SCHOOL AMALGAMATIONS

Mr PISONI (Unley) (15:12): My question is to the Minister for Education and Child Development. Why did the government choose to force school amalgamations, cut funding for after-hours school care, cut funding to basic skills testing, school security and family day care centres, and cut funding to the New Arrivals programs and reception entry when, at the same time, the government has 68 education department staff classified as surplus to need and costing $4.4 million per year?

The Hon. G. PORTOLESI (Hartley—Minister for Education and Child Development) (15:13): I thank the member for this question. At the time that the state government announced in 2010-11 that it would go ahead with amalgamations (a savings worth about $5.5 million a year), we also injected an additional $203 million into education in our state; and, when it comes to child care and our support for the early years and child care, we in South Australia are acknowledged as being national leaders.

It was interesting that I think in the question the member also referred to surplus staff, and I think on radio the member for Unley said that there were something like 44 surplus teachers. I can advised the house that, as at term 1 this year, there were, in fact, 19.7 full-time equivalents.

Mr PISONI: Point of order: the minister is debating the answer. I asked her why, when there was $4.4 million in salaries to unallocated staff, they made cuts throughout our school system instead of dealing with that issue.

The SPEAKER: You also asked the question about surplus staff, so the minister is answering that.

The Hon. G. PORTOLESI: My figures—and I would know because I am the minister—are 19.7 FTEs—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mr Pisoni interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! Member for Unley, order!

The Hon. G. PORTOLESI: —19.7 FTE surplus teachers, term 1 this year. I do acknowledge that we all—as ministers, as a government, as a community—have an obligation to ensure that the money that we have is deployed in the most appropriate and effective way, and that is what this decision is about. I am satisfied that this is the right thing to do. I do acknowledge that some school leaders have some concerns about this, but we must also be honest and acknowledge that there are principals—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. G. PORTOLESI: —that there are principals in our community who also acknowledge, 'Actually, we have been receiving two base grants when we have effectively been operating as one,' and that's not terribly fair, and that goes to the heart of this argument.