July 2026
Artificial intelligence (AI) is transforming Australian workplaces at a rapid pace. From automating administrative tasks to analysing performance data and monitoring productivity, AI promises to help organisations work smarter and more efficiently. But alongside these benefits, it is important to understand the impact these technologies can have on workers’ mental health — and their jobs. Unions have been clear that AI is not simply a technical or productivity issue. It is a workplace issue, and it is already changing how many Australians work, whether they are consulted about it or not. As workplaces embrace new technologies, important questions are emerging: When does technology, and particularly AI, become a workplace mental health risk? And what should workers be able to expect from their employer when AI is introduced? Recent research — and recent experience on the ground in Australian workplaces — suggests the answer may lie not in the technology itself, but in how it is introduced, managed and experienced by workers.
The rise of technostress
Researchers use the term “technostress” to describe the stress and anxiety people experience when struggling to adapt to new technologies.
While the concept was first identified in 1984, it has taken on new significance in the age of AI.
A growing body of research suggests workers are increasingly concerned about how emerging technologies may affect their jobs, workloads and future employment prospects.
According to PwC’s 2025 Global Workforce Hopes and Fears Survey, more than one-third of Australian workers expect technology to have a significant impact on their jobs within the next three years [3].
These concerns are not simply resistance to change. For many workers, they reflect genuine uncertainty about what rapidly evolving technology means for their future — and, increasingly, that uncertainty is well founded.
What it looks like in Australian workplaces
Technostress is about much more than learning how to use new software.
Researchers have identified five core factors that contribute to technology-related stress:
- techno-overload: the feeling of being overburdened by tech-driven demands
- techno-invasion: tech tools eroding the boundaries between work and personal lives
- techno-complexity: the cognitive challenges of learning new systems
- techno-insecurity: the fear of being replaced by technology
- techno-uncertainty: a form of anxiety driven by constant advancements and change in tech
Psychological impacts from these stressors are more immediate than behavioural ones, meaning that workers often experience the mental toll before any visible change in their work output [4].
A 2025 study in Frontiers in Psychology found that technostress is associated with higher levels of emotional instability and anxiety, with AI tools acting as both productivity enhancers and anxiety amplifiers [1].
AI is already costing Australian jobs
For many workers, techno-insecurity is not an abstract fear. Australian unions have been warning that AI-driven job losses are already underway, and the finance sector is one of the clearest examples.
In April 2026, Bendigo Bank announced new multi-year partnerships with IT and AI providers Infosys and Genpact as part of an accelerated “Productivity Program”, flagging significant cuts across lending, customer processing, financial crime operations, contact centres and other roles. The Finance Sector Union (FSU) called on the bank to disclose the full scale of AI-driven job losses and on the federal government to strengthen AI regulation to protect workers [7]. Similar patterns are playing out globally, with major banks including Citigroup flagging that AI-enabled automation will allow them to run operations with significantly fewer staff [7].
This is consistent with what unions have long predicted. ACTU policy notes that AI is expected to affect between 40 and 60 per cent of jobs worldwide, with an estimated 7.2 million Australian workers — around half the national workforce — needing to reskill or adapt as generative AI is adopted, including roughly 3.9 million whose roles face genuine disruption [8].
For workers, this uncertainty about job security is itself a mental health issue. The fear of unemployment, the pressure to reskill without adequate support, and the sense of powerlessness that comes from watching a workplace change around you are all recognised drivers of psychological distress.
Increased surveillance is a psychosocial hazard
One of the most important developments in recent years has been the formal recognition of AI-powered workplace surveillance as a psychosocial hazard under Australian law. According to the Commonwealth Work Health and Safety (Managing Psychosocial Hazards at Work) Code of Practice 2024, employers are legally required to identify, assess, and control surveillance-related risks in the same way that they would any other physical hazard in the workplace [5].
Many organisations now use technology to track productivity, monitor activity, analyse communications or measure performance in real time. While these systems are often introduced to improve efficiency or support management decisions, they can also create new psychosocial risks if not implemented carefully.
