Morgan: 59-41

Morgan has simultaneously released results of face-to-face polling conducted over the previous two weekends, and a phone poll conducted on Wednesday and Thursday. The former has Labor leading 49 per cent to 36 per cent on the primary vote and 59-41 on two-party preferred, compared with 61.5-38.5 at the previous such poll a fortnight earlier; the latter has Labor’s leads at 50 per cent to 34.5 per cent and 60-40, compared with 63-37 last week. In other news, political parties’ financial disclosure returns for 2006/07 have been published by the Australian Electoral Commission: Steven Mayne sifts through the evidence at Crikey (subscriber only).

Author: William Bowe

William Bowe is a Perth-based election analyst and occasional teacher of political science. His blog, The Poll Bludger, has existed in one form or another since 2004, and is one of the most heavily trafficked websites on Australian politics.

302 comments on “Morgan: 59-41”

Comments Page 6 of 7
1 5 6 7
  1. Hi, folks, been lurking and reading your comments for a while now but not posting.

    After watching the latest effort by Admiral Nelson in front of an invigorated Kerry O’Brien on tonight’s 7.30 Report, I have to concede that the Liberals have an uphill battle to convince the Australian electorate that they have any relevance in the current political situation and can they can improve on that irrelevance in the medium to longer term.

    Nelson is coming across as a complete dud and his main competitor, Turnbull is not shaping up any better.

    They are surely not suited to opposition. I think we are in for a re-run of the early Hawke years when they couldn’t come to grips with the fact that you have to work that much harder in opposition to demonstrate any relevance to the changed political climate and that it is Governments not Oppositions which set the political agenda and attract the interest of the media in reporting and disassembling policy implementation and outcomes.

  2. Hi Scorpio,

    Good to see you back.

    Re Liberals:

    “They are surely not suited to opposition. I think we are in for a re-run of the early Hawke years when they couldn’t come to grips with the fact that you have to work that much harder in opposition to demonstrate any relevance to the changed political climate and that it is Governments not Oppositions which set the political agenda and attract the interest of the media in reporting and disassembling policy implementation and outcomes”.

    1. Liberals in Opposition – See Australia’s Biggest Losers- LOL.
    2. Policy – Where do I buy that!
    3. Relevance Deprivation Syndrome is Us.

    I know they did not have the numbers, but on your analysis, Rudd has been PM for over a year.

    Might work against the new Government.

    Seriously!

  3. Hello there, Scorpio! Happy New Year. Any advance on 28 April?

    On the Opposition, such as it is. Is Brendan in a dream? A dream of being a Leader?

    I actually find it difficult to come to grips with. Is it the same denial as ‘coming second?’ Does Nelson think that being the strongman will drape him in emporer clothes?

  4. Just read all the non-believers ripping me apart as usual, the right wingers rule the roost, to frightened to think.
    Apologists for the current governments in this country.
    MayoFeral- i don’t advocate change all at once i advocate a slow decrease of funds for private health insurance and private schools and for negative gearing, i do not advocate doing it all at once- that would be suicidal.
    But again i ask why is defence not being cut in the budget, it contributes nothing to the economy.
    Labor has said it will do nothing about private school funding and private health funding and this is appalling.
    Finally you can all continue to ridicule me put simply it will not stop me. Labor has become a nothing party without decent and meaning policies.

    Nelson was an embarrassment on the 7.30 Report and will not contest the next election for the Liberals, it will be Turnbull and if the economy continues to go downwards he will become Prime Minister (although i hate the man he is sharp, tough and very good at stating things) because Labor is going to send us to a recession if it provides tax cuts and cuts spending- spending cuts will help the economy fall into a hole.
    Tax cuts should not occur in times of a boom. This is madness.

  5. Hi Crikey, Happy New Year to you too. Sorry, no advance on 28th April.

    I don’t think 8 weeks is enough time for Rudd and Roxon to fix up the public health system.

    I’m starting to get the feeling that Nelson and Turnbull thought that being leader of the Liberals after 24th November was going to be relatively easy and just a follow on from where Howard left off.

    The main problem is though, they are no longer in office and both travellers have never had the humbling experience of being in opposition before.

