Greens pitch $10bn plan to make public schools free
The Greens are making a pricey pitch to voters that could save Aussie households thousands per year.


News.com.au
January 22, 2025

The Greens are pitching a $10bn plan to voters to make public schools completely free.   :)

Australian families fork out hundreds in voluntary school fees every year.

The Greens’ proposal would scrap these fees and give households $800 per child back to school payments.

Greens leader Adam Bandt will formally unveil the plan on Wednesday.

“In a wealthy country like ours, everyone should be able to afford the basics: a home, food, and world-class health and education,” Greens leader Adam Bandt said in a statement.

“Governments are underfunding our public schools and shifting the costs onto parents already struggling with the cost of living.

“We can’t keep voting for the same two parties and expecting a different result.”

The Greens have unveiled a $10bn election pitch to make public schools completely free.

The independent Parliamentary Budget Office (PBO) has costed the policy at $2.4bn to end school fees and $7.6bn for back-to-school payments.

The plan would be paid for by taxing big business.


“When a nurse pays more tax than a multinational corporation, something is wrong,” Mr Bandt said.

“Taxing the big corporations to fully fund our public schools, scrapping so-called ‘voluntary’ fees and securing back-to-school payments will be on the table in a minority parliament.

“In the last shared power parliament, the Greens saved families thousands by getting dental into Medicare for kids, and now we want more relief for people doing it tough.”   :)

Greens leader Adam Bandt says big business would pay for the proposal to make public school completely free.

The Greens are a minor party and cannot form government.

But if Labor returned to govern in minority after the election, per polling and analyst suggestions, the Greens would be an obvious partner for a Labor-led coalition.

This happened with the Gillard government in 2010.

Even if Labor returned to govern in majority, the Greens are key to crossbench negotiations when the government does not have the numbers to pass bills.

Think I might put a vote in for the Australian Greens, at least in the Senate anyway.   :)

Public schools free, why didn't they think of that earlier, oh that's right someone still has to pay and that would be the taxpayers. So cutting through the double speak Australians will still have to pay for education but the greens are going to say it's free and some will believe that. Maybe they will teach the kids that if the taxpayer pays then its free. We don't want parents being responsible now do we, they should be able to buy smokes and spend all day at the TAB.

The plan would be paid for by taxing big business.   :)

I may have voted green only  that there support Hamas  and uncontrolled  immigration of Palestinian people into Australia is something I cannot support.

whiteknight wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2025 at 2:16pm:

The independent Parliamentary Budget Office (PBO) has costed the policy at $2.4bn to end school fees and $7.6bn for back-to-school payments.

And nothing about the costs of making it FREE. You do know books are added? They are generally not a part of "school fees". ::)

whiteknight wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2025 at 2:30pm:

The plan would be paid for by taxing big business.   :)

Who will raise prices to cover the extra tax which will be paid by the consumer.

Consumers can decide where to go, they can vote with their feet.  We need a robin Hood type of tax.   :)

whiteknight wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2025 at 2:45pm:

Consumers can decide where to go, they can vote with their feet.  We need a robin Hood type of tax.   :)

If big business don't make money they go broke or to another country and more people end up poor. The quickest way to make more people poor is by killing big business.

Did you know that 1-in-3 big corporations pays no tax?   :(

That's right: not a single cent of company tax.

The share of national income going to corporate profits – instead of your wages – is higher than ever.

The wealthiest in our country are making billions in excess profits, while you're working harder than ever just to make ends meet.

Millions are struggling to keep a roof over their head or afford the weekly grocery bill. It simply shouldn't be this way.

whiteknight wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2025 at 2:45pm:

We need a robin Hood type of tax

We already have one it is called "the robin bastard tax". ;)

whiteknight wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2025 at 2:56pm:

Did you know that 1-in-3 big corporations pays no tax?   :( That's right: not a single cent of company tax. The share of national income going to corporate profits – instead of your wages – is higher than ever. The wealthiest in our country are making billions in excess profits, while you're working harder than ever just to make ends meet. Millions are struggling to keep a roof over their head or afford the weekly grocery bill. It simply shouldn't be this way.

