Parliamentary Committees

PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE: BURNSIDE PRIMARY SCHOOL REDEVELOPMENT

Mrs VLAHOS (Taylor) (11:04): I move:

That the 387^th report of the committee, entitled Burnside Primary School Redevelopment, be noted.

The current project involves the redevelopment of the Burnside Primary School at an estimated cost of $6.8 million excluding GST. The Burnside Primary School site is an area of about 2.25 hectares and is bordered by five roads in the area of Burnside.

The school consists of solid construction that was started in 1907 and continued through to 1970, with the addition of five Demac transportable buildings in 1974 and metal transportable buildings that arrived on site between 1995 and 2007.

The Department of Education and Children's Services commissioned a feasibility study of the Burnside Primary School in 2008 through DTEI to consider increasing school numbers and the current accommodation on that site to approximately 680 students in the near future.

The redevelopment provisions include: a new two-storey building comprising 10 general learning areas, two serviced learning areas, withdrawal areas and teacher prep and learning commons; improved outdoor open space and play areas following the demolition of six transportable buildings, five of which are asbestos clad; a new grassed playing area (a new oval for children to recreate); increased staff car parking with improved safety; and improved staff and student circulation.

Temporary fencing will be erected to define the contractor's compound and deny access by both students and staff during the course of construction, ensuring the safety of all people at the site. However, there will be times where there will be a crossover between contractors and staff, and the adequate safety provisions will ensure that no injuries occur.

The project is proposed to be staged as follows: stage 1, construction of a new building and associated site works; stage 2, demolition of transportable buildings and site works for relocation of transportable buildings; stage 3, relocate transportable buildings from proposed grassed playing area; and stage 4, site works for new hard-play courts and a new oval. It is anticipated that there will be no change in the recurrent cost of the school's operation as a result of this redevelopment.

Three options were considered in the development of this project. A 'do nothing' option was discounted primarily due to the current need to improve the learning environment for these people and replace ageing infrastructure. The construction of a completely new school would be the highest cost alternative to major works. A total new facility was not considered, as existing solid construction buildings were in good condition but not sufficient in space to accommodate total enrolments once the dilapidated transportable buildings were demolished.

The preferred option is to redevelop the current site to provide an appropriate learning and educational facility for up to 700 students in a purpose-built facility that represents contemporary requirements. Construction was expected to commence in December 2010 and will be completed in about June 2012.

Given the above, and pursuant to section 12C of the Parliamentary Committees Act 1991, the Public Works Committee reports to parliament that it recommends the proposed public works.

Mr PENGILLY (Finniss) (11:08): The opposition supports this project and, indeed, supported it in the committee. I congratulate the member for Taylor on being appointed the new Presiding Member of the Public Works Committee. We had our first meeting this morning, and it went swimmingly.

Mr Whetstone: Was it an improvement?

Mr PENGILLY: A vast improvement, quite frankly. Back to the project, the reality is—

An honourable member: The class of 2010.

Mr PENGILLY: I need protection, Madam Speaker. This $6.8 million project will enhance no end the Burnside Primary School. Redevelopment is badly needed. It is something for which they have been waiting a long time. This $6.8 million—nearly $7 million—does not go very far. It is of concern to me that, whenever we spend public moneys on projects in schools and other instrumentalities around the state, I do not think the government gets a good deal. I think we are invariably screwed by those who want to do the work—without naming anybody—and by the loadings that are put on these projects. I am sure the Speaker understands that, in the country, enormous loadings that are put on projects inhibit the things that could be done if that money was not demanded just to carry out the job.

I am pleased and I know the member for Bragg is pleased—and I suspect she will have a few words to say when I sit down in a very short time—that the project is due to be completed in 2012. I will be watching, as I know other members of the committee will be watching, the progress reports that come through the Public Works Committee, which I point out is the best committee in the parliament and the one that works harder than any other. Once again, we do support this project and want to get on with it.

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg) (11:10): I rise to speak in respect of the report of the Public Works Committee on the project for the redevelopment of part of the Burnside Primary School. This school has a history of over 100 years of provision of services for the education of children in South Australia. It has a very proud history, and as we embark on the 175^th year of the state of South Australia this year, doubtless, like many other educational institutions, it will stand proudly when its record is celebrated.

The government's decision in the 2009 budget to progress the capital works program for this school came via the usual process. It is not some gift from heaven as far as moneys go. The schools line up and are orderly processed. Obviously, where there is major damage to schools, for example, they advance to the head of the list, and sometimes there is a new factor that results in advancing one project before another. However, this school has waited patiently and it has waited in circumstances where it has had continued increased enrolments. It is a school which is zoned and it has a 20 to 30 waiting list at any one time. It is very popular; it provides a very high standard of education; and, not surprisingly, it is highly acclaimed as a public educational institution in the state, and so it must be maintained.

In recent years, this school has had to work through difficult aspects in relation to having a totally inadequate playing area for the children. It developed a playground proposal with the local council using community funds to share a playground facility, and as this site is to be used for many other activities out of school hours in the local community, it is very important that this development occurs. So, it is not only the new two-storey building for 10 new essentially classrooms and learning areas (as we now call them), some service learning areas and teacher preparation rooms and the like, but a very significant outdoor open space, including the new oval. Some of this will be acquired using the extra space created by the demolition of transportable buildings, as the new chair of the committee indicated in her presentation. May I add my congratulations to her on her appointment to that role.

This school, while waiting, has had to deal with issues such as contaminated soil which was brought in under a government project and which, ultimately, was identified and removed at very significant cost. The school had to go through the agonising process of prevailing upon the hierarchy in the education department to make sure that the situation was remedied and remediated. This was at considerable expense in time and money for the school, and it should not have happened. This is a school which excels in its delivery of a service to the state and to be impeded by inadequate provision—or, when it has had provision, inadequate remedial work done when that has been deficient—is just simply not on.

I am pleased that the school is finally going to advance this project. However, I bring to the attention of the chair, particularly as she is new in the job, that when the department presents its submissions to you—largely, as is often the case, the committee relies on the facts and evidence presented in the department's reports—that you receive them on the basis that there will be some scrutiny. That is important not just because even government departments make mistakes but sometimes they have an interest in presenting a certain position. That is why I bring to the attention of the committee, particularly the chair, that in this instance the Department of Education and Children's Services presented in its submission a summary of the enrolments at the school.

This is important, because obviously when the committee is considering a multimillion dollar development of school classrooms and facilities at the school, they need to know whether the school, in fact, is one which is continuing to increase or decrease its enrolments. What I would suggest is not error here—that is, an accidental one—but a partisan presentation of information which does not reflect the actual position. In this instance, page 4 of their submission, which is attached to the report for members to review, under Actual Enrolments, states to the committee:

Based on the enrolment history of the school over an extended period, and projected enrolment demands, the enrolment trend indicates a potential decrease in enrolments.

The table below provides the enrolment history for 2009 to 2013 (recorded by the DECS statistician from the DECS annual student consensus mid year). The enrolments for 2010 are based on student numbers as at February 2010 and provided by DECS Statistician Data Management. The projected enrolments for 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013 show a slight downward trend.

And then it actually identifies them, leading from 2009, with 707, to 2013, with 671. The situation, however, is that, as the school's annual report for 2009 discloses, it depends on when enrolment data is taken and whether it is actual enrolment or the enrolment that has been received on application. Here is what the annual report of the school tells us under enrolments:

The total December enrolments were 754 students. 13 per cent of students from Non-English-Speaking Backgrounds...8 per cent were eligible for School Card...officially recognised by DECS guidance officers [for] learning disabilities.

Enrolment pressure is continuing with many families from outside the zone, requesting student enrolment into the school.

December enrolments in the past 5 years is shown below.

This is what it states: '2009, 754; 2008, 745; 2007, 755; 2006, 785; 2005, 718.' What that shows is obviously a significant increase. It is actually affected by the zoning aspect as well. It states:

For 2010 the school expects to start with a total of 695 students building to [approximately] 750 in December 2010.

So I think it is entirely a misrepresentation to present this material from the department to suggest that in the 2010 year the figure will be 697 students when, in fact, the 695 will be what it starts with, but it will end up with 750 by December. That is at best identifying and extracting relevant data that suits their purpose; at worst, it is a direct misrepresentation of what the position is. The consequential conclusion that was presented to the committee is that there is a declining enrolment proposed for the future of this school.

The reason that is so important is that if the committee were to receive evidence that the enrolment was going to increase it would be surely asking questions as to what other services this school may need in the provision and whether the classroom proposals of an extra 10, for example, are going to be adequate and what time frame will be needed to enhance further school classroom capacity again.

I do ask the committee in future to be very clear that the information it receives may be inaccurate, it may be accidental, it may be deliberate, but for whatever reason it is very important that, when it receives this information on any development, particularly on school developments, whether it is a hospital, the number of bed facilities that are going to be there, people who are accessing the service, or whatever the public work is—the information it receives from the department is accurate. It also, I think, would help if, unlike the department, the committee actually asked the school. Why not send a notice to the school to say, 'An application has come before us to approve funding. Is there any information you would like to present?' or, 'Here's a copy of what the department is telling us. Is there anything extra that you would like to present?'

It is true that we get invited, as the local member, but I would like to place on the record my concern that, although on a number of occasions I have appeared before committees in this parliament, including the Public Works Committee, sometimes the notice is so late that it is impossible to be able to obtain the information necessary to present. So, I think, for future projects, there should be a direct invitation to those who are affected, in this case the school council.

Motion carried.