INTERVIEW WITH TOM CONNELL ON SKY NEWS

SENATOR ANDREW BRAGG

Shadow Minister for Productivity and Deregulation

Shadow Minister for Housing and Homelessness

Liberal Senator for New South Wales

TRANSCRIPT

‍

INTERVIEW WITH TOM CONNELL ON SKY NEWS

15 August 2025

Subjects: Labor’s construction red tape, AI, Gaza

E&OE………

Tom Connell

Joining me live is Shadow Productivity and Shadow Housing Minister, Andrew Bragg. Thank you for your time. The report was that Treasury is suggesting this pausing of the building code, so increasing or making standards a bit tougher, might be on the table. Is this still formally Coalition policy because it was one you took to the election last time?

Senator Bragg

Tom, we had a policy on the EPBC Act to help houses be approved. We also had a policy around the National Construction Code, as you've alluded to. Those were both poo-hooed by Labor in various degrees during the election campaign. In fact, one Labor Minister said that it would result in shoddy houses being built. Obviously, the view in the Treasury was that both of those ideas were quite reasonable.

Tom Connell

Does it say a bit about how far we are behind on this task – this is for both sides; no one's managed to build enough houses – that one of the good ideas is delaying when we make better houses, basically?

Senator Bragg

Well, I think it's a shame that the government spent so much time piling on regulations in their first term, and then actually arguing that changing the NCC was always going to be a good idea. And, during their first term, they actually presided over a really complex change to the NCC – now they say that that wasn't a good idea. But as we've discussed, if they want to change tack, we're very happy to help.

Tom Connell

Alright. Is it something still important to be done? There's plenty of stories out there – I've seen it at places where you're surprised at how low the standards can be - and yet a change to make them better is too hard to implement when we're trying to build enough homes just to put over people's heads.

Senator Bragg

Well, the thing with the NCC is that it's got a lot of gold plating and you can't just build a bare, basic house; you now have to build it with all the bells and whistles. And what that means from the builders' point of view is that even the most basic house is very expensive. So the prices...

Tom Connell

...So would there be parts you just scrap then, if it's gold plated?

Senator Bragg

...yeah, I think that ultimately you'd have to have a system where you can just have a basic house. And then if you want to have the add-ons, then you can choose to do that, you don't have to be forced to have all the gold plated. I think that's effectively the problem that we're trying to solve here.

Tom Connell

So is that going to be a Coalition policy, that more nuanced level? And as long as you know what you're getting, and you get what you pay for – you talk about a basic house – it would be things, I'm assuming like not as energy-efficient, and if you want to go down that path, you can. Would that be the importance? At least someone is paying, or getting, what they pay for?

Senator Bragg

This is not a communist country. The idea that everyone's got to have the exact same house, I think, is also quite crazy. But ultimately, that would be the sort of idea. But we had in the last term a plan that we would freeze it for 10 years. Who knows where it will be in the next year or year and a half. But this is an area where there are opportunities to cut red tape.

Tom Connell

I want to ask you a broad one, a philosophical one, about AI – and just let your mind wander – I'm not going to try to pin you down on policy. The two thoughts are: AI is just another tech, don't worry about it; like most techs, it removes the boring stuff, and we get left with the more interesting stuff to do, that's around our lives and our jobs. Or, is this a once in a lifetime job killer that we'll have to wrestle with in terms of the implications on our whole fabric of society?

Senator Bragg

I think it's a good question. I think it's a once in a lifetime distribution change. There will be changes to employment, but there'll be a lot of new jobs and new opportunities created. There'll be new data centres, there'll be a whole auditing and assurance profession that needs to be built around AI. So I think, like other technology changes, there'll be some jobs lost but there'll be other jobs created.

Tom Connell

Do you have confidence, though, that it's roughly one for one, or better than that? There have been some fairly intelligent people that suggest this might be different because it's such a game changer, and yes, there'll always be some jobs created, but it won't be matched. Do you have confidence on that or are you a bit uncertain?

Senator Bragg

Look, I don't think anyone really knows exactly the extent of the disruption. But what we can say for sure is that we're going to need a lot of people to help ensure that these machines don't eat us and don't go completely out of control. So I think there's going to be a lot of employment around the actual function of artificial intelligence itself, because it will be such a mainstream part of our lives.

Tom Connell

And does that mean, and I know you're on a bit of an anti-regulation bent, but does that mean we have to be wary of it, checking as to what it's doing on various jobs and know what it's likely to do? You like me, I'm sure, are wondering what your kids are going to do one day and hoping they have something, a proper career, to fulfil their time.

Senator Bragg

I don't think you can wish it away. I mean, it's going to come for us, and there'll be good and there'll be challenging parts of it. And so I think the main part is to make sure that we've got the best agenda to actually implement it, particularly around small businesses, where it can actually help those businesses be more successful and have those employment opportunities here in Australia, because it will be disruptive. And if we're not ready for it, then we will lose jobs offshore, because whatever we do here will actually heavily impact our ability to attract that investment.

Tom Connell

Okay. Quick one on Palestine. A lot of criticism from the Coalition on Labor saying they'll recognise Palestine, and particularly around saying, well, look, Hamas is praising this, therefore it's a bad call. I mean, Hamas is in turmoil. It's been left friendless almost in the Arab world. Them claiming some victory on Australian recognition, they're desperate for good PR, should the Coalition actually not be talking up Hamas? We want Gazans to reject Hamas, and we don't want to over-emphasise its influence?

Senator Bragg

It was never a serious proposition to recognise a state that doesn't exist, doesn't have borders. Currently, it's under governorship by Hamas in-part. So our main critique is it wasn't the right move, that we should be putting maximum pressure on Hamas because we want to eradicate that organisation. So, we think that there should be pressure on Hamas rather than the government putting more pressure on Israel.

Tom Connell

Right. But do you understand what I'm saying? I mean, we don't want to amplify Hamas as an entity and its importance.

Senator Bragg

Well, I think we're just pointing out the fact that Hamas is celebrating what Mr Albanese has done. And in fact, Mr. Albanese, like Mr. Starmer's action, hasn't actually changed anything.

Tom Connell

But it needs a win. It's going to claim, this is all because of us, and October 7, therefore, was justified. Don't you need to see it through that prism? It needs a win because it's been decimated.

Senator Bragg

It's celebrating its foreign policy successes, it seems. That is a relevant fact.

Tom Connell

It's claiming a success.

Senator Bragg

I think it's a relevant fact in the debate. But the main point is that it's not our policy. We would not have recognised Palestine at this point, and we would reverse that judgement if we were successful at the next election.

Tom Connell

Andrew Bragg, appreciate your time, thank you.

[Ends]

‍