REVIEW OF SCHOOL SERVICES

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING

FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OCTOBER 2001 Review of Services

REVIEW OF SCHOOL BUS SERVICES

FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

OCTOBER 2001 Published by the Communications Division for the Office of School Education, DEET,

© State of Victoria, October 2001

ISBN 0 7594 0224 8

The Department of Education, Employment and Training welcomes any use of this publication within the constraints of the Copyright Act 1968. Provided acknowledgement is made of the source, schools are permitted to copy material freely for the purpose of communication with the education community. When a charge is authorised for supplying material, such charge shall be limited to direct costs only. When the material is sold for profit, then written authority must first be obtained.

Address inquiries to: The Manager Copyright Services GPO Box 4367, Vic. 3001, . For further information www.deet.vic.gov.au Review of School Bus Services

CONTENTS

Page i Chairperson’s foreword...... 5 ii Executive summary ...... 7 iii List of findings and recommendations...... 12 Chapter One Introduction ...... 19 1.1Need for a review...... 19 1.2Terms of reference...... 19 1.3 Review panel membership...... 20 1.4 Review methodology...... 20 1.5 Consultations ...... 20 Chapter Two Overview of current arrangements ...... 23 2.1 Summary of current policy ...... 23 2.2 Current provision...... 24 2.3 Costs of current service provision...... 25 2.4 Student transport – State comparison...... 26 Chapter Three Adequacy of school bus services: Improving equity and fairness...... 29 Introduction...... 29 3.1 Free school bus travel...... 29 3.2 The impact of route closures...... 29 3.3 Defining eligibility for free bus travel ...... 30 3.4 Towards a fairer conveyance allowance ...... 32 3.5 Subsidisation of school operated bus services ...... 33 3.6 Additional choice for government school students...... 36 Review of School Bus Services

Chapter Four Improved DEET and DoI school bus transit policies...... 39 Introduction...... 39 4.1 Improved rules and processes for the establishment of, or alteration to, a school bus service ...... 39 4.2 Transport to TAFE and other approved educational settings...... 41 4.3 Travel to special school settings...... 42 4.4 Rural-urban fringe areas of Melbourne ...... 44 4.5 Better subsidised fare collection processes...... 44 4.6 Making school bus coordination a joint government and non-government school responsibility....45 4.7 Improving contracts with bus proprietors ...... 46 4.8 DEET/DoI overlap in provision of services...... 46 4.9 Transit passes...... 47 4.10 Cross border issues...... 47 Chapter Five Safety on and around school ...... 48 5.1 Issues identified...... 48 5.2 Department of Infrastructure initiatives...... 48 5.3 Seat belts and speed limits ...... 49 5.4 Student management...... 51 5.5 Supervision ...... 51 5.6 First aid...... 51 Chapter Six Conclusions...... 52 6.1 Impact of recommendations...... 52 6.2 Indexation...... 53 6.3 Implementation timelines...... 53 Appendices Appendix 1 List of attendees at consultations ...... 55 Appendix 2 Individuals and organisations who made submissions to the panel...... 59 Review of School Bus Services

CHAIRPERSON’S FOREWORD

In May 2000, the Minister for Education, the Hon. Mary Delahunty, MP, appointed me to chair a Review of School Bus Services. In pursuing this review the Bracks Government is fulfilling its pre election commitment to conduct a review of the school bus system in rural Victoria examining the adequacy of services and the impact of route closures. The review process has included the opportunity for interested parties to make written submissions. In addition, there was a series of consultations conducted at eighteen locations across the state during October and November 2000. To assist the consultative and submission process, a booklet providing the necessary information was also widely distributed. The panel appreciates the wide range of views put forward by the many individuals, groups and organisations who participated in the consultations and who made written and oral submissions. The consultations were well attended in all locations indicating the high level of interest in the issue and a total of 459 written submissions were made to the panel. There is no doubt that the review has generated a great deal of interest and stimulated debate in school communities across the state. I am pleased to present this Final Report for the consideration of the Minister for Education and for the Government. This document identifies the results of the panel’s analysis of the material gathered through the submissions and consultations and presents a series of findings and recommendations. In broad terms the review identified a number of issues which had not been addressed adequately by previous reviews such as the 1993 review chaired by the Hon. Andrew Brideson. This review grappled with the question of whether to introduce charges for students on the ‘free’ bus system as a way of expanding the service. Ultimately, that review decided to recommend against introducing charges but did not make other significant recommendations to improve equity. In fact there remained a perception among the non-government sector that the rules about access to the free bus system were not fair in relation to their practical application to that sector. In particular many eligible non- government students are being transported by their own school operated buses at considerable cost and are ineligible to form a case for a new service while many other non-government students already on the system are being transported free of charge. Issues of equity were also raised by government schools and by individuals in particular circumstances. This review attempts to deal with many of these issues and for the first time establishes a framework, supported by the non-government sector, that substantially improves the equity and fairness of the system. It does this in a number of ways. First, the report recognises that there are non–government schools (and potentially some government schools) which prefer to run their own buses because they can offer additional services such as excursions to parents. As these students are currently transported by school-based systems, the panel recommended a new assistance package for these schools to be able to continue to run their own services. This is a win-win situation because the cost of any such package would still be less than the cost of providing free government bus services for these schools. It also allows them to retain their autonomy by running their own services in the way they prefer. Second, the report proposes for the first time, that non-government students be taken into consideration in establishing new bus routes. It proposes a formula whereby up to 25 per cent of the students required to establish a new service (or four out of the fifteen required) may be from the non-government sector. This reflects the proportion of non-government students in rural and regional Victoria.

5 Review of School Bus Services

Third, the report proposes also for the first time that eligible non-government students (beyond the initial fifteen government and non-government students) be taken into account in determining the size of buses for new routes. The report also recommends a restructure of the conveyance allowance for private travel where bus services are not available. Not only does the report propose that increases to the allowance be considered by Government, but for the first time it proposes a distance based and will include incentives for transporting multiple passengers. Other initiatives include: • increased conveyance allowance assistance for blind and deaf students •greater choice for government school students through a limited conveyance allowance and guaranteed ongoing places for fare paying students on buses • a range of measures to improve safety on and around buses. The notion of increased cooperation between the government and non-government sector also underpins this report. Proposals include increased cooperation on coordination, with the non-government sector being asked to contribute to such coordination, as well as cooperation on safety and other issues of importance in the transport of Victorian students. I wish to thank the Deputy Chairperson the Hon. Glenyys Romanes, MP, for her support and assistance throughout the course of the review. I further wish to thank all the members of the panel and staff who contributed much time and energy during the consultation process and in developing this report. Their efforts and unanimous support for the recommendations contained in the report are much appreciated.

HON. THEO THEOPHANOUS MP Parliamentary Secretary Education Employment and Training Chairperson of the Review of School Bus Services

6 Review of School Bus Services

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The review of school bus services was an election commitment of the Government. To meet this commitment the Minister for Education, the Hon. Mary Delahunty, MP, established a review panel chaired by the Hon. Theo Theophanous, MLC to conduct a statewide review of the adequacy of school bus services and the impact of route closures. The review panel included representatives of the Catholic Education Office and the Association of Independent Schools of Victoria. This Report is an independent unanimously agreed report of the panel to the Government and contains a number of findings and recommendations for consideration by the Government. The free school bus system has a long history in Victoria dating back to 1944. A number of reviews have been conducted since that time to try and address issues of perceived inequity or unfairness in the delivery of the bus service, or in access to government assistance for travel to school. The most recent review was undertaken in 1993 and was chaired by the Hon. Andrew Brideson, MLC. Despite that review being conducted, the non- government sector in particular, has continued to highlight what they see as unfairness, if not discrimination, remaining in the system. The current review included an extensive program of consultation beginning with an information booklet distributed to all schools and other interested parties in September 2000, followed by advertisements in State and regional newspapers and a set of eighteen public consultations in rural and regional Victoria. These consultations were well attended with up to sixty or more people in some locations. The review panel also received 459 written submissions. The panel found that the views expressed as a result of this extensive consultation process were varied, but accurately reflected parent, school and stakeholder views in both the government and non-government sectors. A progress report was prepared and distributed in February 2001. That report made initial recommendations to be implemented during the course of the 2001 school year. It allowed for increased flexibility in providing government-assisted travel to approved training programs in bus route variations and in upgraded communications systems and a range of safety initiatives. The implementation of the initiatives is proceeding and the majority should be in place during this year and certainly by the beginning of the next school year. The free school bus system last school year transported some 73 000 students from both government and non- government schools to and from school on 1600 routes at a cost to government of $116 million (approximately 17000 of these were non-government students). Transport of students to special schools costs an additional $22 million while conveyance allowance payments added $14 million. The total cost of student transport in 2000–2001 to the government was therefore $152 million. An important finding of the panel arising out of the submissions and consultations was that: Children in rural and regional Victoria are subject to disadvantages arising from isolation distance and lack of access to other forms of transport and consequently it is essential to retain free school bus travel in these areas. (Finding 3.1) The panel went on to strongly recommend that: …the system of free school bus travel in rural and regional Victoria be maintained and strengthened. (Recommendation 3.1) The panel also found that there had been considerable dislocation in some rural communities as a result of past school closures, which in turn increased time and distance travelled on some school buses. In order to allay fears that routes would be arbitrarily changed in future the panel recommended that Department of Education, Employment and Training (DEET) and Department of Infrastructure (DOI): …adopt flexible approaches to future bus route variations taking into account the views of school communities. (Recommendation 3.2)

7 Review of School Bus Services

The panel supported the continued application of the nearest school rule for government schools and nearest school of appropriate denomination for non-government schools as a basis for assessing eligibility for free travel on government buses. It also supported the retention of the 4.8 kilometre rule. However, it also recommended: That access to free travel within 4.8 kilometres of the school be allowed on free school buses subject to space availability and provided no other forms of are available. (Recommendation 3.4) One of the most important recommendations in the report revolves around the restructure of the conveyance allowance for private car travel. Under the existing scheme, a flat rate of $300 is paid to eligible students from both the government and non-government sector where a school bus is unavailable to take them to school. The panel recommended a more equitable distance-based per-vehicle payment scheme which provided additional payments for longer distances while providing an incentive for carrying additional students in that vehicle. The proposal makes environmental sense and is more equitable. Specifically the panel recommended: That a distance-based per-vehicle payment scale be introduced for payment to both government and non-government students who are eligible to receive the conveyance allowance. The payment should be on the basis of distance bands commencing at 4.8 to 10 kilometres from the school, with a maximum payment for 35 kilometres and above. The proposal for Government consideration involves increasing the base rate for 4.8 to 10 kilometres from the current $300 per annum and also taking into account loadings for greater distances. It is also proposed that incentive payments set at 50 per cent of the minimum base rate be paid for each extra student in the vehicle to encourage the transport of more than one student per-vehicle. (Recommendation 3.5) A second important proposal contained in this report is the establishment of a system of subsidisation for schools that wish to operate their own bus services through increased per student payments to such schools to transport eligible students. This proposal is designed to allow schools to continue to operate their own school-based bus systems, as well as to address one of the key inequities identified during the consultations. Currently the government transports about 17 000 non-government students free at an average estimated cost to the government of $1589 per student. However, it only provides a $300 conveyance allowance to approximately 9000 non-government students who are transported by school-based bus services. This has the effect of creating two classes of non- government students one receiving an average subsidy of $1589 per student and the other receiving a conveyance allowance of $300. Yet both groups of students meet the eligibility criteria. The panel recognised that many non-government schools (and some government schools) may prefer to run their own bus services and consequently recommended the introduction of a revised, restructured and increased conveyance allowance payable to schools that operate such services. The following recommendation is made: A revised conveyance allowance payable to schools operating their own school bus services is proposed for government consideration. The proposed allowance would be based on distance from the school and would need to be certified. It would require a signed application from the parent and the school. The allowance would be based on a per student/distance travelled scheme, commencing at a distance band of 4.8 to 10 kilometres, up to a maximum for travel beyond thirty-five kilometres. The payment would be made to the student’s school on the basis that the school assumes responsibility for arranging the bus service (directly or by contract). The proposal involves reviewing the base payment beyond the current $300 which has been in place since 1994 and making additional payments depending on distance travelled. (Recommendation 3.7) The panel also attempted to provide in its recommendations some additional choice for government school students, as well as non-government school students. The panel was told about inequities by some parents who wanted to send their children to their next to nearest government school. They were asked to pay for such travel, yet they often found that the distance to that school was less than the distance to the nearest non-government school for which travel assistance was given. Inequities in available choice were also expressed in terms of Melbourne and regional Victoria, in that a broader range of choices of schools is available in Melbourne with subsidised public transport available to those schools.

8 Review of School Bus Services

The panel addressed this problem by recommending that assistance should be available for travel to another school in circumstances where students were attending an approved program or where a school could not offer at VCE level a student’s preferred course of study. In addition, the panel also recommended providing limited assistance to students attending their next-to-nearest government school-based on providing 75 per cent of the minimum payable conveyance allowance where no school bus was available (with an additional payment for each extra student in the vehicle). Where a school bus is available, and students access it, it is proposed that they will pay a subsidised fare depending on the distance travelled. However they would be guaranteed their place on the bus for the duration of their enrolment at that school. These students will not face the uncertainty of being removed from a bus as has happened to date. The panel made a number of significant recommendations to address equity in the establishment of new bus routes. The current rules for new routes require a minimum of fifteen eligible government students to establish such routes. The panel recommended that the government consider changing this formula so that four of the fifteen students could be eligible non-government students. This reflects the fact that approximately 25 per cent of students in rural and regional Victoria are non-government. This means that for the first time, eligible non- government students may be taken into account in establishing new routes. Specifically the panel recommended: That subject to detailed examination as to costs and appropriate timelines for introduction, the rules for establishing a new school bus route be varied to include that: • a minimum of fifteen eligible students shall be required to establish a new school bus route • of these fifteen students, up to four students may be from non-government schools. These students must reside on or near the new route, which is to service the nearest government school. (Recommendation 4.2) In addition to this recommendation, the panel sought to further improve the extent to which non-government students would be considered for new routes. Again, for the first time non-government students would be considered in determining the size of buses once a decision has been taken to establish a route. The panel recommended that: …upon establishment of a new school bus service that eligible non-government students residing on or near the newly established route be included in determining the required vehicle capacity to operate the service. (Recommendation 4.3) Taken together, the above three proposals represent, for the first time, a serious attempt at providing greater equity and fairness for non-government students. In addressing the requirements for varying a route in rural Victoria and particularly in remote locations, the panel made the following recommendation: The minimum requirement of five eligible travellers to vary routes should be abolished in defined remote areas and decisions should instead be made on a case-by-case basis. In making such decisions for a remote location, non-government students will also be taken into account. (Recommendation 4.1) The fact that non-government students will also be taken into account in such remote locations when decisions are made about varying routes is also an important proposal. It further builds on the three proposals above in terms of greater equity and fairness for non-government, as well as government, students in remote rural locations in Victoria. The panel made recommendations to improve access for TAFE students and unemployed youth attending approved training programs. These recommendations fall short of providing full right of access as they would potentially be very costly and require planning and analysis beyond the scope of this review. However, when space is available access to the free bus service would be extended to these students. In addition, further investigations by DEET will occur to establish the viability of possible extensions in the future. The panel has recommended the development of a set of protocols to facilitate travel to respite care and to implement more flexible arrangements to reduce travel times for students with disabilities and impairments.

9 Review of School Bus Services

The panel also found that a variety of different practices are in place at the moment for the transportation of blind and deaf students which mean that significant variation exists with some students receiving $300 per annum, and others $700 per annum in conveyance allowances, while yet others are provided with free taxis. To increase equity in this area the panel proposes where there is no free bus transport available for these students: That the Government consider a special increased, single conveyance allowance to assist with private car and/or taxi travel for deaf, blind and severely physically disabled students. In adopting this new higher allowance, no new taxi services should be introduced in the future, except in circumstances where the transportation of a group of students could be achieved more economically by taxi or where special hardship circumstances can be demonstrated. Those students currently accessing a free taxi service will continue to do so. (Recommendation 4.6) The panel was concerned with the difficulties faced by students in the fringe areas of Melbourne arising from rapid development that places pressure on public transport services in these growth areas. The panel recommended: That the Department of Infrastructure take into account, on an ongoing basis, the needs of students in these fringe areas of Melbourne and establish public transport routes to meet the expansion of student numbers in these regions. (Recommendation 4.7) The panel believes that the proposals contained in the report would improve the fare paying system through a new set of administrative arrangements that would also improve bus coordination and safety. New regional- based coordinators will be appointed and safety will be a joint government and non-government responsibility. A small contribution from the non-government sector to assist in expanding the number of coordinators and safety officers is also proposed. A number of initiatives form part of this report that relate to improving safety. Some initiatives have already been introduced as a result of the progress report which the panel found had allayed many of the concerns raised during the consultations about safety on and around buses. It is important to note that, despite some concerns and misinformation, the very important safety initiative of providing two-way communication in buses is almost completed. Some press reports have suggested that the new system is satellite phone only. In fact, the system operates in both satellite and ground-based mobile phone modes and, as a safety initiative, has already proved effective on several occasions. The panel found that the fitting of seat belts in all new buses would add considerably to costs, while the evidence suggested that this initiative may not add significantly to safety on buses and that other measures to improve safety around bus stops or to slow traffic down are more likely to contribute to safety. The panel recommended further research in this important area. Such research should take into account distance travelled, supervision, bus stop environment, speed limits and overseas and interstate experience and be conducted by the Department of Infrastructure. The panel believes that the recommendations contained in this report would result in the creation of the most efficient, effective and equitable school transport system in Australia. The proposals address inequities and sometimes glaring discrepancies in the delivery of transport assistance for students throughout Victoria. This is not to say that the current system is not efficient in transporting students. Indeed, as noted, the system transports some 73 000 students free of charge and, in relative terms, in a cost- effective way. The panel believes, in order to avoid calls for ongoing reviews, the government should consider making all allowances, payments and charges that relate to the bus system, subject to indexation, beginning in 2004–2005. It is recommended: That in order to avoid calls for ongoing bus reviews, the government consider indexing all allowances, payments and charges which relate to the school bus system and conveyance allowances beginning at the commencement of the 2004–2005 financial year. (Recommendation 6.1)

10 Review of School Bus Services

The panel also considered the issue of implementation. A number of initiatives arising from the progress report are in the process of being implemented. In terms of implementation timelines for this report the panel’s view was that: The initiatives contained in this report be considered by the government and, if agreed to, be implemented during the 2002 school year. Any initiatives that involve funding proposals including government payments or allowances or more resources, and therefore have implications for the State budget, will need to be considered as part of the 2002-03 Budget process. Accordingly the Government agreed proposals which require additional funding may be implemented commencing 1 July 2002. (Recommendation 6.2) The panel has attempted to bring together a set of recommendations to address the perennial issues of equity and fairness in Victoria’s school bus system. The recommendations are sensitive to cost factors while addressing fundamental issues of equity, fairness, access and safety in bus transportation and travel assistance throughout regional and rural Victoria. As stated in the body of the report, the panel believes that the adoption of the proposals and recommendations would result in: 1. An efficient, effective and equitable rural and regional school transport system which compares favourably with any in Australia 2. A safer bus system with better-trained staff and drivers and better safety practices. 3. A much fairer conveyance allowance structure which recognises distance factors as well as encouraging sharing of vehicles to help protect the environment. 4. Greater equity and access in establishing new routes. For the first time, non-government students will be considered in establishing new routes on a proportional basis and in determining the size of the bus to be used on such new routes. 5. More access in remote locations by abolishing the requirement of five eligible travellers to vary routes. Non-government students as well as eligible government students, will in future be considered on a case-by-case basis in these regions. 6. Incentives for non-government schools operating their own buses for transporting their own students. The proposed new school operated bus conveyance payments will especially benefit the non-government sector and reduce inequity in the system. The scheme recognises that some schools prefer to run their own bus systems as they are able to provide more services such as cheaper and more frequent excursions and transport for non-eligible students. (It is possible that some government schools, in keeping with devolving responsibilities, may also take up the offer, perhaps in conjunction with other schools in an area.) 7. Improved choice for government school students by providing limited assistance for private car travel to next to nearest school and a subsidised fare and guaranteed ongoing travel on a government contracted bus. 8. Increased assistance for blind deaf and severely physically disabled students across Victoria will increase equity in this important area. 9. Improved cooperation and coordination among school sectors including sharing costs with the non- government sector.

11 Review of School Bus Services

LIST OF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Finding 1.1 The carrying out of a review of the adequacy of school bus services was an election commitment of the Bracks Government and was believed to be required because of the failure of previous reviews to bring about changes that fully addressed issues of equity and fairness in the delivery of school bus services. Finding 1.2 The consultation process adopted by the panel was extensive. It involved country forums, stakeholder meetings and the examination of 459 written submissions. The views expressed as a result of this extensive consultation process were varied and accurately reflect parent, school and stakeholder views in both the government and non-government sectors. Recommendation 1.1 That all of the recommendations contained in the progress report to improve equity, fairness and safety should be implemented during the course of 2001 and supplemented by the implementation of other recommendations contained in this report. Finding 2.1 A range of policies and procedures including comprehensive rules and guidelines are in place which determine eligibility, access, operation and safety in relation to bus transport and travel assistance but there are still some perceived inequities or anomalies. Finding 2.2 The government outlays significant funds annually to provide for the transport of students to school. In 2000–2001 a total of $152 million was spent–made up of $116 million to provide buses for 73 000 students, $14 million for conveyance allowance payment and $22 million for transport to special schools. Finding 2.3 There are significant variations to the rules governing school bus transport across States and Territories. Victoria has a flat rate private car/bus conveyance allowance whereas allowances in other jurisdictions are distance- based. Victoria also reimburses public transport fares through the conveyance allowance scheme. Victoria and some other jurisdictions transport significant numbers of non-government school students while some jurisdictions are restricted to providing transport assistance to government students only. Finding 3.1 Children in rural and regional Victoria are subject to disadvantages arising from isolation, distance and lack of access to other forms of transport and consequently it is essential to retain free school bus travel in these areas. Recommendation 3.1 The panel recommends strongly that the system of free school bus travel in rural and regional Victoria be maintained and strengthened. Finding 3.2 The panel found that considerable dislocation had occurred in some rural communities as a result of past school closures which, in turn, increased time and distance travelled on some school buses.

12 Review of School Bus Services

Recommendation 3.2 That DEET and DOI examine ways of reducing travel times that increased arising from past school closures and adopt flexible approaches to future bus route variations taking into account the views of school communities. Finding 3.3 Introducing free bus transport to an unlimited choice of schools would create a system of buses taking students in varied directions with significant distances being travelled and extra cost while impacting negatively on smaller communities. Recommendation 3.3 That the nearest government school rule in the government school sector and the nearest school of appropriate denomination in the non-government sector continue to apply as the primary basis for assessing eligibility for free travel on government buses within Departmental guidelines. That the nearest government school rule and the nearest appropriate school rule for the non-government sector continue to apply in assessing eligibility for conveyance allowance payments. Finding 3.4 That the current 4.8 kilometre rule is an appropriate distance to define eligibility for access to the free bus service or for a conveyance allowance payment, while the new process recommended in the panel’s progress report should allow the 4.8 kilometre rule to be varied to meet special needs or circumstances including demonstrated cases of hardship. Recommendation 3.4 That access to free travel within 4.8 kilometres of the school be allowed on free school buses, subject to space availability and provided no other forms of public transport are available. That guidelines be developed to assess special needs or circumstances for varying the 4.8 kilometre rule. Finding 3.5 There is a clear need to increase and restructure the conveyance allowance so as to relate it to the distance travelled with a greater payment for greater distance. While an additional amount should be paid for taking more than one student this should not be a simple multiple of the conveyance allowance as this is inequitable. Recommendation 3.5 That a distance-based per-vehicle payment scale be introduced for payment to both government and non- government students who are eligible to receive the conveyance allowance. The payment should be on the basis of distance bands commencing at 4.8 to 10 kilometres from the school, with a maximum payment for thirty-five kilometres and above. The proposal for Government consideration involves increasing the base rate for 4.8 to 10 kilometres from the current $300 per annum and also taking into account loadings for greater distances. It is also proposed that incentive payments set at 50 per cent of the minimum base rate be paid for each extra student in the vehicle to encourage the transport of more than one student per-vehicle.

13 Review of School Bus Services

Finding 3.6 There are perceptions of inequity or unfairness in the non-government sector along the following lines: • That non-government students are not counted as eligible students for the purposes of establishing or varying bus routes–although they are treated as eligible once a place has been secured on the bus. • That more than 17 000 non-government students receive free transport on government buses at an average cost to government of $1589 for each student. A further 8800 non-government students who meet exactly the same criteria only receive a government subsidy of $300 and pay transport fees of up to an additional $1000 per annum to travel on privately run non-government school buses. Recommendation 3.6 Recognising that many non-government schools and some government schools may prefer to run their own bus services and taking into account the significant cost implications if all eligible non-government students are permitted to form a case for a free school bus service, the panel recommends that additional funding be considered in order to enable non-government (and government) schools to run their own bus services for eligible students. Recommendation 3.7 A revised conveyance allowance payable to schools operating their own school bus services is proposed for Government consideration. The proposed allowance would be based on distance from the school and would need to be certified. It would require a signed application from the parent and the school. The allowance would be based on a per student/distance travelled scheme, commencing at a distance band of 4.8–10 kilometres, up to a maximum for travel beyond thirty-five kilometres. The base rate for 4.8 to 10 kilometres should be increased from the current $300 per annum with loadings for greater distances. The payment would be made to the student’s school on the basis that the school assume responsibility for arranging the bus service (directly or by contract). The proposal involves reviewing the base payment beyond the current $300 which has been in place since 1994 and making additional payments depending on distance travelled. Finding 3.7 There remain perceptions of inequity from parents who want to choose to send their children to the next-to- nearest government school. They believe they are being unduly penalised for making that choice when compared to parents who choose a non-government school and when compared to parents in Melbourne who choose a government school which is not their nearest. Recommendation 3.8 It is recommended that in order to expand educational choices for government students in rural Victoria without compromising the viability of small schools the following should apply: • A VCE student may be granted access to spare seating capacity on an existing free bus service or the new conveyance allowance to travel to the next nearest appropriate school when their nearest school cannot offer at least two subjects in their preferred course of study. * • For all students access to spare capacity on an existing school bus or the conveyance allowance would be granted to attend an approved program such as the accelerated learning program.* • A student who is currently eligible for transport assistance to the nearest government school would have the option of receiving a limited transport subsidy to attend the next nearest government school. However the student would only receive 75 per cent of the minimum conveyance allowance. It is proposed that an additional loading, set at 75 per cent of the extra child loading, would also be paid if more than one child is transported (where no government bus is available).

14 Review of School Bus Services

• A student who is currently eligible for transport assistance to the nearest government school may be granted access to spare capacity to travel to their next nearest school on an existing government-provided free school bus service upon payment of the Department of Infrastructure subsidised fare. This fare ranges between $284 and $756 per annum depending on the distance travelled. Upon continued payment of the appropriate fare, students would be guaranteed access to bus travel for the duration of their enrolment, which gives these students the same access rights as apply to non-government students granted access to the free school bus system. *Note: These provisions would apply in both government and non-government sectors, but students must satisfy the Regional Director of a demonstrated need within the guidelines. Finding 4.1: There is considerable concern in rural Victoria that the remoteness of families should be the major criteria for retaining or varying school bus routes rather than the number of students according to a prescribed formula. Recommendation 4.1 The minimum requirement of five eligible travellers to vary a route should be abolished in defined remote areas and decisions should instead be made on a case-by-case basis. In making such decisions for remote locations non-government students would also be taken into account. Recommendation 4.2 That subject to detailed examination as to costs and appropriate timelines for introduction, the rules for establishing a new school bus route be varied to include that: • A minimum of fifteen eligible students shall be required to establish a new school bus route • Of these fifteen students, up to four students may be from non-government schools. These students must reside on or near the new route, which is being proposed to service the nearest government school. Recommendation 4.3 It is recommended that upon establishment of a new school bus service, eligible non-government students residing on or near the newly established route be included in determining the required vehicle capacity to operate the service. Finding 4.2 While there were views expressed to the panel that the free school bus system and access to conveyance allowances should be extended to cover a variety of circumstances such as pre-school, TAFE, approved apprenticeship courses, day-training courses and even group training courses, the panel found that extension into these areas was potentially very costly running into millions of dollars. Recommendation 4.4 The panel recommendation in the progress report to allow access (in line with recommendation 6 of the Ministerial Review of Post Compulsory Education) to the free bus service, where places are available, for TAFE students and unemployed youth in training programs should be implemented and expanded to cover other areas of full-time training in approved courses. The panel recommends further detailed investigation by DEET, to identify options for extending access to these students including costs for consideration at a later date by the Minister for Post Compulsory Education and Training.

15 Review of School Bus Services

Finding 4.3 The arrangements for travel for students with disabilities and impairments are varied. Although they have been improved in recent years through the introduction of a more streamlined taxi service and air-conditioned buses, there are still isolated examples where not all the transport needs of students are able to be met. The cost of further expanding the service to include transport to all respite care centres would be very significant. Recommendation 4.5 That DEET and Department of Human Services develop a set of protocols to facilitate travel to respite care or to implement more flexible arrangements to reduce travel times as recommended in the progress report. That DoI take further action to improve the taxi service and that the Department of Human Services and DEET investigate further the costs of full respite care access and report to the appropriate Ministers. Finding 4.4 At the moment a variety of different practices is in place, which creates significant inequity in the transport of blind and deaf students. This includes the payment of a $300 or $700 conveyance allowance, or provision of taxis. Recommendation 4.6 That the government consider a special increased single conveyance allowance to assist with private car and/or taxi travel for deaf, blind and severely physically disabled students. In adopting this new higher allowance, no new taxi services should be introduced in the future, except in circumstances where the transportation of a group of students could be achieved more economically by taxi or where special hardship circumstances can be demonstrated. Those students currently accessing a free taxi service will continue to do so. Recommendation 4.7 That DoI take into account, on an ongoing basis, the needs of students in the fringe areas of Melbourne, and establish public transport routes to meet expansion of student numbers in these regions. The matter should also be referred to DoI for consideration as part of the Metropolitan Bus Plan which is currently under review. Finding 4.5 The panel found considerable support for the retention of the fare-paying system on contract school bus services and has identified opportunities for stronger compliance and management. Recommendation 4.8 It is recommended that the subsidised fare-paying system be retained, but that a process be implemented to support its consistent application across the state. Responsibility for collection should rest with DEET and all funds collected should be applied to help support additional fare collection, administrative and bus coordination support staff. Finding 4.6 The panel found that school-based bus coordinators play an important role in supporting student travel but currently this responsibility is only undertaken by government schools and includes coordination of non- government students.

16 Review of School Bus Services

Recommendation 4.9 Based on the acknowledgement by the government and non-government sector of their joint responsibility for school coordination and safety, it is recommended that a contribution reflecting per-student costs of such coordination be negotiated with the non-government sector. The additional funds collected are to be used to provide enhanced bus coordination and safety. Finding 4.7 The panel finds that, in the context of negotiating the current school and route bus contracts, the particular circumstances surrounding those processes were such that competitive tendering may not have been practicable or desirable. Recommendation 4.10 That DEET and the Bus Association Victoria enter into discussions with a view to establishing a lower cost recommended schedule for school contracted buses for their use on excursions or similar activities by all schools. Recommendation 4.11 That current arrangements in terms of shared responsibility between DEET and DoI for the provision of school bus services be retained as they seem to have widespread acceptance. Finding 4.8 That the provision of a student transit pass for students in Sunraysia is likely to lead to demand for its implementation in other regional cities and this would need to be considered by the government in addressing the issue. Finding 4.9 The panel found that there is some confusion regarding responsibilities for transport where students cross state borders to attend their nearest school. Recommendation 4.12 The panel recommends that the question of funding responsibilities be referred to the NSW–Victoria Borders Anomalies Committee for discussion and clarification. Finding 5.1 The panel found that the safety initiatives recently introduced by the government addressed many of the concerns raised during the consultations. In particular the two-way communication system which operates on both satellite and ground-based mobile phone modes was found to be appropriate to rural needs. Finding 5.2 The cost of fitting seat belts in all new buses is significant. The current evidence suggests that seat belts may not add significantly to safety in buses while measures to improve infrastructure around bus stops or to slow passing traffic are more likely to improve the safety of bus travellers.

17 Review of School Bus Services

Recommendation 5.1 More research needs to occur before deciding policy in this area. In particular, the implication of fitting seatbelts on new buses and the introduction of speed limits around stationary buses should be considered. Such research should take into account distances travelled, supervision, bus stop environments, speed limits and overseas and interstate experiences. The research should be conducted by DoI. Recommendation: 5.2 That school bus coordinators be provided with appropriate information and training to ensure safety and other requirements when coordinating buses or supervising students. That DEET continue to monitor the trial use of security firms at bus interchanges to enable decisions to be made in relation to retaining or extending this initiative. Recommendation: 5.3 It is recommended that first-aid training should be offered on a voluntary basis to bus drivers and supervisors of special school bus services. Recommendation 6.1 That in order to avoid calls for ongoing bus reviews, the government consider indexing all allowances, payments and charges which relate to the school bus system and conveyance allowances beginning at the commencement of the 2004–2005 financial year. Recommendation 6.2 That the initiatives contained in this report be considered by the Government and, if agreed to, be implemented during the 2002 school year. Any initiatives that involve funding proposals including government payments or allowances or more resources and therefore have implications for the state budget will need to be considered as part of the 2002–03 Budget process. Accordingly the Government agreed proposals which require additional funding may be implemented commencing 1 July 2002.

18 Review of School Bus Services

CHAPTER 1 Introduction 1.1 Need for a review The Review of School Bus Services was announced by the Minister for Education, the Hon. Mary Delahunty, MP, on Wednesday, 10 May 2000. The announcement was confirmation of the government’s pre-election policy to implement a comprehensive review of school bus services. 1.1.1 Previous reviews The most recent review of school bus services was undertaken in 1993 when a working party chaired by the Hon. Andrew Brideson, MLC, implemented a consultative process to prepare a report for the then Minister for Education. Few significant changes resulted from this review with the main change being some increases in the rates paid for private car and bus travel. An Inter-Departmental Review on the Conveyance of Pupils prepared a report in 1983. A Departmental working party examined special school travel in 1995 with a view to improving services for students attending special settings. Recommendations from this working party resulted in the introduction of Designated Transport Areas and a move toward the use of contract bus services wherever possible. Since the 1993 review, there has remained continuing pressure to address more fundamental equity issues. As a result the non-government sector in particular, has continued to highlight what they see as discrimination in the system, while many parents sending their children to government schools have also highlighted perceived inequities. 1.1.2 This review Given the period of time that had elapsed since the last review and the many changes that had taken place with education provision in Victoria during the past decade, and given continuing complaints about equity and fairness, the Bracks government was keen to take a new look at student transport provisions in Victoria. The review offered an opportunity for a range of matters to be examined (see Terms of reference below) and an opportunity for the users of the system, students, parents and schools, to provide advice to the government regarding the adequacy and effectiveness of the existing system as well as offer suggestions for future improvement. Finding 1.1 The carrying out of a review of the adequacy of school bus services was an election commitment of the Bracks government and was believed to be required because of the failure of previous reviews to bring about changes that fully addressed issues of equity and fairness in the delivery of school bus services.

1.2 Terms of reference for the review of school bus services 1. To consider the adequacy of school bus services and the impact of route closures 2. To consider the implications of current education policies on transporting students 3. To advise and make recommendations to the Minister on issues related to the cost of student transport, with emphasis on ensuring equity and fairness 4. To consider school bus safety issues 5. To consider the implication of the overlap with the Department of Infrastructure in the provision of school bus services.

19 Review of School Bus Services

1.3 Review panel membership The Minister appointed the Parliamentary Secretary, the Hon. Theo Theophanous, MP, to chair the Review. The Member for Melbourne Province, the Hon. Glenyys Romanes, MP, was Deputy Chair of the review. Other members of the Review panel were as follows: • DEET Steve Marshall, Regional Director, Western Metropolitan Region • Dept of Infrastructure Stephen Stanko, Matthew Jowett and Peter Gledhill • Catholic Education Office Tony O’Meara • Association of Independent Schools of Victoria Peter Devine • Executive Officer Graeme Robertson, Manager Resources, School and Community Development Division

1.4 Review methodology The review of school bus services was undertaken as a fully consultative process ensuring that all interested parties were able to access the opportunity to express their viewpoints to the review panel. To commence the process, the panel prepared and distributed an information booklet to all schools and other interested parties in the week commencing 11 September 2000. Newspaper advertisements were placed in state and regional newspapers on 9 September 2000, advising of the review and inviting submissions. The advertisements notified dates, times and venues for public consultations. Eighteen public consultations were conducted across the state during October and November 2000. The panel also identified key interest groups and invited them to present submissions to the review. The panel then analysed the data collected through both written submissions and the consultations. Where appropriate modelling to test potential revised processes was conducted using detailed data gathered from a representative selection of schools drawn from both government and non-government sectors. 1.5 Consultations 1.5.1 Country consultations Consultations were conducted at eighteen locations across the state. These included , Swan Hill, Woodend, Warrnambool, Geelong, , Horsham, , Wangaratta, Seymour, Bairnsdale, Traralgon, Melton, Mornington, Leongatha, Lilydale, Mill Park and Werribee. Appendix 1 lists attendees at the consultations. Consultations were well attended at all locations. In each instance the chairperson or deputy chairperson chaired the consultations. The first section of each consultation consisted of attendees, who had prearranged to do so, presenting and speaking to their submissions. Panel members then asked questions of clarification. The second section of each meeting enabled open discussion from the floor with panel members. Panel members were particularly appreciative of the contributions of the many representatives of schools, parents, students, bus operators and members of the general public who attended the consultations and who made forthright and meaningful contributions to the discussions. 1.5.2 Consultations with stakeholders Specific consultations have been held with the Victorian Association of State Secondary Principals, Parents Victoria, Principals’ Association of Special Schools, Association of School Councils in Victoria, the Victorian Parents’ Council, Association of School Councils in Victoria and the Bus Association of Victoria.

20 Review of School Bus Services

1.5.3 Submissions The panel received a total of 459 submissions. The submissions can be grouped into the following categories: Submissions received Parents 212 Government schools 98 Non-government schools 79 Special schools 17 School bus operators 6 Organisations/groups 47

A list of the individuals and organisations who made submissions received is attached in Appendix 2 Finding 1.2 The consultation process adopted by the panel was extensive. It involved country forums, stakeholder meetings and the examination of 459 written submissions. The views expressed as a result of this extensive consultation process were varied and accurately reflect parent, school and stakeholder views in both the government and non-government sectors. 1.6 Progress report A progress report was widely distributed in February 2001. The report indicated some initial recommendations that were to be addressed during 2001. It also identified those areas that the panel intended to further explore prior to the final report. The progress report generated further written input to the panel from the community. 1.6.1 Progress report recommendations Recommendations to be addressed during 2001 were as follows: • Variations to the 4.8 kilometre rule A process is to be developed to allow communities or individuals to present a case for reduction of the 4.8 kilometre requirement for free contract school bus travel in situations where it can be clearly demonstrated that special needs or circumstances warrant an exception to the rule. • Variations to the nearest school rule Revised guidelines will be issued to allow access to free travel for all VCE students to a school other than their nearest where it can be demonstrated that they cannot access their course at their nearest school, and to cover travel by all students to approved programs such as accelerated learning programs. • Travel to approved-training programs In accordance with recommendation 6 of the Ministerial Review of Post Compulsory Education (The Kirby Report), the Department will allow conditional access to free travel on existing bus services where places are available to participants in government-endorsed training schemes for unemployed youth and for other approved TAFE programs. • Bus route variations DEET and the DoI will adopt flexible approaches to bus route variations, where possible, within budgetary constraints including giving due consideration to the impact of significant increases in travel times on students and the views of school communities.

21 Review of School Bus Services

• Special school travel Individual schools, in association with DEET and the Department of Human Services will be able to pursue discussions with bus contractors to facilitate travel to respite care and/or to implement more flexible arrival and departure times to reduce travel times within existing budgets. • Revised and improved documentation The document, School Bus Services – Instructions to Principals (Coordinating Schools), last published in 1989, will be revised during 2001 and reissued to schools in a format that allows for regular updates. A brochure outlining key information and bus travel eligibility requirements will be prepared for distribution in readiness for the start of the 2002 school year. • Communication DEET will support the DoI in installing a school bus communication system that has operational capacity in all locations across the state. • Speed limit with flashing lights During 2001, DEET will promote research into the feasibility of implementing speed restrictions for passing traffic when flashing lights (currently being installed on buses) are in use. • Safety on buses A number of initiatives are being taken during 2001 including: (i) Guidelines to assist schools in implementing an appropriate code of conduct for students travelling on their school buses are to be developed during 2001. The code will provide a set of guidelines for student behaviour on school buses, and procedures for bus operators/drivers to follow when managing student behaviour. (ii) DEET will work with VicRoads, the DoI and bus proprietors to develop and deliver a safety training program for school bus coordinators, bus operators and student travellers in the second half of 2001. (iii) arrangements are to be made to ensure the safety video, One Near Miss Is a Miss Too Many, is transmitted on SOFNet Schools' Television, during Term 1 in each school year. Support materials will also be made available during 2001. 1.6.2 Implementation of progress report initiatives The proposals contained in the progress report have been well accepted in the community as a first set of initiatives to address pressing issues that could be dealt with within budgetary constraints. The implementation of the initiatives is proceeding and the majority should be in place during this year and certainly by the beginning of the next school year. Many of the initiatives are expanded on as a result of further recommendations contained in the report. Taken together the recommendations of the progress report and of this report are designed to ensure greater equity, fairness and safety on the school bus system. Recommendation 1.1 That all of the recommendations contained in the progress report to improve equity, fairness and safety should be implemented during the course of 2001 and supplemented by the implementation of other recommendations contained in this report.

22 Review of School Bus Services

CHAPTER 2 Overview of current arrangements 2.1 Summary of current policy The current policy for the delivery of school bus services and assistance for travel to school is complex and includes comprehensive guidelines for eligibility of students and for operation of the government contracted bus services. The following is a summary of the key features of the current policy. 2.1.1 Free school bus policy There is a range of eligibility criteria and access rules for student travel on the free school bus service and these are summarised below. government schools The current key eligibility criteria for students attending government schools are that a student must be attending the nearest government school and must reside more than 4.8 kilometres from that school to be eligible for free transport. Non-government schools Non-government school students are permitted to travel on the free school bus system if space is available. Similar eligibility criteria apply. Non-government students must attend the nearest registered school of appropriate denomination and must reside more than 4.8 kilometres from that school. Once students access the bus, they have rights equal to those of eligible government school students. Fare-paying travel A student may access travel to a school, other than their nearest school, upon payment of a fare determined by DoI. Such travel is dependent upon space being available on the bus after all eligible travellers have been catered for. Approval is on a term-by-term basis. New services The establishment of a new service or the alteration of an existing service can be authorised only for the requisite number of eligible government school students. However, once a service has been established free travel can be extended to non-government students subject to the availability of seats on the bus. Travel policy for students attending a special school Any student enrolled into a special school or special developmental school may be eligible for transport assistance to a specialist school. In 1997 designated transport areas (DTA) were introduced for each special and special developmental school. A DTA is the designated area allocated to a special or special developmental school from within which a student is eligible for travel assistance. 2.1.2 Conveyance allowance policy The key criteria for the receipt of a conveyance allowance are that a student must attend the nearest school and reside more than 4.8 kilometres from that school. An allowance may also be granted if a student resides more than 4.8 kilometres from the nearest school bus stop. Conveyance allowances apply to students attending government and non-government schools. Non-government students must be attending the nearest appropriate registered non-government school. The flat rate allowance for transport by private vehicle or privately chartered or school operated bus is $300 per annum. A student eligible for a conveyance allowance, who travels by public transport (bus, or train), pays a fare, which is then fully refunded.

23 Review of School Bus Services

2.2 Current service provision 2.2.1 Free school bus services Free school bus services were introduced at various locations around the State in 1944. The entire school bus system was administered by the Department of Education up to the end of 1989. From the commencement of 1990 the administration of mainstream school bus services was transferred, to the Public Transport Corporation and subsequently to the Department of Transport which has more recently merged with the Department of Infrastructure. The services now contracted to the Minister for Transport operate under policies determined by the Department of Education, Employment and Training (DEET). The Department of Infrastructure expenditure for free bus services was $116 million in 2000–01. Currently, some 73 000 students from government and non-government schools travel to and from school on 1600 routes. Approximately 23 per cent of travellers are from non-government schools. 2.2.2 Conveyance allowance schemes Conveyance allowance schemes have been in existence since the 1890s. A conveyance allowance is a payment made by DEET to parents of an eligible student to assist with the cost of travel. Approximately 38 000 students receive conveyance allowances at an annual cost to the Department in 2000–01 of $14.2 million. Approximately 60 per cent of students receiving allowances attend non- government schools. Of the annual expenditure of $14.2 million, $9.5 million is paid to non-government school students. The cost of travel on public transport is fully refunded, which, in some instances, exceeds $1200 per student per year. A flat rate level of reimbursement of $300 per student per year applies for travel on private bus services or private . 2.2.3 Special schools To enable the travel of students to special schools and special developmental schools, DEET directly administers almost 200 contract bus services, twenty subsidised school bus services and around 160 taxi services. It also contributes to the cost of operating six day training centre buses. The various services cater for more than 5600 students each day and slightly higher numbers can be encountered on some days as a result of students who attend a special setting on a part-time basis. A range of other facilities such as deaf facilities, social adjustment centres, and language units are located within existing primary schools and secondary colleges. These facilities are not stand-alone schools. Students attending these settings may be eligible to receive a conveyance allowance. Expenditure for 2000–01 for the above services was $22.1 million. 2.2.4 Conclusion There is a range of comprehensive policies, procedures and guidelines that has been put in place over many years for transport assistance to students. However, there remains a perception that these have not addressed all of the issues and anomalies in the system. It is for this reason that the government decided to conduct this review to fulfil its election promise and to seek to address issues of equity and fairness which had been put to it. Finding 2.1 A range of policies and procedures including comprehensive rules and guidelines is in place which determine eligibility, access, operation and safety in relation to bus transport and travel assistance but there are still some perceived inequities or anomalies.

24 Review of School Bus Services

2.3 Costs of current service provision The review process identified several key issues in the provision of bus services and travel assistance. If these issues are to be addressed, a commitment of funds will be required. Proposals to address the issues identified under the review are set out in the following chapters. To put the cost of these proposals in context it is necessary to understand the costs of the current system. The free school bus service provided via the DoI transported approximately 73000 students at a cost of $116 million in 2000–01. The cost of transport services for special school students in 2000–01 was $22 million while conveyance allowance payments for 2000–01 total $14 million. This gives a total student transport cost of $152 million for 2000–01. Finding 2.2 The government outlays significant funds annually to provide for the transport of students to school. In 2000–2001 a total of $152 million was spent – made up of $116 million to provide buses for 73 000 students, $14 million for conveyance allowance payments and $22 million for transport to special schools.

25 Review of School Bus Services

2.4 Student Transport – State comparison

State/Details Victoria NSW SA W A N T

Distance 4.8 kilometres 1.6 kilometres 5 kilometres by 3.2 kilometres 4.5 kilometres 3 kilometres 1.6 kilometres Qualification by shortest radial to shortest to primary in non-public from nearest for subsidised practicable primary practicable school 4.8 transport school travel to route to school, or 2 route to kilometres to areas nearest primary & kilometres nearest school secondary appropriate secondary radial to or bus stop school school. school secondary 5 kilometres school for free travel.

Public Actual fares Free travel Actual fares Fares assessed Concession Students pay 1.6 kilometres Transport reimbursed by reimbursed according to fares $0.30 per trip to 5 kilometres DEET (parent (parent pays formula according to in rural areas, -$0.60 per trip pays then is then (extremely published $0.70 per trip or period reimbursed) reimbursed) complex service criteria in metro areas. tickets at formula that Student concessions, takes into concession bus free travel over account rural pass holders 5 kilometres. sectors, trans travel free. mode and isolation etc)

Private car Flat rate of $0.45 per 15.3 cents per $210–$1291 Conveyance $0.32/kilome- $300 per year kilometres up kilometres per per year per allowance tres/school per student to $80 per car for 2 trips car based on according to day from school day per per day distance policy home to student travelled school/bus according to $210 country stop. distance non- travelled one government way student per year.

Motor cycle Flat $50 per 50 per cent of Nil Nil year per car rate student Bus non-public Flat $300 per No category No category No category No category. transport year per student Bicycle Flat $50 per Nil 15.3 cents per year per kilometre student Contract bus Free travel to Free travel if Free travel if 5 Free travel if a Free travel if a Free travel in Free travel services to nearest school distance kilometres distance distance areas not more than mainstream if more than criteria is met from nearest criterion is criterion is having public 5kilometres, schools 4.8 kilometres appropriate met. met. transport $0.60 per trip gov school. 1.6–5 kilometres.radial Special schools Free bus or Bus or taxi Free bus or Transport Free bus or Contract Suitable student taxi travel to travel to taxi travel assistance to taxi travel to transport for vehicles offer assistance designated school. No using nearest designated eligible door-to-door setting. distance appropriate approved school. No students. No service with Conveyance qualification vehicles. setting. Public distance distance trained allowance in on medical Travelling transport to be qualification. qualification. supervisors. other grounds. allowances/ used if Contracted on circumstances. grants in other possible. Taxi hourly rate No distance circumstances. or special bus qualification when needed.

26 Review of School Bus Services

The previous table identifies key differences between the states in the delivery of school transport services and transport assistance. Transport assistance for students travelling to school each day is provided in each state under a variety of conditions and levels of assistance. This assistance can be classified in three principal categories; school bus services to mainstream schools, bus and taxi services for students with disabilities attending special schools and conveyance allowances for travel on public transport or by private means. School bus services – Primary and secondary schools. Free school bus services were initially introduced in Victoria in 1944 to convey groups of eligible students to the nearest centre of government secondary education. The system was later extended to include primary school students. Only eligible students attending government schools are taken into account when a new school bus service is established or an existing route is amended. Eligible students attending non-government schools may receive permission to travel to the nearest school of the appropriate denomination providing the year level of instruction required. To be eligible a student must be attending the nearest appropriate school and reside at least 4.8 kilometres by the shortest practicable route from that school. A student may travel on a school bus to a school other than the nearest under specific conditions including payment of a fare. The minimum distance requirement in other states varies from 1.6 kilometres radially (primary) or 2 kilometres radially (secondary) from the school attended whether government or non-government in NSW to 5 kilometres by the shortest practicable route to the nearest school in SA. Non-government school students in SA receive assistance if they reside at least 5 kilometres from the nearest government school and room is available on the bus. Queensland has a minimum distance requirement of 3.2 kilometres for primary and 4.8 kilometres for secondary students attending government schools. The same eligibility conditions apply to non- government school students but assistance is paid only for travel as far as the nearest government school. NT provides free travel to the nearest appropriate school if the distance exceeds 5 kilometres and subsidises travel if the distance is between 1.6 kilometres and 5 kilometres. In WA all students receive the same concession rate pass for public transport in metropolitan and outer metropolitan areas. Rural school bus access is granted to non-government school students to travel to the nearest school of the preferred denomination subject to distance qualification of 4.5 kilometres. School bus services – Special schools Transport services for students with disabilities attending special schools are provided in each state under similar conditions. Victoria, Queensland and WA have a designated transport area criterion. There are no distance qualifications. Specially equipped vehicles are used when required. Conveyance allowances Each state has a system of conveyance allowances. However, the benefits vary considerably. Allowances have existed in Victoria for more than 100 years. Currently, a student who attends a school outside the Melbourne metropolitan area must attend the nearest appropriate school and reside at least 4.8 kilometres by the shortest practicable route from that school to be eligible. Exemptions for special circumstances may apply also. Eligible students receive a full refund of fares for travel on public transport, $300 a year for car or privately arranged bus travel or $50 a year for bicycle.

27 Review of School Bus Services

In NSW the distance requirement is 1.6 kilometres radial (primary) or 2 kilometres radial (secondary) from the school attended either government or non-government, which allows free travel on public transport and up to $80 a day for car travel depending on the distance travelled. Queensland, WA, Tasmania and NT have arrangements requiring a small traveller contribution on public transport if distance requirements are met. Queensland does not provide assistance beyond the nearest government school or the school attended whichever is the nearer, if the distance requirement is met. Queensland, SA, WA and Tasmania have a rate per kilometre payment for private car travel. SA requires the student to reside at least 5 kilometres from the nearest government school to establish eligibility. WA has concession rates for all students using public transport and pays conveyance allowances for students required to travel more than 2.5 kilometres to nearest bus in rural and some semi-rural areas. There do not appear to be privately arranged bus services in other states. Finding 2.3 There are significant variations to the rules governing school bus transport across states and territories. Victoria has a flat rate private car–bus conveyance allowance whereas allowances in other jurisdictions are distance-based. Victoria also reimburses public transport fares through the conveyance allowance scheme. Victoria and some other jurisdictions transport significant numbers of non-government school students while some jurisdictions are restricted to providing transport assistance to government students only.

28 Review of School Bus Services

CHAPTER 3 Adequacy of school bus services: Improving equity and fairness Introduction This chapter examines the issues which arose from terms of reference 1 and 3. These were: •To consider the adequacy of school bus services and the impact of route closures •To advise and make recommendations to the Minister on issues related to the cost of student transport, with emphasis on ensuring equity and fairness. In considering these and other issues throughout this report the panel wishes to acknowledge the many written submissions it received along with the contributions of speakers at the consultations. In an attempt to illustrate the issues under the various terms of reference, examples have been drawn from submissions or speakers’ comments. In some cases, direct quotes have been used while elsewhere comments have been paraphrased. In the interest of each individual’s privacy, direct quotes have not been attributed to their authors. The panel has attempted to ensure that the paraphrasing is an accurate reflection of an individual’s or an organisation’s comments. 3.1 Free school bus travel The panel considered the longstanding practice of providing free bus travel for eligible students in rural Victoria. Within the eligibility criteria that currently exist, the need to attend the nearest appropriate school and to live more than 4.8 kilometres from that school, the panel took the view that this system of free travel should continue to be supported. Some argument was put during the consultations that travel should not be free given that students in the Melbourne metropolitan area are required to pay student concession fares. The panel’s view was that the subsidised Met pass system has significant advantages, including the capacity to access public transport at all times rather than just for travel to and from school Finding 3.1 Children in rural and regional Victoria are subject to disadvantages arising from isolation, distance and lack of access to other forms of transport and consequently it is essential to retain free school bus travel in these areas. Recommendation 3.1 The panel recommends strongly that the system of free school bus travel in rural and regional Victoria be maintained and strengthened. 3.2 The impact of route closures The review examined the impact of route closures on service provision taking into account the numbers of students affected, alternatives provided, changes in length of travel times and impact on school viability. Since 1990 more than 250 school bus contracts have been cancelled as a result of a program of review and rationalisation. Route reviews were carried out by DoI regional officers in consultation with schools, parents, bus operators and local members of parliament with a view to minimising adverse community responses. The reviews were implemented where declining numbers or changing access patterns were identified. The program resulted in ongoing contract savings of $10 million per annum. The cumulative savings resulting from the rationalisation program exceeds $47 million. During the same period, ninety-six new services were introduced in areas of demand growth. There was some concern expressed to the panel regarding route closures. However, the greater concern that was expressed was about the actual closure of schools and the resultant effect on small rural

29 Review of School Bus Services

communities. The concerns about routes were mainly about some specific routes which had experienced increased travel times and these were noted by the panel and passed on to the Department of Infrastructure to address. In one example in a remote location the panel heard of primary students who privately travel 25 kilometres to meet their bus at 7.55 a.m. to get to school by 9 a.m. Finding 3.2 The panel found that considerable dislocation had occurred in some rural communities as a result of past school closures which, in turn, increased time and distance travelled on some school buses. Recommendation 3.2 That DEET and DOI examine ways of reducing increased travel times arising from past school closures and adopt flexible approaches to future bus route variations taking into account the views of school communities.

