Mr HOCKEY (10:18 AM) —I hope that people in my electorate will forgive me if I pass up the opportunity to talk about the government's budget. I take this opportunity to reflect on what I perceive to be the challenges for us as a parliament over the next few years and also to reflect on what I have seen to be the standards of behaviour in the chamber over the last three years. In particular, I pay tribute—

Mr Melham —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. In view of what the member is now saying, I suggest that is out of order. This is a debate on the appropriations. It is not a debate about the standards of this House. In anticipating what the member is going to say, I would ask you to thoroughly counsel him to stay within the standing orders.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins) —I am sure the honourable member for North Sydney will be within the standing orders because this is a debate on the Appropriation Bill, so a general debate is allowed under the standing orders. The honourable member for Banks might refer to the standing orders.

Mr HOCKEY —Mr Deputy Speaker, I was going to say some nice things about some members on the other side. Upon reflection, I might not do that. However, I am feeling very gracious this morning, particularly towards the member for Banks (Mr Melham). I must have had a late night; I feel a little disoriented.

There is a considerable amount of debate at the moment amongst members about what sort of chamber we wish to have. It is important to reflect on this matter in the circumstances, because there is no more significant career achievement which an individual can have than to have the opportunity to represent, in my case, 130,000 people in this parliament. When I first walked into this chamber, there is no doubt that I thought it was an awesome environment. It is an amphitheatre, if you like, with the high-backed seats and the very large distance, for example, between me, as a new member—if I were located any further back, I would be sitting in the gallery—and the member for Grayndler (Mr Albanese), who is also a new member, who sits a good 40 metres away. Yet we are expected, in an environment in which there may only be a few people present, to have an interchange of ideas and to debate ideas which are obviously in the best interests of the nation.

Unquestionably, we have a chamber—a magnificent building—that has been built for the future, but the problem is that it has no heart. That is very frustrating. At the time of an election you are in an environment of confrontation, in a spirit of confrontation. You are endeavouring to win a seat from a member of the opposition. Having been elected to the House, and having previously seen the five-second grabs on late night TV of a very aggressive—even tortured—environment in question time, you say to yourself, `What does it really mean? What are we meant to do in the House—engage in debate or in confrontation?' Unfortunately, it is confrontation. I share the disappointment of many people about question time. I sit some distance from the main table. The interchange across the table is barely heard up here, but I can hear and see the nastiness between members of the opposition and the government, the nastiness that pervades the atmosphere at question time.

I read a column by Alan Ramsey in the Sydney Morning Herald entitled `The decline and fall of parliament'. He referred to the very impassioned speech by the honourable member for Charlton (Mr Robert Brown) on the waterfront dispute. It is pleasing to hear passion—sometimes aggressive passion—in a speech. I can accept that in a sense, but I think that we need to create a forum where there is a real interchange of ideas and policy. Unfortunately, with the developments between the House of Representatives and the Senate over the last few years, we have seen the House of Representatives, in a policy sense, become totally dominated by the executive. The Senate has become the chamber where policy is debated in detail. There is no real detailed policy debate in the House of Representatives, although we make up the numbers. As a new member—and, perhaps, a new generation of members—I find that extremely frustrating.

I also find it frustrating that this generation has been handed down this situation by the previous generation—yet the previous generation is the first to lament existing standards. I have inherited this; I have not had much of a chance to do anything about it. I felt a great sense of frustration when I gave my maiden speech, which focused on the things that I really believe in—the policy principles that I am going to apply to my career. I was followed immediately by the member for Oxley (Ms Hanson), who made a number of grandiose, incorrect and misleading statements and untruths, yet she was the focus of the nation. I am not lamenting that I was not the focus of the nation, but I am reflecting that it is important that we set down our principles in our maiden speeches.

Some of the great names that were a part of the eighties, a part of the seventies and, in the case of the Speaker, a part of the sixties, will shortly be leaving this chamber. It is frustrating that they will not pass on to us something which is as good as what they might have had. There has been a gradual deterioration of parliamentary standards, which I think can be linked to television. It was not just due to the fact that the former member for Blaxland, the previous Prime Minister, had a roster system for his ministry during question time; it was a gradual deterioration over a period of time. It could have been the result of a different environment or that we televise debates.

A good suggestion made by the member for Parramatta (Mr Ross Cameron) is that perhaps we should not have speaking lists. I think there is a good case for not have speaking lists. If members have to seek the call—in a competitive environment—there would be more members in the chamber. After all, people expect us to be in here.

Furthermore, the older generation has also provided us with the system of entitlements. For that, I can never forgive them. When I became a member of parliament, I was expected to have an understanding of my new role as a member, my entitlements and how to use them—through the airconditioning ducts in my new office. If you rang the Department of Administrative Services, as it was at the time, and asked: `What can I use this for?' they would say, `I'm not so sure, but you can use it for that, and you can use it for that, and you might be able to use it for that.'

