Mr YEADON (Granville - Minister for Information Technology, Minister for Forestry, Minister for Ports, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Western Sydney) [3.47 p.m.]: I move:

That this House supports the 1,400 workers, and their families, sacked last night by Patrick stevedoring.

Last night Patrick stevedoring announced the sacking of 1,400 people. Last night at Port Botany, under the cover of darkness, the company’s security guards moved in by sea to seize the No. 1 Brotherson dock. This morning the Australian Stock Exchange was notified that four Patrick companies have been placed in the hands of administrators. These sorts of corporate dirty tricks are intended to allow Patrick stevedoring to evade its industrial responsibilities. Is this really Australian? Is this really how we want to deal with industrial relations and port productivity matters in the 1990s and into the next century? The actions of Patrick and the Federal Government last night gave us a glimpse of the future. Every fair-minded Australian has good reason to be alarmed about that future. Every family and every person with a job should be concerned because this issue has now gone well beyond the waterfront; it is an assault on every person, on every family.

The Federal Government tells the States that there is not enough money for health care. When the Cobar copper mine closed down the Federal Government said there was no money to pay $9 million in unpaid entitlements to workers. Yet, it is prepared to pay Patrick $250 million to fund sacking people. Why? To implement the Federal Government’s rabid and excessive industrial agenda; that is the only reason. It is a ploy to make the Federal Government look serious on economic reform and to divide the Australian people on the eve of a Federal election for its own cynical, political purpose. It is a rerun of the union bashing of the late 1970s, staged just to make John Howard and Peter Reith look tough. It is designed to make weak little Johnny look tough.

In recent weeks it has been clear that Patrick and the Howard Federal Government wanted a major brawl. It has been building up and now it is upon us, two days prior to Easter. The Carr State Labor Government believes in a sensible approach to ports and industrial matters. There is a better way. The Government can make progress through negotiation, dialogue and fair play. The State Government knows that because it has seen the evidence. The State Government has been successful in negotiating agreements with the Maritime Union of Australia and it has seen greater efficiencies.

This Government supports measures to improve productivity and competitiveness on the waterfront. Members of this House may recall that only 10 weeks after this Government came to office the first piece of legislation it passed was the Ports Corporatisation and Waterways Management Bill. To better understand this issue the House needs to know the truth about port productivity. The Howard Government and others in this debate have used every opportunity to whip up fear about economic decline. They have slandered Australian ports, and Sydney in particular. Without regard for the truth or the consequences, some people have even maligned Sydney as the worst port in the world. The figures used by these critics relate to container movements as a measure of efficiency. But the real measure should be net ship rates, as these are the rates that affect vessel turnaround time and, therefore, reliability of ship schedules. As the honourable member for Kiama points out, Opposition members would not even know what a net ship rate was. [Quorum formed.]

The Federal Government’s Bureau of Transport and Communications Economics figures, printed in the December "Waterline", show that Sydney is ranked second only to Adelaide in terms of the net rate. Measured on a net ship rate basis, Sydney achieved 27.9 containers per hour, compared to Melbourne’s 23.5, Brisbane’s 19.1, and 29.2 in Adelaide. More importantly, Sydney’s rate has improved considerably over the past two years. In December 1995 the Sydney rate was 21 containers per hour. In December 1997 - the latest figures available - the rate was 27.6 containers per hour. Similarly, the five-port figures show that net rates have increased from 16.1 TEUs per hour in December 1989 to 31 TEUs per hour in September 1997. Even if one focuses narrowly on crane rates, these improved from 13.4 TEUs per hour to 23.2 TEUs per hour over the same period. A TEU is a 20-foot equivalent unit, that is, equivalent to a 20-foot container. These figures show that container handling is improving.

Page 3887

Port productivity is a complex matter, but one thing is clear: there is a lot more to it than crane rates. Key factors include regular shipping services, rail and road access, port costs and services, navigation safety, and plant and equipment used by container operators. Sydney is a strong performer in a number of these areas. For example, Sydney recorded a 10 per cent increase in containerised trade for the first six months of the financial year. Sydney has some 80 shipping services operating to more than 200 destinations, ensuring that exporters have minimum waiting time to access a shipping service to any major location in the world. More than 700,000 TEUs per year are handled. Sydney Ports Corporation’s plan to the year 2020 provides for capacity of more than 2 million TEUs per year with the development of a third container terminal.

Sydney Ports Corporation is actively working with major rail operators - FreightCorp and National Rail - to increase rail transport of containers to over 30 per cent of total movement in the short term. This will be assisted by the introduction of shuttle trains to western Sydney industrial areas. The State Government decision to proceed with the Eastern Distributor and the M5 East extension will provide major improvements in road access to Port Botany to cater for future cargo growth. The port of Botany has the safest and shortest navigable access of all of Australia’s container ports, with direct access to open sea in 10 to 15 minutes, compared with around four hours from Melbourne and Brisbane. According to the March 1998 "Waterline", Sydney was the lowest-cost port in Australia for loaded exports with port and related charges such as towage, pilotage, mooring and berth hire at $78.59 per TEU. [Time expired.]

Mr HARTCHER (Gosford) [3.57 p.m.]: How appropriate that the most left-wing member in the Carr Labor Government should support the most left-wing union in Australia. And how appropriate that he should speak for 10 minutes, subject to the quorum call, and not for one minute mention the 1,400 workers who were the subject of his motion. He spoke about the Howard Government, he launched an attack on the Prime Minister, and then he spoke about port performance in Sydney. He did not mention a word about the 1,400 workers. Let the Maritime Union of Australia know that from this afternoon the Australian Labor Party’s most left-wing Minister is not even interested in expressing support for those workers. I wish to amend the motion. I move:

That the motion be amended by leaving out all words after the words "This House" with a view to inserting instead, "condemns the Carr Government for concealing its secret protocol with the Maritime Union of Australia and its failure to increase waterfront productivity in New South Wales."

The Australian waterfront has long been a source of international scandal. The world-renowned magazine the Economist wrote on 7 February 1998:

Much of Australia remains far from modern. The monarchy is not the only anachronism. A waterfront dispute in which the farmers are trying to break the iron grip that the dockers’ unions have on the country’s inefficient ports, looks like a parody of the Britain in the aggro-Britain ridden 1970s. Compared with the frenetic East Asians and the post Thatcher Britons, Australians still prefer the easy life, but want the earnings that go with the harder one.

Another world-renowned publication, the Far Eastern Economic Review, wrote on 19 February 1998:

In the past few years Australians have been fond of talking about Australia joining Asia. It is becoming more clear that this might first depend on them having their dock workers becoming part of the 20th Century.

This country has some of the most inefficient ports in the world. While the Minister was able to allege certain efficiencies at Sydney’s ports, he failed to mention the vital statistics that Sydney rates badly compared to international practice. Sydney’s port efficiencies are only one-half of those of Singapore and two-thirds of those of Auckland. Sydney’s ranking is eighteenth in the list of world port efficiencies. What an extraordinary indictment of this Government, which in three years has done nothing to upgrade the ports or improve their efficiency. The Minister says it is a management problem, but who is in charge of ports but the Minister? He is responsible for their administration and for ensuring that the practices of the lessees are efficient. He is responsible for any mismanagement that may take place. The buck stops with the Minister. I turn to the secret protocol which it has now been revealed exists between the Maritime Union of Australia and the Carr Labor Government. The Carr Labor Government, through its Minister for Industrial Relations, Mr Shaw, negotiated a protocol with the MUA as to consultation at a time of industrial action. A freedom of information application filed by me drew the response from the Minister’s office that the document was privileged and would not be revealed.

Mr Gaudry: On a point of order. The shadow minister is quoting from a Government press release relating to this issue. He should be asked to refer to the date of the document and to its title and table it for the information of the House.

Mr DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That is the normal procedure.

Mr HARTCHER: I do not have the right to table a document.

Page 3888

Mr DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The honourable member for Gosford will verify the document.

Mr HARTCHER: I am not quoting from that document; I am quoting from my press release dated 8 April 1998. I am quite happy to verify my press release and the accuracy of that document.

Mr DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That satisfies the requirement.

Mr Yeadon: On a point of order. The honourable member referred to a freedom of information application. The way in which he referred to that document in the House led us to believe that he was quoting from the freedom of information document. He made no reference to a press release that he had just put out. Mr Deputy-Speaker, I indicate to you that that is not the document that he referred to. I ask you to ask him to verify the document to which he referred earlier. He made no mention of a press release.

Mr DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! I uphold the point of order.

Mr HARTCHER: My press release relates to the freedom of information application. The freedom of information application filed by me was denied by the Government on the grounds of Cabinet confidentiality, and my press release makes this clear. If the Minister reads my press release he might find it edifying and informative. He might learn something about what is going on. He should not have the wool pulled over his eyes by the Minister for Industrial Relations. The Government negotiated a protocol with the MUA which it is now keeping secret because it is not doing anything to implement it. The protocol related to consultation prior to industrial action, yet the MUA has taken industrial action. It has either not consulted the State Government in accordance with the protocol or the State Government has been consulted and it has given the MUA the green light to bring Sydney’s wharves to a halt. The Minister and his colleagues stand accused of covering up a secret protocol with the MUA to encourage industrial action in this State. The Carr Labor Government has been caught. I am pleased that Government members have asked that the document to which I am referring be tabled. I am delighted to table it.

Mr DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The member for Gosford is not permitted to table the document.

Mr HARTCHER: I am delighted also to acknowledge what the Farmers Federation says about the waterfront, the failure of the Carr Government to improve productivity and the deceitful way in which the Carr Government has been negotiating with the Maritime Union of Australia. Far from being prepared to publicly back the union, the Minister spoke in this Chamber for 10 minutes about the Howard Government and about ports. He said nothing about the union or the issue of industrial thuggery in which the union has been engaging; he talked around that issue. Members of the Opposition strongly support responsible unionism. We will ensure when we are in office that responsible unionism is fostered and encouraged. But we do not and will not support poor work practices. We do not and will not support industrial thuggery. We do not and will not support a government like the Carr Government that negotiates in secret with the MUA, has not got the courage to release the document it signed with the MUA, and has given the green light to the MUA or has not been consulted by the MUA.

The real point is that the Government has shed the jobs of more workers than any other government in the history of New South Wales. Honourable members will remember the timber industry, over which the Minister for Information Technology presided. They will remember Dorrigo and Nimmitabel, where timber mills closed down because of the Minister and his actions. He has never had the courage to back them; he has never supported them in this House; he closed them down. The Minister will not support those workers because they are not members of a union. In other words, jobs are important to the Minister only when they are backed by a left-wing union. Every job and every worker is important to Opposition members. The Opposition sends a message to the workers of New South Wales: we are on their side whether or not they are in a union. We want jobs, productivity, good wages and good conditions. We are not concerned as to whether workers line up and put up their hands with some left-wing union. All we are concerned about is whether they want to do a fair day’s work for a fair day’s pay. If they do that we will back them. If they are not prepared to do that we are not interested in backing them.

At present the leadership of the MUA has shown no interest in waterfront reform, as the honourable member for Davidson will make clear. The leadership of the MUA has shown a lot of interest in preserving the perks and privileges of union officials. Coombs and his mates are interested only in ensuring that they have their jobs; they are not interested in anything else. This dispute could be resolved if the MUA was prepared to work with Patrick and every other waterfront employer to achieve productivity and if the Carr Labor Government, as owner of the ports, was prepared to ensure that the lessees and the work force achieved productivity gains. But the Carr Labor Government is not prepared to do that.

Page 3889

Nothing that the Minister or the Premier has said related to productivity. The Minister said today that he supported 1,400 workers but he announced no plan to help them or any strategy to resolve the dispute. The Minister is not prepared to come clean and acknowledge the secret protocol which this Government has with the MUA. That relates clearly to the freedom of information application that I filed. If Government members would like the reply I got from the Government I am only too happy to table that. The Government hid behind Cabinet confidentiality and was not prepared to acknowledge what it was doing to the people of this State. [Time expired.]

Mr GAUDRY (Newcastle) [4.07 p.m.]: I call on the New South Wales coalition today to distance itself from the politics of confrontation and division. I call on it to show concern for the families hurt by the actions of Patrick and the Howard Government. I urge members of the Opposition to reject the actions of their Federal colleagues and to support the urgent motion moved by the Minister for Information Technology. This is a dark day for 1,400 families across Australia - for the wage earners, the women and the children in those families. It is a dark day for the port industry in Australia, and, in particular, for the port of Newcastle, a major export port in this country.

Today the end product of the industrial relations policy of the Howard-Reith Government is evident. That policy is dedicated to wiping out the collectivist approach of the trade union movement, which works for better wages and conditions for workers across this country, whether they are members of the maritime union or the strong industrial sections of the union movement, or whether they are exploited workers. More and more workers are being exploited under the Federal Government’s industrial relations legislation, which has moved the agenda on to employers.

Today is a dark day because last night, in the dead of night, a pack of goons and dogs entered the Australian industrial relations framework. As the Minister for Ports pointed out, the industrial relations laws enacted by the State Government have resulted in a remarkable improvement in working conditions for the work force. To make this country’s ports world class the State Government worked with the former Federal Labor Government and with shipping and stevedoring companies to restructure, to improve productivity and to co-ordinate port and transport operations. When this issue was canvassed on Newcastle radio programs this morning the public strongly supported the Maritime Union of Australia because it understands the work that has been involved in restructuring. It understands, as the Newcastle Port Authority chief executive officer does, that Newcastle has world best practice in its shipping movement, particularly of bulk freight. The MUA is committed to working towards world best practice.

Yesterday morning, as I flew out of the city of Newcastle, I saw a range of products that were being moved through our ports under world best practice methods. Those products, which are essential to the hinterland, to the rural communities of New South Wales and to our State economy, are wheat, coal, bulk containers, cement, bauxite, fertiliser, iron and steel, sand and nitrates. The Federal Government has now been responsible for the loss of 1,400 jobs. Our sympathy goes out to those workers. They are strong unionists and are sticking to their principles. As the Minister for Ports said, they are legitimately engaged in action against their employer under the enterprise bargaining model in the Federal industrial relations law. But the Federal Government, with the use of taxpayer funds, has colluded with Patrick to sack its work force and to move to a non-unionised, scab work force that will eventually find itself beaten down by the employer. [Time expired.]

Mr HUMPHERSON (Davidson) [4.12 p.m.]: Unfortunately the news this morning was inevitable. The action that Patrick took in relation to MUA members across Australia was always going to occur. It occurred in the late hours of last night and the early hours of this morning. The responsibility for those actions can be laid with the MUA and its membership. Members on both sides of this house have great sympathy for the families of those workers who are not in employment today. But the actions taken by Patrick have the support of the majority of Australians and of right-thinking workers. They will applaud the fact that the final day has come for workers and for a union that had attempted to stay out of step with ordinary mainstream values.

The MUA has misled its members for years. It has unreasonably raised their expectations, ignored competitive demands and maintained unacceptable work practices. Regardless of the comments of the Minister for Ports, the inefficiencies that have existed on the waterfront for decades were not removed with the expenditure of more than $400 million of taxpayers’ money by the Labor Party. That expenditure achieved very little. The important issues are inefficiencies of the waterfront, the need for waterfront reform and the removal of unacceptable union intervention in the operation of businesses on the waterfront.

The House would be most interested to learn about some of the terms and conditions that exist for waterfront employees. The average income of
Page 3890
permanent employees ranges from $70,000 to $110,000 per year for a 29-hour week. These people are not typical employees and have been put in a position well above ordinary workers. Their package includes: five weeks annual leave with a 27½ per cent holiday loading; 10 days sick leave per year cumulative, which can be cashed in; a company-sponsored sick leave insurance package to top up social security payments; 27½ per cent loading on long service pay; subsidised meals at a cost to the employer of $2 million per year; clothing, laundry and telephone allowances; two weeks additional leave for every 15 weeks taken as rostered days off; and paid union stop work meetings.

That is not an example of the conditions of typical workers in this State or, indeed, in this country. The waterfront employees have had unacceptable conditions which have been maintained by a union that is out of step with the expectations of ordinary Australians. In a new log of claims the MUA has demanded a guaranteed minimum wage of $75,000 and a base weekly wage of $712 for the calculation of superannuation entitlements. The retrospective cost of the claim would be $20 million and the claim would increase the average base wage by $90 per week. The additional cost to the employer would be $130 per week per employee, which totals $22.5 million per year. I will now refer to some of the existing work practices. Manning levels and workplace practices are controlled by the MUA and result in a 50 per cent excess of labour that is allocated by the MUA. When employing new recruits Patrick has to consult with the MUA and pay for a half-day union seminar. The MUA will not allow regular individual performance appraisals to promote improved productivity.

Managers have to spend 80 per cent of their time attending to industrial issues. Security and labour allocation staff are members of the MUA. Patrick cannot talk to its own employees unless an MUA representative is present; it cannot even write letters to its own employees. Casual employees cannot work until all permanent employees have been offered overtime. Supervisors are not allowed to attend meetings between management and MUA employees. MUA members receive a full day off on full pay to visit a doctor, which is separate from sick leave entitlements. Trainees are paid at a rate of time and a half, despite all training being conducted on day shift. Up to 10 per cent of the work force is unable to perform all functions because of temporary or permanent disabilities. All of these practices, terms and conditions are unacceptable in today’s workplace environment on the waterfront. [Time expired.]

Mr HARRISON (Kiama) [4.17 p.m.]: As a member of the Australian working class there are three things that I hold most dear: my family, my union and my friends. I am proud to announce that my union is the Waterside Workers Federation, which is now part of the MUA. There are not many worthy causes that have not been embraced at one time or another by the Waterside Workers Federation. In the 30 years that I worked on the waterfront in the company of fine fellows, such as the brother of the honourable member for Keira, at every pay line a collection was taken up to support church groups, people who were sick, struggling workers and even farmers during drought. Not so long ago $60,000 was donated by the MUA to assist farmers. What appreciation was shown for that? The National Farmers Federation, far from being interested in the plight of citrus growers who have to tolerate the importation of concentrated citrus juices while they plough their crops into the ground, has not given any indication of assistance. Neither has Peter Reith nor any other member of the Commonwealth Government.

What about the third generation farmers, the old couples that have been tossed off their farms by the banks? Honestly, I could cry when I sit and watch on television these decent people, the salt of the earth, being kicked off their farms. And what is the National Farmers Federation doing about it? Zilch. It is directing the resources of its members, illegally I believe, into destroying the working conditions of another set of Australian workers.

The Federal secondary boycott provisions mean that if any other workers choose to give assistance to the MUA they and their union officials run the risk of losing their homes and everything that they have ever owned. What is the definition of fascism if it is not repression of the working class by legalisms? The legalisms are there, and this is what it is about. There is no doubt that Reith, Howard and all their cronies in the Federal Government who are prepared to support this sort of carry-on are fascists. Fascism is alive and well while ever this sort of carry-on can take place.

For the past 12 months the Federal Government, Patrick stevedores and the National Farmers Federation have formed an unholy alliance to wage a political war on the waterfront. The chronicle of their unrelenting drive to smash the Maritime Union of Australia is a shame file of un-Australian actions. The Federal Government has admitted spending $600,000 of taxpayers’ money on a consultants’ report on waterfront reform. We have not seen that report but we do know that it was compiled by consultants with a strong link to the National Farmers Federation who are no friends of the Australian trade union movement.

In December the sensational news broke that army personnel had travelled to Dubai to train as
Page 3891
industrial mercenaries on the waterfront. What do Howard and his Federal Government members say? They did not know that it was happening! Australian armed service personnel were sent overseas to learn how to scab on Australian workers and they did not even know it was happening! I do not think they know which way is up anyhow. Some of the things that come out of their mouths from time to time seem to indicate that. It is stretching the imagination too much to accept that the Federal Government, Corrigan and other grubs like them from the Patrick stevedoring company were not in this up to their eyeballs. Can we believe that they did not know about it? Can we believe that nobody seems to know who came up with the suggestion in the first place? What sort of people have we got running the country?

In March protracted negotiations boiled over when Patrick announced it would refuse to pay workers who were carrying out overtime bans for the ordinary time they had already worked. The refusal to pay for ordinary hours is now subject to court action. When Patrick sacked its work force last night it brought in private security guards and dogs to secure its sites around the country. And look at the sorts of things, the pieces of human slime that now call themselves security guards, who put in most of their time hanging around gyms, pumping themselves up with steroids and never doing a day's productive work in their life, taking it out on some poor bludger who has been unfortunate enough to lose his money in the casino, some poor bugger who is half their size. That is the sort of people the Federal Government, the National Farmers Federation and Patrick are lining up with. I condemn them.
[Time expired.]

Mr YEADON (Granville - Minister for Information Technology, Minister for Forestry, Minister for Ports, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Western Sydney) [4.22 p.m.], in reply: Every Australian in a job should be concerned about the action of Patrick and the Howard Government. Earlier in this debate the Government called on the coalition Government to distance itself from the industrial politics of confrontation and division. It is obvious from the Opposition’s comments in this afternoon’s debate that it is not prepared to distance itself from industrial thuggery and the Howard Government’s dark industrial future. It supports the sacking of workers just simply for being members of a union.

The Opposition tried to indicate that the Maritime Union of Australia members were the industrial thugs in this issue but in New South Wales they are legally striking under the Federal Government’s industrial relations legislation. They are entitled to do that to bring to bear the only mechanism that labour has in negotiations with employers: the ability to act collectively. It is that that the Howard Government and Patrick want to destroy. That is all they are about. They are not about waterfront efficiency. New South Wales has been undertaking efficiency reforms. Other container port managers and operations have been gaining efficiencies in their port operations, but not at Patrick. That is because they are simply about union busting.

The Opposition raised the issue of a protocol that the New South Wales Government has with the Maritime Union of Australia. That protocol relates to protracted national industrial action over non-union labour to protect New South Wales businesses. That is the objective that the State Government has with that protocol. The industrial action to date has been related to enterprise negotiations. As I have pointed out, it is lawful under Peter Reith’s Act and therefore the protocol has not been activated. But that protocol is not some secret document. In fact, the Government made much of it when it was developed with the MUA: it was the subject of a press release. So the Opposition should not claim that the Government has a secret arrangement with the MUA. That is a nonsense and a further demonstration of how far coalition members and those in conservative politics will go to muddy the waters on this issue. That is what it is about at the end of the day: simply spreading misinformation so that they can undertake their industrial thuggery. That is all it comes down to: 1,400 families without a job on the eve of Easter simply because the breadwinner was a member of a union.

In Victoria, South Australia and Western Australia there was no industrial action in relation to enterprise bargaining but the MUA members in those States got up this morning to find out that they had been forcibly removed from the waterfront. And that is supported by coalition members. They are just supporters of industrial thuggery. Earlier in the debate I demonstrated the productivity improvements that are being made in New South Wales ports. I referred to the importance of not publicly damaging the reputation of our ports because of the negative economic impact it has on jobs and New South Wales families. The coalition has shown that it is intent on damaging the reputation of New South Wales ports. It wants to bring industrial chaos and cause economic damage to this State.

The words of coalition members today did not support New South Wales ports; they supported the sacking of workers. As I asked earlier in the debate:
Page 3892
is this really Australia? Is this really how we want to deal with industrial relations and port productivity matters in the 1990s and into the next century? The Carr Labor Government believes in a sensible approach to our ports and industrial matters. There is a better way. We can make progress through negotiation and through dialogue and fair play. We know that because we have seen the evidence. We have seen other companies negotiate better agreements with the Maritime Union of Australia. That is what has to occur in this case rather than industrial thuggery.

Question - That the words stand - put.

The House divided.

[In division]

Mr Kerr: On a point of order. I have been advised that there is an elevator problem.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I understand the sensitivity of the problem alluded to by the member for Cronulla. However, I would acknowledge that difficulty only if it involved a large number of members. As it has involved only one member, I propose to continue with the division.

Ms Allan Mr Martin
Mr Amery Ms Meagher
Mr Anderson Mr Mills
Ms Andrews Ms Moore
Mr Aquilina Mr Moss
Mrs Beamer Mr Nagle
Mr Carr Mr Neilly
Mr Clough Ms Nori
Mr Crittenden Mr E. T. Page
Mr Debus Mr Price
Mr Face Dr Refshauge
Mr Gaudry Mr Rogan
Mrs Grusovin Mr Rumble
Ms Hall Mr Scully
Mr Harrison Mr Shedden
Ms Harrison Mr Stewart
Mr Hunter Mr Sullivan
Mr Iemma Mr Tripodi
Mr Knowles Mr Watkins
Mr Langton Mr Whelan
Mrs Lo Po’ Mr Woods
Mr Lynch Mr Yeadon
Mr McBride Tellers,
Mr McManus Mr Beckroge
Mr Markham Mr Thompson

Mr Beck Mr Peacocke
Mr Blackmore Mr Phillips
Mr Brogden Mr Photios
Mr Chappell Mr Richardson
Mrs Chikarovski Mr Rixon
Mr Cochran Mr Rozzoli
Mr Cruickshank Mr Schipp
Mr Debnam Mr Schultz
Mr Ellis Ms Seaton
Ms Ficarra Mrs Skinner
Mr Glachan Mr Slack-Smith
Mr Hartcher Mr Small
Mr Hazzard Mr Smith
Mr Humpherson Mr Souris
Mr Jeffery Mrs Stone
Dr Kernohan Mr Tink
Mr Kinross Mr J. H. Turner
Mr MacCarthy Mr R. W. Turner
Dr Macdonald Mr Windsor
Mr Oakeshott
Mr O’Doherty Tellers,
Mr O’Farrell Mr Fraser
Mr D. L. Page Mr Kerr
Mr Gibson Mr Armstrong
Mr Knight Mr Collins

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment negatived.

Motion agreed to.