HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Fourth Parliament, Second Session (54-2)
2020-06-04 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Parliamentary Committees

Public Works Committee: Golden Grove High School Redevelopment

Mr CREGAN (Kavel) (11:48): I move:

That the 60th report of the committee, entitled Golden Grove High School Redevelopment Project, be noted.

Golden Grove High School is located on Adey Place, Golden Grove, within the district council of Tea Tree Gully, approximately 20 kilometres north-east of the GPO. Mr Speaker, you will know that the high school is a public secondary school located with Pedare Christian College and Gleeson College, which are private schools on a shared campus. The Department for Education has advised that the three schools share a number of common facilities and resources.

Golden Grove High School also shares facilities with the Tea Tree Gully council, which manages the Golden Grove Recreation Centre, also located on the site. Golden Grove High School and Gleeson College share a specialist arts centre, with facilities for drama and dance, known as the Dame Roma Mitchell Centre.

Golden Grove High School was allocated total funding of $15.549 million as part of the Department for Education's capital works program. Initial funding of $10 million was announced in October 2017, and this funding was confirmed in March 2018, with further funding announced in February 2019. The redevelopment project will include demolition and new works to accommodate 1,900 students at the Golden Grove High School site.

Mr Speaker, as you will know, the redevelopment project will include the construction of new buildings to accommodate years 7 and 8. There will also be construction of new performance and senior school buildings, replacing the existing dance and drama studios, which will be demolished, as well as the replacement of a year 12 study centre and a locker shed, which I understand is also being demolished. There is also anticipated to be an increase in the outdoor area for two practical outdoor learning spaces. Construction for the redevelopment project is expected to be completed in November 2021.

The committee examined written and oral evidence in relation to this project and received assurances that the appropriate consultation in relation to the project had been undertaken, and the committee is satisfied that the proposal has been subject to the appropriate agency consultation and meets the criteria for the examination of projects set out in the Parliamentary Committees Act 1991. Based on the evidence considered, and pursuant to section 12C of the Parliamentary Committees Act 1991, the Public Works Committee reports to parliament that it recommends the proposed scope of the public works.

Dr CLOSE (Port Adelaide—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (11:51): I have resisted speaking to each of these reports on the developments in schools, and I will probably continue to resist after I make this contribution. Naturally, as someone who cares about education, as we all do, it is a delight to see any money being spent on schools in South Australia. It is also, of course, of particular pleasure for me, having been involved in the previous government's decision to allocate nearly $700 million to upgrades (known as the Building Better Schools project), to see sequentially that money being rolled out, the designs being announced and the works shortly to commence, and I note there has been an addition of about $185 million to that amount to further facilitate development.

I cannot, however, let my pleasure in seeing those developments roll out obscure from myself or from the people of South Australia some of the consequences of the decisions that this government has made. One decision, to move the 12 year olds, the year 7s, from primary schools into secondary schools, does have a significant capital works cost associated with it. The true cost of that has been taken up largely by the money that had been previously allocated by the last government for much-needed developments across the school system through Building Better Schools.

It has also meant that there has been a delay for any primary schools that were allocated funds under Building Better Schools because those schools will not be able to proceed with their developments until after the high schools have been done in order to meet the 2022 deadline for moving year 7s. It is a source of continual frustration to me and many others that we are unable to ascertain how much of the $692 million allocated under the previous government has been allocated to the move of year 7.

For some reason, it is beyond the wit and wisdom of the department to be able to determine how much money is being spent on infrastructure to accommodate children who are already accommodated in schools down the road. It is further a source of irritation and annoyance that the costing for the changes has meant that there are projects in high schools that either will not happen at all, because they are having to accommodate year 7s, or will occur in a diminished and substandard way as a result of having to accommodate year 7s.

This is obscured because the previous government created such a large fund for capital works that it is not always immediately apparent to school communities what they are missing out on because they are having to accommodate year 7s in what is largely an unfunded scheme. In the case of Golden Grove, in particular, it is good that the government chose to allocate an additional $5 million to that project.

It is good that they accepted that within the $10 million envelope they would not be able to accommodate anything more than moving the year 7s. On the other hand, it is also still clear that what the Golden Grove community had wanted will not come to full fruition because, even with the $15 million, they are having to spend a significant proportion on accommodating the move for year 7s in a school that was already very full.

With the demographic growth in the area, the expectation was that there would need to be room for more students from 8 to 12, let alone taking on an entire other cohort. Contrast this with the experience of schools in other electorates. Contrast this, for example, with the allocation made by this government to Brighton Secondary School, which had already received some $30 million under the previous government for a very good concert and performance space.

Although the government estimated there will only be a net additional 100 students as a result of the move to year 7, because they are tightening up so significantly the way the zone operates around Brighton, they are getting $14 million to spend on Brighton Secondary School. What is the justification when it is essentially the same amount going to Golden Grove accommodating far more new students, both from the 8 to 12 cohort and also the addition of the year 7s, and with a much greater need to catch up with schools like Brighton that have terrific facilities that all high schools should have? What is the justification for that allocation?

Let's also look at Glenunga International High School. Glenunga is going to grow to be a very large school, in the sense of the number of students it is accommodating. It has been allocated $29 million, in stark contrast to the $15 million being allocated to Golden Grove. What is the basis for distinguishing between those two? They are both schools that are on very constrained sites. They are both schools that are going to need to have more than one storey as part of their development to accommodate additional students, yet they have half the amount at Golden Grove as the amount allocated to Glenunga.

Lest anyone misunderstand me, every dollar spent in a public high school in South Australia is welcome. I am pleased that Brighton Secondary School is getting more money and I am pleased that Glenunga International High School is getting more money, but I am mystified about the way in which those decisions are being made when you contrast them with the very serious and present need of a school like Golden Grove. Golden Grove is sitting, as was mentioned in the member's introduction to this report, on a co-located site.

Golden Grove is at the front of saying, 'As a public school, we know that we have a Catholic school and an independent school next to us and we want to put our best foot forward to make the public option one that parents can comfortably and happily embrace.' To show that school that they get the short end of the funding, in comparison with a school like Glenunga or a school like Brighton—already highly successful public schools and highly sought after—sends a message to that community that this government is not as interested in making sure that that public school has everything it needs for its students to be successful.

Have a look at Adelaide High School. If memory serves, Adelaide High School received somewhere between $20 million and $30 million under the previous government, not while I was minister but a little earlier than that. I was involved in opening up the new facility that predecessors had approved. It is a very well-furnished school. Not only does it look good but people are desperate to get into that school and desperately want their children to attend.

It was required to fit in year 7s, despite being full and despite already being a very large school. It was given more money only to accommodate just enough to let year 7s in, not enough to continue the zones, the borders on the map that parents had understood would mean that their children would be able to go to school. I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

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