Dozens of Victorian public schools upgrades delayed until after state election
Dozens of Victorian public schools will be waiting until after the next state election for key infrastructure projects – promised by the then premier Daniel Andrews in 2022 – to come to fruition.
Prior to the November 2022 state election, Andrews pledged to spend $850m upgrading 89 schools, to be completed by the end of 2026. The upgrades were later extended to 96 schools.
This week's 2025-26 budget papers revealed 28 of the schools would be waiting for the promised capital works – which included new gymnasiums, performing arts and science centres and new learning spaces – until at least 2027, after the next state election.
Last year's 2024-25 budget allocated $227m to deliver promised capital upgrades at 25 of the schools, with the rest allocated funding in previous budgets. It pushed funding for the further 29 schools into this year's budget.
Tuesday's budget papers confirmed just one of the 29 projects would be completed by October 2026, with the rest languishing until 2027 at the earliest.
The budget, the first delivered by the new treasurer, Jaclyn Symes, included $1.5bn to deliver new schools, upgrades and maintenance, as part of the state government's promise to build 100 new schools across Victoria by 2026.
In total, just five of the 96 promised upgrades had been completed and 11 were in construction, almost three years after their announcement. The rest remained in the design or planning stage, the Victorian School Building Authority (VSBA) website showed.
For St Kilda Primary School, this year's budget was yet another disappointment, seven years after the state government delivered $10.5m to upgrade the campus. As part of the upgrade, its hall was demolished in 2020 to make way for new capital works.
Sign up for Guardian Australia's breaking news email
One parent, Caroline Thornton, has been lobbying with more than 200 families and students to draw attention to the funding need. Some 440 students have no indoor space for assemblies or physical education.
'St Kilda Primary is the largest school in the area with no facilities to accommodate … inclement weather, and nowhere to hold events,' she said. 'The state government promised a replacement hall, but this part of the school's master plan remains unfunded.'
Victoria's shadow minister for education, Jess Wilson, said Labor had 'broken its promise to deliver these desperately needed projects by November 2026'.
'The Allan Labor government has put a go-slow on these upgrades and the needs of students on pause as it scrambles to pay Victoria's more than one million dollar an hour interest bill,' she said.
But Victoria's education minister, Ben Carroll, said the Liberals were 'lying to Victorians' and the budget had delivered funding on 'every promised school upgrade'.
'Our priority is – and has always been – that every child, no matter where they live, has access to a world-class education for free in a Victorian government school backed by full and fair funding,' he said.
Meanwhile, environment groups say nature and biodiversity has been short-changed by the Victorian budget.
Environment Victoria welcomed new money for efficient electric hot water and home insulation, but raised concerns about the lack of support for nature or threatened species.
Nature campaigner Greg Foyster said 'If the government wants to invest in the great outdoors for the longer term, we need to see a massive increase in funding for parks and reserves, biodiversity programs and saving threatened species.'
'The Parliamentary Inquiry into Ecosystem Decline recommended increasing funding for parks and reserves to 1% of gross state product. One percent doesn't seem too much to ask to ensure the survival of all the animals, plants, wetlands, forests and special places in Victoria, but the current funding is pitifully small,' he said.
Sign up to Breaking News Australia
Get the most important news as it breaks
after newsletter promotion
Energy and environment department funding was down overall in 2025-26 compared to the previous year. The budget also included a 19% cut to environment and biodiversity, and a reduction in funding for the management of public land and forests of 26%.
The Victorian National Parks Association said the budget also locked in previous cuts to Parks Victoria and fisheries officers, with few new initiatives for nature.
'Last year we saw Parks Victoria hit with severe staff cuts, arbitrary reviews and the sacking of an experienced CEO. That's no way to treat the agency responsible for looking after the places millions of Victorians love and rely on,' said VNPA Matt Ruchel.
On Tuesday, environment minister Steve Dimopoulos said in a statement: 'We're taking care of our native wildlife and environment while making sure Victorian families can continue to enjoy our amazing zoos and our incredible great outdoors for less.'
But the minister did not respond to questions about cuts to environment.
Victorian Labor faces continued pressure over recent revelations by the Age that $2.4bn in funding for state schools was quietly delayed in last year's 2024-25 budget, pushing back its commitment to fully fund public schools by three years to 2031.
It places Victoria three years behind Queensland, which has committed to reach 75% of the Schooling Resource Standard (SRS) by 2028, and six years behind New South Wales, which is due to reach the benchmark this year.
Speaking on ABC Melbourne on Wednesday, the premier, Jacinta Allan, was asked if it was fair for Gonski funding to be delayed by three years.
'We are working through the terms of the agreement with the federal government,' she said.
'Because what's not OK is that in the past, government schools have not been funded as fairly as non-government schools.
A spokesperson for the federal education minister, Jason Clare, said an agreement had been reached with Victoria to increase the commonwealth funding share to 25% of the SRS by 2034 and, in return, Victoria must reach and maintain the remaining 75%.
But when it did so was up to them.
'The minister will not be negotiating this bilateral agreement through the media.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
BBC News
4 hours ago
- BBC News
Aberdeenshire Council set to pause mothballing of four nurseries
Aberdeenshire Council is set to recommend pausing the mothballing of four rural local authority informed parents in April that Ballogie, Crossroads, Glass and Sandhaven nurseries would close at the end of this leader Gillian Owen said the council could potentially review its guidance so that it included a consultation process with parents.A meeting of the full council planned for Monday is expected to be asked to approve a review. Mothballing means closing a premises, but keeping it in a condition ready for future use. Last month, Aberdeenshire's education committee noted a decision to mothball the the Scottish government then wrote to the authority to highlight the need to consult parents in such Owen said on Friday: "We acknowledge the strong feelings concerning the four settings and appreciate the concerns of parents who highly value their local early learning facilities."We are trying to balance the needs of children and families, with a challenging financial position - but it is critical we do this in the right way." 'Unusual step' Ms Owen said the council's administration would recommend that planning for all future mothballing activity be paused while the guidance was said: "Whilst we have been engaging with parents, we need to consult at a much earlier stage to inform the decision-making process, and we will explore how to integrate this into the procedure."We are taking the unusual step of announcing our intention prior to the meeting in the hope that we remove further anxiety for the people who have made requests to speak."Aberdeenshire Council said its mothballing guidance had been used successfully for many years to support changes in education in response to local circumstances.
The Guardian
4 hours ago
- The Guardian
China has a stranglehold on the world's rare-earths supply chain. Can Australia break it?
Weeks after China retaliated against Donald Trump's tariffs by suspending exports of a range of rare-earth elements and related high-powered magnets, Ford was forced to pause a production line in Chicago. Days later, executives from other major carmakers, including General Motors and Toyota, told the White House their suppliers faced an impending shortage of necessary materials that could shut assembly lines. The speed of the fallout shows just how reliant the world has become on China's mineral supply chain and its production of rare-earth magnets , used in everything from wind turbines and medical devices to combustion and electric motors, and ballistic missile guidance systems. The Albanese government believes it can help break China's dominance, but experts say the challenge is enormous. Prof John Mavrogenes, from the Australian National University's research school of earth sciences, says the government needs to dramatically boost its investment in skills, education and technology if it wants to develop the domestic capability to manufacture rare-earth products, namely magnets. 'The question over who can deal with the processing and the making of magnets is a really big one, and quite hard to get your head around because we've let China just take that business over,' says Mavrogenes. 'The question is capability. Who's ready to ramp up if we need to? One country that I know isn't ready is Australia. 'We need so many metallurgists and chemical engineers, and we need them tomorrow. We probably need 10, 20, 50 times more than we're producing.' China is a large producer of rare earths and has near-complete control over the refining processes needed to make the minerals useful. It produces about 90% of rare-earth magnets, completing its control of the supply chain. It has become a very efficient, cost-effective provider of rare-earth materials, although given some of the historical environmental damage caused by their extraction and processing, it has paid a price. Sign up for a weekly email featuring our best reads Economies around the world have benefited from China's rare earths industry. The system seemed to work, until it didn't. In 2010, China starved Japan's hi-tech manufacturing industries by halting shipments of rare earths for about two months, after a dispute over a detained Chinese fishing trawler captain. In late 2023, China formalised a ban on the export of rare-earth separation technologies. Two months ago, China placed export restrictions on seven strategically chosen rare earths and the end product, magnets. While the recent curbs were sparked by Trump's tariffs, Beijing applied the export controls to all countries. It has implemented a new export permit system, choking the world of supply. Rare-earth magnets need a lot of two light rare-earth elements, neodymium and praseodymium, which are not subject to China's export curbs. But more powerful, heat-resistant magnets used in automotive and defence industries tend to require dysprosium or terbium, which are called heavy rare earths because of their atomic weights. Dysprosium and terbium are on China's list of suspended rare earths, as is samarium, which is also used in hi-tech applications. Until recently, the desire to develop a rare earths sector has been pitched by governments as a means to fuel the transition to clean energy technology and electric vehicles. Sign up to Five Great Reads Each week our editors select five of the most interesting, entertaining and thoughtful reads published by Guardian Australia and our international colleagues. Sign up to receive it in your inbox every Saturday morning after newsletter promotion But now, it's also taken on the pressing aim of shoring up supplies of materials required for national interests, including defence. Australia, rich in resources, is seen as a natural competitor to China that could break into its rare-earths supply chain. The Albanese government has openly discussed this desire for well over two years, and officials have crisscrossed the country, from Dubbo in New South Wales to Western Australia and Northern Territory, offering grants, funding and other assistance in order to develop bona fide domestic processing capabilities. Notably, the government has backed the development of Iluka's Eneabba project in WA, which is designed to come online in 2027 and produce several rare-earth oxides, including dysprosium and terbium. Iluka's chief executive, Tom O'Leary, told shareholders last month the 'current industry is unsustainable, owing to China's monopoly position and approach'. 'It is a fact that rare earths are among very few metals where China has demonstrated a preparedness to withhold supply to achieve political or strategic objectives,' O'Leary said. Another Australian company, Lynas, is a step ahead, given it has some rare-earths processing capabilities out of Kalgoorlie. It relies on further refining at its factory in Malaysia, which recently became the first to separate heavy rare-earth elements, primarily dysprosium and terbium, outside China. The Labor government has also proposed setting up a strategic stockpile of critical minerals. While the details of this plan are scant, such a stockpile, by building up supplies, could provide pricing certainty for projects affected by the current monopoly market. The government's various funding announcements show that Australia is focusing on the initial extraction and refining of rare earths, but not on the process of turning that material into metals and, in turn, manufacturing magnets. There are mixed views on whether that is the right approach, given the strategy falls short of developing an end-to-end rare-earths supply chain in Australia, independent of China, as some had hoped for. There has also been limited discussion of the potential for magnet recycling in Australia. Rowena Smith, the chief executive of Australian Strategic Materials, says it is more realistic for Australia to partner with overseas magnet producers outside China than to quickly develop capabilities to produce magnets. 'The opportunity for Australia is to play to our strengths upstream and integrate with allied partners into those emerging magnet manufacturers,' says Smith. 'It would be ambitious to get this supply chain up rapidly in Australia, because you need every piece of the supply chain to come online simultaneously.'
The Guardian
4 hours ago
- The Guardian
Confusion and chaos reign in Tasmanian parliament with no endgame in sight
Craig Garland, the fisherman turned maverick independent MP from Tasmania's north-western corner, summed it up best when he told state parliament on Thursday morning he was 'a bit confused'. Garland wasn't confused about what he was doing – he calmly backed a no-confidence motion in the Liberal premier, Jeremy Rockliff. But he expressed doubts about how the Tasmanian parliament got here, and what lay ahead. Based on the reaction online and on talkback radio, many Tasmanians agree. From the outside – and to many on the inside – the events in parliament this week look like a form of collective madness that was entirely avoidable and, despite all the strong words, largely pointless. The vote of no-confidence in Rockliff, moved by the Labor leader Dean Winter, passed on Thursday afternoon by the barest of margins: 18-17. It has pushed the state to the brink of a fresh election just 15 months since the last one. Bizarrely, the state finds itself in this position despite all the major players – Liberals, Labor and the Greens – declaring loudly that an election is a bad idea and should not happen. Each had the power to prevent one. Which is not to say all are equally to blame. We need to briefly rewind 15 months. On 23 March last year, Tasmanians chose what some have called a rainbow parliament, and others have described as chaos: 14 Liberals, 10 Labor, five Greens, three MPs from the Jacqui Lambie Network (JLN) and three independents. No party was close to the 18 seats needed for a majority government, but the Liberals had a clear plurality of support. Winter declined to try to lead the state despite the crossbench being made up largely of progressive MPs, declaring he would never deal with the Greens. Sign up for a weekly email featuring our best reads Rockliff won a promise of support on confidence and budget supply from JLN and the independent David O'Byrne, a former Labor leader, who would prefer an ALP government but wanted the parliament to work. In the months that followed JLN fell apart and the government's position became more precarious. The sole remaining JLN MP, Andrew Jenner, refused to vote for a budget released in September, breaking his commitment to ensure the government survived. The then treasurer and deputy premier, Michael Ferguson, was forced to resign and move to the backbench when he faced what would have been a successful no-confidence vote over mismanagement of new Spirit of Tasmania ferries. And the Greens moved two no-confidence motions in Rockliff – one over a shelved gambling harm minimisation promise, the other over a controversial AFL stadium planned for Macquarie Point, on Hobart's waterfront. Despite the noise, the premier appeared relatively safe. Just last month, Labor argued the state needed a period of stability. That changed on Tuesday, when Winter surprised observers by tabling a no-confidence motion at the end of a budget reply speech, and declaring he would move it when it was clear it had enough support. It was a dare to both the crossbench and the government. But it was a tactic without a clear endgame. The motion was ostensibly about the budget, arguing Rockliff had wrecked the state's finances, planned to sell public assets and had mismanaged the ferries. Handed down five days earlier, the budget had been widely criticised for increasing debt and spending, and failing to provide solutions to structural problems. Some government supporters said it was the worst they had seen. But the opposition leader did not make a case for what Labor would do differently, and did not make a pitch to become premier if the no-confidence motion carried. The goal was to either push the Greens to side with Rockliff to prevent chaos or, more likely, claim the premier's scalp by forcing the Liberals to replace him, almost certainly with someone less popular. Neither happened. The motion quickly won backing on Tuesday from Garland, Jenner, and the independent Kristie Johnston (who had backed earlier no-confidence motions). The Greens declared their support after meeting on Wednesday morning. But the Greens did not want the motion to just be about the budget. The minor party tried to amend it to include a rejection of the stadium – one of the biggest issues dominating public debate in the state over the past year given the likely $1bn-plus cost, and because admission of the Tasmania Devils to the AFL hinges on it being built. Their leader, Rosalie Woodruff, also offered to work with Labor to try to form an alternative government. Both steps were rejected. The Greens knew they would be. They backed the motion anyway. Some commentary over the past week assumed the motion would lead to a Labor-Greens minority government. But the relationship between the two parties in the state is hostile, and they are ideologically miles apart. Winter's defining position since becoming Labor leader last year has been to argue for 'traditional industries' – including native forest logging, salmon farming and mining – and to reject suggestions he would work with the minor party. Winter did not speak with crossbenchers before tabling the no-confidence motion, and Labor and the Greens mostly voted against Rockliff for different reasons. Sign up to Five Great Reads Each week our editors select five of the most interesting, entertaining and thoughtful reads published by Guardian Australia and our international colleagues. Sign up to receive it in your inbox every Saturday morning after newsletter promotion There is deep history to this. Labor and the Greens fell out after governing in partnership from 2010 to 2014, a period in which two Greens held ministries. The relationship has become more distant under Winter, who is close to the former premier Paul Lennon, an assertively pro-industry and anti-green figure. It doesn't take much analysis to realise this raises questions about whether Labor can form government anytime soon, given it has lost four straight elections and has less than a third of seats in the state's lower house. It continues to argue it could win a majority. Labor and the Greens are also sharply divided over the stadium, which has become the most politically charged issue facing the state and driven significant public resentment against the government. Polls suggest a majority of the public are opposed to it in every electorate, especially in the state's parochial north. But the stadium has the support of both major parties – not least because neither wants to stand accused of killing the long-held dream of a Tasmanian AFL team, which still has overwhelming public support. There is a strong case that a new stadium will be needed in the state's capital for the club to be a success. But the state government spectacularly stuffed up the argument. It signed a lopsided deal under which the AFL pays a meagre $15m of the direct funding for the stadium's construction. Predictably, the cost of the stadium to taxpayers has blown out beyond Rockliff's initial pledge it would be capped at $375m. And the site itself is controversial. The premier has broken promises on the issue, most recently trying to push through legislation to circumvent the independent-heavy upper house from potentially blocking the stadium. Meanwhile, the AFL has refused to budge from its line – no stadium at Macquarie Point, no team. Critics including the Greens accuse the government of caving to AFL pressure, point to crises facing the state on housing and health, and argue a stadium cannot be justified. Some have claimed, without evidence, the AFL could be forced to redraw the deal. Some vocal critics don't care if there is a team. But that's not where most of the public is. It's a mess that continues to hurt the government, but doesn't necessarily win support for Labor. As the no-confidence motion was debated, Tasmania Devils executive Kath McCann broke down at a press conference as she argued the future of the club was uncertain if Rockliff was removed. While it wasn't the subject of the no-confidence motion, you could make a decent case that the stadium – including the AFL's refusal to accommodate genuinely held Tasmanian concerns – will cost Rockliff his job. But that hasn't happened yet, and it is not clear if it will. The Liberals have backed Rockliff, for now at least, rather than replace him with one of a list of potential contenders. Liberal MPs have argued the budget was backed by the government, not just Rockliff, and supported his push for an early election if the no-confidence motion was passed. They may yet change their minds. Business leaders warn an election would hurt confidence and stall investment. Some senior Liberal figures have urged the parliamentary party elect a new leader to avoid forcing Tasmanians vote again. The parliament has to return on Tuesday to pass a short-term supply bill before Rockliff plans to speak with the governor, Barbara Baker, so they have a few days to work it out. If there is an election, it is difficult to see either major party approaching a majority of seats. The most recent ERMS poll had Labor on 31% support, ahead of the Liberals, who fell five percentage points to just 29%. But 37% said they preferred someone else. This doesn't bode well for the major parties, which have struggled to come to grips with the reality of an expanded 35-member parliament in which no one has control. The Liberals failed to maintain the support of enough MPs. Labor has done little to develop a relationship with the crossbench. Tasmanians might soon tell them that's not good enough, and to try again.
