HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1)
2010-10-27 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

SCHOOL BUS SERVICES

Adjourned debate on motion of Mr Brock:

That this house establish a select committee to investigate and report on the effectiveness and cost of the Department of Education and Children Services (DECS) school bus service, and in particular:

(a) the cost and community effect of DECS running its own school bus service;

(b) the cost and community effect of DECS contracting to a local private school bus service;

(c) the effectiveness of school bus services and contracts in South Australia compared to other states;

(d) the management of the bus service tendering process by DECS;

(e) the management of existing school bus service contracts by DECS; and

(f) any other related manner.

(Continued from 29 September 2010.)

Mr GOLDSWORTHY (Kavel) (11:08): I am pleased to be able to make a brief contribution to the motion that has been brought to the house by the member for Frome in relation to establishing a select committee on Department of Education and Children's Services school bus services. I support the motion because school buses and related issues are clearly important to school students in the electorate of Kavel, which I represent.

Over the years since becoming the member for Kavel issues have been raised with me in relation to school buses. I clearly remember a number of concerned parents coming to see me about the discontinuance of a school bus service that DECS ran from the township of Lobethal to Oakbank Area School. There was a lot of to-ing and fro-ing between us (the concerned members of the community and myself) and the minister of the day, the previous member for Adelaide, who is no longer in this place. We have a newly elected member for Adelaide, who sits on this side of the chamber, something about which we are very pleased.

However, as is normal with these matters, the government was totally intransigent. There were no negotiations in relation to this bus service, which had been an issue for quite some time. The principal at the school was obviously involved, and unfortunately the service was discontinued and it was not reinstated.

I regarded that decision as being penny-pinching in the extreme, given that a school bus would run to another small township only about four kilometres away from the Lobethal township. So, you could say it was an eight kilometre—if that—round-trip diversion to come into Lobethal to pick up some schoolchildren to then be taken to attend Oakbank Area School. Now, I understand the rationale. We had all the departmental gobbledygook and spin from the government in relation to this matter, but a decision to have DECS bus travelling four kilometres into the town to pick up the schoolchildren and then travelling another four kilometres coming out of the town is hardly a AAA rating matter.

Alternative arrangements had to be made through the local public transport system, involving the Hills transit bus, which was not ideal. The children had to travel much earlier than the school starting time required and had to wait at the school for some considerable time after school finished, in order to travel home via the public transport system.

All in all I think it was a pretty poor state of affairs, which is typical of this government. They are not really listening to the concerns of the community. There is a primary school at Lobethal but, for one reason or another, parents decided they wanted their primary school children to attend the area school. With older siblings attending the Oakbank Area School, it made sense that all the children in those families attended the one school. There are issues concerning uniforms and understanding the particular school environment that make it more attractive for families to have their children go to the one school, if possible.

We see this approach by the government across a whole range of areas—really right across government. The Premier, after the election in March, said he was going to re-engage with the communities. Well, I think it is clearly evident that the exact opposite has taken place. He has not re-engaged; he has not listened, and there are many examples of this. Decide and defend is the manner in which this government is continuing to operate.

We on this side of the house believe that the community fully understands that approach that the government is taking and, as a consequence, the government finds itself with serious problems in relation to its polling. We say, 'Keep on going'—and I do not think the government can change. A leopard cannot change its spots; you cannot teach an old dog new tricks! I do not think that the government has the will, energy or know-how to actually change. It is a lazy, arrogant, disengaged government, and the community is certainly well aware of that. We see examples time and time again of the way the government approaches things. As I have said, the example with the school bus being withdrawn from that part of my electorate is a clear example of a government being disengaged from community needs.

As I said, we on this side of the house are keen to support the establishment of a select committee. Obviously, the motion brought to us by the member for Frome covers six points, and I am pleased to support it and happy to conclude my remarks on that note.

The SPEAKER: The member for Glenelg—Morphett.

Dr McFETRIDGE (Morphett) (11:15): Thank you, ma'am. John Mathwin was the member for Glenelg and spoke for eight hours in this place. I will not take quite that long today. I rise in support of the motion of the member for Frome. I say that with some degree of qualification, because I have actually driven school buses. When I was a teacher at Port Augusta, I drove the yellow school bus out to Stirling North and also out to Davenport mission. I know that the kids enjoyed the rides with me.

When I was teaching at Minlaton on Yorke Peninsula, I used to drive a little crash box school bus out to Curramulka and then down to some of the other seaside towns around there. There is no synchro with crash box buses and, every now and then, you would miss a gear and the kids would love yelling out, 'We'll pick that one up on the way back, Mr Mac.'

In the past, it has been very efficient and very convenient for the department of education to run school buses. It was certainly a bit of extra income for me as a teacher to drive school buses, and we were always looking for that bit of extra income at that time. That is not to say that it has to continue that way. This house should support the member for Frome's motion, because we need to look at the way school buses are provided nowadays.

I do not think it is the role of government solely to provide school bus transport for children. If it can be done more efficiently, more cheaply and if we can get out of the way of private providers—the government should not be getting in the way—then it is something that this committee can look at. The need to provide the safest possible form of transport for our most precious cargo—our children—is absolutely paramount. Getting buses that are roadworthy and able to transport from A to B, with seatbelts, the latest rollover technology, the latest mechanical safety, brakes, steering, and that sort of thing, is so important. I am sure that that will be discussed as part of this committee.

The whole role of the provision of school buses needs to be looked at. I think it can be done better and for less cost—not cheaply, but for less cost. We must never do things on the cheap with this sort of issue, particularly when our children are involved. The need to make sure that we are doing the right thing by not only the taxpayers in providing the most cost-efficient service but, in this case, the children of South Australia is something that I strongly support.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN (Stuart) (11:18): School buses are incredibly important, and I support the member for Frome's position. I would like to say a few words with regard to school buses, how important they are to communities and how I think the government misplaces some of its economic value when it comes to school buses and small schools in rural regional South Australia.

Small schools are always under pressure with regard to their funding. We have seen that in the recent budget. Teachers, principals, parents, governing councils and, indeed, students at small schools work incredibly hard, as I am sure they do in large schools as well. However, they work incredibly hard in small schools just to sustain themselves. They do not have a guaranteed future. When they are under pressure for student numbers and when they are under pressure for survival, they are very often under pressure to keep their school bus in place when numbers get low. I have a dreadful concern that the current government looks at the removal of the school bus on the first-hand not only as a direct cost-saving opportunity but also quite sneakily and quite deliberately as a potential school-saving opportunity—and I mean that in the worst way.

If the school bus goes (as members on this side have said many times), you quite often see the decline of the school, the decline of the shops, and the decline of other services in the town. Once people start taking their kids to other schools in other towns, those local services and local businesses—whether it is the bakery, the garage, the supermarket or what—start to dwindle and fight for their survival as well. Unfortunately, I am very pessimistic that the government not only sees the direct cost saving in the school bus but also sees the indirect cost saving with the potential for a small school to disappear. I think that is a great shame.

I think we should do the exact opposite in this place. I think we should value these schools and these school buses because they support these communities—and we should value these communities, communities which actually support the production of some of our most important exports. There are over 100 small towns in rural and regional South Australia producing grain, for example, and if we do not have people going to schools in those towns, if we do not have people growing up in those towns and staying in those towns providing other business services, it will be more and more difficult to provide those exports as well.

I fully support the member for Frome in his desire to look into this issue. I think that school buses are incredibly important. I make the point again: they are very important not just with regard to the simple and obvious issue of getting kids from home to school, they are very important with regard to sustaining small schools and regional South Australia in general.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL (Cheltenham—Minister for Education, Minister for Early Childhood Development) (11:22): I indicate at the outset that the government does not support the motion that a select committee be established to investigate the effectiveness and cost of DECS school bus services. However, I do want to thank the member for Frome for raising this matter on behalf of his community and acknowledge that he is an excellent local member, always fighting for his local area. I also acknowledge the member for Mount Gambier and the representations he has made on behalf of his community.

The Hon. R.B. Such: What about me?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: You are a nice bloke, but I cannot remember you saying anything to me about this. DECS has a long history and involvement in transporting children to and from school. It currently provides 509 free school bus services across South Australia, mostly in rural areas, providing transport for over 16,000 school students each day. School bus services in South Australia are split between DECS and the private sector on a roughly 50:50 basis. The split between DECS and private contractors consists of 283 contracted bus services run by over 100 operators, and 226 services run by DECS.

Broadly, the member for Frome's concerns fall into three categories: one is whether the way the bus service is currently configured is cost-effective; the second is whether the bus service delivers a good customer service; and the third is whether the bus industry is being treated fairly by the government in its contracting process. In relation to cost-effectiveness, to determine the cost effectiveness of our configuration of the bus service, in 2009 we commissioned PricewaterhouseCoopers to undertake a detailed independent economic evaluation of school bus services. The evaluation concluded that the current 50:50 split between DECS and private operators is a more economical way of providing bus services rather than outsourcing the service.

Indeed, from a purely economic perspective it concluded that completely insourcing the service might be more cost-effective. Obviously there are a range of other factors, such as flexibility, capital outlay and the disruption to communities that make that insourcing undesirable policy. I should also point out that a comparison between Western Australian, Victorian and South Australian systems of bus runs identified that the average running cost of transporting a student in South Australia is substantially lower than in those states. So, to the extent that concerns about the cost-effectiveness of the current configuration motivated this motion, we say that the configurations have been reviewed and found to be cost-effective.

In relation to service to the community, I understand that there are no significant criticisms of the service that is provided by the school bus service. It is widely regarded as reliable and comprehensive and is highly regarded by regional communities. Indeed, the contributions by members opposite back that up.

