SCHOOL AMALGAMATIONS

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (15:19): I seek leave to make an explanation before asking the Minister for Communities and Social Inclusion, representing the Minister for Education and Childhood Development, questions on the subject of school amalgamations.

Leave granted.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Yesterday, as we all know, the long-awaited review reports from the primary and junior primary school communities facing amalgamation were tabled. Despite over 90 per cent of these schools rejecting the state government's proposal, we heard from minister Portolesi that each and every school is, in fact, to be compelled to amalgamate.

In speaking to this issue in the other place, the minister stated that she—and I quote directly from Hansard on page 1348 of yesterday, 2 May 2012—had, 'visited all but one school, and that was Nicholson Avenue Primary, I think'—in her words—'in Whyalla'. The minister then went on to state that these visits had been, to quote, 'very, very useful for me, as have been the review reports and the process around that. I think it has been a rigorous process.'

Yet, only hours later, this morning on Riverland ABC Radio, minister Portolesi outlined this supposed rigorous process, beginning her interview with an apology to the listeners in that region that she had not been able to visit the Riverland schools in her consultation who were in fact affected by the amalgamations. In a curiously goldfish-like moment, she then went on to repeat her rhetoric in that same interview with the contradictory information she provided yesterday to this parliament that she had in fact visited all but one of the schools.

It appears that she has certainly not, as she informed parliament yesterday, 'visited all but one school'. By her own admission, she has also not visited those schools in the Riverland and their communities—specifically, Renmark Junior Primary of 142 students and Renmark Primary of 280 students.

Had the minister actually visited another Riverland school in recent times, she would be aware that Winkie Primary School has had some forced demolition of school buildings as it has taken up the BER funding for new facilities. It has actually found it has fallen foul of DECD policy on the maximum allowed square metres per student. I believe this is under the DECD document entitled 'Capital Programs & Asset Services, Protocol: CA 007, School Capacity Entitlement Protocol'.

Consequently, I saw for myself last week, as did the Hon. Terry Stephens, that the new school building works have led to the unforeseen requirement that other buildings—being the music room, the parent club and, in fact, the original old school building—be demolished on that Winkie Primary School site. The school has therefore lost those resources.

This is a salutary warning for those 42 schools now being offered capital works money in exchange for losing school leadership positions and, of course, vital supports such as SSOs as a result of this government's forced amalgamations. I urge those schools to check the fine print before proceeding with any new capital works money offered under this government. Given this, my questions to the minister are:

1. Did the minister mislead the South Australian parliament yesterday by stating that she had been to 'all but one school' facing amalgamations in her supposedly 'rigorous' consultation process?

2. Will she now correct the record and indicate which of the 42 schools she did in fact attend, for what period of time she attended these schools and, more specifically, who she actually spoke to at these schools?

3. What formal assurances does this government give that none of the 42 schools amalgamating next year will discover that their new capital works money will come at the expense of current school building facilities under Protocol CA 007 or, indeed, any other DECD directive?

The PRESIDENT: The honourable minister to respond to that very green question.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER (Minister for Communities and Social Inclusion, Minister for Social Housing, Minister for Disabilities, Minister for Youth, Minister for Volunteers) (15:22): This decision, announced by the minister in the other place, will see the amalgamation of 48 co-located junior primary and primary schools. This is a decision, essentially, about equity, and it ensures similar schools are funded—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: Well, I'm sorry. It ensures that similar schools are funded on an equal basis. The government believes that all—

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order! You might want to listen to the explanation for this commonsense decision.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: Thank you, Mr President, for your protection. I will repeat: this is a decision that is essentially about equity, and it ensures that similar schools are funded on an equal basis. The government believes that all students in public schools from reception to year 7 should receive an equitable level of financial support. This is currently not the case. These amalgamations will address a historic anomaly and bring these schools into line with the vast majority of other primary schools around the state that already operate as a single reception to year 7 school.

This change, I understand, is supported by current educational research, which indicates that fewer transition points in educational settings are beneficial for students. It is my understanding that all of the schools involved in this process will continue to operate, as I have been advised, and that no sites will close as a result of these changes. These schools already operate in the most part as one school, with one governing council, one annual report, one website, one phone number and shared facilities, yet they receive two base grants. The overwhelming majority of other primary schools right around the state already operate as one school. It is my advice that there are no private or independent primary schools that operate separately and Western Australia is the only state or territory that operates with a split between junior primary schools and primary schools.

Amalgamated schools will be funded in the same way as other reception to year 7 primary schools. I understand that by amalgamating schools that are co-located it is expected to save $8.2 million over 18 months from 1 January 2013 and $5.5 million per year after that. These savings are being made at the same time that overall funding on education has increased, including an extra $203 million in 2010-11 and an extra $127 million in 2011-12.

It is my advice that co-located schools performed no better on NAPLAN scores than any other primary schools around the state. Existing reception to year 7 schools of similar size and educational disadvantage run very high-quality programs for students in reception to year 7 while being funded as reception to year 7 schools. Existing reception to year 7 schools ensure that there are strong and effective programs for their reception to year 2 students. In an amalgamated school there is the possibility of creating a reception to year 2 leader.

To assist co-located schools to amalgamate, $27.3 million has been budgeted to provide for facilities and infrastructure upgrades. We have taken the time to listen to school communities and have heard how schools will need some extra support to transition to amalgamate. That is why we are providing an extra $100,000 to all amalgamating schools to support them in their transition, as well as capital investments to support infrastructure works at each site.

As I said, most government schools operate as reception to year 7 schools. The amalgamation will result in the creation of a single reception to year 7 school under one principal for 48 co-located junior primary and primary schools. This will bring them into line with the vast majority of other primary schools around the state.

The government believes that all students in public schools from reception to year 7 should receive an equitable level of financial support. This measure is about the equitable allocation of our educational investments. These savings are being made at the same time that overall funding to education has increased, including an extra $203 million in the 2010-11 state budget and $127 million in the 2011-12 budget. The amalgamation of co-located schools was identified to save $8.2 million over 18 months from 2013.