Shadow Minister's claim that "a private school place costs the government in the region of 80% of the cost of a public school place." (implying that supporting private schooling saves the government money) is a claim that has a long history although it is based on analysis which has a very narrow definition of the costs of private schooling and no consideration of the external costs and benefits of private and public schools. Firstly, it assumes that the cost of private schooling to the taxpayer is captured by the value of the direct subsidy. But we know there are a number of other ways governments reduce costs of private schooling. By ignoring the money saved by private schools free-riding in a number of areas (the costs of conducting public examinations, the cost of curriculum development ...) the real subsidy to the private schooling sector is underestimated and the cost saving to the taxpayer overestimated.
Secondly, the analysis relied on by ShadowMinister ignores any externalities. An example of an external costs of private schooling is increased traffic congestion in urban areas. Based on personal experience, I'd hypothesise that anywhere up to 10% of peak hour traffic in major metropolitan areas can be accounted for by parents driving kids from one side of town to the other so Sally/Harry can attend the school of choice rather than Harry/Sally walking/riding a pushbike to the local state school. Haven't you noticed how traffic flows so much better when school holidays are on!

Can someone do a proper study of the real costs and benefits of private schooling to the Australian community so we can see if what we're doing is economically rational.

No intelligent decisions have been made over the last 40 years by our politicans. Private schools have been chosen by some parties to win votes, and the decisions as the first home buyers have all been very flawed. I know that the fanatical obscessed party faithful would praise any decision made by their party, and the parties using any avenue they could think of to buy more votes, have vertually put their head into a noose. Most of the decisions made before 1970, were done with intelligence, some improvements could have been made, but those elected in the major parties since then, just haven't got a clue, they have thrown away those rules that were made, put in their own, and the workers are paying for it. The reason why those people are buying junk stuff for entertainment, is that they can no longer buy a home, and don't want to deprive themselves of everything, but they would sooner buy their own home. The tax changes since 1970, have been for the benefit for the rich only, and the increased salaries etc they have taken, have caused the increases of all the goods and services.

Come on Bondi, all the costs you mention are all ready required & spread over the public school system .

As for little Harry private being driven to school, & Johny public riding their bike, how old are you mate? Haven't you seen the traffic jams outside public schools, besides those private school kids are probably driving their own new BMWs these days.

This riding to school was a big thing in my day. We had over 100 Sq Meters of bike racks. How many bike racks, or kids with worn out shoes do you see today in public schools today? Even in nice safe country towns that doesn't happen. Bike riding is a habit of the urban rich today mate, & then it will be some misguided greenie teacher with the bike, not a kid.

Yes misguided! Those bl00dy bikes stuff up the traffic flow so much, each one of them has the carbon footprint of half a dozen cars. Well, at least the CO2 helps the grass grow I suppose, so not all bad.

Their will be a backlash against private schools when their current students leave and discover that the indoctrination, whether it be religious or elitist, leaves them ill equipped to function in the real world. Private (and same sex) schools have a notorious reputation for producing less than fully rounded human beings.

The government has no obligation beyond providing a place in a public school for any child who wants it. That is the result of mandatory education policies.

Where is the "user pays" mentality now? If you want your sprog to go to a private school you should pay. The government has no obligation to subsidise your choice and the results of doing so are becoming all too apparent.

Greedy little suburban spivs always looking for more handouts.
Private schools with shooting ranges, heated olympic pools, stables, yachts, tennis courts, gymnasiums and masses of computers and IT.
While public schools have malfunctioning toilets, portable classrooms, toxic heaters, not a computer in sight let alone an IT department and they even get grief from the tories for getting a new hall or library under the stimulus plan (completely ignoring that the private schools got just as much. AGAIN!)

The education system works better overall when it is inclusive and comprehensive not divisive and ideological. The current system is damaging our kids and not providing them with a balanced and fulfilling education.
It must change.

Once again, I challenge anyone to produce a link to any independent document that actually shows that private school pupils receive more subsidy than public school pupils.

My claim has a long history, and is backed up (follow my link) by a study commissioned by the education department. The figure in the document from several years ago was more in the order of 60% to 70%, but I put it at 80% to be safe.

If the facts get in the way of your long held beliefs, please feel free to look it up.

PS I suspect that some are raving about private schools, and of the Church run ones on their religions principles, I suggest that next time they look into their bible, if it is the King James version, look up chapter 23 of the book of Matthew, and see if it has any affect on their beliefs of their religion.