The people working for big companies can afford a roof over their head, destroy big business and everyone won't be able to afford a roof over their heads.

whiteknight wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2025 at 2:56pm:

Did you know that 1-in-3 big corporations pays no tax?

And the reason for it is? ::)

Much as the Greens are a mob of looneys, I agree with this, at least in the concept. When the Commonwealth of Australia was formed in 1901 one of the founding principles was that education would be compulsory, free and secular.  This put us well ahead of most other countries at the time. We have drifted well of this path since them as anyone who has experienced the endless series of notes your children bring home from school demanding money for all sorts of activities will know.

Time to get it back to what it was meant to be.

whiteknight wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2025 at 2:56pm:

Did you know that 1-in-3 big corporations pays no tax?   :( That's right: not a single cent of company tax. The share of national income going to corporate profits – instead of your wages – is higher than ever. The wealthiest in our country are making billions in excess profits, while you're working harder than ever just to make ends meet. Millions are struggling to keep a roof over their head or afford the weekly grocery bill. It simply shouldn't be this way.

But what about all the other taxes that they pay and their overall generation of good for society?

Belgarion wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2025 at 8:41pm:

Much as the Greens are a mob of looneys, I agree with this, at least in the concept. When the Commonwealth of Australia was formed in 1901 one of the founding principles was that education would be compulsory, free and secular.  This put us well ahead of most other countries at the time. We have drifted well of this path since them as anyone who has experienced the endless series of notes your children bring home from school demanding money for all sorts of activities will know. Time to get it back to what it was meant to be.

Here! Here!

Nothing like a plan to remove the onus on parents to educate their own children, education is free if you observe your responsibilities to educate your children. Having someone else educate your children is what costs money.

Instead of costing taxpayers $10bn with this Greens plan, a better idea would be for taxpayer funds to no longer be distributed to private schools throughout the country, with those funds instead being used in public schools. I have no issue with private schools. If parents wish to have their child(ren) attend a private school, that is their right. But I do have a problem with these private schools charging parents thousands or tens of thousands of dollars a year to attend and then also receiving government funds from taxpayers - including taxpayers who pay fees for their children to attend a public school. Taxpayers should not be subsidising the education of students who attend a private school. If those private schools need extra money, they should increase their fees instead of having taxpayers make up the shortfall.

The greens are of course a joke
Not even a funny one
Adam bandt  Is a despicable creature
I can't see how any decent Prime Minister Would ever do business with him

aquascoot wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2025 at 10:39am:

The greens are of course a joke Not even a funny one Adam bandt  Is a despicable creature I can't see how any decent Prime Minister Would ever do business with him

Airbus Albo will, because he has no spine and will do anything to stay in office.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2025 at 10:28am:

Instead of costing taxpayers $10bn with this Greens plan, a better idea would be for taxpayer funds to no longer be distributed to private schools throughout the country, with those funds instead being used in public schools. I have no issue with private schools. If parents wish to have their child(ren) attend a private school, that is their right. But I do have a problem with these private schools charging parents thousands or tens of thousands of dollars a year to attend and then also receiving government funds from taxpayers - including taxpayers who pay fees for their children to attend a public school. Taxpayers should not be subsidising the education of students who attend a private school. If those private schools need extra money, they should increase their fees instead of having taxpayers make up the shortfall.

I dont think you realize how much pressure and stress the private schools take away from the public sector. If someone wants to privately educate their children taking responsibilities educating children seriously they have every right to access the same portion of funds from their taxes as everyone else. You don't punishing people for doing the right thing, what kind of society does that.

Leroy wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2025 at 10:42am:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 23rd, 2025 at 10:28am: Instead of costing taxpayers $10bn with this Greens plan, a better idea would be for taxpayer funds to no longer be distributed to private schools throughout the country, with those funds instead being used in public schools. I have no issue with private schools. If parents wish to have their child(ren) attend a private school, that is their right. But I do have a problem with these private schools charging parents thousands or tens of thousands of dollars a year to attend and then also receiving government funds from taxpayers - including taxpayers who pay fees for their children to attend a public school. Taxpayers should not be subsidising the education of students who attend a private school. If those private schools need extra money, they should increase their fees instead of having taxpayers make up the shortfall. I dont think you realize how much pressure and stress the private schools take away from the public sector. If someone wants to privately educate their children taking responsibilities educating children seriously they have every right to access the same portion of funds from their taxes as everyone else. You don't punishing people for doing the right thing, what kind of society does that.

It's not punishing those parents. How do you come to that conclusion? Private schools are by definition not free - you pay to send your child(ren) there. That's a conscious choice you make - to pay those fees. Taxpayers should not be subsidising your choice. If those private schools cannot fully function on the fees they charge and require taxpayer funds to make up the shortfall, then they should charge higher fees. Taxpayer funds should only be used to fund public schools, simple as that. My wife is a school principal and regularly has students come to school not having had breakfast or missing a meal throughout the day because their parents can't afford it. Anything that can make the cost of living for struggling parents (especially single parents) easier is a good thing and if public schools could be 100% free, then so much the better.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2025 at 10:28am:

Instead of costing taxpayers $10bn with this Greens plan, a better idea would be for taxpayer funds to no longer be distributed to private schools throughout the country, with those funds instead being used in public schools. I have no issue with private schools. If parents wish to have their child(ren) attend a private school, that is their right. But I do have a problem with these private schools charging parents thousands or tens of thousands of dollars a year to attend and then also receiving government funds from taxpayers - including taxpayers who pay fees for their children to attend a public school. Taxpayers should not be subsidising the education of students who attend a private school. If those private schools need extra money, they should increase their fees instead of having taxpayers make up the shortfall.

Sounds nice, but in practice the parents who send their kids to these schools are taxpayers too and have a right to share in the money the government spends on education. Also, if government money was stopped, these places would become even more exclusive and elitist than they are already.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2025 at 10:50am:

Leroy wrote on Jan 23rd, 2025 at 10:42am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 23rd, 2025 at 10:28am: Instead of costing taxpayers $10bn with this Greens plan, a better idea would be for taxpayer funds to no longer be distributed to private schools throughout the country, with those funds instead being used in public schools. I have no issue with private schools. If parents wish to have their child(ren) attend a private school, that is their right. But I do have a problem with these private schools charging parents thousands or tens of thousands of dollars a year to attend and then also receiving government funds from taxpayers - including taxpayers who pay fees for their children to attend a public school. Taxpayers should not be subsidising the education of students who attend a private school. If those private schools need extra money, they should increase their fees instead of having taxpayers make up the shortfall. I dont think you realize how much pressure and stress the private schools take away from the public sector. If someone wants to privately educate their children taking responsibilities educating children seriously they have every right to access the same portion of funds from their taxes as everyone else. You don't punishing people for doing the right thing, what kind of society does that. It's not punishing those parents. How do you come to that conclusion? Private schools are by definition not free - you pay to send your child(ren) there. That's a conscious choice you make - to pay those fees. Taxpayers should not be subsidising your choice. If those private schools cannot fully function on the fees they charge and require taxpayer funds to make up the shortfall, then they should charge higher fees. Taxpayer funds should only be used to fund public schools, simple as that. My wife is a school principal and regularly has students come to school not having had breakfast or missing a meal throughout the day because their parents can't afford it. Anything that can make the cost of living for struggling parents (especially single parents) easier is a good thing and if public schools could be 100% free, then so much the better.

Why should taxpayers "subsidise" one choice and not the other, particularly when taking the load off public schools can save taxpayers money?

