House of Assembly Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1) 52 1 Parliament of South Australia House of Assembly published Grievance Debate Norwood Morialta High School NORWOOD MORIALTA HIGH SCHOOL Mr GARDNER House of Assembly Morialta Mr GARDNER (Morialta) (15:31): I rise to discuss the ongoing concerns of the school community of the Norwood Morialta High School in relation to the significant budget cuts being delivered to that school as a result of last year's budget. Prior to question time, the Clerk announced the tabling of a petition signed by 493 members of that school community. That is, of course, in addition to the 1,967 signatures on the same petition that was tabled on 28 October. So, in total, this is now 2,500 members of the communities of Morialta, Hartley and Norwood particularly concerned about the plight of this school community. I will refresh members' memories. These schools were forced to merge in 1993, and they currently exist across two campuses, one in Rostrevor for the years 8 to 10 middle school campus and a senior school campus in Magill. It is a seven-kilometre round trip. The school runs two libraries and there are significant responsibilities undertaken on each campus. I reiterate that the schools would, in fact, attract greater funding were they operating as separate schools rather than as one, dual-campus school. Last year, there was media concern that there was public unease at the advice that the school would find its funding cut as a result of the budget cuts to multiple campus schools by $620,000. The East Torrens Messenger of 28 September reported: The school says it will be forced to cut at least four staff members and reduce the hours of its school service officers and groundskeeper. Governing council chairman Jeff Eglinton told the East Torrens Messenger that parents were both 'devastated' and 'concerned' by the news. In estimates committee the education minister provided advice that the cuts to the school's funding was only $588,000, so that was $30,000 better off but still $588,000 of cuts. He also said, both in the press and in estimates, that the school could deliver efficiencies. When pushed in estimates committee on 7 October, the minister said: What we were going to do (and we are doing this) is work with the school to identify the way in which the school works across the two campuses, because there are ways in which the school works across the two campuses that can creates costs for the school, and there are ways of working across the two campuses, in terms of the way in which staff are allocated, that can reduce costs. We want to find ways in which we can work with the school to minimise those costs. The school was no more convinced than I was. I also note that these concerns were initially shared by the member for Hartley, who wrote in a letter to the Minister for Education: My constituents are concerned about the ramifications this decision will have on the school and its existing structure, program delivery and quality of education. She also wrote: I share these concerns and take very seriously the representations being made by local residents and the school community. The minister responded that: The member for Hartley wrote to me expressing the concerns that the school council had expressed, and I have given her the explanation that I have given you just now, and she accepts that explanation and is continuing to work with the school community, a school community that she has a very close relationship with, to achieve those outcomes, and we are very confident that we will get there. He went on to say: I then represent back to her my response, which I have given to you just now, which she accepts, and we will continue to work together. Since then there has been some movement. Further details of the student centred funding model have been made available, and there has been some increase in the base funding that the school will receive; but, certainly, it does not cover the net cost of this cut. I can inform the house that the net loss to the school—depending on the census—will be approximately $327,000 per year as a result of this cut, and it will not reap the benefits that the government has proclaimed of the student centred funding model because all that increase will go up into halving the amount of net cuts the school has received. Also, at the end of last year, the school applied for and received in January one-off supplementary funding of that amount, $327,000, for this financial year (it was advised in mid January), although that includes $80,000 that was already promised for IT. For the future, it will still be a net loss of $300,000 per year. There have been no efficiencies advised by the department. Its school council was effectively told, 'Well, you tell us what you think you might be able to cut and then, you know, we'll let you do that.' That is not good enough. I encourage the member for Hartley to renew her efforts in the cabinet and the caucus, which she is a member of, to get the education minister and the cabinet to change this funding cut that will hurt this school. I particularly encourage the Minister for Education to reconsider this cut that will devastate this school community over the course of the coming 12 months and ensure that, from the beginning of next year, the member for Norwood and I, and indeed the member for Hartley, can go to that school and deliver some good news. Time expired.