Mrs SKINNER (North Shore) [3.21 p.m.]: The motion of which I gave notice should be considered urgently because of the dramatic changes to the Cancer Council brought about by Government actions and the impact of those changes on the community. The motion refers to a number of factors. The first is the politicisation of the board. That is at the root of all the difficulties now being experienced. My motion is urgent because the people of New South Wales -

Mr Gibson: On a point of order. Under the standing orders the honourable member must tell the Chamber why her motion is more urgent than the other motion of which notice has been given. She has no right to go into the substance of the debate. That is exactly what she has done. She is one sentence into her allocated five minutes and she has gone straight to the substance of the debate.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member referred to urgency and I will allow her to continue.

Mrs SKINNER: The honourable member for Londonderry does not believe I am talking about urgency, but anyone who has read the newspapers at the weekend has seen the calls for the Government to clarify immediately its position on the Cancer Council. I will take great pleasure in providing the Cancer Council and all those who support the urgent need for a clarification of the Government’s position with a copy of the honourable member’s objection. It was nothing more than an attempt to gag the Opposition and prevent it from having this motion dealt with as a matter of urgency.

The motion should be considered urgently because the highly respected executive director of the Cancer Council has been sent on a week’s leave preparatory to being sacked. She is largely responsible for the worldwide reputation of the Cancer Council. My motion is urgent because those who have criticised that measure are blaming the Government for it. I would have thought members opposite would want the matter clarified for the benefit of the public. It is urgent because last year $500,000 was set aside from the Cancer Council’s funds for research grants. Those funds were delayed but although they have now been granted, there is no certainty about the future. My motion is urgent because there are questions about what is happening to the funds of the Cancer Council, 90 per cent of
Page 8835
which is raised by public donations and bequest. In addition, serious concerns have been raised about political manipulation of those funds, which were clearly intended by those who gave them to be used for Cancer Council research.

Mr Gibson: On a point of order. No member of this Chamber can establish urgency by saying that his or her motion is urgent and moving into the substance of the debate. Members must establish why it is more important to debate the motion of which they have given notice than the other motion. There is no argument about the importance of the motion of which the honourable member has given notice, but she must deal with the urgency of it.

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

Mrs SKINNER: Everyone in this House knows that was a pathetic attempt to gag me and to prevent me from putting on the record the concerns expressed not only by the Opposition but by respected medical researchers and other health professionals in relation to the manipulation of the board of the Cancer Council. My motion is urgent because those people are calling for immediate clarification of the Government’s position not only in relation to the executive director, Ms Henry, but also in relation to the way funds intended to be used for research into cancer are being used to send members of the board to marginal Labor electorates like Bathurst. If that is not a matter of urgency -

Mr Gibson: On a point of order. The standing orders are quite clear. Members must establish why it is more important for the Chamber to hear their motions than others of which notice has been given. No member is entitled to go into the substance of the debate.

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

Mrs SKINNER: More important time has now been wasted. I am more than happy to let my argument stand in Hansard as I believe people will be interested in it. [Time expired.]

Mr E. T. PAGE (Coogee - Minister for Local Government) [3.26 p.m.]: My motion is urgent because the cuts announced by the Commonwealth will have a disastrous impact on service delivery to local communities. It is urgent because this House should send a message in the clearest possible terms that the cuts should be reversed before their impact begins to be felt. The cuts will lead to decreased services or increased charges, or both. They have already been condemned by the Local Government and Shires Associations and, as a matter of urgency, this House should join in that condemnation.

Mr Rixon: On a point of order. As it has been explained many times by the honourable member for Londonderry, the mover of the motion has to give reasons why his or her motion should be granted urgency. Members are not permitted to canvass the whole debate and not give an insight into what will be debated. I ask you to remind the Minster that it is important that he continue to explain to this House why it is important that his motion be debated. He should not go on and on speaking about how he intends to debate the issue.

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

Mr E. T. PAGE: For the benefit of the honourable member for Lismore, I have never taken a point of order on any member in relation to this issue.

Mr J. H. Turner: On a point of order -

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I will not entertain a further point of order. The Minister will continue.

Mr E. T. PAGE: It is urgent that the motion be dealt with so that the community knows that this House opposes cuts to basic community services and supports the Government in its efforts to secure a better future for themselves and their children. My motion is urgent because these cutbacks will impact most severely on rural and regional New South Wales, and on communities already hit by drought and recession. That does not worry members opposite, especially the honourable member for North Shore. She does not care about rural communities. She gets her numbers wrong and she does not care about rural people. My motion is urgent because the Commonwealth Government has still not ruled out even more drastic changes to the system of financial assistance grants in the future. It is vital that this House sends a clear and urgent message to the Commonwealth that it will not tolerate cuts to financial assistance grants.

It is urgent that this motion be debated because local government is the level of government closest to the community, and as such delivers services vital to our everyday lives. It is urgent because, as the Commonwealth continues to retreat from its
Page 8836
commitment to deliver basic services, the call on services from local councils is increasing. These cuts will make it more difficult for councils to meet their commitments in those areas. It is urgent that the House consider this motion because reduced funding to local councils will only mean increased rates and charges. That is a load that the community should not have to bear. It is urgent that my motion be debated because the message has to be sent to the Federal Government that its ideological obsession with economic rationalism is hurting the community. Our community wants a secure future.

Mr Hartcher: On a point of order. I take this point of order because I do not want the honourable member for Londonderry to do so. It relates to the standing order relating to the establishment of priority for urgent motions. Arguing issues of economic rationalism is appropriate if the House decides to debate this motion, but issues of economic rationality do not relate to establishing priority. I ask you to bring the Minister back to establishing priority.

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

Mr E. T. PAGE: Our communities want a secure future. They want better services. They want governments to provide the infrastructure that will provide a better quality of life for them and their children.

Mrs Skinner: On a point of order. You clearly upheld the previous point of order. However, the Minister totally ignored your ruling and picked up his sentence midstream. It is imperative that you order him to return to proving that his motion should have priority, rather than debating the substance of the motion. As I said, the Minister returned to his speech mid-sentence. You should repeat your ruling and insist that the Minister return to establishing priority, rather than debating the substance of the motion.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Minister will address the urgency issue, or resume his seat.

Mr E. T. PAGE: It is urgent that this House sends the Commonwealth Government a message that the community expects more of it. The House should consider this motion urgently because of the concern that the Federal Government’s action is causing in local government circles. The State Government has always operated on the basis of having a partnership with local government - [Time expired.]

Question - That the motion for urgent consideration of the honourable member for North Shore be proceeded with - put.

The House divided.

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 Mr Schipp
Mr Ellis Mr Schultz
Ms Ficarra Ms Seaton
Mr Fraser Mrs Skinner
Mr Glachan Mr Slack-Smith
Mr Hartcher Mr Small
Mr Hazzard Mr Smith
Dr Kernohan Mr Souris
Mr Kinross Mr Tink
Mr MacCarthy Mr J. H. Turner
Dr Macdonald Mr R. W. Turner
Mr Merton Tellers,
Ms Moore Mr Jeffery
Mr Oakeshott Mr Kerr
Ms Allan Mr Markham
Mr Amery Mr Martin
Mr Anderson Ms Meagher
Ms Andrews Mr Mills
Mr Aquilina Mr Moss
Mrs Beamer Mr Nagle
Mr Carr Mr Neilly
Mr Clough Ms Nori
Mr Crittenden Mr E. T. Page
Mr Debus Dr Refshauge
Mr Face Mr Rogan
Mr Gaudry Mr Rumble
Mr Gibson Mr Scully
Mrs Grusovin Mr Shedden
Ms Hall Mr Stewart
Mr Harrison Mr Sullivan
Ms Harrison Mr Tripodi
Mr Hunter Mr Watkins
Mr Iemma Mr Whelan
Mr Knowles Mr Windsor
Mr Langton Mr Woods
Mrs Lo Po’ Mr Yeadon
Mr Lynch Tellers,
Mr McBride Mr Beckroge
Mr McManus Mr Thompson

Page 8837

Mr Armstrong Mr Knight
Mr Humpherson Mr Price

Question so resolved in the negative.

Question - That the motion for urgent consideration of the honourable member for Coogee be proceeded with - agreed to.