Page 1798 - Week 07 - Wednesday, 30 May 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
demountables and so on. There is no evidence at all of the serious study of the cost-benefits by Mr Humphries or anybody in his department.
The Priorities Review Board document makes reference to savings, and it seems to do so by using it as a positive to explain why schools should close. I am surprised at this. I read this on pages 133 and 134 of the document, and it seems to me to be a pathetically weak argument - in fact it is an argument against closing any schools. This is what it says:
On the table we have indicated estimated recurrent savings would reach $5.3m.
To achieve that, what has to happen? We have to close 21 schools and colleges to save $5.3m. That says very powerfully, "For heaven's sake, we can't close 21 schools and colleges for that piddling amount. What a nonsense that is". That is the best economic argument for school closures that this document can present! How ridiculous it is.
In a whole range of matters this document hangs arguments on pathetically weak grounds. I am sure that, if he can, Mr Humphries will - perhaps today - table the paperwork behind that thinking. That is one cost-benefit study that gives clear evidence why we should not close any schools. Dr Perkins is the ANU academic who prepared a cost-benefit statement and she says this:
As yet, no convincing data has been released by the Department of Education that small schools are significantly more expensive. Once the cost of relocating and bussing students and refurbishing amalgamated schools is taken into account, it is likely that savings will be minimal or non-existent.
The survey that was done by the graduate student at the University of Canberra considered the Weston Creek area only. It selected six primary schools presently there and costed how much would be saved if that number were reduced to four in order to meet that target of 400 students per school that the Minister talks about. That exercise said this:
The cost-benefit analysis showed that in the immediate future there is virtually no difference between closing two schools and maintaining current levels. In the future, to 1994 the decline in enrolments makes the differences more pronounced.
But I point out that this exercise took no account of refurbishment or other costs associated with the changeover; it considered only the school buildings as they existed. So it was a very modest account.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .