Grievance Debate

Plympton International College

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER (Morialta—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (15:21): I bring to the house's attention a very serious matter that has been circulated by the governing council of Plympton International College. Plympton International College, previously William Light College, is an excellent school in the inner south-west of Adelaide. It is a school that has grown dramatically over the last eight years.

It is a school that was not previously a school of choice in the local area, it is fair to say, but it is now, due to the work of the school, the governing council, the leadership, the teachers, and the community, supported by excellent local members—such as the member for Morphett who was, until recently, the local member, and even after the redistribution he continues to support the school as a nearby local member. The school has also benefited from its Chinese bilingual program, a nearly unique program in South Australia and one that is extraordinarily popular.

By way of comparison, I remember when I was first the Minister for Education that, within a two or three-year period, the school had gone from having about half a class of receptions per year to, in one year, getting up to four classes of receptions per year. It is growing fast and, indeed, we see that in enrolments overall. It was previously several hundred; it is rapidly approaching, and will surpass, 1,000.

Last year, on top of previous funding commitments supported by the former Labor government and the formal Liberal government, the government made a welcome investment of $14 million. Congratulations were given to the minister and the department at the time. It was a welcome and further investment and the natural next step.

That $14 million was to support the demolition of end-of-life and very poor condition buildings that currently house music rooms, home economics, the library and technologies—buildings 1, 4, 5 and 8—and instead build a multistorey complex for music, the library, two home ec areas, a technology suite, a canteen and six general learning areas/classrooms.

As a result of increasing and escalating costs, which are not unique to this site, the school has been advised that the technology suite and, indeed, one of the two home ec rooms will not be able to be continued any further. The value management that has been required there is not unique to this site, but it highlights that where the school community and the department signed off on, supported by the budget process, a need for these extra buildings, that funding is no longer sufficient.

In previous years, the minister has provided some supplementary funding to some school projects in acknowledgement of increasing costs, and in tomorrow's budget the opposition hopes that this is an example where such a process may happen again. It would be nice to see the full scope of works continued. The school continues to grow and the school continues to be desired.

As with so many schools in South Australia, particularly those with a large primary school component, the school has an OSHC (out of school hours care) service, an area of public policy highlighted by this government as a priority, certainly rhetorically. They included it in the Gillard royal commission's terms of reference for consideration. We want parents to be able to have access to OSHC facilities for their families.

However, I am advised a letter has gone to the minister from the governing council highlighting that the OSHC service, which has been moved from its old facilities by the introduction of midyear reception, has now been in the library. In fact, I will quote from their letter:

With the introduction of mid-year intake receptions in 2024, the school was required to move its OSHC location to accommodate new students. OSHC is now in a cordoned off section of the library, essentially utilising a storage room and a teaching space. This is not suitable or sustainable as the library will be demolished in early 2025 to make way for new buildings. The capital funding previously earmarked for the school is insufficient even to cover the additional classrooms required, hence cannot be diverted to this project.

I understand that when a member of the governing council appeared on the news yesterday calling for the extra half a million that has been identified as being sufficient to fund the building of a new purpose-built OSHC facility, presumably using modern modular techniques, the government's response was that they could use an allocation from their $14 million project. I have identified in my comments today why that is not possible, why the school is already stretched in the expenditure of its $14 million to get those resources that are needed for the school.

OSHC is really decreasingly an optional extra for schools. OSHC is expected in a school, and Plympton needs a place for its OSHC to go. The OSHC also supports students at Errington school next door, a special school serving some of the most vulnerable students in the inner south-west and beyond.

We call on the government to support Plympton and Errington by the provision of both extra funding to fulfil the scope of works of Plympton and, in particular, this extra half a million dollars that is necessary to deliver the OSHC service at Plympton—if not identified in the budget papers, perhaps out of the minor works budget from which there would be sufficient funding to deliver this project. We call on the minister to respond and support the community at Plympton International College.