|
August 24, 2023
WALEED ALY: Peter Khalil is the Labor Member for Wills and is the Chair of Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence Security, and James Paterson, Liberal Senator for Victoria, Shadow Minister for Home Affairs and Cyber Security. One is wearing a tie. One is not. Have a guess which. 0437 774 774. Is James Paterson wearing the tie, Liberal Senator for Victoria? Or, is Peter Khalil, Labor Member for Wills wearing the tie? Who would you like the answer to be? 0437 774 774. You guys, welcome. You're not allowed to break the fourth wall and provide the answer. This is for the listeners to figure out. I've got a feeling, they'll get it sorted. Should we talk Intergenerational Reports? That seems to be dominating. I'll start with you, James. I think it's a pretty terrifying, bleak picture, personally. Do you wish to dissent?
JAMES PATERSON: I think every Intergenerational Report for the best part of the last 15 or 20 years have been pretty sobering for different reasons. They all have a different emphasis and a different focus. The previous ones really focussed on the declining ratio of working age people to population, to people who are retired, who are not in the workforce...
ALY: Which is still in this one.
PATERSON: Which is still in this one. The profound fiscal implications of that for our society, and what that means for our tax system and our welfare and our transfer system. This one obviously has a heavy focus on climate, which reflects this government's prioritisation of that issue and is understandable. It wasn't actually that long ago that the last Intergenerational Report was released. And the thing about these is that they are very useful long term
planning documents and forecasting documents, but they can't anticipate things like conflict, like the war in Ukraine. They can't anticipate things like global pandemics, and so what was once a five yearly cycle is becoming a much faster one because they are quickly becoming out of date. Now, that is not to suggest that this one is flawed in any way. It's just the nature of the world we're living in.
ALY: Well, yeah, I mean, identifying baked in trends. So, the numbers are almost certainly going to be wrong, but the trends usually aren't, are they?
PATERSON: Well, the numbers have been wildly wrong in the past. There's been some good analysis in the papers today about how straight-line trends on economic growth are really flawed. It was only five years ago, for example, that we as a as a government were making forecasts that the Chinese economy would one day be twice the size of the US economy. No one believes that's the case anymore. In fact, some people say the Chinese economy will never even exceed the US economy, it might achieve parity. So that's a pretty fundamental change to our...
ALY: Sure, but basic things like, you know, an ageing population and a workforce that's going to have to bear a huge tax burden to fund it. That hasn't changed. The effect of climate change on our economy. I mean, maybe the numbers will argue about it, but that's a structural phenomenon that hasn't changed? And all those structural phenomenon’s say we're stuffed, don't they?
PATERSON: No, I think that's way too pessimistic. And on these things, I'm an optimist. Human beings are incredibly ingenious and creative and entrepreneurial, and we are able to find solutions for the challenges that we face if we're allowed to do so.
ALY: There you go, Peter Khalil, sorted.
PETER KHALIL: Sorted by James. Look, when you open that door and look into the future, it can be terrifying. A little peek into the future. Change, also, you know, people change is a concept that's also frightening for people. But I think there is some good news in this. We are living longer and healthier lives. That's good news for all of us, I guess, particularly our generation. But the opportunities are there as well. There is more strategic competition, there are more challenges that Australia faces with respect to the region. But there are a lot of opportunities as well. And you're right about the fact that there's going to be a huge fiscal burden on our future generations around the care economy. Aged care sector, those older Australians living longer need that care. So that's going to be a huge thing. And I looked at some of the numbers too, and whether they rubbery or not, there is, you will see the trajectory where NDIS, health, aged care are all going to be going upwards, as far as budgetary pressure. I think that's going to be the case, whatever we criticise the sort of the numbers. So there's some huge challenges and I think probably, I mean this is a partisan point, but it's a new government. But we are trying to tackle some of these issues, like the investment in housing, the investment in the aged care sector, the investment in NDIS. These are all things that we're doing now. And Chalmers, Jim Chalmers, the Treasurer, is
sort of very cognisant of the challenges going forward and he's not just thinking about the next cycle, but certainly I think down the track.
ALY: Yeah, but are they unsustainable? That's the question I think the report raises?
KHALIL: Yeah, well I think there is some real big decisions to be made on the NDIS, obviously on aged care and I think that is something that is several cycles, several budgetary cycles...
ALY: What's a big decision? What does that mean?
KHALIL: Well, how do you fund, going forward with a narrowing tax base, because we've got an older population and people will be retiring. How do you fund some of these really important areas for Australia's future? And that's, you know, the Treasurer's in the hot seat on that one and the Government has to make big decisions on these things and that's why we're in government.
ALY: Well, you say narrowing tax base, that's a decision. It doesn't have to be.
KHALIL: Well, there are obviously opportunities to open up and find other ways. And I've argued for this in the past about multinational tax avoidance, getting multinationals to pay their fair share. There are things that can be done around the housing sector, in the housing space, and there are various reforms that can raise revenue. So, there's lots of different options that Jim Chalmers has before him that he has to, you know, get the balance right.
WALEED: What about the Coalition? Because the Coalition's stance is basically any tax is a bad tax. That any increase is a bad one and must be opposed. Intergenerational Report is kind of saying, well, this is getting unsustainable unless you want to say we don't want the NDIS. We're not going to spend money on health?
PATERSON: I think it's a bit of a simplification, to be fair, Waleed. For example, when the NDIS was first introduced in the Gillard Government, the Opposition at the time, then led by Tony Abbott, provided bipartisan support for an increase in the Medicare levy to make a contribution towards the cost of the NDIS.
ALY: But wouldn't you say you're philosophically supportive of tax cuts to small medium business, stage three tax cuts, I know the Labor Party signed up to but they're quite expensive, they go to the top end. I think it's fair to say the philosophical direction of travel for the Coalition, even if not necessarily what their policy implementation is, but their philosophical direction of travel has been clear?
PATERSON: Absolutely, we are for lower taxes. We want taxes to be as low as possible because we think people work very hard for the money that they earn and they should be able to keep as much of it as possible. And we should take no more of it than we need to provide the services that Australians rely on. But we do have to make sure, to your point, that the services that we are providing are sustainable, that we can afford to fund them into the future. And I am concerned about the unsustainable increase in costs to things like the NDIS. We want the NDIS to be there for the people who really need it and it cannot keep growing at ten, 12, 11, 13% a year and not bear an unbearable burden on the budget. So, we have to make that sustainable.
ALY: So who doesn't really need it?
PATERSON: Well, no, I'm not in the game of kind of picking winners and losers out of that. When we were in government...
ALY: But you are once you say that?
PATERSON: No, this is a really important point to make, Waleed. When we were in government, we were very concerned about the trajectory of costs under the NDIS and we wanted to start a public conversation of how do you make that sustainable? The then Opposition attacked us and said that we were going to take the NDIS away from people, they tried to run a scare campaign on it. Now that they're in government, they're saying that the costs are unsustainable. So, I think there is a bipartisan recognition that it can't continue to increase at the rate it is. I think there is waste in the system, I think there is fraud in the system. I think they're the priorities to start with before we have to look at eligibility.
KHALIL: And they're being addressed, they're being addressed by the Minister. Can I just say, sorry to interrupt, but there is a deep ideological divide or difference between where we sit on this. You want, James, you're talking about smaller, lower taxes, less government intervention. I'm a social democrat. The Labor Party is a social democratic party. We believe in the need for the government to intervene when necessary to level the playing field with respect to the economy, with respect to social policy right across the board. And, you know, there are things, for example, the transformation of the economy and energy with respect to renewable energy. That's a huge transformation that we're undertaking now. That's not going to happen unless there's government intervention, which is what we're doing. So, there is a belief, a different ideological position. We believe that we need to intervene to actually shape the future in many respects, and that includes intervening in things like, you know, areas where there's structural disadvantage, people who need protecting, who need a fairer system. I was talking about housing...
ALY: But James is not opposed to the NDIS. He's not opposed to the NDIS, he's not saying...
KHALIL: Well, that's good, that's good news. He's becoming more like a social democrat.
PATERSON: Well, I mean, it's been bipartisan for a decade. It was introduced on your watch. We stewarded it through our time in government. No one is proposing to do anything other than make it sustainable so that people who are going to rely on it in the future have it there. But if it does increase at an unsustainable level, then no government's going to be able to fund it the way it's supposed...
ALY: I guess the point I would make though, the point I'd raise is, everyone's all for finding inefficiencies and wastage and rorting and all that sort of thing. That's not going, that's not the problem.
KHALIL: That's not going to cut.
ALY: That's not the problem. That's a problem. But it's not the problem that the Intergenerational Report is pointing to...
KHALIL: Which is a structural problem.
ALY: Structural problem. I mean, who's going to come out. I mean, are Labor going to come out and say, these are the people, these are the situations that the NDIS just won't cover anymore? Is that what they're going to say? Or are they going to say, well, these are all the people now we're going to tax that we weren't taxing before, because it seems to me there's a couple of options.
KHALIL: A couple of points, we're focussed very clearly on the NDIS, a couple of points about that. Obviously, the Government has looked very closely and is starting to address the fraud and all these other areas. But you're right, there is a deeper structural issue because the trajectory of spending is going up. So, the government has to look at those, the Minister has to look at how that fits structurally with the other areas in the budget, like health, education, aged care, housing and so on. The point I was making simply was that once you've done, removed all the inefficiencies and the fraud and all that kind of stuff and recouped whatever wastage is there, you do have to make deeper structural decisions. I was saying earlier that the Treasurer has that important job to get that balance right. I think ideologically I can say there is a real sense of a Labor government wanting to actually intervene in areas to shift things in a particular way, to address structural disadvantage, to make sure that there's a level playing field and fairness in lots of areas that have been not there in the past. And James sounds very reasonable and I'm going to get bit political here, but this is the mob, the government that basically ripped people off on Robodebt. And we're not even talking about just removing inefficiencies. We're talking about a kind of visceral attack on the most vulnerable people in our community, chasing them up for fake debts and really making them suffer while the corporate, the multinational companies went off like bandits. It is a different perspective of government and how you go about governing. And that's why I'm saying we're very different in that respect. We believe in intervention and we believe in addressing structural disadvantage and making it fair for everyone. I grew up in a
housing commission. I got my start and my migrant family got a start because Labor governments invested in public housing and I'm sure some Liberal governments continue that. But the point is we do that reform.
ALY: Your calls are welcome on this. 1300 222 774. If you want to put something to either of our Party line reps, is that what they're called? 1300 222 774? You can put something on the agenda, you could respond to what they've been saying, anything like. James I think you deserve a right of reply.
PATERSON: Yeah, look that distinction that Peter has drawn is so crude, it's almost cartoonish. Everybody believes that there should be a strong safety net for those who need support. No government has sought to undermine or take that away. And all governments provide generous funding for social housing and other things. But if there is to be a philosophical difference here, I think there is one. And that is that ultimately what Liberals want to do is provide opportunities for people to own their own home. We want people to, and the vast majority of Australians are going to be renting in the private market and buying in the private market. My concern about the government's approach so far since they were elected is that they're totally focussed on the social public housing problem, which is an issue, but primarily they're a responsibility of state and not federal governments and has done almost nothing at all to meaningfully improve the supply of homes that everyone recognises we need, particularly when we are having record levels of immigration presided over by this government. Some of that is...
ALY: How long was the Coalition in power?
PATERSON: We were in power for nine years.
ALY: Alright, and so the supply problems existed then?
PATERSON: Absolutely. This is a national problem. It is a state and federal problem. It is a bipartisan problem. But when you are elected to government, you have to bear the responsibility of dealing with these things and spending more money, taxpayers money, particularly borrowing $10 billion off-budget at a time when interest rates are rising to spend on social and public housing only is not going to improve the supply of homes. The private market, which is utterly essential to deal with this problem...
ALY: But it improves the supply overall?
PATERSON: Modestly, very, very modestly by a tiny number of homes a year. And the vast majority of Australians are not going to live in those circumstances and need to have the pathway to buy their own home.
ALY: But the point is, as people move into that, it takes demand out of the system.
PATERSON: We're talking about tiny numbers here. I mean, it's really not going to touch the sides. Particularly for the Prime Minister, who promised before the election to deliver cheaper mortgages. There's been 11 interest rate rises on Anthony Albanese's watch.
ALY: So, the solution is not building anything?
PATERSON: No, of course, that's a ridiculous proposition. The solution is an increase in the supply of homes. It is releasing more land to be developed. It is allowing people to build more on the land they already have. I mean, that's self-evidently obvious. And everyone from the Reserve Bank to independent economists agree supply is the solution to this problem.
ALY: But I thought, that's what I heard...
KHALIL: Can I respond to that, Waleed? Because I, you talk about crude, you must have missed the whole National Cabinet announcement last week, James, because first of all, the government has, the Prime Minister has announced $2 billion in the social housing accelerator, which is about social and public housing. He announced another $3 billion for the states for private and public housing stock to go above the accord target of 1.2 million new homes over the next five years. The HAFF which you are opposing, the $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund that your party is opposing and the Greens political party are opposing, both of you grandstanding. A lot of political grandstanding and populism, particularly on the Greens side, is $10 billion, it is about 30,000 new homes. It is about hundreds of millions of dollars for Indigenous housing, for veterans who are experiencing homelessness, for women and children who are experiencing domestic violence situations and transitional and emergency and more stable housing for them. You're blocking that. And each day that you block it, you and the Greens block it in the Senate, roughly, this is a crude estimate, there's about 16 homes that are not being built each day based on that blockage. You talk about it being off-budget, it's true. It's a fund and it's going to spend a minimum of $500 million a year on housing. The other elements that you talk about with respect to the private housing stock, it is supply, supply, supply. The more supply you put in the market, the better. There's also issues around planning, the rezoning issues and so on. The national Cabinet also decided around getting minimum standards for renters rights, people that, you know, renters are feeling a lot of rental stress at the moment. That's people who are spending 30% or more of their income on rent. So there's a lot going on in that space to actually improve the situation. You guys did nothing for nine years.
PATERSON: Let's just look at the facts and figures on this. New housing construction has crashed to record lows on your watch in the last year when you're in government. You have a target to build 1.2 million homes, but nobody in the industry believes that's able to be achieved on current policy settings. When we're in government...
KHALIL: Who?
PATERSON: All the housing industry associations, the entire building industry...
KHALIL: The same ones that support the HAFF and have come out publicly supporting the policy announcement made by the government...
PATERSON: Give me a chance here, Peter. I think you've had a fair go. Under our government we had a range of policies which helped first home buyers get into the market. For example, allowing first home buyers to put money aside within the super system and then withdraw it for a first home.
KHALIL: Oh.
PATERSON: You opposed that at the time.
KHALIL: Raid the super.
ALY: Did anyone think that was a good idea?
PATERSON: And now, you're seeking to take credit here. We're talking about two different things here. I think both of you are confused.
KHALIL: Oh?
PATERSON: There was a policy which we proposed which would allow people to withdraw money for super. This is another policy from a few years earlier which allowed people to put money inside the super system in a tax advantaged way and then withdraw later for a deposit. And your own Minister sought to take credit for the investment in housing and the increase in first home ownership that that solved. So that's very different policy. Labor opposed that at the time. It's actually something that's getting people into homes for the first time.
ALY: I need to draw a line on this. Well, not a lot line but I need to get to calls because lots of people are calling in. Do you want to result in the tie poll?
KHALIL: Yeah.
ALY: It's very interesting. Labor dude is wearing a tie, says one text. Peter wearing the tie, he's a good ethnic boy and James is a libertarian, so he's into freedom. Another one saying Labor's wearing the tie. Labor's wearing the tie, they're on the job, the Opposition is on holiday. This one says the Liberal is wearing the tie because they keep tying themselves in knots. You get the point. The answer is, of course, James is wearing the tie. Of course he is. Sharp guy.
KHALIL: Dressed well for radio.
ALY: Radio or otherwise I think he sleeps that way. Nick is calling from Thornbury. Hi Nick. Oh, sorry. That's my fault, Nick. I didn't press the button. I have now. Go for it.
CALLER: I'm just wondering why, this is a question for, Peter Kahlil. Like the society has been well and truly into a phase of demanding action to address economic inequality. And we see the main, the poll is really shifted towards Labor and the Greens electorally. The Coalition is becoming increasingly irrelevant. So my question is why won't Federal Labor and many state and territory Labor governments start to really take action on some of the things. We see them instead supporting increased militarisation, continuing to support tax cuts for the wealthy, pursuing policies that are sucking money away from health and education and public transport and action on climate change. What is stopping the Labor Party from actually taking action on the things that the community wants? We voted in a progressive and Left-wing federal government and we're going to continue to drift that way. So, what's holding up the Labor Party?
KHALIL: Well, the good news. Thanks for the question, Nick. The good news is in the year that we've been in power, we are investing in a redressing that economic inequality that exists. We're cognisant of that. I was talking about earlier that structural disadvantage. On climate change, $20 billion investment in renewable energy transmission and infrastructure...
ALY: While approving coal mines I think is the criticism?
KHALIL: The way that the mines or any other project is approved goes through an environmental process. We've actually beefed up the EBPC, which is the standards on environment that need to be met for anything to be approved. And Tanya Plibersek is the Minister that assesses every project, project by project. She's actually said no to a couple of projects.
ALY: Yeah, yeah sure. So, is your argument that her hands are tied on legislation on what she can do?
KHALIL: No, no, we've actually improved the legislation to increase the standards that need to be met with respect to environmental protection and impact on climate change. That's
something that the previous government didn't do. They just sort of decentralised it to the states and territories. The federal law is now higher but going to Nick's point, we've invested in housing. I mentioned the $10 billion HAFF, but also the $5 billion that the Prime Minister invested in renters rights. We're investing in education and health care and aged care. So this is happening and there's significant investments to try and rebalance and address the issues around economic inequality. We're very cognisant of that. There is, we're talking about intergenerational report, there's intergenerational unfairness. There's a generation in the seventies and eighties that were able to buy a home that was within their reach, they were able to get, they were getting universal health care and free education. And now we have a generation who can't access any of that. So we're trying to address.
ALY: I think Nick would agree with that analysis but I don't know if he agrees that you've been addressing them. Nick, very quickly, because I want to get to another caller too. Are you happy with any of that answer?
CALLER: Definitely not. I mean, he's not answering the question. Like what is stopping the Labor Party from pursuing like ridiculously expensive nuclear submarines. Unacceptable emissions reduction targets? It's like, they're refusing to cut rents. I mean we see three quarters of people in Australia want rents capped immediately. We've got a housing crisis, we've got a renting crisis. People under mortgage stress, rent stress. It's not a matter of supply. There's 90,000 empty homes in Melbourne sitting there waiting to be filled. It's a problem of the private housing market shutting people out of homes and increasing homelessness.
KHALIL: I'll just address the rent cap thing because there's been a whole debate around rent freezes, which the Greens have put forward, right? And they've done a lot of social media on this and so on. Rent freezes. Every expert, every expert in the space talks about how this will actually make things worse because guess what's going to happen? Landlords take their property out of the rental market and put it on Airbnb. Right, so you get less?
ALY: So why don't you regulate Airbnb?
KHALIL: And we're looking at that as well. But the point I wanted to make, to Nick's point about that, is that we are actually if you look at the national Cabinet announcements, we are looking at standards around making sure that these are only allowed to be one rent increase per year. Minimal standards on renters rights to protect them from eviction. There's a whole range of policy areas there that have been worked through between the Prime Minister and the state premiers to actually help renters in this particular situation today. And there's a lot of investment in housing to try and address some of those issues of inequality.
ALY: All right. I want to take another call Julia. I think this goes in the Liberal Party's direction. Hi Julie, are you there?
CALLER: Hello, so my position with an earlier comment that was made regarding the different status of the two parties. Sorry, just catching my breath. One being social democratic and the other supporting free market is basically the idea of a free market is completely false.
ALY: Well, should I just get James to respond to that?
CALLER: Well, I'll just want to add a little bit more. The assumption is that somehow the free market grows organically and you know, it will magically resolve everything. The reality is that it's completely constructed and it's suited to the upper echelons of society.
ALY: Alright. So, James, let's begin with Adam Smith?
PATERSON: Yeah, sure. I won't go back 200 years, but let's just look at the data from around the world today. Market liberal democracies are the most prosperous. They're the most equal and the most harmonious, they're the most pluralistic. And yes, there's a spectrum on government intervention. If you look at the OECD nations who are all market based economies, who all have profit seeking enterprises at the centre of their activity, they are the most prosperous countries in the world and they are the countries in which people from all around the world seek to move because they offer them a better life...
ALY: The [inaudible] if you compare America to Scandinavia?
PATERSON: Well, let's compare America to China. China has far less...
ALY: We're talking about a social democratic model versus a free market model?
PATERSON: This is to my point, a centralised, planned economy like China has the worst economic inequality of the developing world, and is worse than most of the developed economies as well. I mean, there's shocking inequality where you have multi-billionaires and people who are subsisting on less than $2 a day. That's actually quite a common feature of those sort of systems, because power and wealth and opportunity accrues to those who control the country, a very small elite at the expense of the masses. And so actually it's market liberal democracies that have provided these unparalleled levels historically of wealth and opportunity. And I think there is real merit in that on harnessing that entrepreneurial and individual talent that you only get in a market system.
KHALIL: The market liberal economies that you're talking about. I agree with you, market liberal democracies you're talking about also include the Scandinavian countries. They include the OECD countries. Countries that have had a very long tradition of social
democratic government intervention to provide welfare, to provide a safety net, to provide public housing.
PATERSON: Sure. We have that here too Peter.
KHALIL: Exactly. So, you can't make an argument and say, oh, the free market should just be allowed to let rip.
PATERSON: I'm not. When did I say that?
KHALIL: Well, I don't know. Maybe...
ALY: I have one question I have to ask both of you before I leave, because your relevant roles with intelligence, security and so on. The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence. The committee membership, I understand, has an expanded?
KHALIL: Correct.
ALY: Where are we on that?
KHALIL: Well, so the legislation passed the last sitting where the Intelligence Services Act would, there's been an amendment to increase the membership of the committee from 11 to 13, as well as the composition of the committee to have a minimum two from the House, and at a minimum two from the Senate. In the past it was five, six. So that's the effectively the changes that were made.
ALY: Does it change the partisan makeup?
KHALIL: No, because the power to appoint any, the Prime Minister's power to appoint members of Parliament has not changed. It has always been the same and that is still the same. He can decide in consultation with the Leader of the Opposition and the leaders of the political parties across the Parliament.
ALY: Consultation means deal making. Did the Prime Minister do a deal with the Greens to get a Green on the committee?
KHALIL: Well, first of all, the Prime Minister, you know, he makes decisions around the membership of the committee based on an assessment about the appropriateness of that
person. A member of Parliament, regardless of their political background, in consultation with the other leaders of the parties in the Parliament. And that is actually in the Intelligence Services Act, he is required to do that.
ALY: Right. So there's nothing, whatever to make up, if a person's good, the person's good. I'm not making a partisan point here. I'm just saying it is nothing to do...
KHALIL: Well, there hasn't made a decision yet. The Prime Minister has announced any of the new members. There's two additional positions that the Prime Minister can and will fill, I assume. That will be based on a consultation with the Leader of the Opposition and the leaders of the other parties. I will say this there has been independents on the committee in the past that has occurred because the Act allows that it really is up to the leaders of the party to determine.
ALY: The independent was Andrew Wilkie, right? Who's had a long history in intelligence. Yeah. I mean, he's got a very particular reason. James, do you know anything about this?
PATERSON: Well, a bit of background for your listeners. The Intelligence and Security Committee is widely recognised as one of the most functional committees of the parliament, it is thoroughly bipartisan and it acts in the national interest. And although disagreements do arise from time to time, which are genuine and philosophical, we've always worked in a constructive way to resolve those differences because national security really should be above politics as often as it can be. And, I'm Peter's predecessor as chair and we handed down 23 reports when I was chair. Every single one of which was bipartisan, every single one of which is unanimous. Peter did say that that no decision has been made or no announcement has been made about new members of the PJCIS. He's right that no announcement has been made. But I think a decision has been made and I believe that the government is going to put in either an independent or minor party member on the committee. If they do so, it will be only the second time in the history of the committee that that's happened.
ALY: Is it a problem?
PATERSON: I'm very concerned it will breakdown the bipartisan, collegiality and trust on the committee which makes this committee so functional and allows us to act in the national interest because it will introduce more conflict into the committee and it will make it harder for us to come to agree.
KHALIL: First of all, I agree. We do disagree on a lot of things, but we do in good faith, reach that consensus for the national interest. But you've already broken down the bipartisanship because you put a dissenting report on this particular bill.
PATERSON: Yes, the first one in 17 years because the government refused to negotiate.
KHALIL: Hold on, you've had a go. You can't say that bipartisanship will break down because of a new member that we don't even know about yet.
PATERSON: We know it's going to happen.
ALY: Let's leave it there. I imagine when the committee's formed, we can reconvene and has this conversation.
PATERSON: Deal.
ALY: Peter Khalil, the tieless Labor Member for Wills and chair of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. Not tireless. Tieless. You've might be tireless, I don't know. James Paterson is the tieful, is that the word? Liberal Senator for Victoria, Shadow Minister for Home Affairs and Cyber Security. Our guests for this week's party line segment, which is now at an end.
ENDS
