Patricia Karvelas:
Here to discuss this. Senator Bragg joins us, and so does the Assistant Minister for Productivity, Competition, Charities, and Treasury Andrew Leigh. They’re both in the studio with me because the parliament’s about to sit. Welcome to both of you.
Andrew Bragg:
G’day.
Andrew Leigh:
Thanks, Patricia.
Karvelas:
I will start with you because you’re proposing this Joint Select Committee. Why? The government’s about to have a roundtable, which is very much on this topic.
Bragg:
Well it’s a wicked problem, and we think that you can do more in a couple of years on a serious issue like this than can be done in just 3 days in Canberra. And so, we want to work with the government to find the real root of the problem here, of why we have negative productivity growth in Australia. But also to try and help fashion together the community support needed for the inevitable changes that are required.
Karvelas:
So will you support it?
Leigh:
It’ll be up to the Senate Patricia, but we’ve got a strong productivity agenda building on the work of the last term. We’ll be bringing forward legislation to get rid of non‑compete clauses for low‑ and middle‑income workers. We’ve got National Competition Policy roaring ahead, collaborating with the states and territories. We’ve got a strong progressive deregulation agenda now. We need to be building more. We need to be investing in individuals, institutions and infrastructure in order to get that productivity challenge under control. Because we know that decade, that 2020 was the worst productivity decade in the post‑war era.
Karvelas:
So just to be clear, you’re not opposed to the idea of having a longer committee that looks into these issues?
Leigh:
Well, I’m in the House. Andrew is in the Senate, and the Senate will figure out which committees it sets up.
Karvelas:
But, the idea of it?
Leigh:
Well, what I do know is that the government has a strong productivity agenda. And there’s been really welcome interest in the economic reform roundtable that Treasurer Chalmers is holding. A lot of people who won’t be in the room are still making submissions, and that submissions process continues to be open, and we continue to welcome ideas right across the spectrum.
Karvelas:
The roundtable – you sort of say it’s just 3 days, but it’s a key 3 days. It’s very focused. We know that there are a lot of diverse views that will enter the room, and clearly some deals potentially will be done. Isn’t that a positive thing?
Bragg:
Well, as long as the ambition isn’t crimped by the Treasurer, and Ted O’Brien – the Shadow Treasurer will be attending the summit, and we go to that meeting with an open mind as to what can be achieved. We think it’s good. The people of Australia will get better value out of us if we can find things to work together on.
Karvelas:
Okay. I have to. You’ve just said something which is the entire opposite thing to what your colleague Barnaby Joyce said on the grab I played. So, I have to raise it. You say they will reward working together more than – he says you need to find things to fight over.
Bragg:
But on something like productivity. I mean, we can’t have our own facts. I mean, the reality is we’re going backwards under this government. They enacted 5,000 new regulations last parliament, they’ve increased taxes, they’re sending the economy in the wrong direction. We want to help the government course correct, as I said, that they would like to do so, and so we will work with the government if they are prepared to turn around the Titanic.
Karvelas:
5,000 regulations? We’ve talked about this on this show. You kind of didn’t contest the figure but you said the Coalition had actually got a whole lot of regulations as well when they were in charge?
Leigh:
More than 5,000 over the Coalition’s last term in office. And so, if Senator Bragg is being serious about this then he would be out there saying that the number of regulations passed in the first term under Labor was lower than the last term of the Coalition government.
Bragg:
There was a pandemic you may recall, and a lot of those regulations were in relation to COVID‑19.
Karvelas:
Okay.
Leigh:
But this goes to the problem of this blind counting regulations approach. You know, when we want to get better outcomes for aged care, getting nurses into aged care, getting better food standards in aged care – some of that requires regulation. So, the idea that regulation is always bad it’s just a foolish one. We need to be focused on the detail of that regulation, and that’s exactly what Labor’s abundance agenda does.
Karvelas:
Okay. Isn’t that right? That you do have to look at the detail. You could have a good regulation. I think a great example is childcare. You are about to regulate childcare more, and you both think that’s a good idea, right?
Bragg:
You can have good regulations.
Karvelas:
No, that’s what I meant. Like, that is an active example where right now, the public’s saying, regulate more. Other areas you want to reduce regulation. So, you can’t look at the numbers, you’ve got to look at what the regulations about.
Bragg:
I think the point is that the government had 3 years. They’ve put in place 5,000 new regulations. Now they’re saying that regulation is bad and they’ve got a red‑tape‑cutting agenda, but what they’ve done in their first term is the opposite of what they’re saying now.
Karvelas:
Okay, is it the opposite? I mean, have you had a change of heart on this?
Leigh:
Not the least. We’re not in the…
Karvelas:
There’s a bit of a shift, isn’t there?
Leigh:
We’re not in the dumb business of counting regulations and saying that all regulation is bad. But in the area of housing, for example, we do have challenges in getting modern methods of construction in place. Seeing those factory‑built homes which are environmentally sound and beautiful at the same time. We’ve got challenges with state‑ and local‑planning processes which we need in order to meet the ambitious 1.2 million home target. All of that is where our energies are focused, recognising that sometimes a thicket of regulation can develop where the combined effect of regulations is to stymie a bigger goal, such as getting the houses built that we need.
Karvelas:
So you’re in favour of the changes, particularly on housing?
Bragg:
Definitely. We want to see less regulation. If the government wants to change course, we are on‑board to help them.
Karvelas:
Okay, so you should be cheering them.
Bragg:
They have to help themselves, and we want to actually see them walk the walk and cut regulations. So, one of the things out of this productivity roundtable is, what is the government actually going to do to cut red tape?
