Parliamentary Avoidance

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY


Thursday 21 June 2007

The SPEAKER (Hon. J.J. Snelling) took the chair at 10.30 a.m. and read prayers.

SCHOOLS, WORKCOVER LEVY


The Hon. I.F. EVANS (Davenport): My question is to the Minister for Education and Children's Services. Why is the government considering a workers compensation levy on all public schools and preschools of up to 1 per cent on salaries; and how does the minister expect schools and preschools to cope with this and other new costs on schools being considered? The principal of Hamilton Secondary College, Doug Moyle, has written to his governing council as follows:
Please find attached a partial copy of an email sent to all Hamilton staff on Wednesday 30/5/07. It outlines the estimated reduced funding the Hamilton Secondary College will receive in 2008. It amounts to some $228 000—much worse than I initially reported at the last council meeting. . . The only discretionary funding that schools receive from the government is the `School Support Grant'—all other funds are tied (legally) to other purposes. Our support grant for 2007 is around $170 000. The cuts would wipe this out. . . We simply cannot run the college without this School Support Grant and it means that we will have to make cuts to staffing. This will increase class sizes, reduce individual attention to students and ultimately impact negatively on learning outcomes. For us $220 000 is around three teachers or 33 semester courses we would have to shed.
The Hon. J.D. LOMAX-SMITH (Minister for Educa¬tion and Children's Services): The honourable member is referring to measures that were in place in last year's budget. I remind him that up until last year's budget we had invested 38 per cent more in funding per capita, on average, for every child in our state. This year we have increased $127 million into our school system above that of last year.
We have the biggest reform agenda ever—
Members interjecting:
The SPEAKER: Order!
The Hon. J.D. LOMAX-SMITH: —whereby funding in our system has increased by $3 600, on average, per child since we came into government. The thing that those opposite cannot stand is that we have a massive reform agenda, which includes across portfolio activity: every chance for every child, an agenda for early childhood, an agenda for early intervention and a whole range of preschool activities, in terms of children's centres. We have reduced class sizes; we have invested in education; we have a new SACE system; we are building trade schools; and we have a strategy of school to work reforms, which are the pride of our nation, in terms of a reform agenda.
As part of that reform agenda, I make no apology for the fact that we are redirecting some funds within our schools. However, at the end of the day, more money, more dollars, smaller class sizes and more teachers are going into educa¬tion. To pretend, as the member for Davenport does, that any adjustments in school funding will affect staffing is clearly wrong. Quite simply put, that is because our staffing formula is set within our EB arrangements. The number of teachers per class is set within that agreement and, in reality, one of our agendas has been to reduce class sizes and employ more teachers and counsellors to provide more support throughout our schools. So, to pretend that there will be a reduction in teachers is just plain wrong.
The member for Davenport is suggesting that he should discuss last year's budget (and he is very welcome to do so, because he was not the opposition spokesperson at the time that was released), but the reality is that those matters are under consultation, and the suggestion with respect to funding levels is purely speculation. It was in a press release in September—breaking news. But he did not notice it. How could that be? In September 2006, it was in a press release. The reality is that the savings targets put in that budget are being redirected into education. At the end of the day, more money and more funding will go into education. Those redirections, of course, include other issues, such as water funding. Schools use a lot of water, and we have already reduced usage in 300 schools to our targets. So, less money is being spent, and those savings are being redirected into schools.

SCHOOL FEES


The Hon. I.F. EVANS (Davenport): Does the Minister for Education and Children's Services support schools increasing school fees to offset the proposed extra WorkCover and industrial relations costs on schools? The Craigburn Primary School in my electorate has written to its school community, and the letter states:
The Government has instructed the Department of Education and Children's Services (DECS) to make a cut to their overall budget. At Craigburn the total cost of these `savings' to be taken from our revenue will be $50 000 $60 000. In order to fund the estimated cuts of $50 $60K to our funding for next year Craigburn will either have to fund this money from our discretionary budget or raise the Materials and Services Charge for every student by $100.
The Hon. J.D. LOMAX-SMITH (Minister for Educa¬tion and Children's Services): The member for Davenport has got all of his wires crossed and quite tangled. The materials and services charges are not raised in order to pay salaries or to pay for staffing fees. It is quite clear that there is some confusion. Whilst there are—
Members interjecting:
The SPEAKER: Order! Whatever members might think of the minister's answer, she is not debating; she is offering information. Interjections are designed purely to disrupt the house. We have a few minutes to go. I ask members to contain themselves so we can get through the next few minutes without my having to name someone.
The Hon. J.D. LOMAX-SMITH: As I said before, more money is going into education—$127 million more than last year. There has been a massive reform agenda with more money every year, and this year is no different. It is quite true that there are some savings tasks that relate to water usage and electricity usage, as well as changes in the way that workers compensation is administered. Many of those targets have already been met. The reality is that, whilst one might say there is clearly going to be a 25 per cent cut in funding for water usage because schools are very high users, it is in fact quite reasonable that schools, as well as all other government departments, should aim to achieve the savings in water usage that is part of our State Strategic Plan. Those targets are being met. As the targets for water usage are being met, the savings are well met, and therefore there is no effective cut in funding to schools.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: I have a supplementary question. Can the materials and services charge in schools be increased to offset costs to curriculum budget because money has been taken out of curriculum budgets to fund the extra cost placed on schools like the WorkCover levy proposed by government?
The Hon. J.D. LOMAX-SMITH: The education budget covers the cost of employing staff and their materials, and that is not part of the allowable charges through the fees and materials charge.