Mr RIPOLL (12:51 PM) —In speaking on the Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2002-2003 and the Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2002-2003, I thought it would be appropriate to look at the total gamut of the government's actions, where they have taken us to today and what this means in terms of the budget, the economy and where Australia is heading in future. In this time of war I am sure there are many issues that are weighing very heavily on the minds of ordinary Australians as they sit around their kitchen tables and ask where the government has taken them, the country and our troops.

Yesterday I spoke on the declaration of war by the Prime Minister. I put on the record my opposition to war without the sanction of the United Nations, the international community and the Australian people. I believe it is very important for all members of parliament to take the opportunity available to us to put on the record where we stand personally, not just as party members, on these issues. Yesterday I also listened intently to a number of speeches made by government members of parliament, and I was very disappointed because I found that government MPs were struggling to articulate a clear message as to why their government had decided to send this country to war. They could not quite come to grips with the reasoning; they could not articulate any sound reasons. They went backwards and forwards in their speeches about how we actually came to this point. The majority spoke of their views on countries like France, Germany and others, and they spent most of their time attacking these other countries—much as will happen in this war. I thought it would have been more important for government members to outline the process the government used to make the decision. The reason they did not is quite obvious: it is that it was a very poor decision making process. I was also extremely disappointed with the gutless silence of government backbenchers—I am not going to mention ministers. I hardly heard a peep from any backbenchers. On the crucial matter of this country going to war, there was not a word. The silence was deafening, as they say.

Further, the government have silenced this parliament by cancelling question time today. There is a real scrutiny available through question time that is not available in any other forum, but the government have decided that there will be no question time today. Just like their decision about the war, it is not acceptable. Question time should go ahead today. There is ample time to have both the question time forum to scrutinise the government and the debate for government and opposition members to speak on the issue of war. As it stands already, the opposition have agreed to cut the speaking time on this issue from 20 minutes to 10 minutes so we can accommodate all members, but this is no excuse to now turn around and say that question time should not go ahead. The government really are turning their backs on the Australian people by not allowing question time—that very important debate—to take place today. This also reflects on the way the government manage business in the House and the way we have to deal with matters in here. For quite some time, there has been a lack of management, a lack of professionalism, in this House with respect to how time is actually allocated to make sure we get our full opportunity to speak and put on the record the views of our constituents. The Howard government were first elected on this platform of reform and they talked very much about the Howard battlers. What I want to do today is talk about the Howard battlers.

A division having been called in the House of Representatives—

Sitting suspended from 12.56 p.m. to 1.15 p.m.

Mr RIPOLL —As I was saying before the suspension, I want to turn my attention to the so-called `Howard battlers' who were so prominent in speeches by John Howard during the 1998 election campaign. It is quite obvious now that the Howard battlers are all but gone from government focus. This government has completely forgotten all the battlers out there—all the workers, all the ordinary people—that it said it would govern for. In fact, I remember the Prime Minister making a promise that he would govern for all Australians. Instead, over the past seven years we have seen a government that governs only for those who are well-to-do—for those who can afford things and for those who can fend for themselves—rather than for those who need assistance from the government.

This came to me very clearly over the weekend. I held a community forum in my electorate on families and I invited the local community and some guest speakers. One of the guest speakers at the forum pointed out a range of issues that I think are really important about the inequality and the great divide now being created in the community by this government's policies. This speaker was Morrie O'Connor, President of QCOSS, the Queensland Council of Social Services. He spoke on a range of issues, but most importantly he drew people's attention to the inequality created when some families can afford two new cars, or two very good quality cars, whilst other families struggle to get by with one old vehicle. A family with two vehicles can afford to do a variety of things and go to work, but a family struggling with one vehicle cannot. They have to run the kids to school and then go to work. It is much harder when they have to share a vehicle. In the same vein, some families out there not only own their own homes but are purchasing other homes and properties for investment. At the same time as this is occurring, more and more Australians are finding it difficult to purchase their first home and more and more Australians are actually homeless or struggling with higher rents as rental property values increase. Morrie O'Connor also pointed out the issue of shares. There are many families out there now buying shares to create more wealth, but unfortunately there are even more families—more than ever—who cannot share in any of the wealth that is being created in this country.