What unions expect employers to do
Technology itself is not the hazard. The risk arises when new tools are introduced without genuine consultation, proper risk assessment, adequate training or consideration of the psychological impact on workers.
The ACTU has set out clearly what it expects from employers introducing AI into Australian workplaces:
- Consult workers before decisions are made. Under the Fair Work Act, employers covered by an enterprise agreement must consult with employees where a major change is likely to significantly affect them, including changes to job duties, hours or job security. Modern awards contain similar consultation clauses. In early 2026, the ACTU wrote to employer peak bodies reminding them of the legal obligation to consult workers before introducing AI. As ACTU Assistant Secretary Joseph Mitchell put it: “Australian workers have strong rights that require employers to immediately and transparently engage with their workforce and work out how they will avoid job losses and retrain their workforce” [6].
- Undertake genuine risk assessments. Just as employers must assess and control physical hazards, the Commonwealth WHS Code of Practice on psychosocial hazards requires employers to identify, assess and control the psychosocial risks that come with AI and surveillance technologies before they are introduced [5].
- Invest in training and reskilling. Unions argue that every worker whose role is affected by AI has a right to education and training, and that where job losses cannot be avoided, workers should receive adequate compensation, retraining and support to find other work [8]. The ACTU has called for enforceable “AI Implementation Agreements” that would guarantee job security commitments, skills development and retraining, transparency over how technology is used, and genuine data and privacy protections, backed by a proposed National AI Authority [9].
- Share information transparently. Workers and their representatives should be told what technology is being introduced, why, and what it means for their jobs. They should not discover these changes through a media release or a restructure announcement.
Some employers are showing what better practice can look like. In early 2026, Microsoft Australia and the ACTU signed a framework agreement committing to formal channels for worker input into how AI systems are designed and deployed, joint training for union delegates through the ACTU Institute, and ongoing collaboration on AI policy [10]. It is a reminder that consultation and productivity are not in competition with one another. Research consistently shows that productivity gains from AI are strongest when workers are involved and protected [9].
The opportunity ahead
AI has enormous potential to improve workplaces. Used well, it can reduce repetitive tasks, support decision-making and free workers to focus on more meaningful and rewarding work.
But that potential will only be realised if workers are treated as partners in the transition, not as an afterthought. Australian work health and safety laws already require employers to identify and manage psychosocial hazards that could harm workers’ mental health — and the same principle applies to the introduction of AI.
As AI becomes increasingly embedded in Australian workplaces, the challenge for employers is not just deploying new technology, but doing so in a way that keeps workers informed, consulted, trained and psychologically safe throughout the process. Workers who feel they have a genuine say in how AI is introduced — and confidence that their job security and wellbeing are being taken seriously — are far more likely to see AI as an opportunity rather than a threat.
References
[1] Frontiers in Psychology. Mental health in the era of artificial intelligence: technostress and the perceived impact on anxiety and depressive disorders, 2025.
[2] Safe Work Australia. Key Work Health and Safety Statistics Australia 2025, 2025.
[3] PWC Australia. Global Workforce Hopes and Fears Survey, 2025.
[4] Computers in Human Behaviour Reports. Technostress: A comprehensive literature review on dimensions, impacts, and management strategies, 2025.
[5] Safe Work Australia / Fairwork Mate. Psychosocial Hazards at Work, 2026.
[6] Australian Council of Trade Unions. AI: Unions put corporate Australia on notice, media release, 2026.
[7] HR Leader. Bendigo Bank job cuts: Union calls on federal government to prevent further AI job losses, 2026.
[8] Australian Council of Trade Unions. ACTU Congress Policy: Artificial Intelligence, 2024.
[9] Australian Council of Trade Unions. Unions seek enforceable agreements on the use of AI, media release, 2025.
[10] Microsoft Australia / Australian Council of Trade Unions. Framework Agreement on AI, 2026.