Connect with us
https://tickernews.co/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/AmEx-Thought-Leaders.jpg

Ticker Views

Australian workers are likely to change occupations twice in the next 20 years

Published

on

Australian workers are likely to change occupations twice in the next 20 years. How do we help them do this?

Catherine de Fontenay, The University of Melbourne and Alex Robson, Queensland University of Technology

Over the next two decades, the average Australian worker is likely to change occupations at least twice.

Rapid technological change and longer working lives mean the days of having “one job for life” are long gone. New occupations will also appear and some older ones will shrink or vanish. And our preferences change.

So Australians’ ability to adapt to new occupations will be crucial for their wellbeing at work and for national productivity.

In a new Productivity Commission interim report, released today, we examine how Australia can build a skilled and adaptable workforce.

Here’s what we recommend for schools, mid-career learning and entering new occupations.

Can we help schools teach basic skills?

Being able to adapt in the workforce starts with having basic skills that can be transferred across different occupations. These are taught at school and include reading, maths and basic digital literacy.

But many Australian students lack these skills. For example, the most recent NAPLAN results show about 10% of students need additional support and about 20% are “developing” towards expectations.

Gaps in outcomes for students from disadvantaged groups emerge early and worsen over time. For example in Year 3, on average, students with parents who did not finish high school are two years behind in reading compared to students with parents with a bachelor’s degree. By Year 9, they are five years behind.

Students who fall behind also pose a huge challenge for teachers, who may need to teach a broad range of levels within one class. Our report found 53% of schools had the highest possible range of achievement levels when it came to NAPLAN scores.

To build these students’ skills, the Productivity Commission proposes investment in a comprehensive online bank of high-quality lesson planning materials. Some states and school systems already have, or are developing, banks of lesson plans. There is an existing central resource, but it requires updating and expanding.

A central bank could help teachers support students of all abilities in their classes. These would be available to all teachers, no matter what type of school they teach at. They would cover all aspects of the Australian Curriculum from the first year of school to Year 10.

Our report also found generative artificial intelligence (AI), if implemented well, has tremendous potential to support students who are falling behind (and to challenge those who are ahead).

We propose a national approach to “edtech” – including a stocktake of what’s currently used. This approach could also draw on the combined purchasing power of states to provide approved AI tools at a cheaper price than what schools could procure alone.

Can we make it easier to train and study mid-career?

Lifelong learning is also vital for adaptability. Workers who improve their skills or gain new ones over their working lives are more likely to adjust successfully to new technology and developments in their occupation.

We found sole traders and small and medium enterprises provided 65.9% of Australian jobs, yet their workers tend to receive less training than those in larger firms. So the Productivity Commission recommends trialling financial incentives (such as a tax credit) to encourage training for staff working in these organisations.

Some workers also need new qualifications to change occupations. They may look to get credit from their new institution for some of their prior experience to speed up their study.

But this system can be complicated. Providers get less revenue if students finish their courses more quickly and may be hesitant to give credit for prior learning. It can be also hard to determine what experiences, including overseas qualifications, should get what specific credits.

So we propose an independent process to assess “recognition of prior learning” and a public register of credit transfer decisions to show students what education pathways they might pursue.

Can we make it simpler to enter a new field?

Occupational entry regulations – or rules that require workers to meet minimum conditions – may also be hampering workers’ adaptability.

Excessive regulations can deter workers from entering occupations to which they are suited if the financial or time costs are too high. This can result in higher prices for consumers.

Our inquiry found between 15% and 31% of Australian workers are subject to registration or licensing – a higher proportion than as many as 23 European Union countries.

Across different Australian states, the rules for licensing workers vary widely, yet the Productivity Commission found no evidence those states with tighter licensing experience better consumer or worker safety outcomes.

Some of the industries we found has too many regulations included hairdressers, motor vehicle repairers, painters and decorators and air conditioning mechanics.

Many Australian occupations require lengthy qualifications, and in some non-trade occupations the educational requirements have ratcheted up over time.

In trades, trade apprentice numbers have stagnated. And only 54% of trade apprentices have finished within four years of starting their training. So we recommend alternative models are considered. These include a shorter apprenticeship for mature students, more narrowly focused qualifications, and completing coursework prior to a shorter apprenticeship.

Adapting to new job markets is always challenging. But workers who are changing occupations multiple times need to be supported to manage this volatility. Helping Australians to survive and thrive through change is the key to an adaptable workforce.The Conversation

Catherine de Fontenay, Honorary Fellow, Department of Economics, The University of Melbourne and Alex Robson, Deputy Chair, Productivity Commission, and Adjunct Professor, Queensland University of Technology

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Ticker Views

Backlash over AI “Indigenous Host” sparks ethical debate

AI-generated “Indigenous host” sparks controversy, raising ethical concerns about representation and authenticity in social media.

Published

on

AI-generated “Indigenous host” sparks controversy, raising ethical concerns about representation and authenticity in social media.


A viral social media account featuring an AI-generated “Indigenous host” is drawing criticism from advocates and creators alike, raising questions about authenticity, representation, and ethics in the age of artificial intelligence. Critics argue that AI characters can displace real Indigenous voices and mislead audiences.

Dr Karen Sutherland from Uni SC discusses how AI is reshaping identity on social media and why the backlash over this account has ignited a wider conversation about “digital blackface” and the ethics of AI-generated personalities. She explores the fine line between education, entertainment, and exploitation.

The discussion also dives into monetisation, platform responsibility, and the broader risks AI poses to media and cultural representation. As AI becomes increasingly sophisticated, audiences and creators alike must consider what authenticity truly means online.

Subscribe to never miss an episode of Ticker – https://www.youtube.com/@weareticker

#AIControversy #IndigenousVoices #DigitalBlackface #SocialMediaEthics #AIIdentity #OnlineBacklash #MediaEthics #RepresentationMatters


Download the Ticker app

Continue Reading

Ticker Views

Business class battles and ultra long-haul flights with Simon Dean

Aviation expert Simon Dean shares insights on premium travel trends, business class, and the future of ultra-long-haul flights.

Published

on

Aviation expert Simon Dean shares insights on premium travel trends, business class, and the future of ultra-long-haul flights.

From the latest trends in premium travel to the rise of ultra-long-haul flights, aviation reviewer Simon Dean from Flight Formula shares his firsthand insights on the airlines leading the charge.

We dive into what makes a great business class experience, and whether first class is still worth it in 2026. Simon breaks down common passenger misconceptions about premium cabins and explores how airlines are redesigning business class for comfort on the world’s longest flights.

He also gives a sneak peek into what excites—and worries him—about Qantas Project Sunrise, set to redefine ultra long haul travel.

Finally, we discuss the future of premium aviation: will ultra-long-haul flights become the new normal or remain a niche experience?

Subscribe to never miss an episode of Ticker – https://www.youtube.com/@weareticker

#BusinessClass #UltraLongHaul #ProjectSunrise #AviationReview #FirstClass #AirlineTrends #TravelInsights #FlightFormula


Download the Ticker app

Continue Reading

Ticker Views

Trump’s expanding executive power raises alarms over Congress’ role

Published

on

Congress’ power has been diminishing for years, leaving Trump to act with impunity

Samuel Garrett, University of Sydney

A year into US President Donald Trump’s second term, his record use of executive orders, impoundment of government spending, and military interventions in Venezuela and Iran have sparked criticisms from Democrats and even some Republicans. They say he is unconstitutionally sidelining Congress.

As Trump increasingly wields his power unilaterally, some have wondered what the point of Congress is now. Isn’t it supposed to act as a check on the president?

But the power of the modern presidency had already been growing for decades. Successive presidents from both parties have taken advantage of constitutional vagaries to increase the power of the executive branch. It’s a long-running institutional battle that has underwritten US political history.

The years-long erosion of Congress’ influence leaves the president with largely unchecked power. We’re now seeing the consequences.

A fraught relationship

Congress is made up of the House of Representatives and the Senate. Under the US Constitution, it’s the branch of the government tasked with making laws. It’s supposed to act as a check on the president and the courts.

It can pass legislation, raise taxes, control government spending, review and approve presidential nominees, advise and consent on treaties, conduct investigations, declare war, impeach officials, and even choose the president in a disputed election.

But the Constitution leaves open many questions about where the powers of Congress end and the powers of the president begin.

In a 2019 ruling on Trump’s tax returns, the judge commented:

disputes between Congress and the President are a recurring plot in our national story. And that is precisely what the Framers intended.

Relative power between the different branches of the US government has changed since independence as constitutional interpretations shifted. This includes whether the president or Congress takes the lead on making laws.

