Preparing Australians for the AI Transition: What a National Fund Can and Cannot Do.

The question I hear most often about artificial intelligence is whether it will take people’s jobs. It is an understandable question, but it is not the most important one for Australia.

The more important question is this. When disruption reaches a particular industry, occupation or region, will Australia have the institutions, the money and the programs ready to respond? On current settings, the honest answer is no. That is the gap this article addresses.

At a glance

• The effect of artificial intelligence on work is uncertain in pace, not in direction. Most roles will change, and some will change quickly.
• Australia should plan across three scenarios: gradual adoption, rapid disruption and disappointing gains. Each demands a different response.
• A national fund is most valuable in the rapid disruption scenario, but only if it already exists. Timing matters more than eventual size.
• Universal citizen dividends from a fund are modest in practice. Targeted transition support delivers far more impact per dollar.
• A transition fund must not be concentrated in technology assets, or it will fall in value precisely when it is needed.

The transition is real, and it is early

Jobs and Skills Australia has found that generative artificial intelligence is more likely to augment Australian jobs than replace them outright, while changing the tasks and skills within most occupations. Source: Jobs and Skills Australia

Business adoption is rising but uneven. The Australian Bureau of Statistics reported that 12 per cent of Australian businesses used artificial intelligence in 2024 to 2025, up from 1 per cent in 2021 to 2022, with adoption far higher in information and professional services than in construction, agriculture or transport. Source: Australian Bureau of Statistics

That combination, a real transition still in its early stage, is precisely why now is the time to prepare.

Three scenarios Australia should plan for

Good strategy does not depend on one forecast. It prepares for a range of plausible futures and identifies the decisions that hold up across all of them.

Scenario	What happens	What matters most	Role of a national fund
Gradual adoption	Businesses adopt artificial intelligence steadily; workers adjust over time	Skills, small business adoption, infrastructure	Limited; investing now may beat saving for later
Rapid disruption	Capabilities advance quickly; specific occupations and regions are hit hard	Fast, well-designed income and retraining support	High, but only if the fund already exists with clear release rules
Disappointing gains	Adoption is slow and costly; productivity gains are delayed	Avoiding plans that depend on a technology boom	Moderate; a fund dependent on boom revenue underdelivers

Scenario one: gradual adoption

Businesses introduce artificial intelligence progressively. Productivity rises, some tasks become cheaper and workers have time to adjust. In this future, the highest returns come from investing now in skills, technology adoption by small and medium businesses, and digital infrastructure. Holding large sums in a fund rather than investing them carries a real opportunity cost.

Scenario two: rapid disruption

Capabilities advance quickly, and particular occupations or regions experience sharp disruption within a few years. In this future, a mature fund with pre-agreed rules for releasing money is extremely valuable. A fund created in the middle of the crisis is close to useless, because it has had no time to accumulate assets.

Scenario three: disappointing gains

Adoption proves expensive, integration is harder than expected and productivity gains take years to appear. A plan that relied on a technology boom to generate revenue would fall short, and investment returns could also disappoint.

The common lesson is timing. Institutions that cushion disruption have to be built before the disruption arrives. Australia still has that window, but it will not stay open indefinitely.

The arithmetic of a citizen dividend

Some advocates propose that a national fund should pay every Australian a dividend, or even a universal basic income, as artificial intelligence changes work. The idea has moral appeal. The arithmetic is sobering.

A $100 billion fund distributing 3 per cent a year pays out $3 billion. Shared across 30 million people, that is about $100 each per year, before administration costs.

Alaska offers a real-world reference. Its oil-funded Permanent Fund pays eligible residents an annual dividend, which was $1,000 United States dollars per person in 2025. Source: Alaska Department of Revenue Alaskans value the payment, and it is politically popular. But it is not, and was never designed to be, a replacement for employment income.

This does not make a citizen dividend worthless. It makes the design choice clear. Spread thinly across a whole population, the money changes little for anyone. Targeted well, the same money can change a great deal for the people and places most affected.

Where transition money delivers the most impact

In my assessment, four uses deliver the strongest return for a national transition fund.

1. Retraining linked to real jobs. Programs co-designed with employers and tied to identified vacancies, not generic courses with no pathway to work.
2. Income support during career transitions. Workers in rapidly changing occupations need time and financial stability to reskill. Support should be conditional on active transition, not open-ended.
3. Regional capability. Towns that depend on one employer or industry are the most exposed. Investment in local enterprise, infrastructure and skills reduces the risk of long-term decline.
4. Funded early-career pathways. Artificial intelligence already performs much of the routine work that once trained junior staff, from first drafts to basic analysis. Australia needs supported, supervised pathways so beginners can still become experts.

Each program should be measured on outcomes, such as employment, earnings and business formation, rather than on enrolments or participation.

Do not bet the fund on technology

It can seem logical for a transition fund to invest heavily in technology companies so that it rises as artificial intelligence spreads. That instinct is wrong.

A fund concentrated in one sector carries that sector’s valuation and business risks. If a technology market correction coincides with large-scale job disruption, the fund falls at exactly the moment Australians most need it. The investment strategy must be diversified and designed separately from the support programs it finances.

What leaders should do next

• The Commonwealth should publish a national scenario plan for the artificial intelligence transition, setting out how income support, training and regional programs would scale under each scenario.
• Treasury and the Future Fund’s governors should assess whether a transition reserve could sit within the existing fund architecture rather than requiring a new institution.
• Employers and industry bodies should co-design retraining programs now, while adoption is still early and workers can be prepared rather than rescued.

The full series

• What Norway’s sovereign wealth fund teaches Australia
• Australia already has a sovereign wealth fund. It needs a clearer job
• Turning Australia’s mineral wealth into national wealth
• Governance is what makes a sovereign wealth fund last

About the author

Dainu Devis is an Australian emerging technology CEO, technologist and business and economic strategist. As Chief Executive Officer of Sharktech Global and Divine Lab Worx, he brings a decade of international business consulting and political strategy advisory experience to building technology businesses. His strength is concurrent product and process design, bringing the product, delivery processes and route to market together from the start.