Leigh:
Well, we’re certainly looking at areas such as environmental approvals. You’ve got Murray Watt engaging very constructively there over an Environment Protection Agency and the EPBC reform. Which was recommended to the previous government but on which they didn’t act. We know in the area of infrastructure, we need to be ensuring that we get regulatory approvals taking place swiftly. You know, the enemy of investment for many businesses is the uncertainty of delays, and so that work is continuing. The Competition Taskforce within Treasury is doing an enormous amount of work. I was meeting with them today to discuss these issues, and that will be one of the things that will feed into the government’s Economic Reform Roundtable.
Karvelas:
One of the big issues in productivity, particularly in our country – but of course it’s around the world, but we have a really big issue with is the take up of artificial intelligence in business, and regulating artificial intelligence is a very vexed issue. Just starting with you, if I can, and then I’d love to find out what the Opposition’s view is on this. Do you believe in less regulation when it comes to AI, you know really shying away from the EU approach, which is a more heavy‑handed approach.
Leigh:
Patricia, my philosophical approach to this is that artificial intelligence is potentially the biggest productivity‑boosting technology that we’ve got. It will have implications on everything from privacy to a range of other ethical challenges. We should look first to see whether existing laws are fit‑for‑purpose or need to be tweaked. If they do, we should be looking at technologically‑neutral approaches to the best possible, because AI is advancing very fast and we don’t want to lock in today’s technology into regulation.
Karvelas:
So, less regulation rather than more?
Leigh:
Well, regulation which is technologically‑neutral. And looking at tweaking existing rules rather than putting a blanket ban over the top, which could potentially slow down a really valuable technology.
Karvelas:
Is that the right approach?
Bragg:
Well I mean, effectively this is a race between the United States and China as to who can develop the best applications of AI. The best platforms for us? The challenge is, how can we best apply those platforms into our businesses – particularly SMEs, because that’s going to give them a real edge. And so that’s the question, how do we do that? Now, small businesses often struggle to adapt to new technologies, and so that’s going to be part, I imagine, of the government’s productivity summit.
Karvelas:
Now the Prime Minister says his trip to China was a lot about jobs. That’s the argument he’s made. So, some of your colleagues have suggested it was a kind of working holiday. Is that the wrong way to describe it?
Bragg:
Well, we think he could have delivered a bigger dividend for Australia.
Karvelas:
But don’t you have to wait rather than run out, run out and suggest that he hasn’t? Not everything’s immediately obvious when you’re dealing at that level is it?
Bragg:
Well, we welcome that there has been a better relationship with China. That’s a good thing for Australia, very important trading partner. And a lot of Australians would regard that as very valuable.
Karvelas:
It wasn’t a holiday was it?
Bragg:
So we want to see more tangible outcomes from these sort of initiatives.
Karvelas:
So, help me out here. Do you think it was a holiday really? Working holiday? I mean, not a fair way to describe it.
Bragg:
I mean, he spent 6 days there. We think that there could have been more dividend to the Australian people.
Karvelas:
Not a not a very fun holiday, having that many cameras on you and having to shake hands.
Bragg:
Well I think it’s a shame he…
Karvelas:
It just seems to me, we expect our Prime Ministers to represent our country, to go overseas and to really try and enhance our country and all of the things, jobs and security – is deriding the trip useful?
Bragg:
Look, I think it’s a shame he didn’t get to cuddle a Panda. I think that would have been a great image. Maybe next time that can be done. But look, ultimately, we want to measure outputs, and there are more outputs which could have been achieved. But look, that trip’s done.
Karvelas:
Like what? What output?
Bragg:
Well, we think he could have raised some of the more sensitive issues.
Karvelas:
He did.
Bragg:
Well did he? Do we know for sure?
Karvelas:
Are you suggesting he was lying to us? He mentioned the circumnavigation. He mentioned that, with President Xi. So, we know he did that. We know he mentioned the detained Australian. They’re 2 very big issues. You’re suggesting he didn’t do that?
Bragg:
Well, I think he’s just got to be careful he doesn’t get lulled into a false sense of security, as has been flagged. That it is a bit of a risk for Australia, that maybe the president of China wants Mr Albanese to feel very relaxed, where he is undertaking a number of actions which might not be in Australia’s best interest. So, raising these things in a further polite way is always an important marker for an Australian leader when visiting China.
Karvelas:
Not enough outputs, not enough consequences is the critique. Should the Prime Minister have achieved more on this trip?
Leigh:
Patricia, when we came to office the Chinese weren’t picking up the phone under the previous government. There were $20 billion of our trade subject to trade impediments. We’ve gotten rid of those trade impediments. We’re working to improve the relationship with our biggest trading partner. And a 6‑day visit of a business delegation going to our biggest trading partner is a good investment. The Prime Minister’s visited not just Beijing and Shanghai, but Chengdu as well.
Patricia Karvelas
Recognising the value of this engagement, will we see more output, more consequences down the track to the critique that not enough was achieved?
Leigh:
We’ve seen huge engagement, and that’s really important for the 1 in 5 Australians whose jobs rely on exports. When I hear the carping from the Coalition, I think back to the attacks from the Liberal Party on Gough Whitlam when he was recognising mainland China. The Coalition said that the Chinese had played him like a fish.
And then shortly after that, the United States recognised mainland China, and they had to eat their words. It’s just a shame the Liberal Party has learned so little in half a century about the importance of engaging with China constructively and in the national interest.
Patricia Karvelas
All right, we’re going to have to leave it there. Thanks to both of you.
Leigh:
Thank you.