    At least Howard had supped from both cups prior to his 11.5 year reign and had experience at both ends of the chain.

    It is quite apparent that the whole political Liberal Party basically sat back during this time and let Howard do all the running with regard to policy development and promotion with very little imput or questioning of value or relevance by rank and file members or Cabinet Ministers.

    It is shaping up to be a long three years for them and a painful learning process.

  6. Heard Malcolm Turnbull on ABC AM this morning and was surprised at how poorly he interviewed – a lot of awkward pauses, searching for words, obviously being caught on the back foot moments.
    I don’t know if it was his political inexperience showing or whether I’ve just been assuming that his PR was correct and this is the first time I’ve actually listened to him!

  7. Zoom,

    Great point. Turnbull always presents as a lawyer with a brief. Will argue a case till blue in the face for a client. But, then retires to the bar to have few drinks.

    Politics require a bit more committment than that.

    The best thing Labor can do with Turnbull is to give him a minute and then extend it to two or more. Will talk himself into oblivion.

  8. When will a interviewer ask Admiral Nelson or PM Rudd the question “Do you support the democratic rights of people to vote on particular issues.”? A follow up question would ask them whether they support the Taiwanese people’s wish to join the UN. The juxtaposition would be exquisite.
    http://news.theage.com.au/china-australia-hold-strategic-meeting/20080205-1q43.html
    I find the kowtowing to a dictatorship by both parties revolting. Obviously the worship of resource dollars by both parties overrides any sense of decency or principles. I wonder whether they would do the same if it was religion that was at stake?

  9. marky marky @ 254
    But again i ask why is defence not being cut in the budget, it contributes nothing to the economy.

    Neither do cops, lawyers and judges.

    The ADF has been undermanned and under financed for some time and is badly in need of new or updated equipment. If you want to cut its budget then you might as well stop pretending and just abolish it. You only need look at the pathetic state the NZDF has become to see the pointlessness of having a token force. The Kiwis can get away with it because they are a long way from potential foes and don’t have much to take anyway.

  10. Marky Marky.

    I’ll take just one example of this bag of misconceptions you seem to have about the nature of public finances.

    If we take, even gradually, money from private schools and put it back into public schools – as the private school enrollment numbers drop and public school enrollments increase as a result of those ex-private school students flowing back to the public system (simply because their parents can no longer afford to send their kids to private schools without that subsidy) – where does the extra money come from to fund this extra public school enrollment? The money required to maintain per-student funding levels as they are now for public education would have to be larger than the amount you can save from the reduction in private school funding. Those savings can partially offset the new expenditure you would require, but it doesn’t go near offsetting it completely because the majority of private schools are actually low cost private schools. The government is only providing a fraction of the costs of providing a private school education to a student, a cost that is itself only a fraction of the amount they would have to spend were those students schooled in the public system instead.

    And this doesn’t even get into the massive increase in capital expenditure on new schools that would be needed should public enrollments have a 20% surge.

    Better yet, if the public is willing to pay $X to educate a given student, why is it a problem if parents agree to pay more from their own pocket and receive less than $X from the government to educate their kids?

    Private schools actually save the government money, and provide higher levels of per-student public education funding as a result.

    Maybe it’s time to move on from the failed old anachronistic class warfare cliches of yore, comrade.

  11. It would seem, Scorpio et al, that the electoral ‘losers’ that is those who voted Howard, have lost none of their virulence, either.

    Seeming not to realise that it may yet make them winners.

    I listened in dismay to Tony Delroy’s issue, regarding Kev’s ideas summit. With few exceptions, the callers raged, through the spectrum of sceptical, cynical, dismissive and outright hateful.

    Comments such as the Government should know. The Government came to office saying it had the ideas. That the public servants should have the answers. Not a mention from the anti camp that these answers were not forthcoming in the recent decade.

    Some, say a person from the disability interest area, did complain that they would not get a look in, given that is a pay for oneself exercise. Perhaps valid, but I sure do not know who will be invited to attend or whether such persons will be supported by other means, say their own organisation.

    All this moaning about failure to consult, and the minute something is offered…..

