Mr RUDD (12:05 PM) —One of the great things about being in the House of Representatives is that you get to see first-hand the disparity between the looks on the faces of those who sit on the government front bench and the looks on the faces of those who sit on those benches behind them. What we have seen most particularly in the debate on the consumption tax is the disparity between the look of triumph on the face of the Treasurer as he explains to the parliament and the nation the great virtues of this tax as opposed to the look of mounting despair on the faces of those who sit behind him. In fact, the greater the triumphalism on the face and in the manner of the Treasurer as he struts and frets his hour upon the stage in this chamber, the greater the mounting levels of despair on the faces of those who sit behind him as they see their respective political careers going down the political gurgler.

The reality is simply this: each of our electorate offices right across this country is now being inundated with calls from small business, pensioners, community organisations and charitable organisations about the massive compliance costs which this dog of a tax, this dog's breakfast of a tax, is about to visit upon the nation. If government backbenchers were in fact welcoming of this new tax, I would think they—as the local members for Moreton, Petrie, Herbert, Leichhardt and Hinkler—would be putting press releases into their local newspapers announcing the day and saying, `We are ecstatic about the arrival of this tax.' But, surprisingly, in my part of Brisbane I have not seen any such press releases. In fact, there has been a predisposition, I would suggest, to not engage in this discussion.

Mr Emerson —And they won't speak on this in parliament.

Mr RUDD —As the member for Rankin has just pointed out, in this debate today we do not see a large number of those opposite leaping to their feet defending, on their one and three per cent margins, the enormous benefits that this tax is about to deliver to their respective electorates. Of course, the reason is that they know that the political consequences of the introduction of this tax are disastrous for all of them. In fact, as the member for Hotham, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, pointed out before, so proud are they of this tax, so welcoming of it are they, that they are in fact leaping to their feet to join us in support of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition's amendment that the tax be recorded on dockets issued at the supermarket. But maybe I have that wrong. Perhaps in fact their level of cowardice on this question is reflected by the fact that the chamber is so empty as we participate in this debate right now.

The political hardheads opposite know that this tax is political poison. Of course, we as members of parliament can all encourage and support political courage when it is linked to right policy and good policy when there are political consequences and political costs to be paid. But the great tragedy of this entire exercise is that we are engaging in a debate about a taxation change in the country when the taxation change being proposed is in fact bad policy. It is bad policy because it is bad for economic growth. It is bad policy because it is bad for equity. It is bad policy because it imposes an enormous compliance cost. It fails all the normal public policy tests. So what we have is this extraordinary situation where a political cost is going to be paid at a huge level in the electorates of those represented opposite, all in pursuit of a policy that will deliver no substantial economic good to the nation as a whole and that will deliver substantial negative equity as far as its social consequences are concerned.

The compliance implications of this tax change are enormous. The government at present is supposedly engaged in an education campaign, particularly targeted at small businesses across Australia to make them familiar with the new implications which flow from this tax. One of the problems that the government faces is that the ATO does not have enough staff. We have all seen the ads and the newspaper articles about the fact that the ATO cannot recruit enough staff. Why? Because the big five and all the other accounting firms around the country are taking all the relevant qualified professionals into their own offices in order to staff them to cope with the compliance costs that business is going to have to bear. The big winners, of course, are the accounting firms, the big five in this country, not individual businesses.

Mr Crean —Small businesses will have to pay.

Mr RUDD —Absolutely. ATO staff are also not competent to provide these briefings. ATO staff in their briefings are saying, `We don't have enough determinations yet to answer your specific questions,' whether they be in relation to the training industry, to health services or to the responsibilities of agents to remit taxes to the ATO. In fact, I have a small businessman in my electorate who produces and sells ice to the frozen food industry in Queensland and he cannot get a determination as to whether that is GST exempt or not. (Time expired)