ED HUSIC, MINISTER FOR INDUSTRY AND SCIENCE: Thanks for joining us today. Can I just begin by acknowledging that today is Remembrance Day ‑ this is always an opportunity to remember those who sacrificed before us, and also those who served the nation proudly. Today, we want to thank them for that, and I think it's important to acknowledge on this solemn day. 

We have as a government a very ambitious program of tackling housing affordability. The key to that is building more homes. And we are putting into play the most significant level of investments to improve housing supply in the nation, in living memory, and we want to be able to get on with the job of doing just that. But important in that process, is giving confidence to the Australian public that the homes are being built in a quality way, that they can rely upon modern homes being comfortable, being efficient, energy efficient, lower power bills, and that they are also in the face of a changing climate, resilient - much more resilient to fire and to flood. The key to all of this and the backbone to achieving the delivery of quality homes is the National Construction Code. This Construction Code gives Australians the confidence that their homes aren't being built in a shoddy way, and that they also reflect modern construction practices, that they're a lot more liveable, that they're cheaper to run, and again, thinking ahead that they're much more climate resilient. Now, we do have from time to time people suggesting that the Construction Code adds to the cost of housing, and we've had recently the Coalition suggest that changes to the recent National Construction Code delivered just that. The problem is it overlooks one important point, that the breadth of changes that were brought in by the last version of the National Construction Code were actually authored by the Coalition. They came about as a result of the Coalition doing nothing for nearly ten years, and then suddenly deciding they'd make changes to the Construction Code, and then trying to do it in one big hit. Having done that once, the Coalition's view is that they'll do that again by virtue of suspending any changes to the Construction Code for ten years. This is a recipe for exactly the same thing that they are complaining about that they were responsible for in the last lot of national construction changes.

Now, we have made sure as a government that we take the time to listen to industry, that we consult, and today we had an industry forum that was looking at future changes to the National Construction Code, and consistent with our commitment to listen, continuing on yet another consultation forum with industry to think ahead for the next lot of National Construction Code changes expected later next year. What is important is that today over 30 different industry organisations have said that they do not want to see a suspension of any work on making sure we have a modern National Construction Code. Their argument is, and we certainly believe, that we should have modest, regular changes to the code that keep pace with construction methods, but also what Australians want to see in their homes, and that we can have a National Construction Code that we can believe in, that is delivering quality homes for people. Again, we cannot just turn our back on the challenges that exist around building modern homes, particularly in a changing climate. 

I'm from Western Sydney, I've grown up in Western Sydney, and in fact Penrith recorded the highest temperature for a suburban area in the nation's history. We do not want to live in hot boxes, which is what we were forced to live in growing up. We want to be able to have liveable homes that deliver what consumers rightly expect. What Peter Dutton has suggested, by suspending the National Construction Code changes, is policy on the run, with no proof, no evidence base to back up what he's saying, and we'll see Australian households pay the cost for his mistakes. We think we can do better. We can work with industry on better, and we will deliver better, but we don't think bad Coalition policy should stand in the way of us achieving that. 

Now, I'm very grateful to be joined here today by the Chief Executive Officer of the Property Council of Australia, Mike Zorbas. We've been working with the Property Council on future changes to the Construction Code as it relates to commercial buildings. We've been very grateful for the solid working relationship that we have with the Property Council of Australia. We don't agree on everything, and I think Mike would absolutely probably say likewise, but the reality is that we have two‑way means of talking with each other, taking on board views and building that Code, and I might invite Mike, if you've got any comments that you'd like to say. Thanks for your time. 

MIKE ZORBAS: So, Mike Zorbas, I'm the CEO of the Property Council of Australia, that's Z‑O‑R‑B, for Bravo, A, S for Sierra. 

The Property Council has supported the National Construction Code for about 25 years, and the reason for that is, it's a way of coordinating and assisting all Australian buildings to be similar across what is quite a small nation, as far as the population goes, 27 million people. There is a reason to confront the challenge of Federation when it comes consistent and cost‑effective ways of updating the Building Code. And that's why we've always been consistent in that support. 

The other thing I would say is our priority as an organisation is to make sure that the Australian Building Codes Board, which does look after the Code, is well resourced, because the challenges that the Minister has outlined will only increase in the coming decade, whether it be energy efficiency or climate adaptation, we have to make absolutely certain the ABCB is well resourced to deal with all of that coordinating across the States and Territories and around the country. 

ED HUSIC: Okay, questions. 

JOUNALIST: You said you're contemplating changes to the Code next year. What are those changes, and would some of them help with more affordable housing options like pre‑fab housing? 

ED HUSIC: The National Construction Code changes for next year largely focus on commercial building and improving energy efficiency, for example, dealing with problems like water shedding, also thinking ahead about what we do with the greater uptake of EVs and how we accommodate for charging of EVs in larger commercial premises. So, it's not just apartments, it could also be property used for a commercial purpose. We've also taken the opportunity, because I've visited a number of pre‑fab and modular home manufacturers around the country. These are building quality homes very quickly. We've looked at some of the red tape that might exist around that, and we'll shortly release our work on the review of the red tape that stands around the faster roll‑out of pre‑fabricated homes. For people who aren't familiar with them, they are built in a factory, assembled, pulled apart, taken out to a site, rebuilt and done in a very quick, quick space of time, much quicker and with less waste than conventional home construction. We don't see this as the silver bullet to fix everything, but we do think it has a role to play in building affordable quality homes quicker, and that's really important as part of our 1.2 million homes aspiration being built between now and 2030. 

We are looking at other areas too, such as the financing arrangements that support of the building of pre‑fabricated homes, and I'll be engaging in consultation, bringing pre‑fab builders and also banking representatives together next week to look at some of the hurdles to speed up the financing of those projects. The last version of the National Construction Code was approved in August 2022. That focused largely on residential, but particularly contained a lot of measures around energy efficiency. 

