Page 1799 - Week 07 - Wednesday, 30 May 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
That Weston Creek survey did, of course, look at existing staffing formulae and just transferred them across to new schools. It recognised costs such as heating, cleaning and maintenance, which are clearly the areas where most savings can be made, except that they are balanced out by additional costs elsewhere.
Dr Perkins' methodology compared the average cost per student in primary schools of more than 400 pupils with that per student in schools with fewer than 300 pupils. She found a difference of $476 per child at 1990 prices. Assuming that the 18 primary schools with fewer than 300 pupils closed, this would save only $1.9m a year. These are very small savings. There is still no account of the relocation costs and, with it all, massive disruption and loss of standards. Similarly, she found that closure of smaller high schools would bring savings of $600,000 per annum. Let me emphasise again: those are the gross savings without the offsetting costs. These savings are negligible in terms of the damage that is done.
Let us look at the additional costs that this change will bring. Dr Perkins assessed the average cost of refurbishing closed schools or the schools that were being consolidated as being $250,000. She assessed the figure for relocating demountables - and we all know that is very expensive - as $100,000 per classroom. It was also suggested that additional counsellors would be needed to cope with the stress in children as a result of the change of school.
The Priorities Review Board document, although it does not give any elaboration anywhere, acknowledges that some capital expenditure is needed in the schools where children are being centralised. So there is an additional cost there and it has to be recognised. When that additional cost is noted, the probable losses are so serious that it is obvious that this Government's proposal must be stopped. Only if the property is sold is there any clear financial benefit, and that of course is a one-off benefit only. A long time ago, when these proposals were first announced, I said that they made sense only if the properties were to be sold. There is no logic or sense to it in any other circumstance.
Dr Perkins' study went on to consider the enormous financial impact of the necessary increase in bus services. I understand that the Minister proposes, or has started, a review of the bus services, so there is some more information to come. There is considerable potential for a much expanded cost, and Dr Perkins has put significant figures to that. I have not pressed that argument today because I probably know this Government better than Dr Perkins does and I do not believe that it would accept a great commitment to transporting children once a school had closed. So I have not used the bussing costs as a particular part of my argument today.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .