Dr REFSHAUGE (Marrickville - Deputy Premier, Minister for Health, and Minister for Aboriginal Affairs) [3.42]: I move:

That this House condemns moves by the Federal Government to limit provider numbers for doctors, which will result in considerable cost shifting to New South Wales, truncate the career paths of our young doctors and make it even harder to recruit medical professionals in rural areas of New South Wales.

Doctors in public hospitals in Newcastle, Sydney and Wollongong are today taking industrial action against the moves by the Howard Government to limit Medicare provider numbers. The ramifications for New South Wales of these moves by the Federal Minister are enormous. There are three main areas of concern: first, the cutting of Medicare provider numbers will result in significant cost shifts from the Federal Government to all State governments; second, a reduction in Medicare provider numbers will make it more difficult to attract doctors to rural parts of New South Wales; and, third, by cutting the provider numbers the Federal Government will truncate the careers of young doctors.

The Federal Government is not only pulling the plug on medical graduates; it is secretly turning off the funding tap for New South Wales hospitals. Industrial action is an extreme form of protest for members of the health system to take. Doctors in the public health system are committed to the care of their patients, and the withdrawal of services is a decision that they do not take lightly. Members of the medical profession have taken industrial action in the past, but the nationwide action they are taking today certainly should be taken into consideration by this Parliament. I will now address the three major areas of concern to New South Wales with regard to the limitation of Medicare provider numbers.

I refer first to the cost-shifting from the Federal Government to the New South Wales Government. The direct result of the limiting of Medicare provider numbers will be fewer general practitioners in the health system. General practitioners are the front line of our health system. Patients mainly seek care first from GPs in the health care system; hundreds of thousands of patients seek treatment from their local doctors each year. The vast majority of those patients are bulk-billed by doctors for the service provided. Under the Medicare principles, that cost is obviously covered by the Federal Government, as it should be. But if provider numbers are reduced, as the Federal Government intends, the number of general practitioners will also fall. In addition, more GPs will stop bulk-billing, as they have threatened to do, and their consultation charges will be based on the schedule fee, or higher.

The direct effect of this will be that many patients who at the moment receive a free service from their GP will either have to pay directly out of their pockets for service from their general practitioner or - as many will choose to do - go instead to the emergency departments of our public hospitals for their primary health care. As soon as a patient goes to an emergency department for primary health care the costs are incurred by the New South Wales Government rather than the Federal Government - a direct cost-shifting from the Federal Government to the State Government. The Federal Government is not only shifting its responsibilities; it is shifting the burden of the cost of those patients, and that will result in further problems being generated because emergency departments are not designed for the type of care that general practitioners provide.

The role that general practitioners play is different from that played by emergency department specialists. We should be encouraging patients to use their GPs appropriately and not attend accident and emergency departments for the services that general practitioners provide. There is no doubt that the Federal Government's secret agenda of limiting provider numbers is to reduce its health spending. However, its agenda is not that secret. On many occasions we have heard the Federal Government talk about further cuts to its health budget. Those cuts are not so much to the Federal budget as to State budgets. Opposition members should not support the Federal Minister's proposals despite the fact that every Liberal government, every National Party government and every coalition government in this nation supports the Federal Government. It is
Page 5886
important for all honourable members to show clearly that they are opposed to this limitation of provider numbers.

The second problem, of attracting doctors to rural New South Wales, will be exacerbated by this decision. We all know of the difficulty of getting specialists, GPs and health professionals to work in rural New South Wales. We must recognise that this problem is not limited to New South Wales; it is a problem that is faced by all States throughout this nation and by all developed and developing countries. If the number of provider numbers is restricted it will be more difficult to persuade doctors to work in rural New South Wales. Fewer doctors will be working in the system in general practices; they will choose to work in metropolitan areas and not in country towns or in villages across this State that rely heavily on the medical advice and assistance provided by local doctors.

Medicare plays an equally important role in New South Wales in ensuring that patients have access to primary health care free of charge. If we reduce the number of provider numbers we will reduce the number of general practitioners and we will reduce the number of general practitioners working in rural New South Wales. Ultimately, this will deny people who are living in rural areas the basic health care to which they are entitled. The third problem that I have highlighted is the truncating of the career paths of our young doctors and medical graduates. The central issue concerning provider numbers is that thousands of young medical graduates and doctors will be adversely affected by any cuts. This issue is not about slowly turning off the tap or saying that those who go into medicine next year will have to face a new regime. The Federal Government is saying that those who have already worked for six years to obtain their medical degree - taxpayers have invested quite heavily in their education and should be able to benefit from their experience and training - will now not have a chance to use it. The Federal Government is playing with the careers of our medical graduates and young doctors in a way that we have never seen before.

The Federal health Minister is saying to medical students, "Keep on studying, but you may not have a job at the end of it." Some have argued that doctors should not be guaranteed a job at the end of their medical training. I think it would be quite irresponsible of us to train such large numbers of GPs without ensuring that we can benefit from that training in the most appropriate way. If we want to reduce the number of general practitioners or other specialists, we should not reduce the provider numbers but to look at medical intakes and determine what those intakes should be. What kind of message is that to send to people who devote years of hard study to achieving their career goals? What kind of message is that from someone who was in the same position as these graduates not so long ago? The Federal health Minister should look back on his own career and see what he is doing to those who are following in his footsteps.

The Federal Government seeks to deny many of these young graduates a livelihood, a career, the use of the expertise they have gained at the expense of taxpayers, and, during their clinical years, the generosity of patients who allowed the graduates to examine them and learn from their misfortunes and illnesses. There is much more to this issue than meets the eye; it is not just about denying a career to a young medical graduate but about further cuts to health funding in New South Wales that will impose an extra hardship and burden on people living in rural areas.

The Federal Government intends to cut some $73 million this year alone from our public hospitals because they say there is cost shifting, but the Federal Government is cost shifting to us. This is in addition to the cessation of the dental health program, which will deny dental health care to some 200,000 people, particularly in rural New South Wales. Every decision the Howard Government has made on health care has turned out to be a dismal failure. I urge all honourable members to join together in telling the Howard Government to reverse this decision.

Mrs SKINNER (North Shore) [3.51]: The Minister has an extremely short memory. On 24 September, just a very short while ago, I raised a matter of public importance on this very topic. In that debate I acknowledged the need that the Federal Minister was addressing - the problem of the oversupply of general practitioners, particularly in metropolitan cities around Australia - and I voiced some of the Opposition's concerns about the way this was being done. At that time the Minister berated me; he used his usual cynical language and tried to turn the attack on me. I therefore find most interesting his comment today that the student intake should be reconsidered.

Dr Refshauge: I did not say that.

Mrs SKINNER: I quote from Hansard of 24 September, when the Minister said:

The reducing of those numbers will effectively lead to the closure of one medical school in New South Wales. I challenge the honourable member for North Shore to nominate which medical school she will close. Will it be in the Hunter, at Sydney University or at the University of New South Wales?

I now challenge the Minister to tell me which university medical school he will close.

Dr Refshauge: I did not say we should do it; use your ears. Dopey, dopey, dopey.

Mrs SKINNER: The Minister said exactly what I said, just as his Federal Labor health ministerial colleagues said in years past.

Dr Refshauge: Dopey.

Mrs SKINNER: Mr Speaker, it does not matter how many times the Minister uses the word "dopey" at me across the Chamber; he cannot overcome the fact that he has made a terrible blunder because he did not read Hansard of a few
Page 5887
weeks ago. However, I have read it again and I stick to my guns. The issue is a real one and the Federal Minister is to be congratulated for addressing it, but I have concerns about the impact of what is being done. As I said in September, my concern is about fairness, particularly for the students who are now in training and for young interns who have made the decision to study medicine. They chose to dedicate their lives to medicine in the belief that when they graduate they will be able to practice.

When I spoke in that previous debate I asked the Minister to address those matters and to look at their impact on country New South Wales. I am delighted to say that the Minister has considered some of my suggestions. I suggested then that the Minister consider restricting the number of overseas-trained doctors who are given Medicare provider numbers, as a way of reducing the number of doctors in Australia, and that has happened. I understand also that the Federal Government has provided a package of $20 million each year to assist in medical work adjustment, particularly to support rural practices, and that is a very positive step.

I understand that the Federal Minister will consult the profession and other key stakeholders on this package. I hope that the New South Wales Minister has the capacity to join in the discussions to see how those issues might be addressed in order to advance what is a real problem in country New South Wales. From discussions I have had when visiting country towns I know that there is a real problem. Nowhere is that more evident than in Wagga Wagga, where I spent some time recently. Honourable members will recall that Wagga Wagga hospital had the greatest debt last year - $4 million.

The newly appointed chief executive officer of the region could give me no guarantee that there would not be a major budget blow-out again and that beds would not be closed. At that hospital doctors told me of the plight of patients who cannot get treatment in the country not only because of the lack of doctors but because of the lack of capacity at the hospitals to provide beds and perform operations because this Minister has not provided sufficient funds to enable the hospitals to operate effectively. This Minister has a nerve to move a motion of condemnation about the action taken by doctors today when for weeks doctors around New South Wales have been protesting loud and clear about the actions of this Minister. The Minister does not seem to hear what doctors out in the field are saying so let me remind him and some of his colleagues. The Minister has claimed Liverpool Hospital as one of his special hospitals.

Dr Refshauge: On a point of order. The motion is quite specifically about provider numbers and their effect. Certainly that allows a certain amount of latitude about junior doctors, medical students and rural health services, but Liverpool Hospital is not relevant in the context now referred to by the shadow minister. I ask that she be directed back to the motion.

Mrs SKINNER: On the point of order. During the debate the Minister talked about strike action and action that doctors were to take. I am about to talk about the strike action and actions that doctors are taking in relation to their dissatisfaction with the Minister. That is pertinent to this debate.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. The terms of the motion are broad and allow for wide-ranging debate.

Mrs SKINNER: The Minister referred to industrial action that doctors are taking in this regard. This House needs to be very well aware of industrial action taken by a wide range of health professionals over many months, not just today. In fact, their concerns are much broader than the subject of this motion. I move the following amendment:

That the motion be amended by leaving out all words after the word "House" with a view to inserting instead "notes the proposal by the Federal Government to limit Medicare provider numbers for doctors."

I also indicate the concerns raised by the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners. It is very interesting that that college supports the Federal Minister because it has been concerned about the lack of vocational training for people who have gone into general practice in the past. The college believes that such training is important, particularly for doctors in country areas who work in isolation without access to peer support; that they should have training to give them extra skills to work as general practitioners. It is imperative that people have access to trained doctors, and that is happening under the Federal Minister. He will restrict provider numbers to doctors who have already graduated and already hold a provider number and to those in training. That is a very important plus from the Federal Minister. A fighting fund is being set up for Nepean Hospital by doctors in that area, not to fight the Federal Minister but to fight the State Minister and the Carr Government for their total failure to provide for the patients not only of Nepean Hospital but of hospitals across the State and for rejecting any suggestion by doctors that the Minister meet with them and genuinely attempt to meet the needs of their patients.

Doctors and nurses went on strike at St George, Royal North Shore and Illawarra hospitals because the Minister has failed to provide funding to enable sufficient beds and operating theatres to open. Waiting lists are growing enormously in areas where funding is not being provided. Another cause for dissatisfaction amongst doctors is the lack of information provided about budgets and funding. It is fascinating that doctors in hospitals ring me to ascertain their hospital budgets and area health service budgets. This Minister prefers to be secretive and not to provide information. A response to a freedom of information request that I lodged has been partly blanked out. What does the Minister have to hide?

Page 5888

Mr MILLS (Wallsend) [4.01]: The recent decision of the Federal coalition Government should be condemned by this House. I have never heard such a wishy-washy response as that of the honourable member for North Shore in trying to find excuses to back up her contention that the Federal Minister should not be condemned. She moved:

That the motion be amended by leaving out all words after the word "House" with a view to inserting instead "notes the proposal by the Federal Government to limit Medicare provider numbers for doctors.

What a pathetic excuse for the Opposition's inability to understand that the decision by Dr Wooldridge, the Federal Minister for Health and Family Services, poses a threat to the careers of young and new doctors in Australia and to their future patients. The Minister has given some details about the proposals, and my colleague the honourable member for Clarence will provide more details. Dr Wooldridge's policy will ultimately not only mean fewer doctors to care for patients in New South Wales but will limit the way in which medical graduates can pursue their careers. Doctors do not have a history of taking industrial action lightly. It can only be assumed that our new young doctors are very worried about the effect of the Federal Government's proposal on their future patients. Last week I was told about industrial action in the Hunter region. In a message of support to resident medical officers who were opposed to the Federal Government's plans to reduce the numbers of new doctors I said:

Dr Wooldridge should take his proposals back and think about the situation more imaginatively.

We need doctors practising in rural and non-metropolitan NSW and outer-western Sydney, and those practising private medicine in those areas need Medicare provider numbers.

Best wishes for your campaign.

[Interruption]

I am fascinated by the way the honourable member for North Shore rattles on with interjections, although when she spoke she was given great courtesy by members on this side of the House. I am particularly fascinated by the way she interjects about purely State matters when the motion relates specifically to a Federal matter. The effect of the decision on rural communities should cause great concern among all members of this House. Governments on both sides of the political fence have had to grapple with the problem of the rural medical work force over many years. By this decision, the Federal Government has effectively pulled the rug out from under New South Wales. The efforts of the Carr Government to address the rural medical problem, as they have been well expounded in this House on other occasions, will be eroded by the harsh and unwarranted decision of the Howard Government. There is clearly a method in its madness: its provider number policy will result in significant cost-shifting to New South Wales.

If patients in rural communities do not have access to general practitioners they will be forced to use the emergency department of their local hospital, and the State will bear the cost. The effect of the Federal Government forcing extra training on doctors - to an unspecified extent at this stage - will be to produce more specialists and fewer GPs. Honourable members are aware of the higher consultation fees scheduled for specialists, so medical costs across the nation will increase significantly. Whilst cost is a serious factor, human factors are of greater concern to the Government. Interaction between patients and their GPs is vital. Local GPs are respected and valuable members of most rural towns. If our medical students are faced with barriers to entering general practice they will be left with no alternative but to stay in the public hospital system.

It is unfair to tell medical students who have put in many years of university study that they will now have to reconsider their future. Our female medical graduates will lose the flexibility they had to pursue a career and perhaps also raise children. There is no doubt that the decision by the Federal Government is harsh and unworkable. Our rural communities stand to lose the most, but it is our medical students who are feeling the first blow. By the stroke of a pen their career path has been radically clipped. They no longer have the freedom to choose. I commend the motion to the House.

Mr GLACHAN (Albury) [4.06]: It is strange that this House is debating this motion and the Government appears to be trying to pass on to the Federal Government the buck for any problems in rural New South Wales. It is hard to understand the Government's line of reasoning. The problem of general practitioners in country areas is of long standing; the situation has been desperate for a long time. I would like to know if the Government is giving any credence at all to the Federal Government's package of $20 million a year to encourage general practice in country areas. That should be commended rather than condemned. Many country areas are desperate for doctors and are prepared to spend large amounts of money to attract GPs. The Government cannot be addressing the problem very vigorously, because there is not much in the way of results to show for what it has done so far.

Dr Refshauge: That is your Government.

Mr GLACHAN: Any government. It is a desperate situation. It needs to be worked at and a vigorous effort must be put into it. I am also concerned that we are debating what the Federal Government is doing about health in country New South Wales, while this Government has made a fair fist of putting country health services almost in a situation of crisis. In the Albury electorate excellent hospitals are being handicapped. Beds are being closed because there is not enough money to provide the services that people desperately need. Wards are closed in the Albury Base Hospital. There has been
Page 5889
a huge change in the area health services. Albury Base Hospital has been lumped in with Wagga Wagga hospital, which has a $4 million deficit. How will that affect Albury Base Hospital?

It is all right for the Minister to shake his head and say it will not affect the money that goes to Albury Base Hospital, but when the board members of the greater Murray health district decide where the money will go, they will have a big incentive to send a lot of it to Wagga Wagga to overcome its deficit. I am concerned that Albury Base Hospital might miss out. Condemning the Federal Government will not help doctors in rural areas. If doctors are not given a provider number they will enter the public health system and work in our hospitals. Will that not be a good thing? Do we not need them? Does the public health system not need them? I put it to the Minister that the public health system needs doctors and that they would be of great benefit to the community working within the hospital system.

I believe that the people of New South Wales go to the doctor more than people in almost any other area of the world, that they go into hospital more than people in any other part of the world and that they are not as healthy as people in any other part of the world. A number of issues need to be addressed before we condemn the actions of the Federal Government. This State Government is skirting around the issues. Big issues are at stake, and we need to gravely and seriously consider a number of them before we condemn the Federal Government. I am sure the Minister would agree that overservicing is a major problem, which diverts a lot of money from health areas that desperately need it. To a large degree it is a waste of resources that are desperately needed elsewhere. I put it to the Minister that rather than condemning the Federal Government he should consider what he can do to encourage general practitioners to practise in the country to give country people, who are now second-class citizens in health terms in New South Wales, a fair go. That would do more good than his sitting here today condemning the Federal Government.

Mr WOODS (Clarence) [4.11]: The Government really did not expect the Opposition to condemn the Federal Government; that would be beyond expectations. But honourable members opposite are duplicitous and contradictory of each other. On the one hand the honourable member for North Shore said that she thought of these concerns first. She quoted from Hansard. She said she was concerned about the decisions made by the Federal Government. She was really worried about them. She raised them with the Minister. Now she says that she does not want to condemn anybody, but just wants to note the matters. Does she have concerns or does she not? If she had concerns she would say something meaningful, rather than merely noting it.

The decision of the Federal Government is, in part, designed to reduce the number of general practitioners. Whilst it might be argued that overall there is a surplus of GPs and the Federal Government considers its action a way of reducing that number, one must bear in mind that the reasoning of the Federal Government is to reduce its Medicare bill. The Federal Government has to foot the bill for Medicare, and it will reduce it. But it is also undeniable, and recognised by the Opposition, that rural areas have a shortage of GPs and that this decision by the Federal Government will make that situation worse. The honourable member for Albury said that $20 million is available to fix the problem, but it is widely recognised that money has not fixed the problem in the past. It is not about incomes of doctors in the bush. It is well documented that money is there to be made.

In fact, the problem for doctors in most country towns is not the number of customers or the level of income; rather, it is that doctors have too much work, too many duties, and they are overburdened by them. Social issues and education also play a great part. It is clear that the decision by the Federal Government underlines the dominance of Costello and Fahey and their departments - econocrats in the Department of Finance and Treasury - over Wooldridge and his recognition of the needs in health services, particularly for rural people. One is quite easily able to see that it is once again the dominance of the bean counters in Finance and Treasury, supported by Costello, Fahey and Howard, over the real needs of the people.

The decision of the Federal Government clearly demonstrates that it values the needs of the budget. In other words, it has put the priorities of quickly reducing and balancing the budget over the health needs of people in country Australia. That demonstrates the obsession of the Federal Government with bean counting at the expense of the health of the people of Australia, particularly rural people. The decision also underlines the John Howard agenda. Regardless of what he said during the election campaign about his support for Medicare, his previous statements over many years underline his objection to Medicare and to a universal health system. In a couple of years this decision will be seen with a range of other decisions taken by the Federal Government as part of the dismantling of Medicare. It is part of the Howard agenda.

In a couple of years time any resemblance Medicare has to a universal health system will be gone. The name might be the same, but its universality will be gone. All honourable members know that this decision of the Federal Government will be part of the demise of Medicare, as will other subsequent decisions that the Federal Government makes. It is committed to dismantling any universal health system. Country people in small and isolated communities need general practitioners. But this
Page 5890
decision will make it more difficult for small towns without a doctor to attract a doctor. For medium-size and larger towns, which already have some doctors, or a shortage of doctors, it will exacerbate the problem.

In my town of Yamba the local general practitioners are overworked. Yamba could be considered a rather attractive place to live, yet it is still very difficult to attract doctors. Doctors in hospitals is not necessarily an answer for Yamba. It is a fair distance from the hospital, and it is the local GP that does the bulk of the work. Iluka has also had difficulty for a number of years retaining one doctor. If the honourable member for North Shore has genuine concerns, which she said she had - she said she raised them first - it is duplicitous in the extreme for her to stand here and say that all we should do is note it.

Dr REFSHAUGE (Marrickville - Deputy Premier, Minister for Health, and Minister for Aboriginal Affairs) [4.16], in reply: I thank the honourable member for Wallsend and the honourable member for Clarence for their contributions to the debate. I am stunned by the duplicity and hypocrisy of the honourable member for North Shore, who a few months ago said, "When the Federal Government makes a wrong decision, I will tell them." This was a wrong decision, but all she said here was, "Really, it is understandable, and it is not too bad an idea. We will not say it is wrong, all we will do is note it." It is about time she stood up for what she really believes. What does she really believe in? She believes only in self-promotion. She has not said one thing today that shows any concern for the doctors. She has not said one thing today that is backed up by her history of supposedly supporting junior doctors. What did she say about cost-shifting to New South Wales? She said nothing about it.

Obviously, she is quite happy for the Federal Government to move away from provision of service and leave it to the State Government. Her leader and her deputy leader, when health Ministers, said it was the wrong thing to do. Apparently there is a change of Liberal policy because, by her absence of mentioning cost-shifting, she very clearly says that cost-shifting from the Federal Government to the States is okay. Why was it that her leader and deputy leader, day in and day out, used to raise cost-shifting as a major issue facing the New South Wales public health system? The Opposition spokesperson on health now says that it is not even an issue worth mentioning here when clearly there is evidence that cost-shifting will become a reality. She has no credibility at all in health because she has no credibility amongst her colleagues, and no credibility amongst the people of New South Wales. It would be worthwhile her checking in to see Bill Gibson about a cochlear implant because it seems to me that there is some neurosynaptical problem between the external ear and the brain. To come into this House and misquote what we have said shows that she is either a liar or she is a dope. I will leave it for her to explain what it is.

Mrs Skinner: On a point of order. That kind of language is totally unacceptable. Mr Speaker, I believe that you should ask the Minister to withdraw and apologise.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I ask the Minister to withdraw the remark that the member is a dope.

Dr REFSHAUGE: I withdraw the remark that the member is a dope.

Mrs Skinner: On a point of order. The Minister was flouting your ruling then by the way in which he withdrew that remark.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! No, he was not. The member will resume her seat.

Dr REFSHAUGE: It is about time that the honourable member for North Shore -

Mr Kerr: I clearly heard the Minister describe the member and give her the choice as to whether she is a liar, which is unparliamentary, or a dope.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I only asked him to withdraw the remark that she is a dope. He has done that.

Mr Kerr: But the ruling has left the option that the honourable member is a liar, which is unparliamentary.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I only asked the Minister to withdraw the inference. My understanding is that the Minister did not say the honourable member for North Shore is a liar. I will ask the Minister to indicate whether my recollection is correct.

Dr REFSHAUGE: I remember saying that the honourable member is either a liar or a dope and it is up to her to choose.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! To placate all honourable members, if the inference is that the Minister did call the honourable member for North Shore a liar I ask him to withdraw that remark.

Dr REFSHAUGE: I am happy to withdraw both. It is unfortunate that the honourable member for North Shore has shown absolutely no interest in the cost-shifting issue, despite it being raised regularly by the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. We now know where she stands. She raised nothing about the careers of young doctors, despite talking to young doctors and saying she cares. The young doctors, after reading the honourable member's remarks in Hansard, may make unparliamentary assessments about her. The honourable member for Albury found it hard to understand the Government's reasoning that provider numbers will make it more difficult to get general practitioners in country areas. I invite him to my office and I will explain the rationale behind that reasoning. [Time expired.]

Page 5891

Question - That the words stand - put.

The House divided.

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 Crittenden Ms Nori
Mr Debus Mr E. T. Page
Mr Face Mr Price
Mr Gaudry Dr Refshauge
Mr Gibson 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 Windsor
Mr Lynch Mr Woods
Dr Macdonald Mr Yeadon
Mr McBride Tellers,
Mr McManus Mr Beckroge
Mr Markham Mr Thompson

Mr Beck Mr O'Doherty
Mr Blackmore Mr O'Farrell
Mr Brogden Mr D. L. Page
Mr Chappell Mr Peacocke
Mrs Chikarovski Mr Phillips
Mr Cochran Mr Photios
Mr Collins Mr Richardson
Mr Cruickshank Mr Rixon
Mr Debnam Mr Rozzoli
Mr Downy Ms Seaton
Mr Ellis Mrs Skinner
Ms Ficarra Mr Slack-Smith
Mr Fraser Mr Small
Mr Glachan Mr Smith
Mr Hartcher Mr Souris
Mr Hazzard Mr Tink
Mr Humpherson Mr J. H. Turner
Dr Kernohan Tellers,
Mr Kinross Mr Jeffery
Mr MacCarthy Mr Kerr

Mr Clough Mr Armstrong
Mr Knight Mr Schipp

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment negatived.

Motion agreed to.