House of Assembly Fifty-Fifth Parliament, First Session (55-1) 55 1 Parliament of South Australia House of Assembly published Grievance Debate Across Government Facilities Management Arrangement Across Government Facilities Management Arrangement Mr BELL House of Assembly Mount Gambier Mr BELL (Mount Gambier) (15:19): Earlier this year I met with every principal of public schools in my electorate to look at and discuss the challenges they are facing, especially concerning their facilities and maintenance needs. A common theme emerged in these discussions, that being the frustration of having to use Ventia-approved contractors for all maintenance. One notable example involved a school where a local contractor had been cleaning its gutters annually for about $500. Five months later an unrequested work order was issued for an Adelaide contractor to perform the same service, resulting in an invoice for $5,437.39. That was $4,438.80 for labour and $902 for travelling expenses. The travel costs alone were enough to fund two years of gutter cleaning with a local contractor. This, along with many similar cases, led me to propose a motion on 10 April in this house trying to address the disadvantages that our regional schools, particularly Mount Gambier, are facing under the current Across Government Facilities Management Arrangement. The motion requested: (a)	that this house recognises the disadvantages for regional schools imposed by the AGFMA, which mandates the use of Ventia-approved contractors for all maintenance; (b)	acknowledges the shortage of Ventia-approved contractors in regional areas, leading to increased project costs and additional stress on principals; and (c)	called on the state government to allow principals to manage projects up to $100,000 and engage their local tradespeople as contractors. This motion was passed with the government amending part (c), as follows: (c)	calls on the state government to review the AGFMA contract to determine if it can allow principals to manage maintenance projects up to $100,000 and engage local contractors, and any potential unintended consequences of that course of action. I am yet to receive any updates in regard to this review or whether any actions have taken place as a result, so you can imagine my interest in reading this week's report that the Auditor-General has also taken issue with the way Ventia contracts are being carried out. Some of the Auditor-General's findings include incidents of Ventia charging above the maximum trade rates set by the agreement, preventative and legislative maintenance not being completed within the agreed timelines, and breakdown maintenance response and resolution times not being met as per the contract. These examples reflect many of the concerns raised by the principal I had spoken to. In addition to maintenance on existing infrastructure, problems with new buildings were also highlighted. One school had numerous issues with their building that included a leaking roof and a noncompliant fence—and this was a brand-new building. The principal was spending countless hours following up with Ventia and the contractor to try to rectify these issues, all to no avail. Adelaide-based contractors are unwilling to travel 4½ hours to repair something as minor as a roof leak—repairs that are required as part of their contract, I might add. This frequently results in schools using their maintenance budgets a second time simply to keep their buildings safe. Another school received a $700,000 quote for a single transportable. This is a sum that could build you a four-bedroom, two-bathroom house—and all we are talking about is a transportable, a rectangle. No bathrooms, no running water; just a rectangular box as a transportable classroom. This situation is, quite frankly, unsustainable. We need solutions and we need them quickly to prevent further wasteful spending at the expense of our students and our public schools. One solution that I did propose is allowing schools the authority to manage projects valued at up to $100,000. Once the education department has approved the school's maintenance needs, the principal could obtain three quotes, which would then be reviewed and approved by the school's governing council. Whilst this might not resolve every issue, it certainly empowers the principals to make decisions in the best interests of our schools by hiring local tradespeople and securing competitive quotes.