3.3 Defining eligibility for free bus travel Under current policy, a government school student must attend the nearest government school and must reside more than 4.8 kilometres from that school. A non-government school student must attend the nearest school of the appropriate denomination and must reside more than 4.8 kilometres from that school. A non-government student cannot form part of a case to establish or vary a route. However once approved to travel on a free bus a non-government student is treated as an eligible traveller with equivalent rights to an eligible government school student. 3.3.1 Nearest school rule During the consultations, there were significant discussions regarding the nearest school rule and its application. Opinions ranged from retaining the nearest school requirement through to freedom of choice in school selection for all parents. Smaller government schools tended to support the nearest government school rule while others supported a limited subsidy to those choosing another school where all costs beyond the nearest school were paid for by parents.

Representatives from Wycheproof P–12 College, a small school catering for students from Prep through to Year 12, strongly supported the nearest school guideline. Colleagues from other small primary schools at Piangil and Ultima saw the nearest school rule as important in supporting local communities. The key issue with freedom of choice is the extent to which this should be allowed. In most instances where choice was argued, the argument was generally to allow access to the next school other than the nearest. The argument for further choice for government school students also referred to the fact that non-government school students are often transported greater distances compared to many of the government school students.

Government school parents from Inglewood argued strongly for choice pointing out their circumstance where students attending non-government schools can access free bus travel to Bendigo while government school students were denied access to the same bus services on the grounds that they should travel to a nearer government secondary college. These parents also identified other factors that could be taken into account in determining travel eligibility including social and economic relationships between communities.

30 Review of School Bus Services

Finding 3.3 Introducing free bus transport to an unlimited choice of schools would create a system of buses taking students in varied directions with significant distances being travelled and extra cost while impacting negatively on smaller communities. The nearest school rule is currently applied in a variety of ways. In the government sector it is used to determine eligibility for free travel on buses for students living more than 4.8 kilometres from their school. It is also applied to determine eligibility for a conveyance allowance where a bus is not available to transport students. In the non-government sector the rule is applied as the nearest school of appropriate denomination to determine eligibility to travel on a free school bus. To be eligible for conveyance allowance, non-government students must be attending their nearest appropriate school and have no access to a free bus service. The application of these rules has sometimes led to perceived if not actual inequities. However, the panel took the view that, rather than dramatically increasing costs by adopting an open-door approach, the current rules should continue to apply. As is discussed below the panel has opted instead for a series of recommendations to increase equity and fairness. Recommendation 3.3 That the nearest government school rule in the government school sector and the nearest school of appropriate denomination in the non-government sector continue to apply as the primary basis for assessing eligibility for free travel on government buses within Departmental guidelines. That the nearest government school rule and the nearest appropriate school rule for the non-government sector continue to apply in assessing eligibility for conveyance allowance payments. 3.3.2 The 4.8 kilometre rule The panel found that the 4.8 kilometres distance rule is generally well accepted across the state. (The 4.8 kilometre figure was derived from the non-metric 3 mile measurement.) General acceptance occurred partly because in practice there are very few country towns where students who live in the same town as their school have to travel more than a couple of kilometres to get to that school. And the students travelling from outside the town generally travel much more than 4.8 kilometres. Some suggestions were, however, made during the consultations.

At the Swan Hill consultation, representatives from Tyrrell College suggested that the distance could be reduced to reflect town boundaries or the extent of built-up areas in smaller towns where primary students may currently walk along busy roads without footpaths.

In Warrnambool, there was general support for arrangements that recognised the varying circumstances that may exist across the state.

‘Free bus travel must remain for government primary or secondary school students who are attending their nearest school and reside more than 4.5 kilometres instead of the current 4.8 kilometres from that school. Special consideration should be taken into account in rural and remote areas. Students, who reside less than the required 4.8 kilometres and are able to access the service due to available seats, should be classed as eligible travellers.’

The panel took the view that it was not necessary to change or reduce the 4.8 kilometre rule which in practice seemed to work well in most cases. Instead the panel believed it would be better to introduce a process to allow communities or individuals to present a case for the reduction of the 4.8 kilometre rule in situations where it can be demonstrated that special needs or circumstances warrant an exception to the rule. This was a recommendation of the progress report. In any case it should be noted that in most cases students who live within 4.8 kilometre of their school are currently being transported free where there is a place on the bus that is not taken up by a student travelling more than 4.8 kilometres. While the panel believes that this should be institutionalised as part of the guidelines and practice of the system, it should be made clear that the free bus system

31 Review of School Bus Services

should not pick up children where there is a public transport system which can be used by students within the 4.8 kilometre zone. Were this to occur the public transport system in regional centres could be compromised. Finding 3.4 That the current 4.8 kilometre rule is an appropriate distance to define eligibility for access to the free bus service or for a conveyance allowance payment, while the new process recommended in the panel’s progress report should allow the 4.8 kilometre rule to be varied to meet special needs or circumstances including demonstrated cases of hardship. Recommendation 3.4 That access to free travel within 4.8 kilometres of the school be allowed on free school buses, subject to space availability and provided no other forms of public transport are available. That guidelines be developed to assess special needs or circumstances for varying the 4.8 kilometre rule. 3.4 Towards a fairer conveyance allowance The conveyance allowance for privately arranged transport is currently set at $300 per annum and is paid in a range of circumstances to eligible students who are unable to be transported by the free government bus system or public transport. 3.4.1 Perceived inequities Recipients of the $300 conveyance allowance consistently advised the panel that this payment was inadequate and inequitable as it did not take account of distance travelled or multiple travellers in one car. The level of payment had not altered since 1994. The St Lawrence’s School (Leongatha) Parents and Friends submission was typical of many as it suggested ‘that the conveyance allowance is much too low, it should be increased to a much more realistic level and it should be indexed each year’.

Two key issues have been identified by the panel in relation to this allowance: • The payment is currently made on behalf of each individual eligible student. This means that a parent using their private car to transport their three children five kilometres to school will attract a total conveyance allowance of $900 per annum. On the other hand, a parent driving fifty kilometres but transporting only one child will attract only $300 per annum. A new graduated payment scale based on kilometre bands/zones and on payments per-vehicle rather than per child was supported by attendees at consultations. In its submission, the National Party urged the panel to ‘set conveyance allowances at a variable rate that better reflect the true cost of conveyance undertaken by parents’. It should be noted that many other organisations and individuals also suggested a variable rate not only to this review but also to the previous review.

• In some circumstances, conveyance allowances are pooled toward offsetting the cost of private bus services organised by individual schools. Some schools were concerned that any change in the level and process for payment should allow for conveyance allowances to be paid directly to schools in such circumstances, and for the payments to be paid at a rate per student. Finding 3.5 There is a clear need to increase and restructure the conveyance allowance so as to relate it to the distance travelled with a greater payment for greater distance. While an additional amount should be paid for taking more than one student this should not be a simple multiple of the conveyance allowance as this is inequitable.

32 Review of School Bus Services

3.4.2 Restructure of conveyance allowance for private car travel The panel has sought to identify a new more equitable scale of graduated payments based on kilometre bands/zones and on payments per-vehicle rather than per student, with some allowance for carrying extra students as an incentive to car pooling to promote environmental factors. Recommendation 3.5 That a distance-based per-vehicle payment scale be introduced for payment to both government and non-government students who are eligible to receive the conveyance allowance. The payment should be on the basis of distance bands commencing at 4.8 to 10 kilometres from the school, with a maximum payment for 35 kilometres and above. The proposal for Government consideration involves increasing the base rate for 4.8 to 10 kilometres from the current $300 per annum and also taking into account loadings for greater distances. It is also proposed that incentive payments set at 50 per cent of the minimum base rate be paid for each extra student in the vehicle to encourage the transport of more than one student per vehicle. Proposed Payment Structure Distance 4.8–10 10.1–15 15.1– 20 20.1–25 25.1–30 30.1–35 35+ Band Km Allowance Base Loading Loading Loading Loading Loading Maximum Notes: An additional payment of 50 per cent of the minimum base rate will be made for each additional student in a vehicle. Payments would be set so as to ensure that no current recipient of the allowance would be disadvantaged financially. Discussion This proposal would benefit both government and non-government students who currently receive the conveyance allowance for private car travel. In 2000, there were 14475 students receiving a total of $4.342 million in private car conveyance allowances based on the flat rate payment of $300 per student. The revised proposal would be expected to result in an increase in government outlays for private vehicle conveyance allowance. While this scheme and other initiatives would require some increase in administrative resources, these would not be large. The scheme would bring a far greater level of equity and fairness to the system. 3.5 Subsidisation of school operated bus services 3.5.1 Perceived inequities Non-government students cannot form part of a case for a new service or an extension of an existing service. These students can access existing services if space is available, they attend the nearest school of appropriate denomination, and reside more than 4.8 kilometres from that school. If access to an existing government school bus is unavailable, the Department of Education, Employment and Training conveyance allowance is payable. The panel received many submissions that argued that the current rules represent discrimination against students attending non-government schools by not giving them same rights as government school students. ‘It is an inherently unjust and indefensible form of discrimination. This is a taxpayer-funded service administered by DEET through the Department of Transport. No government school or student contributes to the cost of providing this service. As such it is an issue of equity that all school students, having met the two criteria of attending a school which is further than 4.8 kilometres from their place of residence and the nearest registered school of their choice, have a fair and equal access to the free bus service.’

33 Review of School Bus Services

The Warrnambool and District Catholic Schools’ Network was representative of many groups at the Warrnambool consultation, and at other consultations around the state, in arguing strongly for equal access for non-government students. In Benalla, the Mansfield Bus Action Group offered strong support for travel rights for non-government students. At the Lilydale consultation, the Yarra Valley School Bus Action Group identified significant numbers of non-government school students unable to access free school buses to highlight the inequities in the system. This discussion also highlighted the uncertainty that can be created for non-government students and their parents at the start of a school year when seats on buses are not guaranteed for new non-government students.

Recommendation 6.2 of the inquiry, Education Access – National Inquiry into Rural and Remote Education, August 2000, by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission was frequently drawn to the panel’s attention: ‘Transport for all students under the age of 18 should be the responsibility of one state or territory government department and managed under policy guidelines to ensure that pre-school children, non- government school students and TAFE students under the age of 18 have guaranteed access to government subsidised school road transport where it exists.’ (page 19) The Catholic Education Commission of Victoria recommended that ‘all schools students in an existing school transport center should be taken into account in the provision of school bus services’.

‘We believe that the availability of school buses to school-age children living in rural areas is a basic necessity for non-government and government schools students alike. We believe that the government policy on bussing for children in rural Victoria should be non-discriminatory, and reflect the equal value of each child through a fair and equal availability to transport on government buses.’

It was also suggested that discrimination occurs between non-government students. In some cases eligible non-government students travel significant distances free of cost while in other cases eligible students pay fares well in excess of the existing conveyance allowance ($300 p.a.) Finding 3.6 There are perceptions of inequity or unfairness in the non-government sector along the following lines: • That non-government students are not counted as eligible students for the purposes of establishing or varying bus routes – although they are treated as eligible once a place has been secured on the bus. • That more than 17000 non-government students receive free transport on government buses at an average cost to government of $1589 for each student. A further 8800 non-government students who meet exactly the same criteria only receive a government subsidy of $300 and pay transport fees of up to an additional $1000 per annum to travel on privately run non-government school buses. The cost of providing equal access to free government buses for those eligible non-government school students who currently are not catered for by the free bus system is estimated to be in the vicinity of $28 million per annum. Many non–government schools operate their own bus services utilising school owned buses or chartered vehicles. Eligible students travelling on these private school services receive an annual conveyance allowance of $300. A policy change to permit eligible non-government school students to form a case for a free school bus service would prove prohibitively expensive, as it would effectively involve assumption by the government of the total cost of all current and privately operated bus services. Such a policy change is not recommended. The panel believes that the issues above can be addressed sufficiently in terms of community expectation through changes recommended to the conveyance allowance scheme and a new school-based conveyance scheme for funding schools to run their own bus services.

34 Review of School Bus Services

Recommendation 3.6 Recognising that many non-government schools and some government schools may prefer to run their own bus services and taking into account the significant cost implications if all eligible non-government students are permitted to form a case for a free school bus service, the panel recommends that additional funding should be provided in order to enable non-government (and government) schools to run their own bus services for eligible students. 3.5.2 A new conveyance allowance for school operated bus services Many non-government schools (as well as two government schools) across the state operate their own private bus services. In its considerations regarding the general eligibility of non-government students for free travel, the panel examined the advantages and disadvantages of the provision of funding to allow these schools to continue to operate their own bus services as against providing free bus travel through the current free school bus service arrangements. A number of non-government schools identified that they operated their own bus runs at considerable expense. Many of these schools, such as Christian College, Highton, were keen to gain additional financial support from government to enable the ongoing operation of these services rather than to access the free school bus system.

Approximately 8800 eligible non-government school students are transported by privately contracted buses. Non-government schools argue that this represents a significant saving to the government as only $300 per student is paid as a conveyance allowance, compared with the average cost to the government of $1589 per student to provide bus transport. The panel took the view that the provision of additional funding, to allow non-government schools to operate or contract their own bus services, as against providing free bus travel through the current free school bus service arrangements, would be more cost effective. It would also allow schools or combinations of schools, potentially including some government schools, to run or contract their own buses. Currently there are only two government schools running their own bus service. There may be advantages for schools in doing this, including using buses for excursions. Recommendation 3.7 That a revised conveyance allowance payable to schools operating their own school bus services is proposed for Government consideration. The proposed allowance would be based on distance from the school and would need to be certified. It would require a signed application from the parent and the school. The allowance would be based on a per student/distance travelled scheme, commencing at a distance band of 4.8 to 10 kilometres, up to a maximum for travel beyond thirty-five kilometres. The base rate for 4.8 to 10 kilometres should be increased from the current $300 per annum with loadings for greater distances. The payment would be made to the student’s school on the basis that the school assume responsibility for arranging the bus service (directly or by contract). The proposal involves reviewing the base payment beyond the current $300 which has been in place since 1994 and making additional payments depending on distance travelled.

Proposed payment structure Distance 4.8–10 10.1–15 15.1– 20 20.1–25 25.1–30 30.1–35 35+ Band Km Allowance Base Loading Loading Loading Loading Loading Maximum Notes: This allowance is to be paid on a per-student basis and the rate of increase for progression through the bands would remain constant.

35 Review of School Bus Services

Discussion The intent of the proposal is to reduce the cost of transport to school of students attending schools that run their own bus services and thereby substantially reduce inequity in this area of school bus transport. It is imperative that the subsidy be passed on to parents in the form of reduced school transport fees. The basic requirement of travelling more than 4.8 kilometres and attending the nearest appropriate school would be maintained. It should be noted that government schools that pursue the option of running their own bus service will not be allowed to charge parents a fee. Nor would such an action be allowed without the permission of the DoI, which must ensure the continued efficiency and viability of the free contract bus and public transport systems. Agreed guidelines and codes of conduct for maintaining safe travel in school-based buses will also need to be developed prior to implementation. The guidelines will need to ensure maximum use of existing free bus services before the allowance is paid. No student or group of students will be allowed to transfer from a government free bus to a private bus without the express permission of the Department of Infrastructure. This proposal would affect a large number of students in regional Victoria. In 2000, there were 8791 students receiving a total of $2.633 million in private bus conveyance allowances based on the flat rate payment of $300 per student. This proposal would provide relief to these students by increasing payments by the government to schools to run their own bus services. 3.6 Additional choice for government school students 3.6.1 Perceived inequities Parents of government school students expressed the view that they were not being treated fairly relative to non-government school students, as non-government students could be eligible for free travel to a non-government school well beyond the nearest government school. In expressing a choice to go to a non-government school, non-government school students are provided by the government with free travel or a conveyance allowance to attend that school. However, a government school student who chooses to attend their next-to-nearest government school must pay a fare even if that school is actually closer than the non-government school for which a free service is being provided. This view was forcefully put by some parents during the consultations. ‘Currently, arrangements exist whereby a government school student can bypass the nearest government school by paying a fee, whereas subject to space a non-government student can access services to the nearest non-government school of their choice free of charge’

The other issue of equity that was raised with the panel related to the lack of educational choices for government school students in rural Victoria compared with government school students in Melbourne. It was argued that in Melbourne students could choose from a range of government schools provided space was available and they could use the subsidised public transport system to travel to that school. In addition they could also use the same public transport pass to travel on weekends and outside of school hours. An alternative view which was raised with the panel by some small rural government schools was that in providing some additional choice to government school students this would undermine the viability of some small rural schools, if the exercise of choice to another government school was made by parents. Finding 3.7 There remain perceptions of inequity from parents who want to choose to send their children to the next-to-nearest government school. They believe they are being unduly penalised for making that choice when compared to parents who choose a non-government school and when compared to parents in Melbourne who choose a government school which is not their nearest.

36 Review of School Bus Services

3.6.2 Greater educational choices for government school students The panel considered carefully the inequities which had been put to it as described above. The panel ultimately decided that a balance needed to be struck between providing some limited assistance to parents choosing another nearby school but not setting assistance at a level which would encourage parents to make such a choice. It was also decided that any special arrangements should be limited to the next-to-nearest government school and not extend beyond that. The panel also took this decision in the context that additional funding was also being recommended to improve equity in the system for non- government school students. During the consultations, some discussion also focused on the current rule that allows for exceptions to be made to attendance at the nearest school if students in Years 11 and 12 in all sectors are unable to access their desired course of study. The Victorian Farmers Federation identified ‘a need for flexibility in terms of allowing these (VCE) students to travel via the publicly-funded school bus service to an educational institution that may not be their closest designated school.

The panel recognised that circumstances exist where a student may not be able to access a course of study at their nearest school. But it was also noted that many schools, even more remote secondary colleges, are able to offer a broad choice of subjects through the Distance Education Centre of Victoria and the Victorian School of Languages, as well as the use of information and communication technologies such as video conferencing. The panel was also told that students from all sectors who are accepted in special programs such as an accelerated learning program should be able to access the free bus system. Trafalgar Secondary College described its accelerated learning program to the panel and argued strongly for transport support for the participants in the program.

The panel ultimately agreed that variations to the nearest school rule should apply and made recommendations along these lines in its progress report. These will allow VCE students from all sectors free travel or access to a conveyance allowance for a school other than their nearest where they cannot access their preferred course at their nearest school including to access approved programs such as accelerated learning programs. Recommendation 3.8 It is recommended that in order to expand educational choices for government students in rural Victoria without compromising the viability of small schools the following should apply: • A VCE student may be granted access to spare seating capacity on an existing free bus service or the new conveyance allowance to travel to the next nearest appropriate school when their nearest school cannot offer at least two subjects in their preferred course of study. * • For all students access to spare capacity on an existing school bus or the conveyance allowance would be granted to attend an approved program such as the accelerated learning program.* • A student who is currently eligible for transport assistance to the nearest government school would have the option of receiving a limited transport subsidy to attend the next nearest government school. However the student would only receive 75 per cent of the minimum conveyance allowance. It is proposed that an additional loading, set at 75 per cent of the extra child loading, would also be paid if more than one child is transported (where no government bus is available). • A student who is currently eligible for transport assistance to the nearest government school may be granted access to spare capacity to travel to the next nearest school on an existing government- provided free school bus service upon payment of the Department of Infrastructure subsidised fare. This fare ranges between $284 and $756 per annum depending on the distance travelled. Upon continued payment of the appropriate fare, students will be guaranteed access to bus travel for the

37 Review of School Bus Services

duration of their enrolment which gives these students the same access rights as apply to non- government students granted access to the free school bus system. * Note: These provisions would apply in both government and non-government sectors, but students must satisfy the Regional Director of a demonstrated need within the guidelines. Discussion The panel believes that the recommendations above would increase equity in the treatment of government students who choose to travel to their next-to-nearest school while not impacting negatively on small rural schools. Choice would also be expanded for VCE students from all sectors and other students who are attending special approved programs. The provision of an additional conveyance allowance for those choosing to go to their next-to-nearest government school would add some cost. However, this is not expected to be great because not many students currently fit into this category and the panel’s view is that parents in the main would still choose the much cheaper and more convenient option of the nearest government school to send their children to. There would, however, be significant costs associated with providing guaranteed access for students travelling on government buses, attending their next-to-nearest government school and paying the subsidised fare. The DoI estimates that it would be necessary to put on some extra services. This is because fare-paying next-to-nearest school travellers who would otherwise lose their places on the bus to accommodate nearest school travellers would be able to stay on the bus and new services will be required. Despite the additional cost, the panel is of the view that it is unacceptable for fare-paying students travelling to their next-to- nearest government school to face uncertainty and, in some cases, removal from a place on an existing service.

38 Review of School Bus Services

CHAPTER 4 Improved DEET and DoI school bus transport policies Introduction In this chapter we focus on the issues which arise from terms of reference 2 and 5. These were • To consider the implications of current education policies on transporting students • To consider the implication of the overlap with the DoI in the provision of school bus services. In considering these two terms of reference a number of recommendations are made for changes in policy and in the arrangements between DEET and DoI which the panel believes will improve the school bus system and increase educational opportunities for students in rural and regional Victoria. 4.1 Improved rules and processes for the establishment of, or alteration to, a school bus service The current DEET policy guidelines require fifteen eligible travellers for the establishment of a new service or five eligible travellers to extend or alter any service. Only students attending government schools are taken into account, however, once a service has been established, free travel can then be extended to non-government students. Viewpoints were expressed in some locations, particularly in the more remote areas in the state, that the number of students required for a new service could be reduced. Representatives from more remote schools, such as Ultima, supported the need for reduced number requirements.

The panel considered this issue of reducing the number of eligible students required to establish a route from the current fifteen to ten but decided that this was cost prohibitive. DoI estimated the cost at potentially as high as $1.3 million. The panel believed that the new distance-based conveyance allowance was a more pressing issue and that this would in fact assist all families who were not able to access a free bus service. Closure of routes was in fact a more difficult issue in rural Victoria. The current rules allow for closure when student numbers drop below seven. But such closures can have considerable impact on individual families that had planned their child’s education on the basis of the availability of a bus service. ‘Before a bus route closure, all aspects of students’ education and the schools future should be taken into account. A school bus closure can severely impact on the school’s viability and its surrounding community.’

Government schools generally supported the requirement that new service considerations should be based on government school student numbers while non-government schools supported the need to include non-government students in these calculations. 4.1.1 No minimum student numbers for varying bus routes in remote locations It is also possible that when numbers are decreasing, opportunities may be sought to merge services with a view to providing similar travel options but at a reduced cost. However this may mean varying routes. Currently the rule that applies in these cases is that a minimum of five eligible students is required to change or vary an existing route At the Bendigo consultation, speakers from the Pyramid Hill area suggested that the number of five to extend a route was now unrealistic in rural areas where farms are consolidated and that flexible arrangements should apply.

Speakers from rural areas suggested that the guidelines for sustaining a service need to be more flexible. They suggested that revised rules should reflect changing situations in rural areas, particularly those where farms have become larger with a resultant decrease in population density.

39 Review of School Bus Services

Finding 4.1: There is considerable concern in rural Victoria that the remoteness of families should be the major criteria for retaining or varying school bus routes rather than the number of students according to a prescribed formula. Recommendation 4.1 The minimum requirement of five eligible travellers to vary a route should be abolished in defined remote areas and decisions should instead be made on a case-by-case basis. In making such decisions for remote locations non-government students would also be taken into account. Discussion DoI estimates a minimal cost for this initiative from expected route variations each year. The benefits, however, are considerable for students in remote locations. It also sends a clear signal that even children in the most remote of locations have a right to be assisted in travelling to school. 4.1.2 Eligible non-government students to form part of a case for establishing new routes As previously stated, a minimum of fifteen eligible government school students is required to form a case to establish a new school bus service. Non-government students are not taken into account at all. The panel considered this issue and took the view that one way of addressing the perceived inequity here is to make allowance for some non-government students to form part of the case for establishing a new service. The argument for this was that since non-government students make up approximately 25 per cent of students in rural Victoria, this proportion of non-government students should be taken into account in establishing a new route. Thus, in the context of a minimum of fifteen eligible students to form a case for a new service, four of these students could be from the non-government sector. The panel was not able to determine in detail the cost of this proposal but understands the importance of the principle involved. Recommendation 4.2 That subject to detailed examination as to costs and appropriate timelines for introduction, the rules for establishing a new school bus route be varied to include that: • A minimum of fifteen students shall be required to establish a new school bus route • Of these fifteen students, up to four students may be from non-government schools. These students must reside on or near the new route, which is being proposed to service the nearest government school. Discussion This initiative, if implemented, would alleviate one of the most fundamental inequities which the non- government sector raised in consultations and deliberations. It would mean that for the first time, where the above circumstances arise, non-government students would be able to form part of a case for a new service based on the proportion of non-government students in rural and regional Victoria. The costs of this initiative would need to be carefully examined and its implementation may need to occur over time. When taken into account with other initiatives to allow the non-government sector to run their own buses under an increased subsidy system, the issues of need and of equity between government and non-government students are seriously addressed. 4.1.3 Eligible non-government students to be taken into account in determining route and vehicle capacity when establishing new services for the first time As noted, under current policy a minimum of fifteen eligible government school students is required to establish a new school bus service. When a service has been established eligible non-government students are permitted to travel where spare vehicle capacity is available. Once approved, eligible non- government students have the same rights of travel as government students. If the proposal above is adopted, a minimum of eleven eligible government and up to four non-government students would be required. The panel proposes a policy variation as follows:

40 Review of School Bus Services

• That the minimum of fifteen eligible students (eleven of which must be government students) to form a case for a new service be maintained, and that the route of the new service be determined having regard to the requirements of eligible government students attending their nearest school. • However, once the case has been made, eligible non-government students who reside on or near the newly proposed route will be included in planning and, in determining the required vehicle capacity to operate the service. Recommendation 4.3 It is recommended that upon establishment of a new school bus service, eligible non-government students residing on or near the newly established route be included in determining the required vehicle capacity to operate the service. Discussion This recommendation is another important step forward adding to the previous proposals, in that for the first time eligible non-government students will be taken into account once a decision has been made to establish a route. This may involve minor variations to routes to pick up students near the proposed route as well as the contracting of larger buses in order for there to be the capacity for this to occur. Together with the previous proposal and the new school-based subsidy scheme, these proposals represent a major step forward in improving equity in the system. 4.2 Transport to TAFE and other approved educational settings. The current guidelines allow a range of other people to travel on school buses. These include apprentices attending school, teachers, children attending kindergartens or preschools, and people attending a day training centre. Conditions apply to such travel. A number of other circumstances were also drawn to the panel’s attention. These included the increasing demand by young people attending TAFE, and attendance at approved training programs offered by a range of other providers. The National Council of Women of Victoria suggested in its submission that the free bus service needs to be available to all who undergo schooling/training outside the normal school age. This takes in pre- schoolers and those attending TAFE institutes, approved apprenticeship courses, universities and day- training courses.

The Victorian Association of State Schools Secondary Principals strongly supported that ‘provision for students to travel for school-enrolled TAFE and VET programs is essential.’ The panel noted that, from time to time, requests are also received for young unemployed people attending training schemes to be allowed access to free bus travel. Such young people are essentially attending an alternative education program and, in country areas, free travel to attend programs would be of significant benefit. The issue of transport for TAFE students less than 18 years of age to TAFE colleges in regional Victoria was addressed in the progress report. A recommendation was made that where these students can be accommodated on free school bus services, they should be able to access free travel. However, in many cases, because of the dispersed nature of TAFE students, free school bus services are not available to them. The payment of a conveyance allowance to these students was also considered. However, due to the dispersed nature of TAFE students, DEET estimate that there are significant costs associated with providing this allowance. It is estimated that there are approximately 20,000 TAFE students under 18 years old outside the metropolitan area. This includes full- and part-time students. It is estimated approximately 50 per cent of these are full time and would potentially be eligible for payment. Under current conveyance allowance guidelines, students attending VET courses at locations away from their schools are eligible for a pro-rata conveyance allowance.

41 Review of School Bus Services

Finding 4.2 While there were views expressed to the panel that the free school bus system and access to conveyance allowances should be extended to cover a variety of circumstances such as pre-school, TAFE, approved apprenticeship courses, day-training courses and even group-training courses, the panel found that extension into these areas was potentially very costly running into millions of dollars. Recommendation 4.4 The panel recommendation in the progress report to allow access (in line with recommendation 6 of the Ministerial Review of Post Compulsory Education) to the free bus service, where places are available, for TAFE students and unemployed youth in training programs should be implemented and expanded to cover other areas of full time training in approved courses. The panel recommends further detailed investigation by DEET, to identify options for extending access to these students including costs for consideration at a later date by the Minister for Post Compulsory Education, Training and Employment. 4.3 Travel to special school settings 4.3.1 Special school arrangements In 1995, a Special Schools Transport Working Party was established to examine improvements to the transport system. A key initiative was the introduction of Designated Transport Areas (DTA). In its submission to the review, the Principals’ Association of Specialist Schools strongly supported the retention of the Designated Transport Area policy. ‘DTAs have been established in consultation with principals of special school settings. Students are provided with transport within this DTA to the school and home again. Most principals of special schools applaud and support the implementation of DTAs.

‘Designated transport zones are beneficial in clarifying and rationalising the free transport system. Belmore School strongly supports the maintenance of a designated transport zone system for all special schools.’

Some individual matters were raised regarding the boundaries, some of which can be addressed through current processes of review by regional directors. A key issue relating to travel to special settings is the question of respite care. The current guidelines allow for travel between the student’s principal place of residence and the school. Sometimes, on an ad hoc basis, students are transported to respite care locations if this can be done with minimal impact on the travel times for other students and if this is cost neutral. Discussions have been initiated with the Department of Human Services (DHS) regarding transport of students to respite care locations. As a result, it has been agreed that while current procedures are generally able to deal with the majority of situations, a set of protocols should be developed to assist DHS and DEET officers and school principals to address individual situations in the future. While there was some comment on the current two-hour maximum travel time for special school students, there was general acceptance that this requirement be maintained on the basis that new vehicles are air-conditioned. Schools raised the possibility of reducing travel times if there is increased flexibility in arrival and departure times for students which could be used to modify services to reduce travel times. There was support from the Principals’ Association of Special Schools for maintaining current arrangements under which the administration of special school travel is undertaken within the DEET (as compared to the free school bus system administered by DoI). Some schools suggested they wished to be more involved in selection of contractors, drivers and supervisors. Some alternative views were put suggesting that the management of the service would be better placed with the DoI.

42 Review of School Bus Services

The consultation process also drew attention to the needs of a few students attending special settings where special school bus transport was not available. The current response for these students has been to arrange, if practicable, travel by taxi. This can be costly. Currently, the DEET pays up to $45000 for the transport of an individual student in these circumstances. Situations were drawn to the panel’s attention where the cost could be significantly higher. Travel arrangements for students with disabilities and impairments attending mainstream schools were raised by some parents. Under current arrangements, such students are able to access existing school bus services. There is no additional support available by way of chaperones or taxi travel. To provide additional support for such students has the potential for significant cost. Requests for such a service are currently minimal but it is likely that if support was available, many more students may seek assistance. Finding 4.3 The arrangements for travel for students with disabilities and impairments are varied. Although they have been improved in recent years through the introduction of a more streamlined taxi service and air- conditioned buses, there are still isolated examples where not all the transport needs of students are able to be met. The cost of further expanding the service to include transport to all respite care centres would be very significant. Recommendation 4.5 That DEET and DHS develop a set of protocols to facilitate travel to respite care or to implement more flexible arrangements to reduce travel times as recommended in the progress report. That DoI take further action to improve the taxi service and that the DHS and DEET investigate further the costs of full respite care access and report to the appropriate Ministers. 4.3.2 A special conveyance allowance for deaf and blind students Submissions regarding travel to other special settings, such as deaf or blind facilities, demonstrated a range of inequities under current practice. A mixture of transport assistance methods currently exists for students who are hearing and visually impaired or severely physically disabled. Hearing impaired and severely physically disabled students can access a special conveyance allowance of $700 per annum for taxi travel or $300 per annum for private car travel. Some students travelling to deaf facilities currently are provided with taxi services that were provided under a previous policy arrangement. Others, under current policy, do not access taxis but rather are provided with the $300 per annum conveyance allowance. These varying rates and treatments are seen as inequitable. The Principals Association of Special Schools recommended that: ‘transport be provided to deaf facilities on the same basis as other specialist settings.’

Finding 4.4 A variety of different practices are in place at the moment which create significant inequity in the transport of blind and deaf students. This includes the payment of a $300 or $700 conveyance allowance, or provision of taxis. Recommendation 4.6 That the Government consider a special increased single conveyance allowance to assist with private car and/or taxi travel for deaf, blind and severely physically disabled students. In adopting this new higher allowance, no new taxi services should be introduced in the future, except in circumstances where the transportation of a group of students could be achieved more economically by taxi or where special hardship circumstances can be demonstrated. Those students currently accessing a free taxi service will continue to do so.

43 Review of School Bus Services

Discussion It is expected that this proposal will require additional funding but phasing out of taxi services over time will offset some of this cost. More importantly, the proposal would bring much greater equity and fairness to a group of students with special needs who have been treated in a variety of ways in the past. 4.4 Rural-urban fringe areas of Melbourne The panel identified a number of issues in relation to the fringe areas of Melbourne including: (i) the definition of metropolitan and non-metropolitan areas (ii) the conveyance allowance is not payable to students attending schools within the metropolitan area from outside that area. However, it may be paid in the reverse situation where the school is outside the metropolitan area and the eligible student resides within the metropolitan boundary. (iii) the lack of public transport and anomalies resulting from some students travelling to school free, while others from a similar distance in the opposite direction must pay. These issues were particularly raised in consultations at locations such as Werribee, Lilydale and Mill Park. ‘We fail to see how one group of students at the school can gain access to concessional Met travel to travel in one particular geographic direction while a very substantially larger group cannot gain conveyance allowance assistance to facilitate travel from geographically different directions where Met services are not reasonably available or are not available at all.’

At the Werribee consultation, Marian College representatives pointed out that students from Hoppers Crossing attending Marian College at Sunshine have no direct transport services and must travel into a metropolitan hub and then travel out again on a different route to the school location. The panel considered the transport difficulties encountered by students residing in the metropolitan fringe. It is acknowledged that the fringe areas of Melbourne are developing at a rate that makes it difficult for existing transport services to cater for the increasing numbers of students requiring transport to school. Additionally the panel was told of the perceived inequity of providing transport assistance to students travelling from within the metropolitan area to their nearest school outside the metropolitan area but not the reverse. The panel ultimately decided that a change to this rule may introduce considerable and unforeseen costs and for this reason has not recommended a change at this time. A more detailed study of costs particularly in the non-government sector is required before this rule can be changed. Recommendation 4.7 That DoI take into account, on an ongoing basis, the needs of students in the fringe areas of Melbourne, and establish public transport routes to meet expansion of student numbers in these regions. The matter should also be referred to DoI for consideration as part of the Metropolitan Bus Plan which is currently under review. 4.5 Better subsidised fare collection processes A student may access travel on a contract school bus service to a school other than the nearest school upon payment of a fare. Such travel is dependant upon space being available on the bus after all eligible travellers have been catered for. Approval is on a term-by-term basis. The fare scale provides subsidised fares rather than a full cost recovery. There was general support for the retention of fare paying travel as an option if the nearest school eligibility requirement for free travel is maintained. Both anecdotal and statistical evidence from across the state suggested that the current system requires clarification and refinement. A secondary college bus coordinator pointed out that it is not uncommon for a traveller to pay the initial fare to access the bus but then to continue to travel while ignoring future fare payments.

44 Review of School Bus Services

Particular issues included: • the length of time for which travel is granted • the calculation of the cost – whether it be for the one-way or two-way distance and whether distance is measured as bus route or nearest practical route • the administration of the system – who collects the fares, who enforces the regulations, particularly in cases of fare evasion, and common application across the state. The panel also heard evidence that a significant number of students who should be paying the subsidised fare are paying no fare at all. Based on evidence provided by one region, preliminary estimates suggest that up to $250000 is currently not being collected across the state. This appears to be the result of poorly defined fare collection processes and a lack of personnel to pursue the implementation of the policy. Currently DoI collects only about $150 000 from fare-paying customers. With proper administration it is believed that this could be expanded significantly. One proposal canvassed by the panel was the appointment of bus administrators in each of the five regions to ensure proper collection of fares, where bus travel is accessed, and to assist in the coordination of buses. Finding 4.5 The panel found considerable support for the retention of the fare-paying system and has identified opportunities for stronger compliance and management. Recommendation 4.8 It is recommended that the subsidised fare-paying system be retained, but that a process be implemented to support its consistent application across the state. Responsibility for collection should rest with DEET and all funds collected should be applied to help support additional fare collection, administrative and bus coordination support staff. Discussion The funds currently collected, which are paid to DoI, will have to be transferred to DEET along with responsibility for collection of additional funds. As the current amount collected is minimal, a stronger collection system administered by DEET should yield significant funds which can be used for coordination and administration. 4.6 Making school bus coordination a joint government and non-government school responsibility The panel acknowledges the important role played by school bus coordinators in government schools. DEET currently allocates $718 406 to provide bus coordination resources to approximately sixty four secondary colleges across the state. The allocation is based on 18.9 effective full-time SSO positions. Based on 73000 government and non-government school travellers and the total coordination cost of $718 406, the current per student coordination cost is approximately $10. The panel received significant comment about coordination during the consultations including the following: This is obviously a very substantial and absolutely vital role for a school such ours where more than 80 per cent of students attending the school are bus travellers and there is also a significant number of students attending other schools, both primary and secondary, who either use our buses, or use our school for transferring buses or getting off the buses in the afternoon.

It is obviously a role which requires the school to be funded at a much greater rate than is the current practice. This scheme must recognise the importance of such a role and, whatever the proportions determination, recognise that the job is being undertaken by a teacher and thus the average charge- out rate for a Level 1 teacher should be the appropriate figure to use.

The Victorian Association of State Schools Secondary Principals suggested ‘coordinating state schools are insufficiently resourced to maintain this role.’

45 Review of School Bus Services

Finding 4.6 The panel found that school-based bus coordinators play an important role in supporting student travel but currently this responsibility is only undertaken by government schools and includes coordination of non-government students. Recommendation 4.9 Based on the acknowledgement by the government and non-government sector of their joint responsibility for school coordination and safety, it is recommended that a contribution reflecting per- student costs of such coordination be negotiated with the non-government sector. The additional funds collected are to be used to provide enhanced bus coordination and safety. 4.7 Improving contracts with bus proprietors While general feedback from the consultative and submission process did not identify particular issues relating to opportunities for more effective use of funds for contract buses, some concerns were expressed about the terms of the contracts between DoI and bus operators. On a number of occasions, school submissions sought increased access to contract details, and involvement of the school principal in the selection of bus contractors and bus drivers. The panel deemed that this request was not able to be met given current contractual arrangements. However it is important that any concerns be addressed by DoI on a case-by-case basis. The contracts themselves have recently been the subject of a National Competition Policy Review (completed May 1999), which concluded that: ‘... benchmarking is a reliable alternative in limited circumstances when competitive tendering is not practicable or desirable.’

‘... in the limited case of free rural school bus services, there may be circumstances in which negotiating contracts without recourse to a competitive tendering process may be justifiable in the public interest.’

Finding 4.7 The panel finds that, in the context of negotiating the current school and route bus contracts, the particular circumstances surrounding those processes were such that competitive tendering may not have been practicable or desirable. Another issue regularly raised by schools related to the cost to schools of chartering contract school buses for excursions during the course of the school day. It was argued that as vehicle and driver costs are covered under the school bus contract, school charter trips undertaken by buses contracted to the government should be charged at heavily discounted rates for all schools. Recommendation 4.10 That DEET and the Bus Association Victoria enter into discussion with a view to establishing a lower cost recommended schedule for school contracted buses for their use on excursions or similar activities by all schools.

4.8 DEET/DoI overlap in provision of services The entire school bus system was managed by the Department of Education until the end of 1989. In 1990, the implementation of a Government decision saw the administration of the mainstream bus services transferred to the Public Transport Corporation and subsequently to the Department of Transport which is now part of the DoI. During the consultation process, there was little evidence of any significant issues arising as a result of the overlap between the two departments. On a number of occasions, those present at consultations offered praise for the individual school bus coordinators, regional staff and DoI officers. Where concerns were raised, they generally related to some misunderstanding of the particular roles.

46 Review of School Bus Services

Recommendation 4.11 That current arrangements in terms of shared responsibility between DEET and DoI for the provision of school bus services be retained as they seem to have widespread acceptance. 4.9 Transit passes Currently the DoI makes available transit passes to students in Geelong, Bendigo, Ballarat and Warrnambool. These are heavily subsidised passes which allow students to travel on the public transport system within these cities. The issue was raised by Mildura schools of the inability of students using the Sunraysia urban bus system to purchase a transit pass similar to that available in other regional centres. This matter does not strictly fall within the terms of reference and would need to be considered by the DoI. The DoI informed the panel that the introduction to Sunraysia would raise questions about its introduction in other areas across the state such as the Latrobe Valley, Wodonga, Bellarine Peninsula, Shepparton, Mooroopna, Wangaratta, Bairnsdale, Sale, Horsham, , Benalla, Stawell, Portland, Seymour, Swan Hill, Colac, Bacchus Marsh and Warragul. The costs associated with such introduction are substantial. As this is an issue for the DoI and has significant costs implications associated with it, the panel is only able to make the following finding: Finding 4.8 That the provision of a student transit pass for students in Sunraysia is likely to lead to demand for its implementation in other regional cities and this would need to be considered by the government in addressing the issue. 4.10 Cross border issues During consultations at Swan Hill and Bendigo, issues relating to travel by students between Victoria and were raised. The key area of concern related to the identification of responsibility for transport provision in situations where students were attending their nearest school but in an adjoining state. This occurred, for example, along the Murray River in the north-west area of the state. Another situation related to Victorian students attending a Victorian school, who needed to cross the border to access a NSW bus service to travel, in order to get to that school. The panel understands that this latter situation has subsequently been resolved, however, the general issue of cross border situations remains unclear. Finding: 4.9 The panel found that there is some confusion regarding responsibilities for transport where students cross state borders to attend their nearest school. Recommendation 4.12 The panel recommends that the question of funding responsibilities be referred to the NSW – Victoria Borders Anomalies Committee for discussion and clarification.

47 Review of School Bus Services

CHAPTER 5 Safety on and around school buses 5.1 Issues identified A range of issues relating to student safety on and around school buses travelling throughout Victoria were raised with the panel throughout the consultation process. These included the need for improved safety at bus stops and interchanges, the installation of flashing lights and two-way communication equipment on buses, and reduced traffic speeds around buses as well as improved travel education programs. The need for seat belts on buses was also raised at a number of meetings. The Yarra Glen Primary Parents and Friends Association identified ‘the most important safety issue relating to school buses as the speed of the passing traffic when children are getting on and off. This is especially relevant on country roads with cars travelling at 100 km/h or more. It is not enough for children and parents to be educated on this issue. It is the general public that needs to be aware of this danger to our children. We believe the best way is to change the law to reduce speeds, say to 40 – 50 km/h, for cars passing stationary school buses. This is needed to change peoples habits of passing buses at dangerous speeds.’

Wandin Yallock Primary School identified concerns regarding bus stop locations, the need for passing traffic to stop when passing a stationary bus and the need for seat belts as recommendations to the panel.

Rutherglen Secondary College identified first aid training for drivers, flashing lights on buses and the need for all students to be seated as key issues.

5.2 Department of Infrastructure Initiatives Arising from the meetings the communities gave overwhelming support to the safety initiatives recently announced by the Minister for Transport, the Hon. Peter Batchelor, MP, to improve school bus travel. During 2000, the government agreed to fund the following safety measures through the Department of Infrastructure: Installation of flashing lights The government intends to improve the visibility of school buses around bus-stopping locations by requiring flashing lights and warning signs to be fitted to buses mainly used for the conveyance of children to and from school. A pair of high-mounted flashing lights and warning signs will be fitted to the front and rear of all school buses to alert traffic of the operation of a school bus service and the dangers associated with school children crossing roads. The lights will flash alternately giving a wig-wag effect and will operate once the bus door has opened and between ten to twenty seconds after the bus door has closed. The flashing lights and warning signs will be consistent with the national standard recently included in the Road Safety (Vehicles [Vehicle Standards] Regulations) 1999. The DoI commenced retrofitting all school buses with this warning system during 2001. Rural bus safety program The government has allocated $10 million to improve safety at school bus interchanges throughout the rural areas of Victoria. The program was developed by the DoI following consultation with local school principals and managers about the importance of school bus interchanges and facilities. The program provides for the harmonisation and improvement of passenger facilities and safety, including shelters, bus bays, covered walkways, seating, lighting and signing. The five-year program commenced during 1999–2000. As at 30 June 2001 the government had funded the completion of works at eighty sites throughout rural and regional Victoria.

48 Review of School Bus Services

Two-way communication equipment Most of the school bus services in rural areas of Victoria operate in remote or sparsely populated areas. In the past, difficulties have been experienced by drivers and passengers, particularly in isolated areas, trying to raise assistance in emergency situations. The government has therefore allocated funding to equip all school bus contract vehicles with telephones that will enable drivers or passengers to call for assistance in cases of emergency. Despite some concerns and misinformation when the initiative was taken, the phone provision program is almost completed. Some press reports suggested that the new system was satellite phone only. In fact, the system which was introduced operates in both satellite and ground-based mobile phone modes and, as a safety initiative, has already proved effective on several occasions. Bus stop safety review The DoI has recently conducted an audit of approximately 50 000 school bus stopping locations throughout Victoria to ensure they are in the safest possible location for children boarding and alighting from buses. The review was undertaken in order to ensure sight distances for oncoming traffic are appropriate, crossing locations for children are safe, and compliance with general safety requirements. Funding has been allocated to improve the safety of the stopping locations highlighted by the audit as needing improvement. Some $275 000 has already been committed to improvement works at rural school bus stops with further expenditure expected. First-aid training and kits Following approaches from school communities and drivers the DoI has indicated that it intends to work with the bus industry to explore the opportunities to have drivers trained in basic first aid. School bus safety video The DoI and the DEET have cooperated to produce a school bus safety video for use by schools. The video focuses on the need for safe student behaviour at bus stops. The progress report recommended that the DEET promote the bus safety video, One Near Miss Is a Miss Too Many, with all schools at the start of each school year. Air conditioning The DoI has introduced a program to equip all new school buses with air conditioning. Many of the bus services operate in hot and humid conditions and the provision of air conditioning on these buses will reduce the heat stress experienced by students, particularly during the summer months. The provision of air conditioning also has the benefit of improving the condensation conditions experienced in the buses during cold mornings and on cold days. This will also contribute to driver comfort and alertness. Approximately 100 vehicles will be equipped with air conditioning each year. This initiative has already commenced with a number of vehicles already fitted with air conditioning. The DEET has already implemented a policy that all new special school buses be fitted with air conditioning. Finding 5.1 The panel found that the safety initiatives recently introduced by the government addressed many of the concerns raised during the consultations. In particular the two-way communication system which operates on both satellite and ground-based mobile phone modes was found to be appropriate to rural needs. 5.3 Seat belts and speed limits Many submissions to the panel sought the installation of seat belts in school buses. Alternative viewpoints were also put. The installation of seat belts in school buses is a complex issue. Of the current fleet of just over 1600 buses, approximately thirty are fitted with seat belts. This has occurred at the individual operator’s

49 Review of School Bus Services

initiative and expense. The buses involved are recent fleet acquisitions. Due to structural difficulties, the majority of the buses in the fleet cannot be retrofitted with seat belts. If seatbelts are to become a requirement in the future, such a requirement could only apply to new buses.

The Association of Independent Schools in Victoria considered that ‘seatbelts should be compulsory for all new buses.’

Research on this issue provides arguments for and against seat belt installation in buses. The panel believes that if seat belts are to be fitted, it will be important that they are properly used with appropriate supervision. At this stage there is inadequate evidence of a significant gain in terms of safety by installing seat belts. The costs, however, are quite significant and the question that would arise is whether the expenditure is warranted relative to addressing the issues. The panel considered the costs of fitting seat belts to all new buses only. DoI estimates this cost at approximately $2000 per bus per annum. Over the twenty year timeframe it would take to replace all buses, the cost of fitting all new buses with seat belts would be approximately $42 million at current inflation rates. However, there are additional costs beyond these estimates because under current arrangements primary school children can sit three abreast on two adult seats. To compensate for this it is estimated by DoI that fifty two additional services and sixty five larger buses would be required at significant additional cost. Despite the very large additional costs the panel took the view that safety is of paramount importance and that what is really required is more research to determine whether the introduction of seat belts would significantly add to safety on buses. Such research would need to consider distances travelled, speeds, supervision on buses, etc. Research from overseas suggests that the most dangerous situations are when students are getting on or off the bus and crossing roads, rather than in the bus itself, (whether or not seat belts are fitted). Taking all of these factors into account, at this stage the panel did not feel it is in a position to make a recommendation for expenditure of such large amounts of money on fitting seat belts on new buses. In fact the current research suggests that safety at bus stops including reducing the speed of passing cars was a much more important safety measure. In NSW buses have a forty kilometres sign attached to the back and flashing lights which indicate that vehicles can only pass a stationary bus at forty kilometres. There are some difficulties in implementing this model, particularly on major roads where slowing traffic to these speeds when the bus stops may, in fact, increase the danger if some motorists speed up in order to pass the bus before it stops. Again research is required to establish whether this is a good idea in Victoria and whether it would add significantly to safety. Finding: 5.2 The cost of fitting seat belts in all new buses is significant. The current evidence suggests that seat belts may not add significantly to safety in buses while measures to improve infrastructure around bus stops or to slow passing traffic are more likely to improve the safety of bus travellers. Recommendation 5.1 More research needs to occur before deciding policy in this area. In particular, the implication of fitting seatbelts on new buses and the introduction of speed limits around stationary buses should be considered. Such research should take into account distances travelled, supervision, bus stop environments, speed limits and overseas and interstate experiences. The research should be conducted by DoI.

50 Review of School Bus Services

5.4 Student management Student management on buses and the introduction of a code of conduct were raised at consultations. DEET is currently developing guidelines for use by schools in preparing codes of conduct for school bus travellers.

The Bus Association of Victoria tabled a draft Code of Conduct for consideration by the panel and urged that it be adopted and supported throughout all Victorian schools systems, as a contribution to encouraging safe behaviour on and around school buses.

The Victorian Association of State Schools Secondary Principals identified student management as ‘a major issue for coordinating schools.’

5.5 Supervision An issue raised regularly by schools in relation to safety is the availability of sufficient resources to schools for the supervision of students at bus interchanges, particularly at sites remote from the school and for management and coordination of the school bus system. The school bus coordinators have an important role in student safety. They are required to maintain accurate bus rolls and timetables, liaise with school bus operators and parents of bus travellers. Coordinators are also responsible for dealing with student behavioural issues on school buses. The issue of resourcing of school bus coordinators was discussed earlier and recommendations were made to expand resources in this area. With respect to supervision at interchanges, both government and non-government schools have expressed concern at the ‘duty of care’ implications at unsupervised bus interchanges where large numbers of students change buses for transfer to and from various schools.

The Victorian Association of State Schools Secondary Principals identified unsupervised bus terminals as ‘a very real concern for schools.’

There is a general view that schools have a ‘duty of care’ at off-school locations. However, resources are not available for schools to allocate teachers to provide supervision at bus interchanges. The Department’s Central Highlands–Wimmera Region, in conjunction with local schools, has engaged a security firm to trial supervision at a major interchange in Ballarat. This trial will be monitored by the DEET. Recommendation: 5.2 That school bus coordinators be provided with appropriate information and training to ensure safety and other requirements when coordinating buses or supervising students. That DEET continue to monitor the trial use of security firms at bus interchanges to enable decisions to be made in relation to retaining or extending this initiative. 5.6 First aid The panel noted the initiative previously announced by the DoI concerning first aid in relation to free school buses. After investigating a proposal that special school bus drivers and supervisors hold first aid qualifications, the panel is of the opinion that to require compulsory training would be difficult given the legal liability issues that may arise. Recommendation 5.3 It is recommended that first-aid training should be offered on a voluntary basis to bus drivers and supervisors of special school bus services.

51 Review of School Bus Services

CHAPTER 6 Conclusions 6.1 Impact of recommendations The panel believes that the adoption of the proposals and recommendations contained in this report would result in the most efficient, cost effective and equitable school transport system in Australia. The proposals address the inequities and sometimes glaring discrepancies in the delivery of transport assistance for students throughout Victoria. That is not to say that the current system is not efficient and effective in transporting students to schools. Indeed the current system transports some 73000 students throughout Victoria free of charge and in relative terms does so in a cost effective way. The most innovative recommendations revolve around the creation of a school-based bus travel allowance which would allow a large number of non-government schools that currently transport their own students to retain and improve their school bus system. This has considerable benefits for those schools able to continue operating a school bus system such as access to cheaper excursions and being able to transport children who may not be eligible for government assistance. But the most important aspect is that the proposal significantly improves equity by reducing costs to students who fit the criteria but are not being transported free on government buses. This proposal together with the proposal to restructure the private car conveyance allowance to make it distance-based would improve the equity and fairness of the school bus system. Equity would also be improved because the further the distance travelled the more government assistance is provided – both where a private car is involved and where a school-based bus system is transporting students. The importance of the subsidy allowance for school-based bus transportation is that it provides a level of assistance which would allow those schools that choose to use their own school-based bus system to continue to do so without being disadvantaged in the way they currently are. Bringing this equity into the system also removes the perception of discrimination that has been put to the panel many times during the course of the consultations. The adoption of the proposals and recommendations contained in this report would result therefore in: 1. An efficient, effective and equitable rural and regional school transport system which compares favourably with any in Australia. 2. A safer bus system with better trained staff and drivers and better safety practices. 3. A much fairer conveyance allowance structure which recognises distance factors as well as encouraging sharing of vehicles to help protect the environment. 4. Greater equity and access in establishing new routes. For the first time, non-government students will be considered in establishing new routes on a proportional basis and in determining the size of the bus to be used on such new routes. 5. More access in remote locations by abolishing the requirement of five eligible travellers to vary routes. Non-government students, as well as government students, will in future be considered on a case-by-case basis in these regions. 6. Incentive for non-government schools to take responsibility for transporting their own students. A new school-operated bus conveyance payments would especially benefit the non-government sector and reduce inequity in the system. Some government schools, in keeping with devolving responsibilities, may also take up the offer, perhaps in conjunction with other schools in an area. Schools which run their own bus systems are often able to provide cheaper and more frequent excursions and transport for non eligible students. This adds to the benefits a school community can offer under this scheme.

52 Review of School Bus Services

7. Improved choice for government school students by providing limited assistance for private car travel to next to nearest school and a subsidised fare and guaranteed ongoing travel on a government contracted bus. 8. Increased assistance for blind, deaf and severely physically disabled students across Victoria would increase equity in this important area. 9. Improved cooperation and coordination among school sectors including sharing costs with the non- government sector. 6.2 Indexation The review panel is of the view that whatever changes are made, the Government should consider indexing allowances, payments and charges on a regular basis to maintain the level of government support for student travel. This indexation should cover both the payments made by fare-paying customers as well as all allowances paid to students or schools. If we are to establish a fairer and more equitable transportation system and avoid the calls for a review every few years, indexation must be built in. It is proposed that such indexation begin in the 2004–2005 financial-year and be locked into future projections. This will allow a period of two years to bed down the new system and put in place all necessary arrangements. Recommendation 6.1 That in order to avoid calls for ongoing bus reviews, the Government consider indexing all allowances, payments and charges which relate to the school bus system and conveyance allowances beginning at the commencement of the 2004-2005 financial year. 6.3 Implementation timelines The panel considered the issue of implementation timelines carefully. The option of seeking implementation at the beginning of the 2002 school year was rejected for a range of reasons. These included that there had been no budget allocation in the 2001–2002 budget for what are initiatives involving significant additional outlays. It is not in line with the government’s commitment to financial responsibility for additional unbudgeted outlays to occur. The spending proposed in these initiatives should therefore be considered within the context of preparing the 2002–2003 budget and through the government’s expenditure review process. Another reason for not recommending commencement of the spending initiatives at the beginning of 2002 school year was the considerable amount of planning, organisation and negotiation with the non- government sector that is required in implementing the new processes and procedures. The panel also considered delaying implementation until the beginning of the 2003 school year. Such a course of action would be likely to lead to considerable criticism given that public statements have been made along the lines that the report will make recommendations for implementation in 2002. The panel ultimately decided that implementation of initiatives requiring additional budget outlays should commence on 1 July 2002 while other initiatives could be introduced at the beginning of school year 2002 or throughout the course of that year. This would allow the full implementation of all initiatives in 2002 in line with government statements. It also allows the full consideration of all proposals by the Government’s Expenditure Review Committee where final decisions must be made about funding allocations. Recommendation 6.2 That the initiatives contained in this report be considered by the government and, if agreed to, be implemented during the 2002 school year. Any initiatives that involve funding proposals including government payments or allowances or more resources and therefore have implications for the State budget will need to be considered as part of the 2002–03 Budget process. Accordingly the Government agreed proposals which require additional funding may be implemented commencing 1 July 2002.

53 Review of School Bus Services

Discussion of initiatives The initiatives which are contained in recommendations in this report that do not require additional outlays in the state budget should, if agreed to by the Government, be implemented over the course of 2002 school year. The remaining initiatives that require additional outlays to the state budget will have to be considered by the Government as part of the 2002–03 state budget and, if approved, should come into effect from 1 July 2002 as a result of the implementation of the 2002–2003 State budget. As noted, the view of the panel is that recommendations that require additional budget outlays be implemented in full from 1 July 2002. This is in keeping with the Government’s announcements of implementation of initiatives from the bus review during the 2002 school year. The panel believes that the initiatives contained in this report are important and should be implemented as part of a comprehensive strategy to address issues of equity and fairness within the school bus system. Should all initiatives be implemented, the panel is of the strong view that the school bus system will be significantly improved in terms of equity and fairness and will compare favourably with other school bus systems across Australia. The proposals also add to the efficiency and effectiveness of the delivery of the bus service. While, in the view of the panel, all the initiatives are important, those that are most urgently needed in order to bring equity to the system, and gain support from both the government and non-government sectors, include the restructure of the private car allowance, the new school-operated bus conveyance allowance, the new allowance for blind, deaf and severely physically disabled students, and the initiatives to increase choice and access in rural and regional Victoria for both government school and non-government school students.

54 Review of School Bus Services

APPENDIX 1

LIST OF ATTENDEES AT CONSULTATIONS

55 Review of School Bus Services

LIST OF ATTENDEES AT CONSULTATIONS

SWAN HILL, 5 October 2000, Attendance No: 44 Vin Butler, Geoff Newell, Jill Whyte, Nikki Borchard, Lyn Porter, Col Hedwards, G & S Notting, Ian Russell, PeterHayward, Lee Anne White, Bob Shaw, Jodie Brasher, George Boyd, Phil Campbell, Ros Tucker, F.Jones, Bill Rush, Geoff & Maureen Balsarini, Dick Balsarini, Marge Townrow, Col Shepherd, Margaret Byrne, Peter Byrne, Jenny Pain, Jeanette Coulter, Sheila Bennett, Robyn Reeves, Terry Elliott, Venita Farrell, Jim Willox, Craig Davies, Neville Hoye, Naomi Davy, Tonya Taylor, Keith Foote, Clem Barbary, Glenda Martin, Shane Ryan, Richard Bulzomi, Gordon Bennett, P Pickering, Lindsay Donald. BENDIGO, 6 October 2000, Attendance No: 38 Wayne Campbell, Ruth Sloan, Peter Boswood, Chris and Robyn Mitchell, Karen Sloan, Lynette Rose, Parry, Y. Hayes, Kevin Lee, Chris Eeles, Yvonne Eckhendt, David Ind, Fred Ind, Geoff Guy, Tony Mortimer, Cheryl Parsons, Joyce Hansford, Keith Foote, Linda Younghusband, Marsy Leitch, Geoff Hansford, Peter Stone, Neville Walker, John Blair, Lindsay Sargeant, Max Collins, Ian White, Paul Kirkpatrick, David Castles, John Trevillian, Eddie Butterworth, A. Gladman, Mandy Clayton, Graeme Swatton, R. Bushings, Ann Irvins. WOODEND, 6 October 2000, Attendance No: 18 Paula Hill, Brian Collins, Neil Organ, Peter Redenbach, Tim Walsh, Debra Butt, Ann-Marie Elliot, Greg Smith, Glenn Goldie, L. Tilyard, Paul O’Riley, Keith Foote, Stephen Holgate, Margaret Ryan, Steven Millner, Janine Lamble, Geoff Barrett, Joanne Duncan MP MORNINGTON, 9 October 2000, Attendance No: 22 Ben Wells, Wendy Craig, Lance Start, Kevin Norris, Geoff Cowen, Ian Herron, Alison Abernethy, John Keysens, Ron Bourke, Trish Cowling, Paul Desmond, David Barclay, Ken Slater, Lisa Lyngcoln, Jane-Anne Whitten, Bill Henderson, Geoff Pledge, Barry Walsh, Chas Foran, Tom Alpine, Peter Davis, John Schreurs. WARRNAMBOOL, 12 October 2000, Attendance No: 43 Helen Kenna, Annette Vogels, Bernie Stapleton, Neville Mahney, Sharon Paton, Ann Ryan, Adam Morton, John Vogels MP, Marlene Emansan, Brenda Hampson, Sue Franklin, Bernadette McKinnon, Sharyn Grinter, Maureen Kenna, Lorraine de Kok, Lynne Carter, R. Meir, Doug Martin, Michael Kians, Michael Saunders, Michael Hinkley, Bruce Miller, Lyn Lanmen, Anne Carey, Chris Dickson, Tom Dickson, Ross Sloane, Kevin Waterhouse, Kathy Dalton, Teresa Moloney, Patrick Linehan, Allison Kearns, Bill Keneley, Barry Christian, Malcolm Bishop, Allan McKenzie, Peter Pope, Keith Foote, Martin Newnham, John McCullough, Tonia Mizzi, Marg Blomeley, Peter McElgunn. GEELONG, 13 October 2000, Attendance No: 26 Ralph Shaw, Amanda McFarlene, Keith Foote, Mark Broom, Raelene Barnes, Wade Richardson, John Angel, Ian Trezise MP, Paul Atack, Mike Bowtell, Garry Spry, MP, D. Cook, Greg Wilson, Norma Sell, Scott Mitchell, Deb Cameron, Peter Nolal, Chris Maddock, Gavin Lues, Elaine Carbines MLC, Stefan Kudilczak, Sandra Falls, Stephen McDonald, Anne Patton, D. Backwell, Jeff Cooper. WERRIBEE, 13 October 2000, Attendance No: 11 Mal Colledge, Anne Day, Louise Cleary, Gayle Maxwell, Shirley Walters, Mary Gillett MP, Greg Sperling, Gus Garnsworth, Anthony Jones, Roger Schwart, Scott Mitchell.

56 Review of School Bus Services

BAIRNSDALE, 18 October 2000, Attendance No: 29 Sandra Kelly, Keith Foote, Grant Dick, Ian Gillick, M. Phelan, B. Quigley, Ron Wilson, John Kinniburgh, Ann Gibbs, Peter Carr, Lindy Crawford, Lindsay Crawford, David Hine, Shirley Harvey, Llewella Patterson, John Curtis, Peter Hall MLC, Michael Beazer, Colin Price, Lionel Rose, Peter Larsen, Russ Matthews, Stuart Chapman, Helen Lanigan, Chris McAninly, Richard Dyson, Jamie Dyson, M. Carpewter, V. Carpewter. WARRAGUL, 19 October 2000 Attendance No: 22 Cathy McLennan, Susan Hocking, Graham Rawson, Peter Phillips, Lyn Keating, Lyn Kelly, Mark Glover, Chris Holt, Nettie Marson, Trevor Cox, Bruce Rowbottom, Cameron Cuthbertson, Gerry Kennedy, Rieny Nieuwenhof, Cheryl Glowrey, Tim Bayly, Stephen Keating, Russell Monson, Stephen Simcocks, Alisha Twite, Mary Royce, B. Quigley. LEONGATHA, 19 October 2000, Attendance No: 44 Barbara Beaumont, John Beaumont, Kevin Davies, Trevor Johns, Fenna Schroder, Ian Snell, Mary Dortmans, Annette Dumont, Greg Synan, Robyn Halliwell, Susan Panther, Dianne Smith, Heather Stone, Annie Chisholm, Pauline Braumann, Sharyn Browne, Wendy Alexander, John Howard, Sylvia Vagg, Arie Bongers, Tim Charles, Ed Carmody, Nathan Johnston, Justin Leeds, Chris Howard, Robert Bacon, Liz O’Loughlin, Trevor Johns, Rob Nyhuis, Jan Bourne, Phil Roche, Rebecca Little, Emma Germano, Joe Piper, Peter Hall MLC, George Newcome, Michael Delaney, Colette Newcome, David Leslie, Lisa Piasente, Gerry Kennedy, Allan Winterhalter, Cameron Cuthbertson, Keith Foote. LILYDALE, 23 October 2000, Attendance No: 70 Shane Taylor, Alison Abenethy, Warren St. Clair, Kathleen Dawes, Bernard Dobson, Mark Prest, Des Russell, Wayne Mountjox, Lyn Wong, Geoff Garner, Glenda Wolff, David Rashleigh, Ron Hurley, Kathleen Wilkins, Marianne Johnson (obo-Christine Fyffe MLA), Lisa Denby, Tristan Denby, Jai Denby, Margaret Sheehan, Jess Robinson, Ray Hart, Leanne Tucker, Sally De Ven, Wendy Busacca, Julie Haoust, Keith Foote, Rodney Collier, Jenni Morris, Wendy Searle, Barb Duncan, Gerard Searle, Simon Denby, Fran Robinson, Michael Scott, Michele Deckert, Heather Gardner, Cathryn Kerley, Rod Hysted, Maggie Westlake, Lesley Harris, Fiona Dickson, Greg Hancock, Marie Ghirardello, Evelyn Magnik, Anja Davidson, Paula Kinsella, Jim Kinsella, Mary Ryan, Brian Luscombe, Geoff Nentherly, Louise Lott, Jody Lott, Jill Kimpton, Brian Halliday, Joe Pulitano, Ruth Manning, Elizabeth Arnaud, Daryl Pulford, Laura McMeikin, Maria Ozols, Stephen Turner, Roslyn Cato, Andre Haermeyer MP, Sharon Stuchbery, Annette James, Raymond James, Graeme Brown, Cath O’Halloran, Graham Hawill, Vic Haoust. WANGARATTA, 26 October 2000, Attendance No: 32 Haydn Smith, Jack Cullen, Frank Ryan, Noel Bennett, Pat Murtagh, Judy Kneebone, Kate Harwood, Catherine Jefferies, Suzanne Grant, Paul Shelley, Rob Carolane, Belinda Adams, Lois Hotson, Andrea Oates, Greg White, Howard Gibson, Lyn Lumby, Ray Saunders, Stuart Cullen, Greg Bourne, Michael Ivone, Kitty Knappstein, Jill McGillivray, K. Jasper MP, Peter Lark, Kevin McMohon, Andrew Oates, Judy Gallagher, Lloyd Ohlin, Helen Watson, Keith Foote, Leon Kildea, Damien Kelly. SHEPPARTON, 27 October 2000, Attendance No: 49 B. Cooney, G. Lade, W. Reid, D. Taveira, M. Italia, Roman Bilous, Peter Lloyd, Chris McCallum, Frank Malcolm, J. Riley, Pam Malcolm, Allan Weeks, Peter Krake, Kate Mahoney, Leah Kateiva, Joan Gundry, Phil Mitchell, Peter Newman, Rosemary Newman, Keith Holland, Jeanette Holland, Noel Wiltshire, W. Dickinson, Tony Mortimer, Kevin Bourke, Keith Foote, Lloyd Ohlin, L. Vale, Trudy Scadden, Geoff Vale, Geoff Adams, John Howley, Glenys Rokahr, Jeanette Powell, Gavin Vale, Gayle Vale, Searle Vale, Karli Sutherland, Keith Gray, Mark Farrar, Tony Fahey, John Schireisan, Ian Martland, John Palma, Barrie Halliday, Noel Hoad, Keith Ford, Jim Gardiner, Richard Speedy.

57 Review of School Bus Services

SEYMO, 27 October 2000, Attendance No: 22 Adrin Mitchell, Larry Fallon, Robert Taylor, T. Stevens, Peter Blady, Peter Graf, Robyn Godwill, June Caway-Clark, Peter Kelly, Wendy Williams, S. Franzi-Ford, Stuart Brain, Keith Foote, Bill Brearley, Jan Chadwick, Alan Gladman, Steve Quinn, Peter Hutchinson, Pauline Cornish, Robert Cornish, Pat Colliver, C. Smith. MILL PARK, 27 October 2000, Attendance No: 23 Michelle Tedeschi, Yvonne Kenyon, Pam McDiarmed, Bernie Fitzgerald, Wayne Robinson, John Stanley, Greg Deacon, Paul Duff, Bernie Simmonds, Wendy Ward, Mera Gilbett, G. Jackson, F. Jackson, David Ward, Ros Conroy, Anne Shellard, Fil Nardella, Beth Ghiotti, Ann Kimber, Mark Merry, Warren Thomas, Avril Salter, Andre Haermeyer MP. BALLARAT, 2 November 2000,Attendance No: 57 Peter Upton, Marie Moore, Suzanne Brody, David Ellis, A. Currie, Jeff Spencer, Ross Huntington, Don McKenzie, Keith Foote, Richard Liddelao, Elizabeth Woodroofe, Bernadette Nagle, Lynn Dwyer, Lynn Sunderland, Malinka Comelli, Judi Comellli, Lizzie Dwyer, Alison Langdon, Michael Langdon, Darcy Kay, Jack Kay, Tauree Kay, Pat Dwyer, Robert Comelli, Danny Dwyer, John Dwyer, Katie Dwyer, Seana Szetey, Anne Fry, Vin Dillon, Marie Murphy, Anne Marie Taranto, Antoinette Langdon, Peter Langdon, Judette Szetey, Sally Malcher, Richie Bissett, Ben Amor, Norm Marshall, Len Geddes, Kirsten Mene, Vince Hayes, Brendan McDonald, Dianne Gardner, Shelley Kay, Tony Duggen, Susan Gunn, John Shannon, David Smith, Dave Crossthwaite, Jo Roberts, Pamela Sandlant, Di Leverett, Mary-Anne Nunn, Leo Nunn, John Cotter, Leo Styles. HORSHAM, 3 November 2000, Attendance No: 33 Susan Dodson, Bill Slatter, Darren Hovey, David Priest, Lynn Heard, Claire Feery, John Pipkorn, Dallas Rintoule, Joan Mackley, Ron Harslen, Karolee Wolcott, Gary Simkin, Joanne Bibby, Hugh Delahunty MLA, Neil Magor, Alan Conway, Mark De Clifford, John Harley, Steve Austin, Norm Austin, Keith Foote, Tracey Smith, Gwen Fischer, Harold Fischer, Ian Trigg, John Ling, Drew Heard, Chris Brouwers, Neville Schilling, Peter Wahl, Jim Fenoughty, Helen Ladlaw, Kay Sims. MELTON, 3 November 2000, Attendance No: 10 Don Nardella, MLC, Rebecca Close, Dee Sliwa, Leo McInerney, Sue McKenzie, Peter Hendrickson, Lily Offer, John StaNley, Alex Spyrou, Chris Sikavitsas.

