Page 2805 - Week 09 - Thursday, 27 September 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I would like to delve into this aspect of the school closures in a little more detail. As members would know, the question was asked at question time: what happened to this equipment? The minister said that there was a round of consultations and that offers were made to interested groups. There had been approaches from groups, including groups such as those representing interests in Dili, about gaining access to this equipment. What he could not tell us was what had actually happened and where it had gone. Having taken that question on notice, I hope the minister will come back during this debate and give us a little more information. But that is what you would have expected: this equipment would have been disposed of very carefully by offering it to other schools, getting full value for it from alternative uses, receiving appropriate prices for this equipment, or perhaps by recycling it.
The rhetorical question must be asked: what has happened to what must be an enormous stockpile of school equipment? I understand that, at least initially, things went pretty much according to Hoyle. In the first place, each of the schools that was closed was opened for a day to permit other schools to see whether there was any equipment that they could utilise. I understand that this was not a very successful activity. I suspect that having only one day to evaluate the equipment was probably too tight a timeframe for at least some of the continuing schools. Perhaps more to the point is to ask: what incentive exists for a school to utilise second-hand equipment when there is more merit for them in obtaining new equipment? Maybe that is a bit cynical but it is probably an accurate reflection of human nature.
Following this process, all of the then surplus equipment was taken to a storage facility, apparently called the “central hub”, in Weston. A well-known removal company was engaged to undertake this massive project. Balfran Removals is well known to members here in the Assembly as they move boxes around this place. This project apparently started on 31 January 2007 and it took a number of months. I understand from information I have received that the quality of this equipment ranged in some cases from being almost brand new to, in the main, being very usable and functional. I have been shown a number of photos of samples of what was on display and now considered surplus. It is evident that the desks, chairs, cabinets, books and stools shown in the photos are, indeed, in pretty good condition. Again, we will await confirmation from the minister. I also understand that very little of this surplus equipment was in such poor or dilapidated condition that it would have had to have been destroyed, according to individuals who have seen the equipment.
The question that emerges at this point is: what happens next to all of this equipment? It should be remembered that this process started in January. I understand that various interests—not schools—who might have a use for this equipment were invited to inspect the stored surplus equipment and provide feedback to the education department on what equipment they would be interested in and how they would see this surplus equipment being used. These interests were asked to provide information on what plans they would have for using the equipment, what other organisations would be involved in receiving the equipment, the status of these organisations, whether they were charities or otherwise, and where the equipment would finally be located.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .