when parenting is hard, when I’m riddled with anxiety — people see themselves in that. We’re all humans trying to figure it out.”

Not just a radio host

As someone who’s spent her career giving voice to others, it’s only now through therapy, motherhood, and self-reflection that Emma has found her own.

She’s not just the woman behind the mic or the co-host cracking jokes at dawn. She’s a mum who journals between school runs, a professional still learning to silence her inner critic, and a creative dreaming of voicing a cartoon character one day.

“I want my kids to be proud of who their mum was,” she says simply. “Whether that’s on radio or just being a good human.”

And that’s the thing about Emma Chow, she’s not just a radio host. She’s a reminder that authenticity isn’t the opposite of success; it’s the reason for it.

Want to hear more of Emma’s story? Watch the full podcast episode on our YouTube channel.

If FY26 was defined by caution, FY27 will be defined by a different challenge: finding the skills needed to deliver growth, transformation and resilience without blowing the budget.

Across Australia, organisations are still managing costs carefully. Yet cyber threats are escalating, AI adoption is accelerating, digital transformation programs continue to advance, demand across defence and critical infrastructure remains strong, and governments are under increasing pressure to improve service delivery.

That puts commercially minded specialists in the strongest position, particularly those working across cyber security, governance, risk, AI adoption, cloud, data, digital transformation, engineering, financial services, essential services, defence, resources, energy and government delivery.

As Joelle Beaton, Practice Lead at Talent Melbourne, puts it:

“FY27 is likely to represent a selective recovery rather than a broad-based hiring boom, with the strongest demand being for candidates who can combine technical capability with commercial impact.”

Cost pressure will remain, but capability gaps are hard to ignore

Cost versus capability will be the defining workforce challenge of FY27.

Government agencies and large enterprises are being asked to do more with less while simultaneously delivering transformation programs, strengthening cyber resilience, modernising legacy systems and preparing for wider AI adoption.

Steve Tompkins, Head of Government at Talent Sydney, expects contractor spend and procurement decisions to remain under pressure at the start of the next financial year but as he puts it:

“At some point, the conversation has to move from cost to value. Until then, we expect to see more outcome-based engagements as managers seek the security of delivery rather than trying to deliver with understaffed or under-skilled in-house teams.”

This shift towards outcome-based engagement is likely to be one of the more important hiring trends of FY27. Where permanent headcount is constrained, organisations will still need access to the skills required to deliver critical programs, creating stronger demand for contractors, consultants and project-based delivery teams, particularly in specialist areas where internal capability is limited.

Steve also notes that without an appetite to review permanent salary bandings in some areas of government, agencies may struggle to secure the expertise they need through traditional permanent hiring pathways. The result is a market where the demand exists, but the engagement model may change.

Election uncertainty will influence government hiring decisions

In New South Wales, the March 2027 state election will add another layer of complexity to government hiring and workforce planning, particularly around how it will influence agencies to think about contingent labour, procurement and delivery models.

“It will be interesting to watch how policies evolve,” says Steve. “Including the government’s current view of contingent labour hire.”

For hiring teams, this means scrutiny around contractor spend may continue early in the new financial year, but as delivery pressure increases, agencies may need to reassess how they access specialist talent, particularly for cyber, AI, governance, cloud transition and digital service delivery.

Joseph Petrovski, Account Director at Talent Melbourne, expects similar pressure shaping the Victorian market:

“Government demand won’t disappear in FY27, but the way that talent is engaged is likely to change. With headcount pressure increasing, we expect to see more reliance on contractors, consultants and project-based delivery models.”

Cyber security, governance and risk will be priority hiring areas

Cyber security is expected to remain one of the strongest areas of demand in FY27.

In NSW, Steve points to the NSW Cyber Security Strategy and related policy direction as a major driver of future hiring. The NSW Government has already mandated targeted cyber uplift for agencies, including compliance against key requirements in the NSW Cyber Security Policy and greater visibility over key risks and critical assets.

This focus is expected to increase demand for:

• Cyber architects
• Cyber security analysts
• Cloud security engineers
• IAM specialists
• Critical infrastructure security experts

And as Steve notes:

“Because there is a shortage in this space, and limited appetite to source globally, we expect to see more investment in home-grown and junior cyber talent to build capability onshore.”

For employers, the cyber skills shortage won’t be solved through senior hiring alone and deliberately investing in junior pathways, training, internal mobility and long-term capability building is becoming critical for organisations.

For candidates, cyber will remain one of the strongest areas of opportunity, particularly for professionals who can pair technical knowledge with governance, risk, assurance and stakeholder communication.

Joseph is seeing a similar pattern in Victoria, where school compliance changes and heightened security across the education sector are expected to drive demand for cyber security, governance, risk and compliance capability.

Across government, education, financial services, critical infrastructure and essential services, cyber will remain closely linked to trust, resilience and regulatory confidence.

Defence will continue to drive specialist demand in Adelaide

In South Australia, defence is expected to remain one of the clearest drivers of economic and employment growth through FY27.

Vimal Venugopal, Senior Account Executive at Talent Adelaide, explains:

“Demand for engineering and technical talent remains high. And employers are prioritising quality and capability, with greater emphasis on candidates whose skills and experience closely match the role requirements.”

As a result, the Adelaide market is becoming more selective, with employers looking for more specialised experience, such as: Project Managers with infrastructure backgrounds, Automation Testers who have built automation frameworks from scratch, and Business Analysts with Microsoft 365 experience.

For candidates, this means general experience may no longer be enough as employers increasingly look for evidence of direct, relevant delivery experience and the ability to add value quickly.

Vimal is also seeing AI capability become more important outside traditional technology teams, reinforcing one of the bigger FY27 hiring themes nationally: AI literacy becoming a broader workforce capability.

WA demand is being driven by resources, energy and critical infrastructure

In Western Australia, mining, resources, energy, utilities and critical infrastructure continue to shape hiring demand.

Edwin Foo, Principal Account Manager at Talent Perth, says:

“Traditional operations in WA, particularly iron ore and gold, are still fuelling hiring, while expansion into wind, solar and grid integration is increasing the need for critical infrastructure capability.”

Demand remains strong across technology and engineering, particularly for:

• Automation Engineers across IT/OT
• Data Science and AI Platform Engineers
• Full-Stack Software Engineers
• AWS and Azure Cloud Architects
• Cyber Security Specialists

Workforce planning is also maturing as major infrastructure and energy transition programs continue. Edwin explains:

“Large-scale infrastructure and energy transition projects are shifting workforce planning from reactive, short-term recruitment cycles into more strategic, long-term models. With major mining, resources and state government project investments running in parallel, organisations are having to rethink how they plan future workforces.”

Unlike some markets where remote capability is a stronger lever, Perth is seeing clear demand for local talent.

Hybrid office mandates combined with the integrated nature of IT/OT across mining, resources and energy mean employers are prioritising candidates who can physically work and collaborate in Perth CBD offices and local operations centres.

AI demand will become more practical and governance-led

FY27 is likely to be the year AI hiring becomes less theoretical.

In financial services, Elliott Howard, Account Director at Talent Sydney, shares:

“A key trend will be the continued rise of Agentic AI as large enterprises move from proofs of concept to deploying autonomous systems that reduce manual effort and give employees more time to focus on critical thinking and problem solving.”

This will change role requirements as AI literacy becomes an essential skill, not just a technical specialisation.

However, in government, Steve expects AI demand to take a slightly different shape:

“Government wants to implement AI at scale, but the demand we expect to see is less about experimental AI engineering and more about practical adoption, governance and assurance.”

For employers, this means AI capability can no longer sit only with technical teams but must be embedded across governance, product, delivery, risk, data and operational teams.

For candidates, the opportunity lies in AI literacy, responsible AI understanding and the ability to apply AI to real workflows that will become increasingly valuable.

Cloud transition and shared platforms will continue to create demand

Cloud transformation is expected to remain a major driver of hiring in the next financial year, particularly across government and enterprise environments managing legacy infrastructure.

As Steve puts it:

“Cloud transitions will continue across NSW Government, particularly where agencies are looking to reduce duplication and move towards shared platforms. The opportunity isn’t solely about migrating infrastructure but improving service delivery, strengthening security, improving access to data and creating more efficient ways of working.”

This is expected to support demand for:

• Azure specialists
• AWS professionals
• Enterprise architects
• Integration architects

“Cloud is no longer just an infrastructure program,” says Steve. “The people who will be most valuable are those who understand technical implementation alongside governance, interoperability, service outcomes and how to reduce duplication across complex environments.”

Business Analysts will remain critical to digital service delivery

While emerging technologies often dominate the market conversation, Steve expects Business Analysts to remain in steady demand through FY27 simply because: digital strategy still needs translation.

Government agencies are under pressure to improve service delivery and citizen experience, and that requires people who can turn policy into products, requirements into delivery plans and stakeholder needs into practical digital services.

This is a reminder that the strongest transformation teams will need BAs, product specialists, delivery leads, change professionals and architects who can connect strategy to execution.

Financial services hiring will focus on risk, data and cyber

In Sydney’s financial services market, Elliott expects hiring to concentrate around risk, data and cyber security as the sector continues to face pressure from regulatory obligations, security threats, customer expectations and productivity demands. And as AI adoption increases, these priorities will become even more connected.

Organisations will need professionals who can unlock greater value from data, govern emerging technologies responsibly, strengthen cyber resilience and improve operational efficiency.

This is expected to support demand for:

• Risk professionals
• Data specialists
• Cyber security experts
• Governance professionals
• AI-literate business leaders
• Transformation specialists who understand regulated environments

For candidates, commercial judgement will matter as employers look for people who can do more than perform a technical function. They’ll want talent that understands risk, business value and the operating realities of financial services.

Software engineering demand is being reshaped by AI

AI is both creating and changing existing demand in the software engineering space.

Joseph explains:

“AI-augmented coding is changing the shape of software engineering demand. We’re seeing less emphasis on traditional front-end development and more demand for people who understand LLMs, AI-enabled productivity and how to apply these tools effectively.”

The expectations of a software engineer are shifting, and employers are likely to value engineers who can use AI tools to improve productivity, solve more complex problems, understand system architecture and apply strong judgement to AI-generated code.

For developers, FY27 will be a market that rewards adaptability. Narrow execution-based skill sets may become more vulnerable, while engineers who combine fundamentals with AI fluency, architecture thinking, and business understanding will be better placed.

Melbourne is likely to see selective recovery

In Melbourne, Joelle expects FY27 to bring renewed momentum across IT and technology-aligned hiring:

“As the dust settles on a tumultuous FY26, we are likely to see a renewed level of momentum in the Melbourne and broader Australian hiring market through FY27, although not at the intensity seen during the post-pandemic peak.”

Population growth, continued enterprise and government investment, and demand across essential services are expected to support a gradual improvement in confidence.

Strongest demand will likely sit across:

• AI adoption
• Cyber security uplift
• Cloud and data transformation
• Digital modernisation
• Essential services

Aligning with Joseph’s predictions that energy and critical infrastructure will continue to generate demand, particularly as organisations invest in resilience, modernisation and long-term delivery capability.

For high-impact technology roles connected to transformation, cyber, data and essential services, competition is expected to remain strong in the Melbourne market.

What FY27 means for employers

Workforce planning needs to be sharper, and organisations need to be clear about the capabilities they need, the value those capabilities create and the best way to access them.

This means permanent hiring in some areas, contract or consulting engagement in others, and more deliberate investment in early-career or home-grown talent where shortages are structural.

What FY27 means for candidates

For jobseekers, FY27 will reward relevance. Employers are increasingly looking for people who can demonstrate how their skills contribute to business outcomes, whether through improving productivity, managing risk, supporting transformation or delivering better services.

The strongest candidates will be those who combine technical capability with adaptability, commercial awareness and direct experience in their field. As AI continues to reshape the workplace, professionals who embrace new tools and can apply them effectively alongside their core expertise will be best positioned to take advantage of emerging opportunities.

The bottom line

FY27 will be a selective and capability-led market.

Cost scrutiny and procurement pressure will remain, and permanent headcount will still be carefully managed in some sectors, but the need for specialist talent is not going away.

The employers that succeed will be those that move from short-term cost control to long-term capability planning, and the candidates who stand out will be those who can show not only what they know, but how that knowledge creates value.

As Steve puts it, “The conversation has to move from cost to value.”

That may be the defining workforce shift of FY27.

We recognise the valuable skills, experience and perspective that veterans, reservists and partners of serving and ex-serving Australian Defence Force members bring to the workforce. From leadership and adaptability to problem-solving, resilience and teamwork, the capabilities developed through service are highly relevant across tech, transformation and beyond.

As a global recruitment specialist, Talent is committed to helping veterans and defence partners explore meaningful civilian career pathways, connect with the right opportunities, and feel supported throughout the recruitment process.

Our commitment

Talent is a proud supporter of veterans’ employment and the Australian Government’s Veteran Employment Commitment.

We’re committed to helping veterans, reservists and partners of serving and ex-serving Australian Defence Force members access meaningful civilian career opportunities and feel supported throughout the recruitment process.

Through practical career guidance, dedicated support and strong employer partnerships, we help translate service experience into career pathways where their skills and experience are recognised.

How we support veterans and defence partners

Moving from service into civilian employment can mean navigating new job titles, new hiring processes and new ways of describing experience, and we’re here to make that transition clearer.

We can support with:

• Career conversations to understand your experience, goals and transferable skills
• Guidance on how to position military experience for civilian employers
• Access to contract, permanent and project-based opportunities
• Connections across tech, transformation, project delivery, cyber, business operations and adjacent fields
• Support throughout the recruitment process
• A dedicated contact for veterans, reservists and defence partners

Ready to explore what’s next?

If you’re a veteran, reservist, transitioning ADF member or defence partner looking for career support or explore current opportunities, you can contact our dedicated veteran employment lead.

Majella Sanders
Account Director, Talent Sydney
Email: majella.sanders@talentinternational.com
Phone: +61 418 355 920

Let’s help you find where your skills and experience can take you next. Explore open job opportunities.

The Talent Sydney office recently hosted another instalment of our Leading the Way event series, welcoming guests for a fireside chat with endurance swimmer and business leader Victor Pineiro, facilitated by Account Executive, Sophia Parrelli. 

Victor shared the story behind his record-setting open water swims, including his successful crossing from the Isle of Man to Northern Ireland, a route that had never previously been completed solo without a wetsuit. But beyond the scale of the challenge itself, the conversation focused on what it takes to perform under pressure: resilience, preparation, adaptability and the importance of surrounding yourself with the right people. 

Drawing on both his professional background and his experiences in extreme endurance sport, Victor spoke about pushing beyond comfort zones, managing setbacks when plans change, and building the mental strength to keep moving forward when the path ahead feels uncertain. 

The session offered a compelling reminder that leadership is not only about ambition, but about discipline, perspective and the ability to stay focused when conditions are far from ideal. 

Leading the Way is our event series designed to bring together inspiring speakers, fresh perspectives and conversations that challenge how we think about leadership, performance and growth. 

If you only followed the headlines, you’d think the financial services sector is being driven by large-scale AI transformation. It’s not.

Across Australia, banks, insurers and fintechs are navigating a mix of regulatory scrutiny, cost-cutting, evolving cyber threats, fragmented transformation programs, and targeted investment in areas like data, cyber and platform modernisation. While AI is part of the conversation, it has yet to materially reshape organisations at scale.

Instead, hiring is being influenced by a series of overlapping shifts:

• Heightened regulatory scrutiny and risk accountability
• Ongoing restructuring to fund transformation and reduce cost bases
• Smaller teams expected to deliver broader, more technical outcomes
• AI embedding into workflows rather than driving standalone transformation

We sat down with our in-house Financial Services specialists to unpack what they’re seeing across risk, cyber, infrastructure, software and AI and how it’s shaping hiring.

Regulation is driving more work

The most consistent driver across the market right now is regulation.

According to Chris Huggett, Practice Director – Financial Services at Talent Sydney:

“There’s a lot more pre-emptive work happening right now around risk and governance, but not all of it is directly driven by AI. Previously, it was reactive, particularly post-Royal Commission. Now organisations are trying to get ahead of issues before they happen.”

That shift is being reinforced by public scrutiny.

Ongoing issues with the ASX have triggered intense regulatory pressure around operational resilience and governance standards.

“That level of scrutiny inevitably drives transformation, particularly around resilience and risk culture,” says Elliott Howard, Account Director.

At the same time, AI-enabled fraud is becoming more sophisticated and scalable from deep fakes and voice cloning to synthetic identities and large-scale loan scams.

What this means for hiring: Demand is increasing for governance, resilience and risk capability, embedded within broader programs rather than standalone initiatives.

AI is being contained, not scaled

AI is being adopted in controlled, low-risk environments.

“We’re seeing smaller-scale initiatives in niche pockets with specific use cases,” says James Bertollo, Account Manager. “They’re what you’d consider minor implementations like customer service, internal automation, agent-based workflows, but nothing like enterprise-wide transformation.”

The constraint is risk.

“For banks, using AI on private customer data is still a major concern,” James adds. “There’s a real fear of making a mistake that is both costly and leads to regulatory consequences.”

The caution is being reinforced by a combination of factors:

• Increasing regulatory scrutiny around data handling and decision-making
• The potential for AI-driven errors at scale
• A lack of clear, consistent frameworks for AI governance

As a result, organisations are taking a segmented approach. Rather than pursing a single, enterprise-wide AI program, most are:

• Deploying AI within specific business units
• Ringfencing higher-risk data environments
• Building internal guardrails as they go

“I don’t think you’ll see one singular transformation program around AI,” says Chris. “It will sit within different areas of the business, with different levels of control depending on the risk.”

What this means for hiring: Steady but fragmented demand for AI capability, creating pockets of hiring rather than large-scale workforce shifts.

AI’s immediate impact is at the operational level

While AI isn’t driving enterprise transformation, it is already reshaping day-to-day execution.

“In cyber, what used to take one or two days can now be done in 30 minutes using AI agents,” says Elliott.

This pattern is consistent across functions: faster analysis, reduced manual effort and compressed delivery timelines. And it’s already changing expectations of output, speed and team structure.

What this means for hiring: Expectations of output are increasing and teams are being designed around speed and efficiency, raising the bar for individual capability.

Hiring demand is concentrating at the execution layer

The clearest signal of change has been an increasing demand of talent at the execution layer.

According to James:

“Over the past two years, we’ve seen very senior AI roles put in place to set strategy and frameworks and kick off initiatives. In a lot of cases, those roles have been brought in externally, while the middle layer—product owners, project managers—has largely stayed the same and been upskilled.

Where we’re seeing the highest demand, and the most volume, is at the doing level. These are the engineers and practitioners who are actually building and implementing AI. That’s consistent across banking, financial services and insurance. Those are the roles we’re seeing come through most frequently.”

At the same time, AI capability has become a baseline expectation.

“Every role now has ‘AI’ as either a nice-to-have or a must-have,” says Chris.

Roles are being redefined:

• Engineers are expected to work end-to-end
• Technical roles require stronger business engagement
• Pure specialisation is declining

“You won’t ever hire a pure Python developer anymore,” says James. “You need someone who can design, build, implement and engage with stakeholders. With specialisations like coding becoming less central, the core defining skill required of an end-to-end software engineer is now what our clients call a ‘solution mindset’.”

What this means for hiring: Highest demand for hands-on, end-to-end practitioners who can deliver outcomes not just define them.

Cost pressure is reshaping team structures

With budgets tightening, teams are becoming leaner.

Over the past 12–18 months, major financial institutions have reduced headcount significantly.

Elliott explains:

“Last year, we saw one of the biggest years in redundancies and cost-cutting across the banks, probably since the GFC. Whether that’s translating into continued investment in tech transformation, it’s more likely a cost-cutting exercise and what’s now widely described as ‘AI washing’.”