TOTAL ATTENDEES: 593

58 Review of School Bus Services

APPENDIX 2

INDIVIDUALS AND ORGANISATIONS WHO MADE SUBMISSIONS TO THE PANEL

59 Review of School Bus Services

PARENTS Writer Location Writer Location S Andrews Smeaton Mr C Falconer-Pritchard Woodside E Arnaud Smiths Gully Mrs B Fawkner Garfield Ms D Backwell Breamlea Mr&Mrs C Fitzgerald Arawata Ms S Baker Yannathan Mr&Mrs M Flahive Warbuton A Baker Woori Yallock Mrs K Flint Sale Mr&Mrs A Barnes Anakie Ms J Foster Lang Lang Ms M.Barnes Lang Lang Mr A Frew Sale Ms M.Barnes Trafalgar East Mrs K Gatens Gisborne Mr&Mrs L Barnett Bairnsdale Ms D Germain Lang Lang Mr&MrsF Barry Swifts Creek Mr&Mrs N Giacometti Anakie Mr&MrsM Batten Launching Place Ms B Giblin Iona Mr&Mrs D Beilharz Lang Lang Dr R Gibson Barwon Heads Mr&Mrs J Beaumont Alberton West Ms D Gilbert Krowera Ms M Biddiscombe Yarra Junction Ms M Gough Toolangi Ms A Bonnell Hoddles Creek Mrs S Grant Chiltern Mr&Mrs P Bourke Maffra Mr G Green Hoppers Crossing Ms P Braumann Buffalo Mr&Mrs J Gregor Woomelang Mr&Mrs L Brovedane Bairnsdale Mr&Mrs J Griffiths Bowmans Forest Mr&Mrs P Buitenhuis Phillip Island Ms J Gundry Mr&Mrs D Burns Kilcunda Mr&Mrs J Hall Jindivick Ms W Busacca Toolangi Mr M Hanney Neerim South Ms D Butt Woodend Ms L Hanney Neerim South Mr&Mrs W Cameron Pearcedale Mr&Mrs K Hare Rowville Mr I Campbell Horsham Mrs C Harrison Ms E Carbone Mirboo North Mr&Mrs C Hayes Inglewood Mr J Cardwell Mitta Mitta Ms S Hilder Garfield Mr&Mrs C Carson Neerim South Mr&Mrs R Hoffman Bengworden Mrs L Carter Warrnambool Mr B Holden Myrtleford Ms A Casson Yarragon Mr S Holgate Romsey Mr J Champion Warburton Mr&Mrs K Holland Picola Mrs R Chmielnik Greenvale Mr R Honey Bendigo Mrs L Clay Jan Juc Ms J Horsfield Tallangatta Mrs A Cleary Bridgewater Mr&Mrs D Huffer Newry Mrs G Cocciardi Arawata Ms B Hunter Jan Juc Ms S Cohen Gormandale Col P Hutchinson Puckapunyal Military area Ms W Craig Frankston Mr B Jackson Patchewollock Mr&Mrs R Clark Pearcedale Mr&Mrs R James Healesville Mr&Mrs R Coulthard Yarram P Jayasundera Latrobe Valley Ms G Dawes Jindivick Ms S Jensen Drouin Mr M Dawkins Bairnsdale Ms A Jessep Tinamba Mr R Dawson Traralgon Ms S John Wy Yung Ms T Deakin Kyabram Mr A Johnstone Bairnsdale Mr&Mrs P de Clifford Stawell Mr B Jones Manangatang Ms B Deefsma Rev'd&Mrs D Jones Stratford Ms M Deen Noojee Mr&Mrs A Keenan Traralgon Mr T Denton Clyde Mr K Kennedy Bairnsdale Mr M Dortmans Leongatha Mr&Mrs J Kennedy Corop Ms A Donohue Wonthaggi Ms Y Kenyon Kalkallo Ms S Doyle Drouin Mr C Kilpatrick Korumburra Ms M Dunstone St Andrews Mr&Mrs P King Drouin Ms J Eldred Healesville Mr&Mrs J Kinsella Gladysdale Mr&Mrs P Engel Bairnsdale Mr B Kirk Sunbury Ms P Ellis Mr P Koiker St Andrews

60 Review of School Bus Services

PARENTS Continued Writer Location Writer Location Mr&Mrs R Krstic Healesville Mr T Robl Pyalong Ms G Lade Katunga Mrs D Russell Ararat Mrs L Lake Mooroolbark Ms M Ryan Lancefield Ms R Leahy Langwarrin Ms J Schlig Stratford Ms F Lee Traralgon Mr&Mrs T Scalzo Labertouche Mr&Mrs G Lubke Picola Mr&Mrs P Scollo Nyora Ms S Lucas Millgrove Ms B Seymour Wodonga Mr S Lunja Meadow Heights Ms K Shiels Yarra Junction Mr&Mrs F Malcolm Naringaningalook Ms G Slater Toolangi Ms A Manning Wesburn Mr&Mrs P Slatter Rochester Mr&Mrs N Marson Caldermeade Mr&Mrs A Smith Torquay Mrs D Marten Korumburra Mr H Smith St James Ms M Miles Yarra Junction Mr&Mrs D Somers Healesville Mr&Mrs C Mitchell Barmah Mr&Mrs M Speechley Hazelwood North Ms M Mithen Woori Yallock Mr W Speekman Korumburra Ms J Mitzi Craigieburn Mr&Mrs W Steendam Neerim South Mr D Moylan Shepparton Ms M Steenholdt Warragul Mr&Mrs D Munro Wando Vale Mrs J Stevenson Maffra Ms V McConville Fryerstown Mr G Stow Wodonga Ms C McCormack Warragul Mr G Sutton Numurkah Mr&Mrs N McCrohan St Andrews Ms J Sutton Stanhope Mr&Mrs B McDonald Mornington Ms L Sunderland Trentham Mr&Mrs R Macfarlane Coleraine Mr G Synan Leongatha Ms T McGreevy Calulu Ms L Taylor Ferny Creek Mrs A Mackay Lang Lang Mrs M Taylor Warburton Mr&Mrs BMackenzie Nerrena Ms M Tedeschi Craigieburn Ms F McMahon Meerlieu Mrs S Thomas Beechworth Mr&Mrs G McMillan Garfield Mr&Mrs P Tilyard Woodend Mr L McNamara Poowong North Mrs C Tocknell Pakenham Mr&Mrs A McPherson Whorouly Ms M Townrow Nullawil Ms F Nardella Mill Park Ms L Tucker Steels Creek Mr J Neary Beechworth Ms Y Tuohey Colbinabbin Mr G Newcome Leongatha Mrs I Turner Shepparton Mr&Mrs R Newton Whorouly Mr&Mrs S Turner Swifts Creek Ms M Northcott New Gisborne Mr&Mrs S Turner Healesville Ms M Noy Warragul Mr&Mrs G Vale Picola Ms B O'Heir Sale Ms S Van De Van Toolangi Mr J O'Kane Broadmeadows Mr&Mrs R Van Duppen Lilydale K Olpp Woori Yallock Mr&Mrs H Van Es Cooriemungle Mr&Mrs L Palfreyman Bridgewater Ms P Vorbach St Albans Mr&Mrs M Parbery St Andrews Mr&Mrs P Waite Sale Mr&Mrs G Pascoe Cobden Ms T Waite Sale Ms T Pattinson Ms W Walton Pearcedale Ms D Pell Kilmore Mrs M Werner Drouin Ms J Petersen Bairnsdale Ms K Wilkins Lilydale Ms M Plail Caldermeade Ms S Wilson Jan Juc Mr C Price Sale Mr&Mrs L Winder Greendale Mr&Mrs M Quigley Tynong Mr&Mrs P Witt Healesville Mr&Mrs D Redwood Bridgewater Mr&Mrs T Wood Anakie Ms E Robbins Yarra Junction Mr&Mrs M Woods Toongabbie Mr&Mrs M Robbins Woori Yallock Mr&Mrs D Woodward Greensborough Ms L Robertson Korumburra Mr&Mrs J Yates Bairnsdale F Robinson Yarra Junction Ms S Zimbolani Smiths Gully

61 Review of School Bus Services

GOVERNMENT

Writer Location Writer Location Mr G Arnott Allansford & District PS Mr D Griffin Mangatang P-12 College Mr G Garnsworthy Altona SC Ms E Hayward Matthew Flinders Girls SC Ms C Cardile Arthurs Creek PS Ms W Alexander Mirboo North PS Ms H Rawlings Bairnsdale PS Mr L Frost Mitchell SC Ms J Bromwich Bairnsdale West PS Mr J Hetherington Mt Duneed Regional PS Mr L Rose Bairnsdale SC Ms M Bray Murrabit Group School Ms J Fanning Ballendella PS Mr K Lee Murrayville CC Mr J Harley Balmoral HS Mr D Smith Neerim South PS Mr F Colliton Bacchus Marsh SC Mr K Barbetti Nullawil PS Mr G Kirsanovs Beaufort SC Mr J Buzza Numurkah PS Mr R Hurley Bellarine SC Mr S McKinley Numurkah SC Flora Hills email Bendigo Collegiate Schs Mr R Shaw Oberon HS Mr T Trevena Berwick SC Mr P Nicolson Orbost North PS Mr D Salter Beulah PS Mr A Riggs Ouyen SC Ms S Naughton Birchip P-12 School Mr R Stephens Patterson River SC Ms M Holloway Boort PS Mr D Russell Pembroke SC Ms R Pattinson Boort SC Mr M Keyburn Port Fairy Consolidated Mr R Greer Camperdown College Ms R Ryan Portland North PS Mr R Sloane Caramut PS Mr J Kerr Pyramid Hill P-10 College Mr P Britton Charlton College Ms T Smith Rainbow PS Mr J Kinniburgh Clifton Creek PS Mr J Ling Rainbow SC Mr D Styles Cobden TS Mr P Degenkamp Ripplebrook PS Ms Y Eckhardt Cohuna SC Mr J Cousins Robinvale SC Ms B Sherry Coleraine PS Ms J Ezard Rushworth P-12 College Ms S McEvoy Dederang PS Mr L Sullivan Rutherglen HS Mr B Brasier Donald HS Mr I Wallis Sale College Mr P Dunlop Drouin SC Ms M Longhurst Seaford PS-Special Language Sch Council Echuca West PS Unit Mr I Trigg Edenhope P-12 College Ms K Jones Seville PS Mr R Bariola Edi Upper PS Mr P Tyrell South Gippsland SC Mr P Stone Elmore PS Mr P Hon St Arnaud SC Mr N Vincent Eltham East PS Mr A McCann Stawell PS Ms C Smith Euroa SC Mr J Torney Tempy PS Mr B Keneley Grasmere PS Mr M Baker Templestowe College Mr G Holmes Hamilton (Gray St) PS Mr M Lee-Ack Timboon P-12 School Mr G Williams Hawkesdale P-12 College Ms C Stevens Tubbut PS Ms W Moore Hazelwood North PS Ms L Harrison Tungamah PS Mr P Graf Highlands PS Mr W Slater Trafalgar HS Mr P Cheel Hopetoun SC Mr B Way Upper Yarra SC Mr W Jackson Horsham West PS Mr C U'Ren Wandin Yallock PS Ms M U'Ren Hurstbridge PS Mr J Hickey Watsonia North PS Mr G Wilson Inglewood PS Mr R Monson Warragul Regional College Ms E Congiusta Irymple SC Ms M Dunn Warrandyte PS Ms S Dodson Kaniva Combined Schools Mr S Butyn Werribee SC Mr B Whitehead Kooweerup SC Mr I Giovannoni Whorouly PS Mr P Biggins Korumburra SC Mr R Phillips Woolsthorpe PS Mr R Muller Kyabram SC Ms L White Wycheproof P-12 College Mr H Ellis Lakes Entrance SC Mr I Whitehead Yallourn North PS Mr J Benison Lilydale HS Mr W Campbell Lockington Con School Mr J Haines Maffra PS

62 Review of School Bus Services

NON-GOVERNMENT

Writer Location Writer Location Mrs P McDiarmid Aitken College Mr K Greenwood Northside Christian College Ms J McDonald Ballarat & Clarendon Mrs D Taveira Notre Dame College College Mr G Noonan Our Lady of the Rosary PPS Mr L Littleford Bayview College Kyneton Mr G Weatherley Belgrave Heights Christian Ms T Mizzi Our Lady Help of College Christians School Mr A Ross Billanook College Mr M Schwab Oxley College Mr P Grutzner Braemar College Mr B Wells Padua College Br P Kane Catholic College Bendigo Mr M Merry Parade College Mr P Casey Catholic College Wodonga Mr R Nieuwenhof Presentation College Mr L Mc Inerney Catholic Regional College Mr T Walsh Sacred Heart College Melton Kyneton Mr K Waterhouse Warrnambool & District Mr M Moloney Sacred Heart School Catholic Schools Networks Casterton Mr C Maddock Christian College Highton Mr B Hudson St Aloysius Catholic PS Mr T Harley Colac Otway Catholic Ms C Cardinal St Brendan's School Schools Network Ms M Johnson St Francis Xavier's College Mr E Bennett Covenant College Ms K Dalton St John's PS Dennington Mr J Shannon Damascus College Sr C Hinkley St John's School Euroa Mr P Griffin Emmanuel College Ms R Copeland St Joseph's College Echuca Mr G Bourke FCJ College Benalla & Mr B Teggelove Mr C Price Gippsland Grammar Mr T Harney St Joseph's School Pirron Mr R Schwarz Good News Christian School Yallock Ms K Stokie Goulburn Valley Grammar Mr M Gray St Joseph's PS Warrnambool School Mrs M Cain St Joseph's PS Coleraine Mr N MacLean Hamilton College Ms C Purdey St Joseph's School Yarra Mr K Davies Hillcrest Christian College Junction Ms C Moncrieff Ironbark Christian School Ms A Kelly St Joseph's PS Penshurst Mr N Benfell King's College Mr M Mann St Mary's School Rushworth Mr A Bongers Leongatha Christian School Mr E Dalton St Mary's PS Hamilton Ms D McKenna Lumen Christi Catholic PS Mr V Butler St Mary's PS Sea Lake Mr B Langerak Maranatha Christian School Mr P Duff St Mary's PS Whittlesea Ms L Cleary Marian College Mr B Cooney St Mary's of the Angels Mr C Holt Marist-Sion College Catholic SC Nathalia Mr M Delaney Mary MacKillop CRC South Mr J Lenaghan St Malachy's PS Edenhope Gippsland Mr C Roberts Ss Michael & John's PS Mr N Clark Mentone Grammar Horsham Mr P Linehan Mercy Regional College Mr M Saunders St Patrick's School Camperdown Camperdown Mr b Neal Monivae College Mr K Hunter St Patrick's School Kilmore Mr S Miller Mount Evelyn Christian Mr C Brouwers St Patrick's School Nhill School Mr T Perkins St Patrick's School Stawell Mr B Dobson Mount Lilydale Mercy Mr G Typuszak St Patrick's School St Arnaud College Mrs J Duggan St Patrick's PS Stratford Mr L Bester Murtoa College Ms L Young St Paul's Anglican Grammar Ms S Gunn McAuley College School Mr B Graham Nagle College Mr P McElgunn St Pius X PPS Warrnambool Mr P Heaton-Harris Nagle College-School Mr D Ruediger Tarrington Lutheran School Council Mr P Campbell Tyrrell College Mr K Johnson Newhaven College Mr T Cook Westbourne Grammar Mr B Wilhelm Nhill Lutheran School School

63 Review of School Bus Services

SPECIAL Ms M Deckert Lilydale & Yarra Valley Reg School Bus Committee Mr P Kinchington Ashwood School Ms H Bourke Maffra Parents Group Mr A Coates Banksia College-Deaf Fac Mr G Hogarth Mansfield Parents Bus Ms J Anson Belmore School Action Group Ms C Oxnam Brunswick SDS Ms K Knappstein Marian College Parents Ms D Grant Carronbank Group Ms N Taylor Dandenong Valley School Mr N Maughan MP Electorate Office-Echuca Mr S Roden Diamond Valley SDS Mr P Hall M.L.C. National Party of Mr L Barmby Glenallen School Australia-Victoria Mr I Taylor Glenroy SS Ms L Christopherson National Council of Mr S Peter-Budge Jackson School Women of Victoria Mr J Kerville Maryborough SS Mr R Carolane North East Rural Ms J Hardiman Nepean School Education Project Ms S Donegan Sale SS Mr I Taylor Parents of Hearing Mr P Redenbach Sunbury & Macedon Impaired Children-Vic Ranges SS Federation Ms S Harrison Traralgon Deaf Facility Ms N Bruton Parents Victoria-Swan Hill Ms S Smith Villa Maria Society Parents Craigieburn Parents Group Mr P Kennedy Vermont South SS for Whittlesea SC Writer Location Mr P Kirkpatrick Peter Harcourt Services Mr R Hauser Shire of Yarra Ranges Ms L Kemperman Ass for Children with a Cr R Hamilton Shire of Yarra Ranges- Disability Streeton Ward Mr D Robertson AISV South Gippsland Student Dr P Woodhouse AMA Victoria Transport Equity Group Mr N Dennis ACE-South Gippsland Ms L Atkinson South West TAFE Mr H Emanuel ALP-Strzelecki Hills Branch Ms S Franklin Moyne area-Parents Group Ms M Arnup Baringa School Annexe- Parents Parents Group-St Joseph's Parents Group School-Numurkah Mr P Newman Picola/Barmah Parents Mr N Dudley St Lawrence's Parents and Group Friends-Leongatha Ms S Gould Boort Pre-school Mr B Cooney Parents & Friends of St Ms L Riegal Bus Safety Network-Olinda Mary-Nathalia Ms P Hill Castlemaine Steiner Cr A Heslop Swan Hill Rural City School-Parents Group Council Rev T Doyle Catholic Education Ms C Torpey Tempy Preschool & Infant Commission Welfare Centre Mr P Shelley Chiltern Wangaratta Bus Mr C Manners Victorian Farmers Response Group Federation Ms H Sinclair Timboon Auxiliary Cobden Ms S Hughes Victorian Parents Council TS-Parents Group Ms L Browne Yarra Glen Primary Parents Ms M Comelli Daylesford area-Parents & Friends Association Group Mr R Hysted Yarra Valley School Bus Ms L Dwyer Daylesford area-Parents Action Group Group Mr W Bolitho East Gippsland Shire BUS INDUSTRY Council Mr J Oster Freedom of Choice Under Mr J Stanley Bus Association Vic Siege Mr V Haoust Crown Coaches Mr G Ryan Glenroy SS-Parents Group Mr B Halliday B. Halliday Mr F Huglin Hawkesdale and District Mr T Mortimer Mortimer Transport Development Action Group Mr W Robinson Panorama Coaches Ms A Chisholm Leongatha Parents and Mr A Weeks Weeks' Bus Services Friends Association

64 REVIEW OF SCHOOL BUS SERVICES Department of Education, Employment and Training REVIEW OF SCHOOL BUS SERVICES FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

SEPTEMBER 2001

The Review of School Bus Services, chaired by the Hon. Theo Theophanous, MP, was commissioned in May 2000, and fulfilled the Bracks Government 's pre-election commitment to conduct a review of the school bus system in rural Victoria examining the adequacy of services and the impact of route closures. The review has generated a great deal of interest and stimulated debate in school communities across the state with more than 450 written submissions being made. This document identifies the results of the analysis of the material gathered through the submissions and consultations and presents a series of findings and recommendations for consideration by the government.

Further information: www.deet.vic.gov.au FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATONS