Mr BELL (Mount Gambier) (11:34): I move:

That this house—

(a) recognises that regional schools are disadvantaged by the current Across Government Facilities Management Arrangements (AGFMA), which require Ventia-approved contractors to carry out all maintenance;

(b) acknowledges there is a shortage of Ventia-approved contractors in regional areas, which leads to increased project expenses for country schools and increased stress in principals; and

(c) calls on the state government to allow principals to manage maintenance projects up to $100,000 and engage local contractors.

I would encourage every regional MP to get out and talk to the principals of their schools. A couple of weeks ago, I booked meetings with every principal of the public schools in my electorate, and I went around and talked to them about issues that they are facing.

What became very apparent to me was that a lot of our public schools are looking tired. Principals were explaining to me the huge cost of basic maintenance in regional areas, and I will explain some of the outrageous costs in a minute. We have to have a better system. We have to have a better way. I really do encourage every regional MP to make sure that they get out and talk to principals. Do it in a two-week block so you get real examples of current themes coming through your schools.

Every student deserves to learn in an environment that is safe, well maintained and equipped with the necessary resources to support their education. The school environment plays a crucial role in fostering academic achievement, student engagement and overall wellbeing. For students, having access to essential school facilities can significantly improve their educational journey. Their physical environment fosters motivation, engagement and a sense of belonging, which not only enhances their academic achievement, it also contributes greatly to their emotional wellbeing and fosters a sense of pride amongst students and their school.

As parents, we want to be confident that our children are attending schools that meet the necessary standards and provide a safe and suitable learning environment. We want to ensure our children have equal access to resources and facilities, regardless of where they go to school. For educators, having well-equipped facilities is essential for effective teaching and learning. Adequate resources such as modern classrooms, libraries and technology empower teachers to deliver high-quality instruction and engage students in interactive and meaningful learning experiences. Accessible facilities, including ramps and bathrooms, are also essential to ensure inclusivity, enabling all students, including those with disabilities, to actively participate in their educational pursuits.

With all this in mind, I recently spent three days visiting public schools in my electorate and speaking with their principals. I wanted to see firsthand what the conditions are like in the buildings that house and educate our regional students and how the system is working for principals in completing maintenance issues once they are identified. What was very evident is that our public schools need a facelift.

My electorate has a fantastic number of small schools providing a wonderful education experience for country students. A majority of those principals spoke to me about the issues they were having losing students to our local private schools. As one principal said:

We can't compete with the shiny new buildings down the road. I have parents tour the private school, then come here and see the windows painted shut, paint peeling off the walls and they go straight back to the private school. It has nothing to do with the education that we can provide them.

At one of the 11 schools I visited, there was a vast array of maintenance and facilities issues, ranging from fresh coats of paint to a new gymnasium. A consistent theme throughout discussions was that current Across Government Facilities Management Arrangements, which require Ventia-approved contractors to carry out all maintenance and building works, are not serving our regional schools.

The system may be effective in Adelaide with multiple contractors competing for jobs. However, it presents huge challenges for our local schools in the region. For many cases, schools have limited options, often needing to hire tradespeople or building companies from Adelaide and being forced to do this. This results in huge additional project costs, as schools are required to cover travel and accommodation expenses for contractors, as well as extensive time delays in completing projects as contractors are travelling to and from Adelaide and the job each week.

I was given multiple examples throughout my visits of how these additional unnecessary costs were putting essential maintenance projects out of reach for schools. One example was from a primary school that had a new young student start with a tendency for jumping the fence. This school is adjacent to a main road, so it was very concerning and very stressful for the principal. It was deemed as a matter of urgency that the fence height needed to be lifted.

Going through the government system, there were no local contractors available and a quote was provided by an Adelaide company. The quote was $65,000, and the fence was no longer than you to me in distance, Mr Speaker. A local contractor who is not Ventia approved contacted the school and provided a quote of $2,000—$65,000 versus $2,000 by a local contractor.

Another school I visited required a permanent outdoor shelter to provide a safe, undercover outdoor play area. It does often rain in Mount Gambier. The school had managed to save $70,000 towards the project, and this was just a single outdoor basketball court, again no longer than from me standing here to you sitting there, Mr Speaker, putting it undercover. As I said, the school had managed to save $70,000. A local contractor had quoted the job at $100,000. The principal was required to go through the Ventia system and was given an official quote of $300,000. Needless to say, that project is not going ahead, and there is still no undercover outdoor play area for students.

The same issues are also occurring with smaller maintenance requirements. A local primary school has always had the same local company clean their gutters, once a year in July just after the leaves have finished falling and the gutters need clearing before the main winter rainfall in the South-East. In December last year, they received a phone call from the new provider confirming that they were Ventia approved and would be arriving the following week to conduct gutter cleaning as instructed by Ventia. The school had not requested the clean and was unaware the request had been issued, particularly in December only five months after the gutters had previously been cleaned.

They requested the work order to be cancelled only to discover that another work order was raised, and the contractor carried out the work a week later, none of which was communicated to the school. To make things worse, the invoice for the unrequested gutter clean was sent to the school for a total of $5,437.39—$4,438 for labour, $902 in travel expenses from Adelaide. The local contractor who had performed the clean five months prior did it for a cost of $493.57—so $500 versus $5,500 to clean gutters. I am pretty sure what my next company is going to be if these prices are allowed to go on around our schools.

Another example I was presented with was from a small school that was advised in October last year that a student would be joining the school in February this year who was high needs and would require a disabled toilet, something they currently do not have. The school immediately sent through the request for what they required to accommodate this student. They are still waiting for a response, and staff are having to help in their usual, small, cramped facilities that are not disabled approved.

One school that had managed to fund upgrades to their classrooms spoke to me about the long time frame taken for projects to be completed, during which time students were being taught in makeshift classrooms. The building company that was awarded the contract was from Adelaide. The workers begin their day on a Monday, travelling down from Adelaide, being paid. Then they rock up on site, on Tuesday, work through until Thursday and on Friday travel back to Adelaide, being paid.

Now, I certainly don't begrudge workers being paid to travel. What I do take issue with is that of five days when people should be on site they are effectively on site for three days, because they are travelling on the Monday and the Friday and getting paid the rates that they would also get paid if they were on site for those two days.

There has to be a more efficient way of spending our taxpayer dollars to maintain our government-owned schools. A solution I am proposing is to tackle this issue by giving principals the authority and the tools they need to manage some of these maintenance issues themselves and engage local contractors; normally you will find parents or grandparents of students who go to that school.

In Victoria, all schools are required to develop and maintain a five-year maintenance plan to help budget, schedule and manage the maintenance of their buildings and grounds. Principals are responsible for this maintenance with their student resource allocation funding. The school maintenance plan supports the schools to address maintenance issues identified through the Rolling Facilities Evaluation, which is a five-yearly assessment of the condition of the school's buildings and other infrastructure that is carried out by the Victorian School Building Authority.

This evaluation is followed by a condition assessment report. The report identifies school defects; the priority and recommended timing to address the defects; actions needed to address the defects; the types of tradespeople required to address the issue; and issues that may require further investigation. The school is then able to tailor their school maintenance plan to their unique school environment while being guided by the Rolling Facilities Evaluation recommendations and available maintenance budget delivered by the Victorian government.

Schools are then responsible for implementing the endorsed school maintenance plan, including completing scheduled maintenance activities and ensuring the plan is constantly updated to reflect changes.

The key parts of the Victorian system that I am proposing we adopt are the government taking responsibility for assessing the maintenance required for its schools and then empowering school principals to manage non-major infrastructure decisions for their schools without them being required to use Ventia.

This could be achieved by the education department visiting our schools and identifying their maintenance needs, most of which would already be identified. Major projects would still have to be dealt with via the current Ventia system; however, smaller projects and maintenance with an estimated cost of $100,000 or less can be managed by the principal. They would be required to obtain three quotes—this is the Victorian system. Those quotes are then presented to and approved by the school's governing council.

While this is not a fix-all solution, what it does is empower the principals to make the best decisions for their schools, utilising local tradespeople and securing the most cost-effective quotes, enabling more projects to be completed within allocated funding. It also fosters community support, investment and connection to our local public schools. Let's empower our regional schools to provide the best environment and also, importantly, value for money and quality education to our country students, parents and the taxpayers of South Australia.

...

Mr BELL (Mount Gambier) (12:22): I want to thank the members for Giles, Morialta, Narungga, Flinders and Frome. I also add that the member for MacKillop also supports the motion but is away because of another meeting that he had at the same time. He wanted me to mention that.

What is really disappointing is when people on the ground—and I think the member for Narungga said this the best—were forewarned of exactly what was going to happen and the difficulties, particularly for regional areas, where there are tradesmen there but they are not Ventia-approved. This is a very key point: people who perhaps live in the metropolitan area or another part do not have the same connection to a community.

There is an example of a preschool that was built for $1.8 million under a Ventia contract. Eighteen months later the roof leaks, and the contractor is refusing to come back to Mount Gambier to fix that type of maintenance issue. In fact, a local plumber has gone out and looked at it and believes the entire roof needs to be taken off and replaced, because it has not been done correctly.

So if we are going to pay these exorbitant prices you would expect that the care and backup support for a principal for a leaky roof on an 18-month old building would also be there, but unfortunately, again, this principal is feeling very much abandoned by Ventia and very much not supported in dealing with an issue that should be looked at.

I really want to thank all the speakers for making a contribution to this. I applaud the government for doing the review and looking for unintended consequences around this. We have to be able to do better. The amount of money that is being spent is not being spent wisely. I have been shown buildings that have cost a school $500,000 and quite literally it is a transportable rectangle that you could build for $35,000. There are no bathrooms in there. There are no bedrooms in there. They are a rectangular building, called a classroom, that is transported onto site. How they cost half a million dollars is absolutely beyond me.

Like I said, the intent behind this motion is to support our public schools, to make sure that we can deliver the best outcome for our kids who are in public schools, and support our principals who are, again, dealing with exorbitant costs, time delays and, quite honestly, a very unsatisfactory situation. With that, I commend the motion to the house.

Amendment carried; motion as amended carried.