To improve this service further, the government is investing in an unprecedented $114.5 million over the next four years to upgrade school bus services: $23.8 million is being spent by DECS to buy new buses with seatbelts, air conditioning and other environmental and safety standards; $90.7 million is also being spent on supporting private contractors to supply buses fitted with these measures; and within four years more than 90 per cent of the bus fleet will have been upgraded, and within six years the entire fleet will have been upgraded.

In relation to fair treatment of the industry, from about the year 2000 bus contractors were placed on 10-year contracts and a policy decision was made to re-tender these contracts upon their expiry. This has meant that this year the industry has been concerned about the re-tendering process. We have listened to those concerns. Rather than simply going to open tender, the Department of Education and Children's Services is conducting a two-stage procurement process where private contractors will be asked to register their interest for a particular bus run and then submit their proposal to DECS. This means that where, for instance, there is no market for a route, we will be able to negotiate directly with the provider. We are doing this to reduce uncertainty.

We are also providing contracts of up to 15 years' duration: initially of seven years, with two options for renewal of four years each. By providing for contracts of such length we are trying to create greater certainty. Given the good service that has been provided to the community by existing operators, we are also willing to give a weighting to the tendering process for existing effective service—again, trying to provide some additional certainty to the industry.

In addition, DECS is going to engage a probity adviser to act as an independent reviewer of the proposals submitted by bus contractors for routes, and, of course, the additional investment provides additional certainty that the costs of upgrading to new buses will be compensated. To help bus contractors with the procurement process, DECS has run information sessions, inviting them to learn more about the $114.5 million investment in the school bus industry and what it means for their business. Feedback from these information sessions has been positive.

Given our investment, and given the certainty that this investment and the two-step tendering process now provides, the government does not believe that now is the right time to establish a select committee. This will inevitably create the very uncertainty we have been trying to avoid. We are, after all, asking contractors to make decisions involving significant financial outlays and they will be approaching banks now. We do not want to add complications to those financing decisions, bearing in mind that at the moment the accessing of finance from financial institutions is a particularly problematic issue.

Moreover, free school bus services in South Australia have a long history of reviews. In 1985, the school transport policy was released after a five-year review and submissions from the bus industry; in 1987, private consultants, Travers Morgan, reviewed cost structures for contractors; in 1993, the Hutchins/Johns report reviewed the 50:50 split of DECS and private contractors; in 2005, the Economic and Finance Committee reported on school bus contracts, and as a result of this review a taskforce was established to review school transport services; and in 2009, PricewaterhouseCoopers reported on the free school bus service and the split between DECS and private contractors. The department continues to review school bus services. Regular reviews of each route are done to make sure that we are running an efficient service and to factor in changing population and demands on school bus services.

Just before I conclude, I do undertake to the member for Frome that, in addition to the use of the probity adviser during the tender process, we will ensure that there is a suitable grievance mechanism where a contractor believes that the process has not dealt with them appropriately. I think that suggestion by the member for Frome is a useful addition to the procurement process, and I thank him for it.

We think it is right that the member for Frome has raised these issues. We know that school bus services are a matter of great interest to not only him but other members, particularly those in regional electorates, but for the reasons I have set out we do not believe that now is the right time for there to be a select committee established to examine these issues.

Mr BROCK (Frome) (11:29): I thank members from both sides for their input into the discussion on the select committee on DECS school bus services. The reason I brought up this matter is that I am concerned, as other members on this side have indicated, about the smaller communities in our regions dependent upon transport involving private and/or DECS school buses.

Yesterday afternoon I was talking to the Spalding Rodeo people, who mentioned that they believe next year the Spalding school will lose its school bus service. I am sure that the member for Stuart is very aware of that, as they said that he had already taken steps and written to the minister about that issue.

The reason for this motion is to ensure that we are doing the best thing for our ratepayers, our constituents and taxpayers of this state. Again, I thank members on both sides of the house and also Independent members for their contribution.

The house divided on the motion:

AYES (20)
Brock, G.G. (teller) Chapman, V.A. Evans, I.F.
Gardner, J.A.W. Goldsworthy, M.R. Griffiths, S.P.
Hamilton-Smith, M.L.J. Marshall, S.S. McFetridge, D.
Pederick, A.S. Pegler, D.W. Pengilly, M.
Pisoni, D.G. Sanderson, R. Such, R.B.
Treloar, P.A. van Holst Pellekaan, D.C. Venning, I.H.
Whetstone, T.J. Williams, M.R.
NOES (23)
Atkinson, M.J. Bedford, F.E. Bignell, L.W.
Caica, P. Conlon, P.F. Fox, C.C.
Geraghty, R.K. Hill, J.D. Kenyon, T.R.
Key, S.W. Koutsantonis, A. O'Brien, M.F.
Odenwalder, L.K. Piccolo, T. Portolesi, G.
Rankine, J.M. Rau, J.R. Sibbons, A.L.
Snelling, J.J. Thompson, M.G. Vlahos, L.A.
Weatherill, J.W. (teller) Wright, M.J.
PAIRS (2)
Redmond, I.M. Rann, M.D.

Majority of 2 for the noes.

Motion thus negatived.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT