HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2)
2012-05-30 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

SUPPLY BILL 2012

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 29 May 2012.)

The Hon. J.S.L. DAWKINS (17:42): I rise to support the second reading of this bill which provides, I believe, some $3.161 billion to ensure the payment of public servants and the continuation of state government services from 1 July until the Appropriation Bill for 2012-13 passes both houses. As we know, the Supply Bill gives parliamentary authority to the government of the day to continue delivering services via public expenditure.

The government is entitled to continue delivering these services in accordance with general approved priorities, that is, the priorities of the last 12 months, until the Appropriation Bill is passed. Before moving on to make some comments on one particular area, I note that the use of that money is for the work of public servants to service the constituents and residents of South Australia.

I want to focus this evening on the processes around the government's proposal to amalgamate a large number of primary and junior primary schools in this state. While there will always be a range of views about whether we should have separate primary and junior primary schools, the process that has surrounded this whole project, which was announced by the government in a previous budget, has been, I think, appalling and is one that has let down many of the communities that surround those schools.

It is a process which was commenced by the now Premier (the then education minister, Hon. Mr Weatherill) and which has been continued by the new education minister, the Hon. Ms Portolesi. I note a media statement that was made by the member for Unley in another place, Mr David Pisoni, who is the shadow minister for education. I will read an excerpt from that media statement which I think sums up some of the appalling nature of this process:

Committees 'reviewing' the forced amalgamations of primary schools will be paid $375,000, Freedom of Information documents reveal.

However it appears Premier Weatherill has little intention of reconsidering a decision Labor has already announced and will continue to defend.

...schools forced to amalgamate were told to expect to lose up to $365,000 in annual funding, leading to cuts to Leadership music classes, sports programs, IT and teacher support staff.

'Mr Weatherill's first budget as Education Minister set savings of $8.2 million from these school amalgamations as part of $100 million in education cuts including cuts to school security and maintenance, bus services and basic skills testing programs,' Mr Pisoni said.

Mr Pisoni went on to say:

Departmental advice to Mr Weatherill in May last year—

that is, May 2011—

informed him that 'savings' from the amalgamations were estimated to 'exceed the approved cabinet decision'.

There seems little doubt that the Review Committee's role is to defend Mr Weatherill's education cuts.

Mr Weatherill approved $375,000 in board member payments with the full expectation of recovering this cost and more with greater cuts to school budgets.

Mr Weatherill's ally, and hapless successor, Minister Portolesi has been left to continue the charade.

As many members of this chamber would know, review panels were set up in all of the schools involved in this amalgamation process. Those review panels had ministerial nominees. In some cases, where it was felt that the representation of the school parent body was not adequate, an additional fourth ministerial appointee was made, but that was a parent.

There have been lots of issues raised with me, and some questions, from people in those affected school communities, and I would like to put them on the record. First: was it in fact true that the ministerial nominees were called into the head office of DECD prior to the meetings of the review panels to be briefed or, some might say, instructed on what role they would play? I have also been asked as to whether directions were given to minister's nominees to take into account anomalies and to raise these in the panel discussions.

I have also had parent communities ask me whether minister's nominees were allowed to vote on their own views or were they voting on instructions? An example of that was at Largs Bay, where I understand there was no support, written or oral, for the proposed amalgamation, but despite that certain minister's nominees voted in favour of the amalgamation.

I also understand that some generic reports were written. Some school communities are keen to see copies of these reports and also the minority reports, which were created after panels had settled their decisions (when the decision was unanimous not to amalgamate). So, you can understand the community's confusion as to why a minority report would be submitted when there was a unanimous decision not to amalgamate. Indeed, in some schools the panels minuted that there was no need for a minority report, but there was a minority report submitted anyway.

Another question that has been raised with me is whether the minority reports were signed, and this question arises because certain ministers' nominees were not even aware of a minority report until it was submitted and a copy emailed to them with their name on it. Another point is that some ministerial appointees have been paid but, due to the anomaly of the fourth ministerial representative being appointed as a parent, as I mentioned earlier, I understand that those parent ministerial nominees have not been paid for their services.

Finally, my understanding is that the administration staff who served as the confidential secretaries of those panels have not been paid as they were promised. They are some matters that are of concern about the process in which those panels were implemented and the way in which it would seem that they have been manipulated.

On 30 April, I understand that the minister (Hon. Grace Portolesi) wrote to the school communities involved in the process to indicate her situation, and I have a copy of the letter she wrote to the principals of the two schools at Para Hills, which is an area I have some responsibility for in the Liberal Party, but I am also well aware of that community. I quote, in part:

I have considered the review committee's report and the recommendations made therein. As well as considering the broader implications that the amalgamation of your schools would have on the public education system, after visiting the schools to speak with school leaders and staff and my consideration of all of the information before me, I have determined to proceed with the amalgamation of the Para Hills Junior Primary School and the Para Hills Primary School. The schools will operate as a single reception to year 7 school from the start of the 2013 school year.

It is interesting that in that excerpt the minister talks about her visit to the school. In front of me, I have an email from an officer of DECD to, I think, one of the principals at Para Hills at 3.58pm on Thursday 15 March to indicate that the minister would be visiting the school at 8.30am the next day. It indicated, 'The minister would like to have a meeting with you, a tour of the school and meet with some students and teachers, if possible.' Without any mention of parents, of course there is no invitation for parents to be involved in that.

I would like to read a letter that does, I think, go into some detail as to why these schools should have been treated as different entities and not all as one. This letter is written from the Para Hills Schools Governing Council, and it indicates that this is a school that is different from many others. This letter was written on 4 April 2012, and it says:

Dear [minister],

Upon your attendance to our school sites, we are sure you would have developed an understanding of the topography of our sites and that in reality, the two schools are not co-located, but rather they are spread out over 7 Hectares and are separated by 300 metres of steep terrain, with a drop of 10 metres and a gradient of 1 in 30.

There is no boundary separating our schools from a flood-prone gully and a large local shopping precinct on the northern boundary which is centrally located between the two current sites. If we were to become one site with only one principal and deputy as an amalgamated school, the ability of the leadership team to provide adequate support across such a sprawling site will possess serious OHS&W issues for both our children and staff.

There are currently three flights of steep steps to negotiate between the two schools over the two levels, and this results in there being no disabled/pram access between the two sites. Movement between the two levels has been timed at between six to eight minutes for adults and about 10 to 12 minutes for children. Child, parent and staff movement between the two sites up and down the steep terrain to access specialist areas such as one administration, one library, one ICT suite will reduce our children's learning time and their time on task and compromise the quality of their learning outcomes.

Under the proposed amalgamation for a single administration area would present serious logistical problems for families needing to access office facilities including signing children in and out, fee payment and first aid access just to name a few. It will also jeopardise our children's safety and duty of care requirements and present access and mobility issues for our children and people with a physical disability.

One principal across the two sites will also risk student safety and compromise OH&S regulations. Subsequently, it would contribute to increased staff workloads, work stress and low staff morale, exposing DECD to additional risk and all of this would also be to the detriment of our children.

We believe the topography and distance creates a barrier between the two schools, much as the road between the Port Lincoln schools and the distance between the Pennington schools.

I interpose to say that the junior primary and primary schools at Port Lincoln and the junior primary and primary schools at Pennington were not listed for amalgamation by the government due to their complex topography issues, even though those topography issues are not dissimilar to the Para Hills issues. I will continue with the letter:

We too have obvious site complexities unique to Para Hills schools which would make an amalgamation unreasonable, unsafe and not cost effective. Governing council are aware that these two sites named above were not even listed for amalgamation by your government due to their complex topography issues, which are very similar to ours.

These are just a few of the very serious and major concerns that we as parents on the governing council wish to bring to your attention. We hope that it would be blatantly obvious to you after attending our sites and understanding these complex issues and concerns that we should not be amalgamated. The expense alone to amalgamate our two sites into one after addressing the safety issues would far outweigh the money your government hopes to save by amalgamating us.

We therefore request that you seriously take into consideration the implications an amalgamation would have on our children's educational, social, health and safety, not to mention the staff, parents and visitors to the schools.

In closing we would like to request that you uphold the recommendation of the review committee which was as follows:

That Para Hills Junior Primary and Primary Schools not be amalgamated.

That DECD conduct an immediate site risk assessment to attend to compliance expectations.

Thank you for taking the time to overlook the very serious concerns that we as parents feel will seriously impact on our children and their learning, and issues that will arise if an amalgamation was to take place of our school sites. We will look forward to a favourable outcome.

Yours faithfully,

Kerry Faggotter

Chairperson

Para Hills Schools Governing Council

That decision has been made—which is totally unsuitable—to amalgamate. I can attest to the topography of that site and the difficulties that that will cause as a joint facility. However, I want to raise tonight issues about the manner in which the whole process of amalgamations has been undertaken.

Certainly, the establishment of the review panels has been a facade. They have been set up to come up with a result, even though there have been those strong views by so many of those schools that they should not be amalgamated. Yet there were these minority reports that were brought up, even though there was no evidence backing them up, and the names of ministerial representatives were put on those minority reports when they had no knowledge of it.

Having made those comments about that particular matter, I reiterate that I appreciate the opportunity to make some comment about the public services which the Public Service provides to the community of South Australia via the government. I support the facilitation and continuing delivery of public services by public servants, which is facilitated by this bill, I support the role of public servants and their commitment to delivering services to the people of South Australia, and I support the bill.

The Hon. J.S. LEE (18:01): I rise today to support the second reading of the Supply Bill 2012. This important bill ensures that our public servants and government departments continue to be funded pending the announcement and subsequent approval by this parliament of the 2012-13 budget. As I understand it, the Supply Bill provides for some $3.161 billion to be expended prior to the required appropriations being in place. It is important that we ensure that those billions of dollars are spent efficiently and effectively in areas that will provide the very best benefit to the 1.6 million people living across South Australia.

After a decade of Labor, unfortunately South Australia is now in an economic mess. The government of the day is in power to help their constituents and businesses to ease economic and social pressure. However, since the last budget things in South Australia have merely worsened. Households and businesses are drowning in excess costs, the state's taxes are consistently rising, and our deficit and debt are the worst they have been since the early 1990s. In six years, this Labor government will run five budget deficits, and this is coming from a treasurer who said he would not be running up a large credit card debt. It is unfortunate that Labor continues to spend more than South Australia earns. To me, it is common sense that if you spend more than you earn it will only set you up for disaster.

In 2012, Labor will run the largest deficit in nearly 20 years. Once the new rail yard Royal Adelaide Hospital is completed, the state's debt will reach $11 billion. This is a similar debt figure to that which we had after the collapse of the State Bank in the early 1990s. The mind-boggling factor is that the interest this state will need to find per day will be $2 million. The Labor government will be wasting $2 million per day on interest to cover their erratic spending habits rather than investing and trying to improve the state's health system, education system, law and order, or transport infrastructure. For 10 years, this Labor government has been unable to control spending and has gone over budget by a total of $3.3 billion. Labor even forecast a $424 million surplus for 2011, but now this has deteriorated to a $367 million deficit.

Three independent reports by the Commonwealth Grants Commission, Institute of Public Affairs and Pitcher Partners have confirmed that under the Labor government South Australia has become the highest taxed state in the nation. South Australia's tax revenue has increased by 81 per cent, proving that we are now the highest taxed state in the nation. This government is taxing our population and businesses at more aggressive levels than any other state. For example, South Australia's land tax is 40 per cent above the Australian average, insurance tax is 53 per cent above the Australian average and stamp duty is 27 per cent above the Australian average. Raising taxes is Labor's way of getting the community to cover their economic mishaps and their bad budget decisions. This government has recklessly spent money on projects the state could not afford and continues to spend money on things, clearly stating its intentions are not in the right place.

It is reckless spending like that that negatively influences the state's finances, which then will guide the leading economists to make assumptions that the state of South Australia is in recession. It is quite reasonable for them to think that, because when you look at it we have a record now for the worst economic growth in the nation. South Australia has the worst business confidence in the nation, the worst retail figures in the nation and also the worst housing finance commitments. In terms of building approvals, we have the worst building approvals in 11 years, and the real estate figures have been the worst in 27 years as well.

South Australia's households are suffering, and the 2011-12 'family' budget, as the Treasurer would like to call it, has done nothing but add to the living costs of families who are struggling during the economic climate. While current costs are consistently rising, it shows how out of touch this government truly is with the average Australian. The media headlines actually prove this: 'Price pressure hits strugglers hardest', The Advertiser of 22 May 2012; 'Cost of living is voters' key fear', The Advertiser of 6 April 2012; 'Blow to Labor's economic message: Households feeling the pinch', The Advertiser of 29 March 2012; 'Constant price rising hurting families', The Advertiser of28 March; and 'Power prices biggest worry', The Advertiser of 20 March. All these headlines are not just there to sell newspapers. They report the concerns of the wider community and they are something that the government should consider seriously.

Because the Supply Bill allows the government to pay its bills, including the wages of public servants, until the passage of the budget, I cannot help but notice that during 2010-11 the Department of the Premier and Cabinet reported seven employees who earn in excess of $300,000 a year. It is staggering to think that within the Premier's department there are seven people who each earn more than the Premier himself. The hypocrisy of the Premier beggars belief. On the one hand he happily cuts funding to the Keith hospital, and sells forward rotations of the forests and SA Lotteries, while on the other hand he maintains a team of high-end public servants who earn in excess of $2 million.

It must be devastating for people to be confronted with this when they live in the nation's highest taxed state, with the third highest electricity bills in the world and soon the carbon tax, all while Mr Weatherill, the Premier, continues to feed his government's addiction to waste. Mr Weatherill, the Premier, needs to explain to South Australians why seven of his department's public servants are paid more than the Premier and how they contribute more than the people of South Australia, than the Keith hospital, than assets like the forests important to the South-East. With those few words, I support the passage of the Supply Bill and I urge the government to review their decisions in the budget.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO (Minister for Agriculture, Food and Fisheries, Minister for Forests, Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Tourism, Minister for the Status of Women) (18:08): I believe there are no further contributions to the second reading of the Supply Bill. I would now like to take this opportunity to make a few concluding remarks. Firstly, I would like to thank all honourable members for their second reading contributions and just state that this bill provides for government service delivery until the budget has been passed by the parliament and the Appropriation Bill 2012 receives assent. In the absence of special arrangements in the form of the Supply Act, there would be no parliamentary authority for expenditure between the start of the new financial year and the date on which the assent is given for the main appropriation bill.

In closing the debate, I just want to emphasise some of the achievements of the government's economic management. The South Australian gross state product growth in the last financial year was 2.4 per cent. This was the third highest of the states and higher than the national average of 2.1 per cent. Export incomes in South Australia are near record highs, with growth in South Australia outperforming the national average, based on ABS data. In the 12 months to January 2012 the value of South Australia's overseas goods exports rose by 25 per cent, the highest growth rate amongst the states, and private new capital expenditure is at high levels in South Australia, growing by 3.6 per cent over the year to the December quarter.

The state government's investment in critical infrastructure and transport projects has boosted the construction sector; for example, the investment in a new RAH, the Adelaide Oval redevelopment, the electrification of the rail network and the South Road Superway project. While there have been variable conditions across various sectors of the national and state economies, the latest Bank SA business confidence survey shows 70 per cent of businesses surveyed are positive about their own future, an increase of 11 per cent.

I also want to reiterate some of the major initiatives of the state government in the 2011-12 budget. We have made a record investment of $4.6 billion in the 2011-12 year to help cater for the demands of growing and complex health needs. We have a state-of-the-art health system that we should be very proud of, one that continually outranks many other states in Australia. This government has also prioritised funding for community services and provided $140.7 million over four years to support those who need it most in our community. That includes provisions for disability, families and carers and also for reducing waiting lists for equipment and such like.

We have also focused on the education system, with an extra $56.1 million to be spent over the next four years on initiatives that include $18.8 million over four years to expand and improve facilities through the construction and refurbishment of infrastructure in many schools. The government has committed about $22 million to the 2011-12 budget to keep our community safe by supporting our emergency services and justice system.

Additionally, in the mid year budget review the government and BHP Billiton announced $25 million over two years to upgrade the road between Port Augusta and Olympic Dam to facilitate the safe and efficient transport of goods and the Olympic Dam expansion. The government's record speaks for itself, and we continue to provide responsible fiscal management for the benefit of all South Australians. I thank honourable members who contributed and look forward to the Supply Bill being dealt with expeditiously.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

Bill taken through committee without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. G.E. GAGO (Minister for Agriculture, Food and Fisheries, Minister for Forests, Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Tourism, Minister for the Status of Women) (18:14): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.

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