Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Hansard source

I thank the minister for that response, but I remind him that that sort of bluster was exactly his approach when I was asking questions of Treasury, at estimates, about Fuelwatch. I was told that, in its production, people were working normal hours and that there was the normal course of business. When we started asking for the detail, we found that somebody had worked 37 hours straight, around the clock, to rush in the now ill-fated Fuelwatch. Can I say that it is from the experience of seeing this government in operation—and rushing things for a political agenda as opposed to any other agenda—that I ask the question. I remember Fuelwatch was so urgent because it was going to be the saviour of everything. It has now been dumped as bad policy. Similarly, this has been rushed in. We were told we had to deal with it by Friday last week. We now at least have an extra week without impacting on anything. So one has to ask again: why the rush?

Allow me to move to my next question. I may have missed the answer to this. If so, I do apologise. I understand that Senator Joyce asked a question as to the meaning of ‘short term’ in relation to the huge, unprecedented borrowings that this nation might undertake if Mr Rudd gets approval for his $200 billion bank card. I was just wondering whether we now have a definition of what ‘short term’ might mean. If that has already been given, if the answer could be provided to me that would be helpful. I think in the context of Australians being told that this is a temporary measure, only a short-term measure, they are entitled to know when ‘temporary’ or ‘short term’ is going to finish or what is the longest that the government anticipates the term ‘short term’ to mean. I think we are entitled to an answer to that. If an answer is still being obtained, that is fine.