JOURNALIST: How will Donald Trump's promise to repeal Biden's AI Executive Order affect Australia's plans to regulate AI? Do you fear that we will face pressure for lighter touch regulation so that we're not at a competitive disadvantage? 

ED HUSIC: We recognise with technology like artificial intelligence, that crosses multiple borders, that we do need to have an ability to work effectively with like‑minded countries on the challenges posed, particularly around the higher risk elements of the application of AI. We as a country, and particularly as a government, have focused on identifying that high risk and outlining what can be done both now and into the future to manage that. We'll continue to work with other countries. The US may adopt in time a different approach to what the Biden Administration had undertaken. We'll wait and see and let that play out. But, there are a lot of other countries that are thinking deeply about this and acting on it. I saw that in action when I attended the Bletchley Summit, the AI Safety Summit convened by the UK Government last November, where nearly 30 countries got together to go, "Well, what should be the shape of regulation?" And even the firms themselves that are involved in, particularly generative AI, have recommended that it would be wise for governments to get broadly uniform approaches on regulation. Its good for them, it's good for consumers, it's good for broader communities that that happens. So, my view is, well, let's wait and see what else comes out of the US, but we have a job we've said we'll do for the public, and there's an expectation in the minds of the Australian public that we'll continue to do that, and we will. 

JOURNALIST: The Prime Minister was able to say that on climate change and free trade Australia will be pressing on with the international community regardless of if the US changes its policy. Is the same then true of high risk AI? 

ED HUSIC: As I emphasised a few moments ago, I recognise, we have as a government recognised deep community interest here to be able to identify the high risk and respond to it. The proposals that I released a few weeks ago and the consultations that have been undertaken about what we do to provide mandatory guardrails, that work is continuing, and we look to announce our response to those consultations shortly. We introduced a voluntary standard for businesses to get cracking right away on this issue and being very mindful of the public view. I go back to work that was done by the Uni of Queensland that asked Australians in polling that they did, when you take into account the benefits that come with artificial intelligence and weigh it up against the risks, do you think the benefits outweigh any need for regulation? Only 40 per cent of people said yes. The overwhelming bulk of people believe that we do need to tackle the risks. So from the Australian Government's point of view, we are continuing on with our work. We know other jurisdictions are continuing on and other countries are continuing on with their work. We'll work cooperatively with others, and I'll just end on this point: I've said quite often, we will harmonise where we can, localise where we have to. That is, we'll work with other people where we absolutely can find common ground, but to give people the assurance in the Australian context about the use of AI, we will take the steps necessary to ensure that people can have the confidence to use it, 'cause if we get it right, there is a huge economic and social benefit, we've got to tackle the risks. 

JOURNALIST: What about the impact of a Trump Presidency on industry? I understand Treasury gave analysis to the Cabinet. In your portfolio of Industry, how do you see tariffs affecting that and jobs for Australians? 

ED HUSIC: Well, clearly, I mean, I think you'd appreciate I can't necessarily go in‑depth into what gets briefed in in Cabinet. Countries being able to find ways to trade with each other, in particular levering off their respective strengths, they've got something we don't have and vice versa, makes great perfect sense to do so and can create great economic opportunity, and also jobs opportunity as well. We are obviously very cautious about the prospect of having tariffs introduced by one country that then triggers responses from others that are likewise, and you've seen some of the predictions about what impact that might have. What we want to do is make sure that countries are trading fairly with each other as well and being able to work across countries to deliver that is really important, and Australia's got a proud history on that. I mean we set up the Cairns Group back under the Hawke/Keating Governments to bring countries together to say, listen, we've got to be able to do better on trade and get a better deal. We've been focused on that through some of the fair trade agreements, or the Free Trade Agreements, I should say, that we've seen that have been introduced under our term of government, and we'll just continue that work. 

JOURNALIST: Do you think, just in your answer to both those sets of questions, and your colleagues as well are talking ‑ emphasising the need to work cooperatively with the new administration, how much risk do you see that we are also at the same time pushing ahead with the misinformation bill and the social media age restriction when those are things that really get up Elon Musk's nose, and he appears to be incredibly influential in the new President's thinking? 

ED HUSIC: We take our responsibility to the Australian people seriously. I think people here want us to be able to deal with issues in a way that reflects our national priorities, and so I think you'll see we'll continue to do what we have to do, and especially responding to public expectation as well. We understand people, you know, the way that elections work, governments get elected, they reflect the will, the popular will of people in different countries. Just as we respect that, we expect the same back in return. And I imagine that that will be the case. We will do things, what we have to do in terms of the best interests of the Australian people, we'll just continue doing that. 

JOURNALIST: If Donald Trump tells Anthony Albanese he wants those two bills scrapped, the misinformation bill and the social media bill, do you think the Prime Minister will just tell him, "Nah, we're sticking to our guns?" 

ED HUSIC: I think ‑ well, one, I'm going to be careful about speculating on hypotheticals, if you don't mind. I think we take seriously our responsibility to the Australian people. We also respect the fact that governments propose laws, they go through Parliaments, they're subject, obviously, and we've seen it, back and forth. We want to be able to work with people in a very cooperative way, but we get ‑ people understand too, we've got an agenda that we've got to pursue, and we'll do that. So I wouldn't read too much, I'd be sort of ‑ we'll just keep doing things the way that we are. But again, our preference is to work with countries. You get more done that way. 

JOURNALIST: Would you anticipate still travelling to the US for work next year? 

ED HUSIC: Yeah, where I have to, like where I have to do my job, I'll be doing that. I'm a Minister of the Australian Government in that role, I'll just keep doing what I have to do.

Anything else? Great. Thanks very much.