If you look at the issue of jobs and training, some people in the community have better access to jobs. They have better access to highly paid, full-time jobs with bonuses that carry an amount of security. Unfortunately, many people in the community do not share that luxury because, under this government's policies, they are getting part-time work, casual work, work that is not secure and work that does not deliver bonuses—work that makes life very difficult for them. These are the differences. It is good that people can better themselves. I am not talking about people not bettering themselves; I am talking about the growing gap, the great divide in this community, being created by this government. When we look at work, that is of particular importance.

When we look at tax, we can see that a greater number of earners at the high-end can minimise their tax. Proportionately, they can reduce the amount of tax that they pay to government. Another great advantage they have is that, because they are higher wage earners—much higher than previously—they can use all sorts of advantages to make life easier. At the lower end of the scale are the majority of Australians—the growing majority of Australians that the Howard government said that it would govern for—and they are missing out. They have no access to tax minimisation. They have no means by which they can improve their lot. They pay their PAYE tax—they pay all of their taxes—and then they are slugged even further with other taxes, the taxes that are hidden through the GST and so forth. When we look critically at the proportion of a person's income that goes out in tax, it is those at the lower income end who pay by far the most tax in total—not only the total of all of their income and earnings but the most in the whole scheme of tax that the government collects as revenue. When we examine who has the greatest burden of tax on their shoulders, we see that it is not those who earn the most—it is not proportionate; it is in no way fair and equitable—it is those who have the least capacity who pay the greatest proportion.

If we look at the area of education, again there is a growing gap between the elite—those who can afford access to the best schools and the best facilities—and everybody else struggling on tighter and tighter budgets to even afford a state education. These people struggle to afford books and uniforms and to give kids a little bit extra and get them to the school camp once a year or on an excursion or a field trip. There is a growing inequality between those who have access at the higher end and those who do not. These are things that we have seen distinctly over the past seven years through appropriations, through budgets, through what this government has squandered in spite of the great advantage it has had: the great advantage of a strong economy. The government always talks about a strong economy. Great! What are you doing with that strong economy? What are you delivering for people who need to have something delivered from a strong economy? It is being wasted; it is being squandered. At the educational level we will miss out in the future. The people who will miss out are the young kids who do not have the sort of access and resources they need, the young kids going from school to TAFE, university or vocational training programs.

If we look at the area of health, what have the big differences been? What really marks the seven years that the Howard government has been in office? For most people, the area of health is probably the most critical and the most crucial. We have seen a dismantling, a pulling apart, a running down and a denigration of our health system in this country. It has been run down to the point where very shortly—and this is happening at an incredible pace—the credit card will be mightier than the Medicare card and access to health care will be based only on what you earn, not on what you need. This will be a great tragedy in this country, more than any other issue, and it will be the hardest one to fix. Again, the government talks about its great low interest rates, the strength of the economy, how it managed to survive the Asian financial crisis and all of these things. But what has it done with it? Where is the delivery of services? Where are the things that people need on the ground? Where are the health care services that this government has a responsibility to provide? They are not there.

In terms of universal health care, we are seeing the Prime Minister's aim over the last 20 years finally coming to fruition: the dismantling of the health system. It is a two-tiered system. You have one system for those who can afford it; they pay and they get health care. Then there is a minimal, bottom of the line safety net for those who do not have any other choice; they pick up the scraps. The scraps of health care are what they will be left with. It is a two-tiered health system which we see in countries like the United States of America, and it is criticised by many countries. Under the United States system of health care, when you come into the hospital emergency ward, whether you are bleeding to death or not, they ask you: `What sort of health insurance have you got? How are you covered? How are you going to pay us for saving your life?' The care you get is based on that ability to pay. This is something I never want to see in Australia. This is something that all Australians should rise up against. Health care will be the biggest issue—bigger than war, bigger than any other issue in this country. Ordinary people—the families, the mums and dads, the aged and those struggling—understand that when they have to take their family down to the local GP, who has been the mainstay of the health system in this country, they will now be forced to pay up-front fees. There are fewer and fewer doctors bulk-billing. Families with two or three kids often ring my office and say: `I've just gone down to my local GP and they're no longer bulk-billing or taking new patients on their books. They want us to pay up front.'

Quickly do the sums: if it costs $45 to see the GP and you have three kids, that is a big whack out of your already minimal income for the week. Most people use 50 per cent or more of their total net income to pay for just housing. If you start taking anywhere up to $150 out of their weekly income, they are really struggling and probably cannot afford to put food on the table. This is something that is being completely ignored by the government, and it is something they should be absolutely condemned for. They should be condemned for what they have achieved in their seven years in areas like health care, health access, housing and a whole range of others.

The picture that I have painted for people listening today or reading these words is a picture of reality; it is a picture of what the government have strived very diligently to do. They have not been slack in moving forward in their campaign to ensure that the best services go only to the wealthy and everybody else has to pick up the scraps. It does not matter where you turn; I have talked about health, education and tax, and I want to also talk about housing. Housing has become very unaffordable under this government. The government have driven the market to a position where people have been priced out of it. Ordinary people can no longer afford a home. The First Home Owners Scheme is a good scheme; it has flaws in it, but it is a good scheme. It has flaws in it because, under this scheme, millionaires buying their first home—a million dollar home—are being subsidised by this government with taxpayers' money, while many other people out there are struggling to buy their first home because they get very little assistance from this scheme. They cannot even get into the market because the prices of many homes throughout Sydney, Melbourne and most capital cities around this country have been driven up in a false market, I believe, with low interest rates. While low interest rates are obviously good for people, it also means that many people miss out. They have also driven up rents. For people who cannot afford to buy a home and who are renting, rents are now becoming out of reach as well. As I said earlier, for many people, more than 50 per cent of their income is spent on their housing. Do your sums on that. If you are a member of parliament, if you are a high wage earner, and 50 per cent of your total income is going towards just providing a roof over the heads of your family, it does not leave a lot for education, health and many other things.

This government has forced people into a system called Lifetime Health Cover with the threat that, if they do not pay up, they will miss out. Many people jumped on board out of fear. What we are now seeing is that many people are hopping off that truck because they know they have been conned—and they also know that they just cannot afford it. The Prime Minister made very loud promises about the introduction of Lifetime Health Cover and said that forcing people to pay private health insurance would force down premiums. I can remember him saying over and over and over: `This will be good for the economy, good for people, good for families. It will force down premiums.' But what have we seen in reality? What is the fact today? Premiums are going up consistently and constantly. The government has just approved the increase in premiums by another seven-plus per cent. This is a system that does not work. It is costing the taxpayer a recurring debt, every single year, of between $2½ billion and $3 billion—and that will only get worse. These are the sorts of debts that this government places on the heads of ordinary taxpayers with the little they can afford.

This is also the highest taxing government in history—not only in direct taxes but also in indirect taxes through the GST and other taxes. There has been the sugar levy, the airline ticket levy, the milk levy, gun levies and the East Timor levies, and I will make a wager with people here that there will have to be a war levy of some kind. This government is prepared to commit our troops to war, but it does not know how it will pay for it. It is prepared to introduce more taxes and more levies and rip money out of the pockets of ordinary families, but it does not know how to spend it properly. This is a government that is out of control, that has lost its way, that has forgotten the battlers it talked about when it first came to office—the Howard battlers. Never forget the Howard battlers. Where are they today? They are struggling. They are often homeless. They are the ones who need better health care. They are the ones who need entry level access to housing. They are the ones who need their kids to be better educated so that they can have more opportunities to get the higher paying jobs that those in the top five per cent of this country now get. It is a disproportionate redistribution of the wealth in this country, and it is a sad, sad indictment of the government. This week was a black week, as the Leader of the Opposition said, in terms of the war, but it has also been a black seven years—black on the economy because, while it does well, only the top five per cent get to share in it. The government should be condemned for its views, its actions and its policies. (Time expired)

Sitting suspended from 1.30 p.m. to 4.01 p.m.