freediver wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2025 at 11:22am:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 23rd, 2025 at 10:50am: Leroy wrote on Jan 23rd, 2025 at 10:42am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 23rd, 2025 at 10:28am: Instead of costing taxpayers $10bn with this Greens plan, a better idea would be for taxpayer funds to no longer be distributed to private schools throughout the country, with those funds instead being used in public schools. I have no issue with private schools. If parents wish to have their child(ren) attend a private school, that is their right. But I do have a problem with these private schools charging parents thousands or tens of thousands of dollars a year to attend and then also receiving government funds from taxpayers - including taxpayers who pay fees for their children to attend a public school. Taxpayers should not be subsidising the education of students who attend a private school. If those private schools need extra money, they should increase their fees instead of having taxpayers make up the shortfall. I dont think you realize how much pressure and stress the private schools take away from the public sector. If someone wants to privately educate their children taking responsibilities educating children seriously they have every right to access the same portion of funds from their taxes as everyone else. You don't punishing people for doing the right thing, what kind of society does that. It's not punishing those parents. How do you come to that conclusion? Private schools are by definition not free - you pay to send your child(ren) there. That's a conscious choice you make - to pay those fees. Taxpayers should not be subsidising your choice. If those private schools cannot fully function on the fees they charge and require taxpayer funds to make up the shortfall, then they should charge higher fees. Taxpayer funds should only be used to fund public schools, simple as that. My wife is a school principal and regularly has students come to school not having had breakfast or missing a meal throughout the day because their parents can't afford it. Anything that can make the cost of living for struggling parents (especially single parents) easier is a good thing and if public schools could be 100% free, then so much the better. Why should taxpayers "subsidise" one choice and not the other, particularly when taking the load off public schools can save taxpayers money?

Public schools aren't "subsidised". They're funded by taxpayers for the use of everyone, from the poorest to the super rich. Just as public hospitals aren't subsidised - they're funded by taxpayers for use by anyone. By the way, did you know that public school teachers are actually higher paid than private school teachers? Also, sending your child(ren) to a private school does not automatically mean better academic results. In many cases, private schools have achieved similar or worse results than public schools in the same geographic area.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2025 at 11:30am:

freediver wrote on Jan 23rd, 2025 at 11:22am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 23rd, 2025 at 10:50am: Leroy wrote on Jan 23rd, 2025 at 10:42am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 23rd, 2025 at 10:28am: Instead of costing taxpayers $10bn with this Greens plan, a better idea would be for taxpayer funds to no longer be distributed to private schools throughout the country, with those funds instead being used in public schools. I have no issue with private schools. If parents wish to have their child(ren) attend a private school, that is their right. But I do have a problem with these private schools charging parents thousands or tens of thousands of dollars a year to attend and then also receiving government funds from taxpayers - including taxpayers who pay fees for their children to attend a public school. Taxpayers should not be subsidising the education of students who attend a private school. If those private schools need extra money, they should increase their fees instead of having taxpayers make up the shortfall. I dont think you realize how much pressure and stress the private schools take away from the public sector. If someone wants to privately educate their children taking responsibilities educating children seriously they have every right to access the same portion of funds from their taxes as everyone else. You don't punishing people for doing the right thing, what kind of society does that. It's not punishing those parents. How do you come to that conclusion? Private schools are by definition not free - you pay to send your child(ren) there. That's a conscious choice you make - to pay those fees. Taxpayers should not be subsidising your choice. If those private schools cannot fully function on the fees they charge and require taxpayer funds to make up the shortfall, then they should charge higher fees. Taxpayer funds should only be used to fund public schools, simple as that. My wife is a school principal and regularly has students come to school not having had breakfast or missing a meal throughout the day because their parents can't afford it. Anything that can make the cost of living for struggling parents (especially single parents) easier is a good thing and if public schools could be 100% free, then so much the better. Why should taxpayers "subsidise" one choice and not the other, particularly when taking the load off public schools can save taxpayers money? Public schools aren't "subsidised". They're funded by taxpayers for the use of everyone, from the poorest to the super rich. Just as public hospitals aren't subsidised - they're funded by taxpayers for use by anyone. By the way, did you know that public school teachers are actually higher paid than private school teachers? Also, sending your child(ren) to a private school does not automatically mean better academic results. In many cases, private schools have achieved similar or worse results than public schools in the same geographic area.

You do realize that your plan would cause a major upheaval of the education system and it will only make it more expensive to educate children.

I don't know if you understand that most private schools are religious based. Private schools are not just for the rich, many communities have private schools to suit their culture.

In fact I'm certain it would be called racist because it would also mean ceasing funding to Islamic schools. And if you are going to make exceptions you will be walking in a minefield.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2025 at 11:30am:

freediver wrote on Jan 23rd, 2025 at 11:22am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 23rd, 2025 at 10:50am: Leroy wrote on Jan 23rd, 2025 at 10:42am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 23rd, 2025 at 10:28am: Instead of costing taxpayers $10bn with this Greens plan, a better idea would be for taxpayer funds to no longer be distributed to private schools throughout the country, with those funds instead being used in public schools. I have no issue with private schools. If parents wish to have their child(ren) attend a private school, that is their right. But I do have a problem with these private schools charging parents thousands or tens of thousands of dollars a year to attend and then also receiving government funds from taxpayers - including taxpayers who pay fees for their children to attend a public school. Taxpayers should not be subsidising the education of students who attend a private school. If those private schools need extra money, they should increase their fees instead of having taxpayers make up the shortfall. I dont think you realize how much pressure and stress the private schools take away from the public sector. If someone wants to privately educate their children taking responsibilities educating children seriously they have every right to access the same portion of funds from their taxes as everyone else. You don't punishing people for doing the right thing, what kind of society does that. It's not punishing those parents. How do you come to that conclusion? Private schools are by definition not free - you pay to send your child(ren) there. That's a conscious choice you make - to pay those fees. Taxpayers should not be subsidising your choice. If those private schools cannot fully function on the fees they charge and require taxpayer funds to make up the shortfall, then they should charge higher fees. Taxpayer funds should only be used to fund public schools, simple as that. My wife is a school principal and regularly has students come to school not having had breakfast or missing a meal throughout the day because their parents can't afford it. Anything that can make the cost of living for struggling parents (especially single parents) easier is a good thing and if public schools could be 100% free, then so much the better. Why should taxpayers "subsidise" one choice and not the other, particularly when taking the load off public schools can save taxpayers money? Public schools aren't "subsidised". They're funded by taxpayers

;D


Quote:

By the way, did you know that public school teachers are actually higher paid than private school teachers?

By how much?

Funding for Private and Public Schools should be fair and proportionate....More students go to public schools yet the private schools receive extra funding....Not suprising a lot of Private Scools are tied to religious institutions???


Quote:

Private schools received an extra $10bn funding in Coalition ‘special deals’, study finds Public schools underfunded by at least $6.5bn a year while non-government schools received transitional funding after Gonski 2.0 reforms The Morrison government has directed an extra $10bn to private schools since 2018 while public schools are underfunded by at least $6.5bn every year, according to a new report.

::) ::) ::)

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/apr/28/private-schools-received-an-extra-10bn-funding-in-coalition-special-deals-study-finds

philperth2010 wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2025 at 1:56pm:

Funding for Private and Public Schools should be fair and proportionate....More students go to public schools yet the private schools receive extra funding....Not suprising a lot of Private Scools are tied to religious institutions??? Quote: Private schools received an extra $10bn funding in Coalition ‘special deals’, study finds Public schools underfunded by at least $6.5bn a year while non-government schools received transitional funding after Gonski 2.0 reforms The Morrison government has directed an extra $10bn to private schools since 2018 while public schools are underfunded by at least $6.5bn every year, according to a new report. ::) ::) ::) https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/apr/28/private-schools-received-an-extra-10bn-funding-in-coalition-special-deals-study-finds

Read on in your article


Quote:

In February the acting education minister, Stuart Robert, said that since 2013 when the Coalition was elected, federal funding “per student for all schools increased significantly in real terms”. “Government schools have been the biggest beneficiary of this growth, with commonwealth-per-student funding growing by 64.1% in real terms over the past 10 years compared with 49.8% in non-government schools,” he said.

Education is all about teaching kids that money is the most important thing in life.

Jasin wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2025 at 2:59pm:

Education is all about teaching kids that money is the most important thing in life.

That and don't spend more than you earn.

Leroy wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2025 at 2:18pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Jan 23rd, 2025 at 1:56pm: Funding for Private and Public Schools should be fair and proportionate....More students go to public schools yet the private schools receive extra funding....Not suprising a lot of Private Scools are tied to religious institutions??? Quote: Private schools received an extra $10bn funding in Coalition ‘special deals’, study finds Public schools underfunded by at least $6.5bn a year while non-government schools received transitional funding after Gonski 2.0 reforms The Morrison government has directed an extra $10bn to private schools since 2018 while public schools are underfunded by at least $6.5bn every year, according to a new report. ::) ::) ::) https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/apr/28/private-schools-received-an-extra-10bn-funding-in-coalition-special-deals-study-finds Read on in your article [quote]In February the acting education minister, Stuart Robert, said that since 2013 when the Coalition was elected, federal funding “per student for all schools increased significantly in real terms”. “Government schools have been the biggest beneficiary of this growth, with commonwealth-per-student funding growing by 64.1% in real terms over the past 10 years compared with 49.8% in non-government schools,” he said.

[/quote]

Stuart Robert is cherry picking to justify undefunding public schools....The report is non partisan which is why you ignored it to defend the Coalition of cuts!!!

::) ::) ::)

Re: Greens $10bn Plan To Make Public Schools Free


philperth2010 wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2025 at 3:19pm:

The report is non partisan which is why you ignored it to defend the Coalition of cuts!!!

And nothing in their proposition is about making it FREEEEE. ;)

lee wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2025 at 4:26pm:

Re: Greens $10bn Plan To Make Public Schools Free philperth2010 wrote on Jan 23rd, 2025 at 3:19pm: The report is non partisan which is why you ignored it to defend the Coalition of cuts!!! And nothing in their proposition is about making it FREEEEE. ;)

I never commented on the Greens policy....Keep deflecting dickhead!!!

::) ::) ::)

philperth2010 wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2025 at 5:39pm:

never commented on the Greens policy.

And yet that is the thread title. You are such a dickhead. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

lee wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2025 at 5:47pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Jan 23rd, 2025 at 5:39pm: never commented on the Greens policy. And yet that is the thread title. You are such a dickhead. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

I look forward to shoving your hypocricy back in your face arsehole....Who gave you the right to decide what people can post....Comments about education are on topic you dickhead....In future does that mean when any topic about the Coalition is posted you are forbiden from commenting on the Greens or Labor policies....You really are a low life dickhead from way back....Stupid is forever and you are very stupid!!!

::) ::) ::)

Genius may have its limitations, but stupidity is not thus handicapped.
Elbert Hubbard (1856 - 1915)

Leroy wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2025 at 11:39am:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 23rd, 2025 at 11:30am: freediver wrote on Jan 23rd, 2025 at 11:22am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 23rd, 2025 at 10:50am: Leroy wrote on Jan 23rd, 2025 at 10:42am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 23rd, 2025 at 10:28am: Instead of costing taxpayers $10bn with this Greens plan, a better idea would be for taxpayer funds to no longer be distributed to private schools throughout the country, with those funds instead being used in public schools. I have no issue with private schools. If parents wish to have their child(ren) attend a private school, that is their right. But I do have a problem with these private schools charging parents thousands or tens of thousands of dollars a year to attend and then also receiving government funds from taxpayers - including taxpayers who pay fees for their children to attend a public school. Taxpayers should not be subsidising the education of students who attend a private school. If those private schools need extra money, they should increase their fees instead of having taxpayers make up the shortfall. I dont think you realize how much pressure and stress the private schools take away from the public sector. If someone wants to privately educate their children taking responsibilities educating children seriously they have every right to access the same portion of funds from their taxes as everyone else. You don't punishing people for doing the right thing, what kind of society does that. It's not punishing those parents. How do you come to that conclusion? Private schools are by definition not free - you pay to send your child(ren) there. That's a conscious choice you make - to pay those fees. Taxpayers should not be subsidising your choice. If those private schools cannot fully function on the fees they charge and require taxpayer funds to make up the shortfall, then they should charge higher fees. Taxpayer funds should only be used to fund public schools, simple as that. My wife is a school principal and regularly has students come to school not having had breakfast or missing a meal throughout the day because their parents can't afford it. Anything that can make the cost of living for struggling parents (especially single parents) easier is a good thing and if public schools could be 100% free, then so much the better. Why should taxpayers "subsidise" one choice and not the other, particularly when taking the load off public schools can save taxpayers money? Public schools aren't "subsidised". They're funded by taxpayers for the use of everyone, from the poorest to the super rich. Just as public hospitals aren't subsidised - they're funded by taxpayers for use by anyone. By the way, did you know that public school teachers are actually higher paid than private school teachers? Also, sending your child(ren) to a private school does not automatically mean better academic results. In many cases, private schools have achieved similar or worse results than public schools in the same geographic area. You do realize that your plan would cause a major upheaval of the education system and it will only make it more expensive to educate children. I don't know if you understand that most private schools are religious based. Private schools are not just for the rich, many communities have private schools to suit their culture. In fact I'm certain it would be called racist because it would also mean ceasing funding to Islamic schools. And if you are going to make exceptions you will be walking in a minefield.

Nope, no exceptions, and yes - I am aware that most private schools are religious. That further reinforces my point, actually. The Catholic Church is by no means poor and should not be seeking funding from government for their schools. Just cut all government funding for all private schools and redirect those funds to public schools. You're wrong to claim that doing this would make education more expensive. At least not for children attending public schools, but it will for private schools and if parents want to send their child(ren) there then they need to pay for it.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 24^th, 2025 at 10:17am:

Nope, no exceptions, and yes - I am aware that most private schools are religious. That further reinforces my point, actually. The Catholic Church is by no means poor and should not be seeking funding from government for their schools. Just cut all government funding for all private schools and redirect those funds to public schools. You're wrong to claim that doing this would make education more expensive. At least not for children attending public schools, but it will for private schools and if parents want to send their child(ren) there then they need to pay for it.

I don't think you have thought this through, the Australian government spends around $22,000 per student in public schools and they spend about $12,000 per student in private schools.

If you cut the funding to private schools then the fees would be too high for a lot of people so they would then pull their kids out of a school that only gets $12,000 from the government for their child. They will now enrol their child in a public school and this will now cost the government $22,000 for that child, so an extra $10,000. This is going to be on a scale of thousands so the Government will now have to find more money or cut back some services.

philperth2010 wrote on Jan 24^th, 2025 at 8:04am:

I look forward to shoving your hypocricy back in your face arsehole...

Of course you are. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D


philperth2010 wrote on Jan 24^th, 2025 at 8:04am:

Who gave you the right to decide what people can post.

Ok So that means you can go off-topic whenever you like. Dickhead.


philperth2010 wrote on Jan 24^th, 2025 at 8:04am:

.Comments about education are on topic you dickhead

Comments should be about the FREE component of Public Schools or the Greens. So NO, yours were off-topic.


philperth2010 wrote on Jan 24^th, 2025 at 8:04am:

In future does that mean when any topic about the Coalition is posted you are forbiden from commenting on the Greens or Labor policies.

Can you cite an example? Just for comparison of course. ;)


philperth2010 wrote on Jan 24^th, 2025 at 8:04am:

.You really are a low life dickhead from way back..

Oh dear. making judgements on a keyboard chat. Such a keyboard  warrior. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D


philperth2010 wrote on Jan 24^th, 2025 at 8:04am:

Stupid is forever and you are very stupid!

And another one. You should really try to get out of the slow lane. ;)

The Guardian? So how long have the Coalition been in opposition?

Leroy wrote on Jan 24^th, 2025 at 11:16am:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 24th, 2025 at 10:17am: Nope, no exceptions, and yes - I am aware that most private schools are religious. That further reinforces my point, actually. The Catholic Church is by no means poor and should not be seeking funding from government for their schools. Just cut all government funding for all private schools and redirect those funds to public schools. You're wrong to claim that doing this would make education more expensive. At least not for children attending public schools, but it will for private schools and if parents want to send their child(ren) there then they need to pay for it. I don't think you have thought this through, the Australian government spends around $22,000 per student in public schools and they spend about $12,000 per student in private schools. If you cut the funding to private schools then the fees would be too high for a lot of people so they would then pull their kids out of a school that only gets $12,000 from the government for their child. They will now enrol their child in a public school and this will now cost the government $22,000 for that child, so an extra $10,000. This is going to be on a scale of thousands so the Government will now have to find more money or cut back some services.

There will be some parents who elect to bring their kids to public schools, but I don't think there will be that many. Regardless, by ending all funding for private schools, that money can be redirected to public schools instead, allowing schools to be upgraded, better equipment provided, etc. Also, there are far too many small public schools in NSW. The region in which I live has about a dozen small public schools (K-6) that have fewer than 70 students in them. The state government could see real cost savings by closing those schools and putting those children into larger nearby schools. This would also help alleviate the teacher shortage as well, as extra staff come to the larger schools.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2025 at 10:28am:

Instead of costing taxpayers $10bn with this Greens plan, a better idea would be for taxpayer funds to no longer be distributed to private schools throughout the country, with those funds instead being used in public schools. I have no issue with private schools. If parents wish to have their child(ren) attend a private school, that is their right. But I do have a problem with these private schools charging parents thousands or tens of thousands of dollars a year to attend and then also receiving government funds from taxpayers - including taxpayers who pay fees for their children to attend a public school. Taxpayers should not be subsidising the education of students who attend a private school. If those private schools need extra money, they should increase their fees instead of having taxpayers make up the shortfall.

Not often I agree with you on policy but on this one I'm 100% with you.

lee wrote on Jan 24^th, 2025 at 11:56am:

philperth2010 wrote on Jan 24th, 2025 at 8:04am: I look forward to shoving your hypocricy back in your face arsehole... Of course you are. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D philperth2010 wrote on Jan 24th, 2025 at 8:04am: Who gave you the right to decide what people can post. Ok So that means you can go off-topic whenever you like. Dickhead. philperth2010 wrote on Jan 24th, 2025 at 8:04am: .Comments about education are on topic you dickhead Comments should be about the FREE component of Public Schools or the Greens. So NO, yours were off-topic. philperth2010 wrote on Jan 24th, 2025 at 8:04am: In future does that mean when any topic about the Coalition is posted you are forbiden from commenting on the Greens or Labor policies. Can you cite an example? Just for comparison of course. ;) philperth2010 wrote on Jan 24th, 2025 at 8:04am: .You really are a low life dickhead from way back.. Oh dear. making judgements on a keyboard chat. Such a keyboard  warrior. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D philperth2010 wrote on Jan 24th, 2025 at 8:04am: Stupid is forever and you are very stupid! And another one. You should really try to get out of the slow lane. ;) The Guardian? So how long have the Coalition been in opposition?

Your comments are off topic so will be ignored.....You are a dickhead!!!

8-) 8-) 8-)

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 24^th, 2025 at 12:16pm:

Leroy wrote on Jan 24th, 2025 at 11:16am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 24th, 2025 at 10:17am: Nope, no exceptions, and yes - I am aware that most private schools are religious. That further reinforces my point, actually. The Catholic Church is by no means poor and should not be seeking funding from government for their schools. Just cut all government funding for all private schools and redirect those funds to public schools. You're wrong to claim that doing this would make education more expensive. At least not for children attending public schools, but it will for private schools and if parents want to send their child(ren) there then they need to pay for it. I don't think you have thought this through, the Australian government spends around $22,000 per student in public schools and they spend about $12,000 per student in private schools. If you cut the funding to private schools then the fees would be too high for a lot of people so they would then pull their kids out of a school that only gets $12,000 from the government for their child. They will now enrol their child in a public school and this will now cost the government $22,000 for that child, so an extra $10,000. This is going to be on a scale of thousands so the Government will now have to find more money or cut back some services. There will be some parents who elect to bring their kids to public schools, but I don't think there will be that many. Regardless, by ending all funding for private schools, that money can be redirected to public schools instead, allowing schools to be upgraded, better equipment provided, etc. Also, there are far too many small public schools in NSW. The region in which I live has about a dozen small public schools (K-6) that have fewer than 70 students in them. The state government could see real cost savings by closing those schools and putting those children into larger nearby schools. This would also help alleviate the teacher shortage as well, as extra staff come to the larger schools.

Great idea, so the town loses a teacher from the community and the school gardener, time to move. Local shops lose lunch supplies to school and customers. Much better with big schools so they can build McDonald's next to it. Populations need to be condensed for big markets.