David,

Firstly Sect 116 of the Aus constitution does not apply to school funding.

Secondly, the vast majority of independent schools offer only a token of religious education and in many cases far less than public schools. So the pretext of removing funding because of the religious nature of the schools collapses entirely.

As you continually ignore the consequences of removing subsidies, I would like you to seriously consider the dire state of public education if these subsidies were removed.

runner wrote: "'Private schools are better funded. I never contended they get more from the government than public schools'

Oh so its envy David f. Next you will want to ban parents from hiring private tutors. Anything else that you would dictate that parents do with their money?"

Dear runner,

I don't understand. I have not told parents how they should spend their money. Where do you get that? I just object to taxpayer funds going to private schools. How parents choose to spend their money is their own business. Calling my opinion envy is just more name calling.

Our opinions are very different. However, we can be polite to each other even though it may be difficult.

Dear Shadow Minister,

I appreciate your politeness and the courtesy which you have shown me in this discussion.

If the subsidies were removed I anticipate there would be some flow of children from the private to the public sector. The parents of those children would demand adequate funding for the public schools, and I expect their demands would be met by whatever government was in power at the time. The private schools would be truly independent, and most would continue.

As I see it S. 116 does apply directly to private school funding. The Defense of Government Schools (D.O.G.S) case which made that case lost. However, I believe it will come up again, and the result may be different.

My objection is not primarily that they are religious schools. It is that they are private schools, and I don't think private schools should be funded by government regardless of their nature.

I think we both have stated and restated our position, and neither of us will come forth with anything much different from what we have said before.

Again, I appreciate the courteous way in which you have contributed to our discussion, but I am weary of it.

It is always a pleasure to debate the issues not the man.

PS. while I respect your opinion I am still waiting for a rational argument for removing the subsidy to independent schools.

I think there are two independent aspects to the discussion.

1. Should private schools be subsidized by the government? If so how can this be justified, excluding the status quo environment discussed in 2 below.

2. Is it, in the current environment, economically (let alone politically) viable for the government to stop funding private schools? If not, how could it be.

Answers.
1. No.
2. No. The government would have to start buying back schools. I don't believe there would be a flood of kids back into private schools, as most parents wouldn't want to disrupt their kids, and they are buying status and wouldn't want to lose that intangible (illusory) achievement. But there would be some increase if private schools increased their fees to a level that parents could just simply not afford, and it is likely the schools would do just that to win the ideological battle, and raise their school to a more prestigious brand.

I am not convinced the extra cost to the government would be covered by eliminating the grants to private schools. Then there is the issue of controlling the curriculum with totally independent schools.

withdrawing funding from private schools is just a diversion from facing a hopelessly flawed public system who continue to turn out brainwashed individuals whose economics appear similar to that of Greens/Labour let alone numerous moral deficiencies.