As a result, organisations are being forced to do more with fewer people, emulating the operating models and ways of working of technology companies.

“We’re seeing smaller teams and higher expectations,” says Chris. “People are being asked to cover multiple functions.”

This means combining roles that were previously separate, such as:

• Project Manager / Product Owner = Project Manager + Business Analyst + Tester
• Engineer = Engineer + Tester + UI Designer + sometimes Business Analyst
• Scrum Master = Project Manager + Business Analyst

But this introduces delivery risk.

“If you’re asking someone to test their own work, it creates risk and ultimately sets the program up for failure,” Chris explains. “But ultimately, it comes down to cost constraints.”

What this means for hiring: There’s greater demand for multi-skilled individuals holding higher accountability, but also increased risk where separation of duties is lost.

Some roles are already in decline

Not all roles are being affected equally. Some are already in clear decline.

Project Managers, Business Analysts, Agile Coaches, Scrum Masters, and layers of middle management.

“It’s a very challenging time to be a Project Manager in the market right now,” says Elliott. “We’re seeing hundreds of applicants for a single role. We recently had a general Project Manager role receive 200–300 applications within 48 hours, and many of those candidates have been looking for work for months.”

This reflects a shift away from large, program-based transformation towards smaller, incremental initiatives delivered within existing product and engineering teams.

“Agile isn’t a standalone role anymore,” says Chris. “It’s just part of the job.”

What this means for hiring: Roles focused on coordination, governance and process are being absorbed into more technically capable, end-to-end positions.

The offshore delivery model is coming under pressure

AI is also beginning to challenge traditional offshore delivery models.

Historically, offshore teams have been used to handle repetitive developer work and high volume support tasks. The same areas where AI is now most effective.

“There are conversations happening about whether AI reduces the need for offshore models,” says Chris. “Because that type of work is increasingly automatable.”

While this shift is not fully realised at this stage, it is becoming a recurring theme in how organisations are thinking about future operating models.

If this direction continues, the implications are significant:

• Reduced reliance on offshore execution capacity
• Greater emphasis on onshore, higher-value roles
• A shift from production-based work to orchestration and oversight

It has the potential to reshape how work is distributed across global teams.

Hiring strategies are diverging across subsectors

Not all financial services subsectors are responding to these pressures in the same way.

Different subsectors are taking materially different approaches to growth, cost and risk, and this is flowing through into how they hire.

In banking, the focus remains on consolidation, cost control and internal efficiency.

“Banks are focused on consolidating,” Chris shares. “It’s more about optimising what they already have.”

This means tighter headcount control, more selective hiring and a focus on roles that directly support priority initiatives.

In contrast, super funds are still actively pursuing growth through M&A and market expansion.

“We’re seeing more movement in the super space,” Chris notes. “There are still opportunities for growth and acquisition.”

This is creating demand in areas tied to integration, transformation and scaling capability.

Meanwhile, fintechs are operating with a different set of constraints. After a period of rapid expansion post-COVID, the focus has shifted towards sustainability.

“Fintechs are being much more measured now,” says Elliott. “It’s less about expansion and more about maintaining cost base and growing sustainably.”

As a result, fintech hiring is more cautious, with fewer speculative hires, greater emphasis on immediate value and tighter alignment to commercial outcomes.

Across all three, the underlying pattern is consistent: Hiring has become more targeted, more deliberate and more closely tied to business priorities.

Hiring is becoming more disciplined

Despite shifts across technology, regulation and operating models, the core drivers of hiring in financial services remain consistent.

“Transformation initiatives, regulatory pressure and remediation following failure. Those core reasons for hiring aren’t going away any time soon,” says James. “What changes is the lens and right now that lens is AI.”

While AI is influencing how work is delivered, how teams are structured, and what is expected from individual roles, it is not replacing the underlying reasons organisations hire.

What has changed is:

• Greater scrutiny on where value is created
• Higher expectations of individual capability
• Less tolerance for roles that do not directly contribute to outcomes

Instead of a completely new hiring model, the result is much more disciplined one where every role is expected to deliver measurable value.

The bottom line

AI may be changing how work gets done, but it’s not what’s driving hiring.

Across financial services, hiring is being dictated by risk, cost and accountability.

Organisations are becoming more selective, roles are being redefined, and expectations of individuals are increasing.

For leaders, the implication is clear: Hiring decisions are now more closely tied to measurable value than at any point in the past decade.

If you’re navigating cost pressure, regulatory change or shifting expectations, our Financial Services recruitment specialists can share what’s happening across the market. Reach out to discuss how these shifts are impacting your hiring priorities.

“I filled out my customs form. I just wrote ‘entertainer’ for my occupation.”

When Mitch Churi flew back home from a holiday, that’s what he landed on.

He’s a radio presenter, content creator, dabbles in stand-up comedy, the list goes on. Mitch is someone who has built his career by moving quickly, instinctively, and not by a defined path.

As a result, he’s often left without a clear title to tie it all together.

We recently sat down with Mitch for our latest episode of Not Just A…, and within minutes, it was clear his job title was the least interesting part about him.

Good for the vibes

Long before radio, content, or “entertainer” made its way onto his customs fork, Mitch had already figured out his role.

“I kind of lived my life bringing some vibes, being the morale guy,” he says. “I was a water polo player as a kid, for around 10 years. I loved it. I was in the position where I didn’t have to swim much, positioned right at the back. I was very much the morale hire.”

It’s something that completely tracks as he reflected on other opportunities he’s had.

“I was hired at KIIS FM as the morale guy as well. Very good for the team, good for the banter. And that kind of got me onto the air,” he shares.

Starting without a clear plan

Mitch started off as a theatre kid.

“I was a kid that grew up in theatre, studying theatre, and representing Australia at a national level ,” he says. “We toured London when I was 12, we toured to Hong Kong. I did shows all around the world with a theatre troupe.”

For a while, acting was the plan.

“I wanted to do theatre full time, but I was also intimidated by NIDA and WAAPA and these big schools. I genuinely thought that I wasn’t good enough at that age.”

So he pivoted to a journalism and performance double degree at University of Wollongong. That lasted about a month.

“Tertiary full-time study as we know it doesn’t work for me,” he says. “I don’t retain information in that way, I very much like to get hands-on and work and jump in. That’s how I learn.”

So he leaned into experience, moving to New York when he was 19 to study a bit at the Atlantic Theatre Company and then spending a few months in LA.

As a big believer in making what you want, his mantra in life is just: “Make the call. Do it. Nothing’s going to come to you.”

And he did.

Finding his voice on air

Mitch has worked under many titles, but he’ll always lead with radio.

