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

Lunar Gateway faces delays and funding debate amid Artemis ambitions

Published

on

What’s the point of a space station around the Moon?

Berna Akcali Gur, Queen Mary University of London

The Lunar Gateway is planned space station that will orbit the Moon. It is part of the Nasa‑led Artemis programme. Artemis aims to return humans to the Moon, establishing a sustainable presence there for scientific and commercial purposes, and eventually reach Mars.

However, the modular space station now faces delays, cost concerns and potential US funding cuts. This raises a fundamental question: is an orbiting space station necessary to achieve lunar objectives, including scientific ones?

The president’s proposed 2026 budget for Nasa sought to cancel Gateway. Ultimately, push back from within the Senate led to continued funding for the lunar outpost. But debate continues among policymakers as to its value and necessity within the Artemis programme.

Cancelling Gateway would also raise deeper questions about the future of US commitment to international cooperation within Artemis. It would therefore risk eroding US influence over global partnerships that will define the future of deep space exploration.

Gateway was designed to support these ambitions by acting as a staging point for crewed and robotic missions (such as lunar rovers), as a platform for scientific research and as a testbed for technologies crucial to landing humans on Mars.

It is a multinational endeavour. Nasa is joined by four international partners, the Canadian Space Agency, the European Space Agency (Esa), the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency and the United Arab Emirates’ Mohammed Bin Rashid Space Centre.

Schematic of the Lunar Gateway.
The Lunar Gateway.
Nasa

Most components contributed by these partners have already been produced and delivered to the US for integration and testing. But the project has been beset by rising costs and persistent debates over its value.

If cancelled, the US abandonment of the most multinational component of the Artemis programme, at a time when trust in such alliances is under unprecedented strain, could be far reaching.

It will be assembled module by module, with each partner contributing components and with the possibility of additional partners joining over time.

Strategic aims

Gateway reflects a broader strategic aim of Artemis, to pursue lunar exploration through partnerships with industry and other nations, helping spread the financial cost – rather than as a sole US venture. This is particularly important amid intensifying competition – primarily with China.

China and Russia are pursuing their own multinational lunar project, a surface base called the International Lunar Research Station. Gateway could act as an important counterweight, helping reinforce US leadership at the Moon.

In its quarter-century of operation, the ISS has hosted more than 290 people from 26 countries, alongside its five international partners, including Russia. More than 4,000 experiments have been conducted in this unique laboratory.

In 2030, the ISS is due to be succeeded by separate private and national space stations in low Earth orbit. As such, Lunar Gateway could repeat the strategic, stabilising role among different nations that the ISS has played for decades.

However, it is essential to examine carefully whether Gateway’s strategic value is truly matched by its operational and financial feasibility.

It could be argued that the rest of the Artemis programme is not dependant on the lunar space station, making its rationales increasingly difficult to defend.

Some critics focus on technical issues, others say the Gateway’s original purpose has faded, while others argue that lunar missions can proceed without an orbital outpost.

Sustainable exploration

Supporters counter that the Lunar Gateway offers a critical platform for testing technology in deep space, enabling sustainable lunar exploration, fostering international cooperation and laying the groundwork for a long term human presence and economy at the Moon. The debate now centres on whether there are more effective ways to achieve these goals.

Despite uncertainties, commercial and national partners remain dedicated to delivering their commitments. Esa is supplying the International Habitation Module (IHAB) alongside refuelling and communications systems. Canada is building Gateway’s robotic arm, Canadarm3, the UAE is producing an airlock module and Japan is contributing life support systems and habitation components.

Gateway’s Halo module at a facility in Arizona operated by aerospace company Northrop Grumman.
Nasa / Josh Valcarcel

US company Northrop Grumman is responsible for developing the Habitat and Logistics Outpost (Halo), and American firm Maxar is to build the power and propulsion element (PPE). A substantial portion of this hardware has already been delivered and is undergoing integration and testing.

If the Gateway project ends, the most responsible path forward to avoid discouraging future contributors to Artemis projects would be to establish a clear plan to repurpose the hardware for other missions.

Cancellation without such a strategy risks creating a vacuum that rival coalitions, could exploit. But it could also open the door to new alternatives, potentially including one led by Esa.

Esa has reaffirmed its commitment to Gateway even if the US ultimately reconsiders its own role. For emerging space nations, access to such an outpost would help develop their capabilities in exploration. That access translates directly into geopolitical influence.

Space endeavours are expensive, risky and often difficult to justify to the public. Yet sustainable exploration beyond Earth’s orbit will require a long-term, collaborative approach rather than a series of isolated missions.

If the Gateway no longer makes technical or operational sense for the US, its benefits could still be achieved through another project.

This could be located on the lunar surface, integrated into a Mars mission or could take an entirely new form. But if the US dismisses Gateway’s value as a long term outpost without ensuring that its broader benefits are preserved, it risks missing an opportunity that will shape its long term influence in international trust, leadership and the future shape of space cooperation.The Conversation

Berna Akcali Gur, Lecturer in Outer Space Law, Queen Mary University of London

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

Continue Reading

Ticker Views

South Korea introduces AI job protection legislation

South Korea is proposing laws to protect jobs from AI, balancing innovation with workers’ rights amid rising automation.

Published

on

South Korea is proposing laws to protect jobs from AI, balancing innovation with workers’ rights amid rising automation.


South Korean lawmakers are taking bold steps to protect workers from the growing impact of AI on employment. The proposed legislation aims to safeguard jobs and support workers transitioning into new roles as machines increasingly enter the workforce.

Professor Karen Sutherland of Uni SC joins Ticker to break down what these changes mean for employees and industries alike. She explains how the laws are designed to balance technological innovation with workers’ rights, and why proactive measures are crucial as AI adoption accelerates.

With major companies like Hyundai Motor introducing advanced robots, labour unions have raised concerns about fair treatment and the future of human labour. Experts say South Korea’s approach is faster and more comprehensive than similar initiatives in the United States and European Union, aiming to secure livelihoods while improving the quality of life for displaced workers.

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

#AIJobs #SouthKorea #FutureOfWork #Automation #TechPolicy #LaborRights #WorkforceInnovation #Ticker


Download the Ticker app

Continue Reading

Ticker Views

U.S. ambassador responds to NATO criticism at Munich Security Conference

At Munich Security Conference, U.S. NATO ambassador discussed defense autonomy, hybrid warfare, and transatlantic cooperation amid rising tensions.

Published

on

At Munich Security Conference, U.S. NATO ambassador discussed defense autonomy, hybrid warfare, and transatlantic cooperation amid rising tensions.


At the Munich Security Conference, the U.S. ambassador to NATO faced tough questions on global order as European allies explored greater defense autonomy amid rising geopolitical tensions. The discussion highlighted the challenges NATO faces in maintaining unity while responding to evolving threats.

The ambassador addressed criticisms directly, emphasizing the importance of transatlantic cooperation and NATO’s role in ensuring international security. European nations voiced concerns about independent defense capabilities and the impact of hybrid warfare from Russia on regional stability.

Oz Sultan from Sultan Interactive Group provides analysis.

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

#MunichSecurityConference #NATO #GlobalSecurity #DefenseAutonomy #Geopolitics #TransatlanticAlliance #HybridWarfare #USForeignPolicy


Download the Ticker app

Continue Reading

Trending Now