Although Congress holds legislative power, intense negotiations between Congress and the executive branch (led by the president) are now a common feature of US lawmaking. Modern political parties work closely with the president to design and pass new laws.

Redefining the presidency

By contrast, presidents in the 19th and early 20th centuries generally left Congress to lead policymaking. Party “czars” in Congress dominated the national legislative agenda.

Future president Woodrow Wilson noted in 1885 that Congress:

has entered more and more into the details of administration, until it has virtually taken into its own hands all the substantial powers of government.

Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt after him would later help to redefine the president not only as the head of the executive branch, but as head of their party and of the government.

In the 1970s, in the wake of the Watergate scandal and secret bombing of Cambodia, Congress sought to expand its oversight over what commentators suggested was becoming an “imperial presidency”.

This included the passage of the 1973 War Powers Resolution, designed to wrest back Congressional control of unauthorised military deployments.

Nevertheless, the Clinton, George W. Bush and Obama administrations all argued that Congressional authorisation was not required for operations in Kosovo, Iraq and Libya (though Bush still sought authorisation to secure public support).

In turn, the Trump administration argued its actions in Venezuela were a law-enforcement operation, to which the resolution does not apply.

Why presidents bypass Congress

Historically, presidents have sought to bypass Congress for reasons of personality or politics. Controversial decisions that would struggle to pass through Congress are often made using executive orders.

Obama’s 2011 “We Can’t Wait” initiative used executive orders to enact policy priorities without needing to go through a gridlocked Congress. One such policy was the 2012 creation of the DACA program for undocumented immigrants.

Franklin Roosevelt’s use of executive orders dwarfed that of his predecessors. He issued eight times as many orders in his 12-year tenure than were signed in the first 100 years of the United States’ existence.

The question of what constitutes a genuine threat to the preservation of the nation is especially pertinent now. More than 50 “national emergencies” are currently in effect in the United States.

This was the controversial basis of Trump’s tariff policy under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. It bypassed Congressional approval and is now being considered by the Supreme Court.

Recent presidents have also increasingly claimed executive privilege to block Congress’ subpoena power.

Institutional wrestling

Institutional wrestling is a feature of Congressional relations with the president, even when the same party controls the White House and both chambers of the legislature, as the Republican party does now.

While Roosevelt dominated Congress, his “court-packing plan” to take control of the US Supreme Court in 1937 proved a bridge too far, even for his own sweeping Democratic majorities. The Democrats controlled three quarters of both the House and Senate and yet refused to back his plan.

More recently, former Democrat Speaker Nancy Pelosi delivered many of Barack Obama’s early legislative achievements, but still clashed with the president in 2010 over congressional oversight.

As House minority leader, she rallied many Democrats against Obama’s US$1.1 trillion (A$1.6 trillion) budget proposal in 2014. Obama was forced to rely on Republican votes in 2015 to secure approval for the Trans-Pacific Partnership, despite his heavy lobbying of congressional Democrats.

Even today’s Congress, which has taken Trump’s direction at almost every turn, demonstrated its influence perhaps most notably by forcing the president into a backflip on the release of the Epstein files after a revolt within Trump’s supporters in the Republican party.

Given the extremely slim Republican majority in Congress, the general unity of the Republican party behind Trump has been a key source of his political strength. That may be lost if public opinion continues to turn against him.

Is Trump breaking the rules?

Trump and his administration have taken an expansive view of presidential power by regularly bypassing Congress.

But he’s not the first president to have pushed the already blurry limits of executive power to redefine what is or is not within the president’s remit. The extent to which presidents are even bound by law at all is a matter of long running academic debate.

Deliberate vagaries in US law and the Constitution mean the Supreme Court is ultimately the arbiter of what is legal.

The court is currently the most conservative in modern history and has taken a sweeping view of presidential power. The 2024 Supreme Court ruling that presidents enjoy extensive immunity suggests the president is, in fact, legally able to do almost anything.

Regardless, public opinion and perceptions of illegality continue to be one of the most important constraints on presidential action. Constituents can take a dim view of presidential behaviour, even if it’s not technically illegal.

Even if Trump can legally act with complete authority, it’s public opinion — not the letter of the law — that may continue to shape when, and if, he does so.The Conversation

Samuel Garrett, Research Associate, United States Studies Centre, University of Sydney

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Continue Reading

Trending Now