“I lead with radio presenter only because that’s my craft,” he says. “That’s what I’ve honed my skills in for ten years on a commercial radio station. I love radio.”

Giving him the structure and momentum for his career, radio was a place he developed his voice in real time. And like most things, it wasn’t without its own layers to navigate.

“I’m openly gay, and I’m openly gay when I’m on air,” he says. “I had issues with that when I first started in radio. When I first got on air, it was 2016. The same sex plebiscite happened in 2017, and I was still in the closet. I was still 22 or 23 and hadn’t come to terms with it myself.”

But when he did come out in 2018, he never actually came out on air, it naturally became part of how he showed up authentically as he “just started talking about partners.”

This authenticity also came with some resistance.

“There’s also a lot of criticism,” he says. “You get a lot of people saying, ‘Well, you don’t have to talk about that. Just be yourself. If it comes up, it comes up. You don’t need to make it your whole personality.’ To which I tend to disagree. If you let these things fester and let them melt away and disappear into the shadows, that’s when you risk the loudest voices, which are homophobia or discrimination.”

And his approach of being honest about who he was carried into one of the biggest decisions of his career.

Making things happen

After a decade in radio, Mitch Churi was forced into his next move.

His departure from KIIS FM was public, unexpected and, in his own words, left him stuck.

“It was a very publicised exit, and I didn’t know what I wanted to do with myself,” he says. “I didn’t know what the right next step was. I was sort of crippled by the decisions and the weight of what to do next.”

For the first time in his career, the momentum stopped.

And instead of clarity, there was uncertainty.

“I thought, I’m struggling behind the scenes. I’m not sure how to get there. I’m trying to make this happen. I’ll just take everyone along on the journey with me.”

By documenting his process and being honest about his struggles, people connected with him and from there his audience grew.

And this instance was only one of many that has defined Mitch’s career.

“I’m a big believer in you gotta make what you want,” he says. “I’ve had the realisation that nothing will come to you. You have to make things happen in life or else. Just make the call. You know that Kris Jenner meme? ‘What if you just call Taylor [Swift] up? Just call her up.’”

His willingness to put himself forward and ask the question has become his default.

“I’d rather regret failing than not doing it at all.”

The person behind it all

Outside of work, Mitch is pretty much exactly who you’d expect.

“I’d argue I’m very similar,” he says. “I’m a more muted version of myself. One of my favourite things to do is drive. I love driving, putting on the radio or a podcast and just letting my mind wander because it can be a bit crazy inside there.”

He finds it’s something that grounds him, especially when his mind is usually running a hundred miles an hour.

“I’ve got many a hobby. I love cooking,” he says. “I’m a bit of a nerd, I love a good YouTube algorithm deep dive. The algorithm knows me so well. I can just lie there in bed and do a good 2-3 hours of YouTube algorithms.”

His favourite thing to cook at the moment?

“I’m big on toast right now,” he laughs. “Toast is so back. It’s just so easy, you can put so many things on that bread.”

And then there are the niche interests that feel slightly unexpected, but very on brand once he explains them.

“I can play the theremin. The X-Files instrument,” he shares. “Big wooden block with a big metal pole and you control it with the electromagnetic field of your body. I picked it up during COVID because I wanted to be different and stand out from the pack. It’s silly, it’s fun, it’s ridiculous.”

He also has a thing for planes.

“I love aeroplanes,” he says. “I love the livery of planes. I love Airbus and Boeing. I love researching the planes and the new editions and why they upgraded it. I love the Airbus A380 and I have a thing about planes.”

A mix of interests that don’t exactly neatly align but somehow still feel very him.

Not just a creator

Mitch Churi has spent most of his career in defined roles — radio presenter, content creator, cultural commentator, entertainer.

But after KIIS, he stopped waiting for the next role to define him and created his own.

Launching his own show, Mitch shifted from being part of someone else’s platform to building one himself on his terms, with his voice at the centre.

To hear more from Mitch in his own words, watch the full episode on our YouTube channel.

When budgets tighten, graduate hiring is often one of the first lines cut.

It makes sense; entry-level roles don’t immediately drive revenue. They require training and time to build up their skills. And in a market defined by caution, productivity and ROI, immediate impact feels safter than long-term investment.

However, the numbers suggest this may be a costly mistake.

Talent data shows entry-level hiring has dropped by 19% compared to two years ago. At the same time, organisations are talking about skills shortages, leadership capability gaps, and the need for future-ready workforces.

And these two trends will inevitably work against each other.

The pipeline problem

More than just filling junior roles, graduate and early-career hiring is about investing in and building capability depth.

“It might feel like a short-term cost saving, but it comes with long-term consequences,” says Simon Yeung, Managing Director at Talent Melbourne. “Cutting entry-level hiring weakens future talent pipelines and increases dependency on more experienced and more expensive hires to fill capability gaps down the track.”

Simply, if fewer graduates enter your business this year, fewer mid-level professionals will exist inside your organisation in three to five years, and fewer senior leaders will emerge organically in seven to ten.

Instead, you’re forced to buy experience at market rate — often at a premium — and hope cultural fit and context come quickly.

And when the market tightens again, that experience will become even more expensive.

A false sense of efficiency

In the short term, reducing graduate intake can look efficient. There are fewer training costs, managers aren’t stretched across mentoring responsibilities, and an overall faster productivity per headcount.

But capability isn’t built in isolation. It compounds over time and with experience.

Across Australia and New Zealand, we’re already seeing what happens when organisations hollow out the early-career layer.

There’s a widening gap between junior and senior capability, a thinner middle-management layer, and increased pressure on experienced professionals to carry operational and strategic load simultaneously.

It isn’t sustainable.

As highlighted in our latest More Than Money Salary Guide, many organisations are already facing a broader capability gap across leadership, skills and culture, and entry-level contraction is quietly feeding into that.

What young talent is experiencing

On the ground, the impact is immediate.

“With unemployment high and fewer entry-level roles available, it’s hard for young people not to lose confidence,” says Shanelle Partridge, Youth Program Manager at Rise by Talent. “Graduate hiring has seen cutbacks and employers are asking for ‘next-level’ capability without always creating the pathway to get there.”

Resulting in a paradox: organisations say they want critical thinkers, adaptable talent and AI-literate professionals. At the same time, they’re narrowing the traditional pathways that allow those capabilities to develop inside their business.

“We need our young people now so we can have leaders later,” Shanelle says. “If we don’t create those pathways, who manages the business in five or ten years?”

The AI misconception

As automation increases and AI tools take on administrative or repetitive tasks, some organisations assume fewer junior roles are required.

However, young professionals are often the most AI-fluent in the workforce. Many are experimenting confidently with workflow automation, content creation, data tools and AI-supported problem-solving.

