Page 1800 - Week 07 - Wednesday, 30 May 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
There are further costs that Dr Perkins identifies. For example, there is the loss of community halls and recreation facilities. In some aspects, these are financial costs; in other aspects, they are social costs and they are very significant. Think of all the activity that goes on in and around your local school. Think of the scout groups and the church groups that you will turf out of the space that they use after hours. That is a considerable cost. Finally, she points to the cost of the loss of educational quality - a cost that simply cannot be assessed.
I want to quickly mention again that Weston Creek study. Looking only at existing premises, it ascertained that by 1994 savings immediately would range from $34,000 per annum to $260,000 per annum over the four new schools, depending on the enrolments. That is related to Mr Humphries' figure of about $200,000 to $250,000 a school. That is a remarkably small saving to justify the exercise he has embarked upon. That figure seems to rise regularly. Of course, from that $200,000 we must now take all the add-on costs of relocation - the demountables, the refurbishing and probably the buses. So, the $250,000 savings that might be made will diminish very suddenly.
It becomes clearer and clearer that there are no real savings at all in terms of money in all these school closures. Clearly these documents demonstrate an urgent need for a further study so that we can determine reliable figures. In question time Mr Humphries has given non-answers. He cannot go down that path because he has not got those answers. He does not know how much he wants to save; he does not know how much he can save. He does not have that information across the system or over individual schools. All he wants is a reserve of available funds into which he can dip with a very heavy hand whenever the Chief Minister requires it. He is acting blindly. He intends to close up to 25 schools on the most doubtful information. He does not know where he is going. We do. He is going to destroy our system for very unlikely gains. (Extension of time granted)
We have evidence of an Education Department study that would seem to be the most casual that is available. We have two cost-benefit studies here that lead the way. Let us go down that path and get some reliable figures. Mr Humphries should pull out this whole proposal so that we can examine it in some detail.
The ALP looks at schools and these related questions purely on educational grounds. On that basis, there is no justification for closures. The Government looks at schools on economic grounds. But even on that basis there is enough evidence from these studies - and from Mr Humphries' own words - to question the economic benefit. Even on that criterion, schools should not close.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .