I see this as a recalibration of the technology workforce, rather than a uniform decline in demand. One of the biggest challenges for people looking for work is the gap between the skills they have developed and the experience employers now need.

We have seen similar shifts before. Five years ago, investment in data projects and cloud migration created significant demand for some skillsets, while reducing demand for others as businesses moved away from traditional on-premise environments. Today, advances in AI and automation are again changing where businesses invest and how technology teams are structured.

For jobseekers, this means experience alone is not always enough. Being able to demonstrate recent, relevant skills and explain how those skills deliver business outcomes is increasingly important. Someone can have a strong career behind them but still find it difficult to secure their next role if their experience does not align with current requirements.

The key is to keep developing your skillset, build practical experience with emerging technologies and recognise how your existing knowledge can transfer into new areas. That will put people in a stronger position to secure opportunities, although upskilling alone cannot remove every barrier in a competitive market.

During the pandemic and the hiring boom that followed, strong demand for technology talent pushed salaries up quickly. Businesses were competing for the same people, and many increased their offers significantly to secure the skills they needed. That pace of growth was always going to be difficult to sustain.

The distinction I would make is between salaries falling and salaries stagnating. My sense is that, across many roles, pay has largely plateaued over the past two or three years. It has not necessarily gone backwards, but people are no longer seeing the increases they became accustomed to during that exceptional period.

The second factor is the economic environment. When organisations are tightening budgets, that affects both salary reviews for existing employees and what they can offer new hires. Technology investment also has to compete with other business priorities, so employers become more selective about where they commit additional spending.

These factors reinforce each other. Businesses that raised salaries substantially during the hiring boom are carrying those higher costs, while also facing pressure to improve productivity and manage expenditure.

That does not mean every part of IT is experiencing the same conditions. Scarce skills can still attract a premium. Broadly, though, I see this as a period of salary consolidation, with increases more closely tied to specific capabilities and the value someone can bring to the business.

Yes, from what I am seeing in the market, it is taking longer. There are fewer roles available, and restructures and retrenchments have brought more people into the job market. That means more candidates competing for fewer opportunities.

Organisations are also being more cautious about spending. Businesses may still need people, but getting approval to hire can take longer. Projects get pushed back, budgets are reviewed and that all adds time to someone’s job search. When companies do recruit, they are often looking for a very specific skillset. They want someone who can come in and make an impact straight away. That can mean a good candidate gets overlooked because they have most of the experience, but not the exact technology or industry background the employer wants.

One thing I would distinguish, though, is that looking for work does not necessarily mean someone is unemployed. Some applicants are still working and are being more selective about their next move. People are understandably cautious about leaving a secure role in this market. They want confidence in the company, the opportunity and its longer-term prospects before making that decision. Demand has also shifted. Someone can have years of good experience, but if their background is in an area where investment has slowed, their next role can be harder to find.

So there are several factors extending the timeframe. More competition and slower hiring are making it harder to secure a role, while some people who are still employed are taking longer because they are more cautious about moving.

I think there are multiple factors at play. There are genuine shortages of specific technical skills, but employers being very selective can also make those shortages harder to address. Having more candidates available does not necessarily mean they have the experience a particular business needs.

On specialisation versus standardisation, I would not see it as a choice between the two. Standardised qualifications can help establish a foundation of knowledge, but specialist skills and practical experience are often what give a candidate a point of difference.

Candidates need to understand their USP and how that relates to what an employer needs. That might be expertise in a particular technology, knowledge of an industry or a strong track record of delivering similar projects. Having a niche skill is valuable when it helps solve a problem.

At the same time, the more specific an employer makes its requirements, the smaller the candidate pool becomes. If they want an exact combination of technologies, industry experience and qualifications, they may overlook someone with strong transferable skills who could do the role well.

With tighter budgets, I can understand why businesses want people who can contribute straight away. But there needs to be a distinction between skills that are essential from day one and those someone can develop with support.

For me, both sides have a part to play. Candidates need to keep their skills relevant and clearly demonstrate what they bring to the business. Employers need to be realistic about their requirements and willing to invest in developing good people.

It is a real issue in the sense that moving roles offshore can reduce local opportunities. But these decisions are not always permanent. I have recruited for multiple organisations that moved technology teams offshore, only to bring capability back onshore a couple of years later.

Businesses can access talent globally, which gives them opportunities to reduce costs and build capability. Cost is not the only consideration, though. They also need to weigh up communication, time zones, business knowledge and how closely their technology teams need to work with the rest of the organisation. The best arrangement depends on what they are trying to achieve.

My sense is that the cost advantage of offshoring is not always as strong as businesses expect, particularly once they consider the full cost of managing and delivering the work. I think that will lead some organisations to reassess which capabilities they keep offshore and which they need closer to the business.

I would separate that from the concern about hiring recent migrants to pay less. I would not assume someone is cheaper because they have recently arrived in Australia. Their skills, experience and the role they are being hired to do need to be considered. If an employer is trying to pay below market rates, I would see that as an issue with the employer’s approach to remuneration, rather than migration itself.

My view is that people should take it seriously, but the level of upskilling they need depends on the work they do. Not everyone needs to become an AI engineer. They do need to understand how AI could affect their area and where it can help them work more effectively.

For a software developer, that might mean learning to use AI tools while still being able to review and test the code they produce. For someone in project services, it could mean understanding how AI changes project delivery, business processes and the risks that need to be managed.

The key is practical application. Doing a course is a useful starting point, but being able to explain how you have used AI to solve a problem or improve an outcome is much more valuable than simply adding it to your CV.

I would also encourage people to build on the experience they already have. Industry knowledge, technical foundations, judgement and the ability to work with stakeholders still matter. Understanding how to apply AI within your specialism can strengthen that experience.

So yes, keep learning and stay aware of how your role is changing. But make it relevant to your career. The aim should be to build useful capability, rather than feel you need to start again because AI is moving quickly.