Even a decade ago, it was relatively simple.
An accountant studied accounting.
An engineer studied engineering.
A marketing manager studied marketing.
Today, some of the most valuable workers in Australia’s economy are performing jobs that did not exist when they attended university, using technologies that barely existed three years ago, and developing skills faster than any occupation list can be updated.
Yet Australia’s skilled migration system continues to assess visa applicants through occupational classifications, qualification requirements and concepts of “relevant study” that were designed for a far more predictable labour market. Artificial Intelligence is the obvious example.
Across virtually every industry, employers are redesigning jobs, introducing automation, changing workflows and creating entirely new functions. Recent research suggests employers hiring for AI-related roles are increasingly focusing on skills rather than formal qualifications, with degree requirements declining as employers seek to expand available talent pools. (For example: https://www.inet.ox.ac.uk/publications/skills-or-degree-the-rise-of-skill-based-hiring-for-ai-and-green-jobs)
Yet migration policy continues to ask questions that increasingly belong to a different era.
Does the applicant’s qualification align with the occupation description?
Is the field of study closely related?
These questions assume that occupations and careers remain relatively stable over time. Increasingly, they do not.
Applying yesterday’s rules to today’s talent
Recently, I worked on a matter involving a Business Development Manager employed by a rapidly expanding US tech company in the generative AI sector. Her qualifications included a degree in Neuroscience together with postgraduate studies in Business and Biotechnology. Her career had evolved through healthcare consulting, pharmaceutical project management and commercial advisory roles before her skills were recognised and snapped up by an emerging US tech company seeking to scale internationally.
In today’s labour market, this career pathway makes perfect sense. Many tech companies are not simply looking for technologists. They need professionals who can understand complex industries, communicate technical solutions, navigate commercial environments and identify opportunities for growth. Individuals who can bridge science, business and technology may be among the most valuable employees in these organisations.
A significant part of this employee’s role involved understanding why people and organisations resist change, and how to help clients move through the barriers that often prevent transformation from occurring. In that context, her neuroscience degree was not an irrelevant or incidental qualification. It arguably gave her a meaningful edge in understanding human behaviour, decision-making and resistance to change — all of which are central to the successful adoption of generative AI in real workplaces.
Yet when viewed through the lens of Australia’s skilled migration framework, the role may need to be fitted into occupation classifications such as ICT Business Development Manager or ICT Account Manager. The inevitable question then becomes whether qualifications are sufficiently “relevant” to an ICT occupation code, even though her interdisciplinary background may be exactly what made her the successful candidate for the role.
The challenge is that the migration framework frequently evaluates candidates through a single occupational lens, while employers are increasingly recruiting for combinations of skills that sit across multiple disciplines.
Another example is a visa refusal I reviewed for a Content Creator (Marketing) occupation. The nomination had been approved. However, the visa application was refused because the Department decision-maker was not satisfied that the applicant’s business degree was sufficiently relevant to the nominated occupation and therefore he required 5 years of work experience to compensate instead of the usual 1 year of work experience for qualified applicants.
Content creators are often entrepreneurs, marketers, brand managers, commercial strategists and business owners. Success in the profession increasingly depends on audience growth, market positioning, commercial partnerships, analytics, monetisation strategies and business development. How a business degree could not be relevant sent me into a spin.
The labour market has changed
Neither of these examples involve an applicant lacking skills. Indeed, both were already working competently in the role and their skills had a track record of being commercially valuable to their employers. Both examples raise a broader question about how migration policy assesses talent in a rapidly changing economy.
Australia’s migration framework was largely developed around a model where occupations were stable, career paths were linear and educational qualifications closely aligned with professional outcomes. Increasingly, none of those assumptions hold true.
The modern economy rewards people who combine disciplines, pivot industries, acquire new skills throughout their careers and apply knowledge in ways that were never contemplated when occupation classifications were first drafted.
The World Economic Forum’s Future of Jobs Report 2025 estimates that global labour market disruption could affect 22 per cent of jobs by 2030, with 170 million new roles created and 92 million displaced, resulting in a net increase of 78 million jobs. The headline is not simply job loss. It is churn, redesign and acceleration.
The same report found that almost 40 per cent of skills required on the job are expected to change by 2030, and that employers already identify skills gaps as a major barrier to transformation. That matters for migration policy, because it suggests the relevant question is increasingly not whether a person’s degree title matches an occupation label, but whether their accumulated skills match the work that needs to be performed.
Trust employers to identify the skills they need
The answer is not necessarily to abandon integrity settings in the skilled migration program. Genuine roles, appropriate salaries, credible employers and appropriately skilled applicants should remain central to the system. But in a fast-changing labour market, we should be careful about assuming that a static occupation list, or a rigid assessment of a person’s field of study, is better placed than an employer to understand the skills a business actually needs.
Employers are the ones redesigning jobs, adopting new technologies, responding to client demand and competing for talent. They are also the ones who carry the commercial risk if they misread the capability required for a role. If an employer can demonstrate that a role is genuine, skilled, properly remunerated and necessary to its business, there should be greater trust in that employer’s assessment of the combination of qualifications, experience and skills required to perform it.
That does not mean accepting every job title at face value. It means asking better questions. What does this business do? Why is this mix of skills is required? Does the applicant have a credible pathway of education and experience that equips them to perform the role?
For emerging and hybrid roles, that approach would better reflect commercial reality. A neuroscience degree may be highly relevant to a generative AI business development role if the employer needs someone who understands how people and organisations respond to change. A business degree may be relevant to content creation where the employer needs skills in market strategy, audience growth, monetisation and brand development. In both cases, the employer is best placed to assess if those skills are suitable.
As artificial intelligence continues to reshape industries and create new ways of working, we should ask whether migration policy is placing enough weight on what a person can do today, rather than what they happened to study ten years ago. Increasingly, Australia’s most valuable workers are not fitting neatly into occupational boxes, and that may be because those boxes were designed for yesterday’s labour market.
Written by Sarah Loch-Wilkinson