As a new member, you rely on oral advice or a wink and a nod from someone about what is appropriate. As a corporate lawyer, whether in the private or public sectors in New South Wales, I was never given instructions like that. I find it totally inappropriate that we are not given definitive instructions about our entitlements—the grey areas, as they are still being called. They are there to help us further the interests of our electors. At the same time, we have had the debacle that occurred with the travel allowances over the last 12 months. It has got to the stage where it confirms the very worst views of members of the public about members of parliament.

The previous generation, the older generation, has passed on to us a system that is extremely difficult to understand. Mr Deputy Speaker, if I am ever provided with the opportunity, you can rest assured, and the people of North Sydney can rest assured, that I will not simply be relying on a wink and a nod to implement an entitlement system for MPs. I would like to thank my predecessor in the seat of North Sydney, Mr Ted Mack, who sat with me after I was elected and took me through a lot of the various entitlements.

Mr Melham —And he went an extra term to make sure that you got the nomination.

Mr HOCKEY —There were a few other things that he managed to leave out, which is quite frustrating, but I suppose I learned from those experiences.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to take a minute, if the whip will give me an understanding moment, to pay tribute to those people who are leaving the House at the end of this term. Obviously we do not know when an election will be called, but I would like to thank them for what they have given me as a new member. There are several people I may miss, but I would like to begin by thanking the member for Fowler (Mr Ted Grace), who is going to help me set up the Armenian-Australian Parliamentary Friendship Committee. He has been someone I have always found to be very entertaining and informative. In his electorate he probably has the most difficult area in Australia to represent, Cabramatta, yet he has done it with dignity. I would like to thank him for that. I would also like to thank the member for Charlton, Bob Brown. I have had the pleasure of sitting with him on the Standing Committee on Environment, Recreation and the Arts. He is a very interesting fellow, and he is a very passionate person with great dignity as well.

Mr Melham —He wrote a good economics text, too.

Mr HOCKEY —Whilst I might not agree with some of his economic arguments, I think he is a man of integrity. He has represented Hunter and Charlton since 1980, and I think we will sadly miss his experience as a former minister. I have had the pleasure of sitting on the Standing Committee on Financial Institutions and Public Administration with the member for Gellibrand, Ralph Willis. I have found him to be a man of great integrity and honesty. He obviously has his place in Australian history. He has held some very difficult portfolios, but I have always found the member for Gellibrand to be a very genuine person in the advice that he provides. His experience has been invaluable to a number of the younger people on the financial institutions committee who for the first time have had to go through a very interesting and challenging role—that is, to cross-examine the Governor of the Reserve Bank about interest rates and various other forms of monetary policy.

One of the pleasures of this parliament has been the opportunity to get to know the member for Lalor, Barry Jones. In this combative environment, there is not often an opportunity to sit down with someone and have a yarn about the world. However, and people might not know this, he is the President of the Labor Party and yet one day he came into the government alcove where a number of us were sitting and we started chatting about what happened in the 1970s and the 1980s in parliament. I found it extremely informative and very interesting. That is one of a number of occasions when I have had the opportunity to speak with the member for Lalor, and I thank him for that.

It is funny when you are watching a documentary and you see someone like the member for Melbourne Ports, Clyde Holding, come up. He was Leader of the Opposition in Victoria at the time of the execution of Ronald Ryan. I am yet to have a chance to speak with the member for Melbourne Ports, but with him go great experience and great knowledge. Obviously others, such as the member for Bendigo (Mr Reid), the member for Riverina (Mr Hicks), the member for Groom (Mr Taylor), the member for Rankin (Mr Beddall) and the member for Parkes (Mr Cobb), will be going.

There are two other people I would particularly like to thank and to pay tribute to. The first is the former Speaker, the member for Casey, Bob Halverson. I have found Bob to be a great guy. He is a man of great experience who has gone through some very difficult times, obviously, but as Chief Opposition Whip and then as Speaker he made a great contribution to this House, and I wish him well for the future. I would also like to pay tribute to the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair), the current Speaker. I walked into my first division in this place and sat down next to him, and asked, `How long have you been here?' He said, `When I was sitting here for the first time, Ming was standing at the dispatch box.'

Mr Melham —Before you were born!

Mr HOCKEY —Yes, the right honourable member for New England entered this House before I was born and he has gone through 14 general elections, which is quite astounding. I think we will all sorely miss his experience and his contribution to the House. I think it is the end of a generation. He is the last person to have been here since the 1960s. I think a new generation has not done enough to learn from someone like that. What we have to do is to find some way that the new generation can continue to learn from the older generation, recognising their flaws, while at the same time seeking to improve upon their best points. Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to thank those people for their great contributions to this House.