The risk isn’t that AI replaces entry-level talent. The real risk is that organisations fail to integrate young, AI-native professionals into their teams and lose the innovation advantage they bring.

At the same time, AI adoption without pipeline investment creates another problem: leadership readiness.

If early-career cohorts shrink now, who develops the judgement, strategic thinking and context required to lead AI-enabled teams later?

The cost of buying experience

When pipelines narrow, organisations rely more on their experienced hires. And it has its limits.

In competitive capability areas such as cyber, cloud, data and transformation, experienced talent remains scarce and highly selective. Hiring at senior levels requires speed, a strong EVP, and competitive remuneration.

And when everyone is trying to hire the same experienced profile, salary pressure increases.

Simon sees this dynamic clearly in the Victorian market.

“Organisations are becoming more selective, which makes sense,” he says. “But if you consistently deprioritise early-career intake, you create structural dependency on the external market. That’s where costs escalate.”

In other words, today’s savings become tomorrow’s salary premiums.

Rethinking graduate hiring

Reinvesting in graduate hiring doesn’t necessarily mean returning to large-scale, traditional programs.

In fact, leaner, more targeted models may be more effective.

Shanelle points to practical approaches:

“Some organisations are reviewing each role that opens and asking: is there any component here that an entry-level person could take on? If there is, they create space for it.”

Others are:

• Embedding junior roles within project teams
• Offering short-term, structured placements tied to delivery outcomes
• Partnering with organisations like Rise to align training directly with industry need
• Reserving a small percentage of roles annually for emerging talent

Instead of reinventing the wheel with costly overhauls, consider these intentional pipeline strategies.

Playing the long game

Hiring markets are cyclical and talent shortages don’t disappear.

History suggests we’re likely to enter another tightening cycle in the coming years. When that happens, organisations with established pipelines will move from stability to strength, and those without will scramble.

Graduate hiring is a strategic decision that signals belief and investment in future growth, builds internal capability, and reduces long-term dependency on expensive external hires.

And perhaps most importantly, it creates opportunity at a time when confidence among young people is fragile.

Cutting graduate hiring may ease short-term pressure, but for organisations serious about sustainable capability, resilience and leadership depth, the long-term cost could be far greater than the savings.

As the co-founder of Mister Mister, Daniel Narvaez has built a business around tailoring. But spend some time chatting to him and it becomes clear his work has less to do with garments and everything to do with people.

Behind every fitting, every appointment, every suit, there’s a conversation, and that’s the part that matters most to Daniel.

From chasing money to chasing craft

Before Mister Mister, Daniel was working in finance as a business analyst, driven by ambition and the desire to succeed quickly.

“I was a bit of a snot-nosed kid chasing money,” he says. “I was focused on how quickly I could become the next big thing.”

His move away from the corporate world started with a shift back towards creativity, first through contemporary jewellery and then working in a gallery.

“That was me trying to get back into something physical,” he says. “Something you could actually see and touch.”

This pull towards design is what eventually set the direction for everything that followed.

Starting before you’re ready

For Daniel, the decision to leave finance was extremely casual.

“One day I just decided to quit,” he says. “I treated it like buying a coffee.”

Looking back, he recognises how unusual that was, but at the time it just felt like the right next step.

He remembers calling his brother in America, “He said, ‘What are you going to do?’ I said, ‘I’m going to leave my job.’ He goes, ‘What do you know about making suits? And I said, ‘I like wearing them.’”

“I hadn’t measured anyone before,” he says. “I’d sold a couple of suits, took a space in the Strand Arcade, quit my job… and that was it.”

The main thing that carried him through that moment was a willingness to start without really knowing exactly how it would work.

Learning by observation

Without a traditional pathway into tailoring, Daniel built his understanding by watching.

“Observation is the most important thing,” he says. “You can read as many books as you want, but if you’re not doing it, it doesn’t mean anything.”

He spent hours sitting with a tailor, asking questions, learning alternations and understanding the mechanics of the craft.

“Tailoring isn’t fashion,” says Daniel. “It’s a traditional craft. There are rules and there’s structure.”

At the time, he was still working his day job, splitting his time between corporate work and learning something new in the evenings.

Building Mister Mister

“I’m a designer by trade, not a craftsperson,” says Daniel.

As the business evolved, Mister Mister became a system that brought together specialist makers from around the world, from Hong Kong to Spain, while Daniel focused on design and client experience.

“We let craftspeople do what they’re best at,” he says. “And we focus on everything around that.

“We tried to create a contemporary Australian style. Something between English and Italian tailoring, but adapted to how we live here.”

For Daniel, he wanted to develop and translate traditional suits with a distinct point of view.

The job is conversation

One misconception about his job?

“90% of my job is conversation,” says Daniel.

What started as a retail space slowly became something else entirely.

“The store became place where people came to talk,” he says. “Clients would call and say, ‘Can you close the store? I just need someone to talk to.’”

Over time, he began to really understand his role.

“You’re not just making a suit,” he says. You’re part of something important in someone’s life — a wedding, a big moment, a transition. That deserves more than just a transaction.”

The skill that underpins all of it is listening.

“I didn’t listen enough when I was younger,” he says. “I thought I had something to say. Most of the time, I didn’t.”

As it changed over time, it reshaped his approach to business.

“You can have the gift of the gab,” he says. “But first you need to be a really good listener. That’s the foundation of everything.”

The person behind the work

“I’m a massive dork,” Daniel confesses.

He spends his time watching documentaries, following football, and revisiting 80’s cartoons for their storytelling.

“Everything followed the same structure,” he says. “Problem, challenge, resolution. The hero’s journey really fascinates me.”

He also shares that in another life, his passions for comics and cartoons may have taken him on a different path entirely.

“I always wanted to be an illustrator,” says Daniel. “In another life, I would’ve gone to art school, won awards, had a studio, painted… maybe worked for Disney.”

Showing up every day

When we asked him what has sustained his career, it was simply: consistency.

“If you say you’re going to be there, be there,” he says.

It’s a simple philosophy that he credits with building his business over time.

“Fourteen years later, I’m still showing up.”

Not just a tailor

While Daniel has built a career around tailoring, the craft itself is only one part of the story.

He’s a designer who understands systems, an observer, and someone who has built a business on meaningful relationships.

Daniel is someone who listens and uses his understanding to shape experiences around some of the most important moments in people’s lives.

Want to hear more of Daniel’s story? Watch the full podcast episode on our YouTube channel.

Over the past year, a pattern has been emerging across global businesses: teams are getting smaller, but the pile of work isn’t.

Artificial intelligence is changing how organisations operate, and companies are beginning to redesign their workforces around it.

For the past two years, conversations about AI and jobs have sounded the same. Some argue artificial intelligence will replace workers at scale, other insist the fears are overblown and AI is “simply another productivity tool”.

A third perspective is now emerging: Some employers are using AI as a catalyst to trim the fat and restructure their workforce.

Our view? None of these explanations are mutually exclusive. What we’re seeing across industries is likely a combination of all three.

The result is something more structural than a wave of mass layoffs. Instead, we’re at the beginning of a workforce reset shaped by human-AI collaboration.

The signals are already appearing

The last 12 months saw a growing number of companies linking major restructures directly to AI adoption.

Australian logistics software giant, WiseTech Global, recently announced plans to cut 2,000 staff from its global workforce as it integrates AI across its operations and software platforms.

Atlassian also announced approximately 1,600 layoffs in early March as part of an ongoing restructuring tied to AI and operational efficiency.

Globally, similar patterns are emerging. Amazon has cut tens of thousands of roles across multiple rounds of layoffs, while simultaneously investing heavily in AI-driven products and infrastructure.

Other organisations, including Citi, eBay and Meta, have also announced workforce reductions while reallocating investment towards AI and automation.

Individually, these can be seen as cost-cutting decisions but viewed together, they suggest something else:

Organisations are rebalancing their workforces around a new operating model.

As Thomas Mackenzie, Director of Client Services at Scale by Avec, puts it:

“AI isn’t stealing jobs, but it is reshaping them. We’re seeing smarter, leaner teams and a new operating model defined by human and machine collaboration.”

This is simply capital reallocation

Most coverage and public discussion have framed these recent layoffs as a reaction to AI disruption but, in many cases, organisations are making deliberate investment decisions.

When new technologies dramatically increase productivity, companies often rebalance resources to reduce effort in some areas while increase investment elsewhere.

Thomas draws a parallel with financial markets:

“When investors anticipate structural change, they liquidate certain assets and redeploy capital into areas with greater potential. We’re seeing something similar with human capital as organisations adapt to AI.”

In other words, the workforce changes happening today are signs of reallocation.

Capital freed up from traditional workflows is being reinvested into areas such as:

• AI infrastructure
• Data platforms
• Product innovation
• AI-enabled services

And many organisations making cuts today are simultaneously hiring in completely different capability areas.

Where AI is changing work fastest

The early impact of AI on work isn’t evenly distributed, and the roles most affected tend to share similar characteristics:

• High repetition
• Structured workflows
• Process-heavy tasks
• Large operational scale

These are all areas where AI can quickly deliver productivity gains.

Take software engineering.

Historically, large development teams spent significant time writing routine code, testing functionality and maintain systems. Today, generative AI tools can produce and review code at a dramatically faster speed.

This capability is what led WiseTech’s chief executive to state:

“The era of manually writing code as a core act of engineering is over.”

Importantly, this doesn’t wipe the need for engineers but instead changes the nature of their work as productivity tools improve.

Instead of spending most of their time writing code, developers will increasingly focus on:

• System design
• Architecture
• Problem solving
• AI oversight

Another emerging impact is being felt earlier in the talent pipeline.

Early-career roles, particularly graduate and junior positions, are among the first to be affected as AI reduces the need for large numbers of entry-level workers performing repetitive or structured tasks.

Based on Talent placement data, entry-level hiring has declined by 19% in the last two years.

Over time, this creates a structural risk for organisations. If fewer early-career professionals are entering the workforce and developing experience, the pipeline of mid-level and senior talent available in five to ten years may be significantly smaller.

Put simply: if organisations shrink the base of the talent pyramid today, they may struggle to fill the top of it tomorrow.

The new workforce will favour AI-native talent

Organisations are rebuilding around different capabilities and employees who understand how to work effectively with AI systems are becoming significantly more valuable.

Thomas summarises the shift:

“AI may not take your job, but someone who knows how to use it effectively will.”

While this doesn’t mean every worker needs to become an AI engineer, AI literacy is quickly becoming a core professional capability like how digital literacy became essential two decades ago.

People who can design workflows around AI, interpret outputs and combine machine insights with human discernment will increasingly sit at the centre of modern organisations.

Some companies will inevitably overcorrect

Periods of technological change rarely happen smoothly, and history shows that productivity breakthroughs often trigger cycles of over-correction and adjustment.

Some organisations cut too deeply, and others move too slowly but eventually, capability gaps become clear and hiring will rebound.

One emerging example of this dynamic is what some observers are calling the “AI layoff boomerang.”

Swedish fintech Klarna provides one example. After aggressively promoting AI-driven efficiency and reducing headcount, the company later acknowledged it needed to rebuild human capability in key areas after the cuts went too far.

And this pattern may be more common than many assume. A Careerminds survey from February 2026 found that 32.7% of organisations that conducted AI-led layoffs had already rehired between 25-50% of the roles they initially eliminated.

Another 35.6% reported they had already rehired more than half of the roles that were cut.

In other words, the labour market may already be seeing the early stages of an AI layoff boomerang.

Thomas believes the same pattern may emerge during the current transition:

“AI is a powerful tool, but it won’t replace people entirely. Some organisations will realise they’ve cut the capability they still need and will find themselves needing to rebuild it.”

If history is any guide, the current wave of restructures may eventually be followed by new hiring cycles focused on different skills.

What this means for organisations

The important question for leaders is: How do you design work in an AI-enabled world?

Three priorities are becoming increasingly clear.

1. Redesign work, not just roles

AI changes tasks first before changing entire jobs. Instead of asking ‘which roles can AI replace?’, organisations should ask:

How should work be structured so humans and AI each contribute their strength?

2. Invest in AI-native capability

Future teams will rely on a blend of technical and human capabilities:

• AI literacy
• Critical thinking
• Systems thinking
• Leadership and collaboration
• Resilience
• Adaptability

And the organisations that invest in these capabilities early will move faster than their competitors who are still adapting.

3. Think more strategically about workforce design

AI adoption also creates an opportunity to rethink how teams are structured.

Not every requirement needs to be filled through a permanent hire. In some cases, the work may be better delivered through specialist contractors or project-based expertise.

Blended workforce models can combine the stability of permanent teams with the flexibility of external specialists. This approach can help organisations scale skills up or down as demand changes, while still maintaining control of intellectual property and reducing operational risk.

The conversation moving forward

It isn’t enough to keep focusing on the single question, ‘Will AI replace workers?’

The bigger shift already underway is the redesign of the workforce itself.

Future organisations are likely to operate with fundamentally different workforce models, combining permanent employees, project-based contractors and AI-augmented teams working together to deliver outcomes.

These blended teams will allow organisations to scale capability and productivity more fluidly as demand changes, reducing the need for the large-scale redundancies that often follow rigid workforce structures.

However, this evolution also places greater responsibility on leaders to think more carefully about workforce design before building out their teams.

Organisations that can plan for flexibility by building contingency and adaptability into their workforce strategies will be better positioned to navigate technological change without repeatedly cycling through major layoffs when market conditions shift.

The question is no longer whether AI will reshape work. It’s whether organisations are designing their workforce to adapt to that reality.

We recently sat down with Yumi Stynes on our latest podcast episode, and within minutes it was clear: she’s the kind of person who has always pushed against the edges of where life might take her.

Before the television career, before the books, before the public platform, there was a younger version of Yumi who felt completely adrift.

Her solution?

Stick out her thumb and see what happened.

Hitchhiking towards possibility

“Before I started working at Channel V in the year 2000, I was someone who used to hitchhike,” she says.

Yumi would hitchhike from Byron Bay up through northern Queensland, sometimes travelling hundreds of kilometres with truck drivers and strangers who stopped to offer a ride.

“It was pretty fun, but it was also incredibly freeing,” she says. “There was this feeling that my destiny was literally in my thumb. I could go somewhere completely different based on who picked me up that day.”

At the time she had just finished university where she volunteered at a radio station and felt completely untethered.

“I had a part-time job as a bartender, as a kitchen hand. I was partying too much, and I didn’t really know what I was doing with my life.”

Hitchhiking gave her a sense of perspective.

“I just had this real sense of freedom,” she says. “I think there are moments in time when you’re pre-children and you don’t have a serious job where you can take those risks. There’s not much on the line.”

And in hindsight, that mindset would become a defining theme in her career.

Auditioning when you don’t feel invited

Despite always wanting to work in creative spaces, Yumi didn’t believe media was somewhere someone like her could belong.

“There weren’t many Asian people in media at the time,” she says. “So it didn’t feel like something that was available to me.”

The turning point came when a friend spotted an ad for auditions at Channel V and suggested she try.

“For a long time, I was extremely wary of doing anything cringey or embarrassing,” she says. “So, auditioning meant being humble enough to say, ‘I want this job badly enough to line up with hundreds of other hopefuls and try.’ At that point I thought, what have I got to lose? If I can’t give it a go now, I probably never will.”

That willingness to put herself out there ultimately opened the door to her career in youth media.

Preparation over panic

In the early days of music television, preparation wasn’t exactly a formalised process.

“We were flying by the seat of our pants,” Yumi says. “Trying to remember some Smash Hits article we read three years ago and hoping we remembered the band members’ names.”

Over time she realised that the key to confidence wasn’t personality or charisma. It was simply: preparation.

“I eventually realised there were a couple of things I needed to do,” she says. “I needed to be sober, I couldn’t be hungover or stoned, and I needed to do as much preparation as I could.”

Once she started approaching interviews that way, something shifted.

“When you arrive fully prepared and your body is good, I don’t think there’s any need for anxiety. You just feel quite psyched and joyful to be there.”

It was a simple revelation which she now applies across every part of her professional life.

Walking the fine line of authenticity

Authenticity is often celebrated in media, but living it can be complicated.

“It’s tricky because there have been times where being fully myself has got me into trouble and gotten my shows axed or in jeopardy,” Yumi admits.

Working in youth media meant constantly navigating the line between being authentic and being too provocative.

“You’re often asked to be edgy,” she says. “But sometimes you walk that fine line between edgy and, ‘Oh, I’ve crossed the line and I’m getting fired now.’ There have been times where I have been suspended from work, which wasn’t publicly known at the time. I had to take leave and just stay home and rot while pregnant with my first child.”

More recently, she found herself stepping into a very different challenge: emceeing the Feminist Roast at the Sydney Opera House’s annual All About Women festival with only two days’ notice.

“I thought, okay, I know how to work a big room,” she says. “I know how to talk feminism really fluently, and I’m just going to be very present and react according to my truth and my spirit.”

When one speaker delivered a heartbreaking story that left the audience in tears, Yumi had to guide the room through the emotional moment.

“You have to show a lot of sensitivity and be a really good listener and know what to say to move on to the next phase of a big show like that. I allowed them all to breathe and allowed them to see that I was having an emotional reaction too,” she says. “If I’m allowed to cry, that gives them permission to cry.”

Then came the reset.

“I said, ‘I want you to leave this room with your DNA re-arranged. I want you to be a different person when you get home to the person who left home this evening’… And then we wrestled the whole entire room towards a joyful finale.”

Learning to ask for help

One of the most transformative lessons in Yumi’s life came to her during her divorce.

“I’d get a lawyer letter or email and I’d freeze, unable to understand or process the words,” she says. “I had a group of friends who were good at analysing and would just translate it to me.”

The situation forced her to do something she always found herself resisting: asking for help.

“I never wanted to be the needy person, or the person who was a bit broken or was having a crisis and needed to ask for help,” says Yumi.

This discovery surprised her.

“I realised that asking for help isn’t weakness,” she says. “It really strengthens the bonds that you have with your existing peer group of friends. People feel really loved and special if they can help you.”

It also changed the way she thinks about relationships.

“I just fell wildly in love with my friends during that time,” she says. “And I realised that the whole partnership and coupling thing that had been sold to me all my life wasn’t necessarily what I needed.”

Instead, she began prioritising friendship in every part of her life, including work.

“I think every workmate is a potential friend,” she says. “I think it’s a really great place to make friends and the thing I have learned is to be courageous and make the first move when building friendships at work, home, or at the gym. I just really enjoy people.”

Feeding people who need it

While much of Yumi’s public work centres around broadcasting and writing, one of the things she imagines most vividly for her future has nothing to do with media.

“One of the things I can visualise for my distant future is I want to work in some sort of space where I feed people who are hungry,” she says. “Not fine dining, just feeding people who need to be fed. I have such an urge in me to work out how to scale nourishment to reach as many people as I possibly could.”

It’s an idea she’s carried quietly for her entire life.

“My entire life story is going to be leading to that, I hope,” she says. “Can you imagine? I’ll be 70 and so busy working trying to feed people who are hungry.”

Not just a broadcaster

For someone who has spent decades behind microphones and cameras, Yumi’s greatest skill might not be what people expect

When we asked about her hidden talent, she reveals, “I’m a really good listener.”

It’s a skill she believes many aspiring podcasters, authors, broadcasters and TV presenters underestimate.

“You can be a great talker, have the gift of the gab, but firstly, you need to be a really good listener. And that’s the foundation of everything — podcaster, author, friend.”

Beyond broadcasting, beyond books, beyond the public platform, it’s Yumi’s curiosity about people, and her ability to truly listen, that continues to shape how she moves through the world.

To hear more of Yumi’s story in her own words, watch the full episode on our YouTube channel.