  12. Possum i totally disagree with you. Why should my taxes and the taxes of all people provide funds for students in private schools and health why? Why have a system which provides advantages to people who go to private schools over public schools and advantages indeed..
    Statistics show that private school educated children far outweigh enrolements to university, medicine and law rarely has publically educated children and if they do they come from wealthy suburbs like Balwyn or Camberwell.
    Why should my taxes provide for snow trips and rowing clubs and private tutors it is a disgrace.
    You seem to not understand what public ownership means, and this today is our problem with many of us the lack of understanding of the meaning of government and spending.
    Private ownership is about private ownership and if private ownership must exist than let it on the backs of people who send their kids to such institutions.
    You seem to not understand that their are significantly fewer students attending private schools whilst funding to them has increased rapidly go to http://www.aeufederal.org.au/Debates/index2.html#FG
    and go to fact sheet on private schools.
    So your view suggesting that private school attendance helps lessen the burden on governments is simply bollocks!!
    This money instead could fund public schools.
    Possum if private schools want their rowing clubs and million dollar cricket pitchs they should the people who attend pay.
    And allow children in Broadmeadows and Melton an opportunity to be tomorrows lawyers and doctors.

  13. I believe the government is currently doing an audit of what resources different schools have in each neighbourhood with a view to sharing them between schools. The following is a snippet from an interview on 6PR 21/01/2008.

    ……
    PRESENTER: Now you also said on the weekend that private schools should open their doors up to kids that don’t go to private schools. Have you got any ideas on how that could work?

    JULIA GILLARD: What we talked about on the weekend was sharing facilities. Often State schools and private schools are located very near to each other – sometimes they’re basically on the same big block and what is separating them is a fence. We want to be talking to those schools about working together to share facilities because it might be that if they worked together they can get both the music rehearsal room that they’ve been dying to get as well as the improved gymnasium. Whereas if they’re working separately, then it wouldn’t be possible for them to, you know, get everything that they want. So I think it’s just a better way of using resources.

    PRESENTER: So if it’s a hot day and the kids are at the public school and they want to have a swim – they just you know, bring their towel and just hop across to the private school, that type of thing?

    JULIA GILLARD: [Laugh] Well, I wouldn’t be advocating climbing the fence with your towel in hand and just turning up at the private school. But I would be saying that if the principals of those two schools could have a conversation and work out what’s the best way of sharing the facilities and meeting the needs of all of the children in those schools, that’d be tremendous.

    PRESENTER: What about improving the facilities in public schools?

    JULIA GILLARD: Well we’ve got a big investment program for all schools. We’re going to spend $1 billion making sure that students in years 9 to twelve have a computer that they can use. That is going to start rolling out very soon. Schools in the greatest need will be able to apply as early as March and we’ve got $100 million to invest this year.

    We’re also going to invest in trade training centres in every secondary school in the country, so children can have an experience of what it’s going to be like if they choose to be a tradesperson…
    ……

    She’s good that Gillard. 🙂

  14. Crikey Whitey Says:@ 261

    {It would seem, Scorpio et al, that the electoral ‘losers’ that is those who voted Howard, have lost none of their virulence, either.}

    In reading the comments by Liberal supporters on the limited range of domestic, political subjects available so far in the MSM blogs, I have come to the conclusion that C/T must still be influencing affairs behind the scenes.

    These comments and recent ones by the likes of Nelson and Turnbull et al, all seem to be following common threads. ie The comments are mostly along the lines of the “talking points sheets” that were so prominent during the last 12 months election campaign.

    Until these clowns can learn to cut the apron strings from the likes of C/T and numerous conservative “Think Tanks” and learn how to evaluate public policy need and develop an appropriate response mechanism to that, then they are doomed to long term irrelevency.

    The Libs have clearly lost the ability to analyse where they have gone wrong and have no idea about how to effectively respond to Labor initiatives and policy objectives.

    Case in point, Nelson’s prevarication and uncertainty on how to respond to the “sorry” issue as well as his and Turnbull’s comments directed towards Rudd and Swann in relation to the increase in the inflation figures and today’s interest rate increase which are directly related to the previous Government policy settings.

    ie Based on the last quarter of 2007 of which Labor was in power for a total of 37 days including the period in which they were not even sworn in as a Government.

  15. Just image those private school boys at Wesley sharing their gym with a boy from the StKilda High just image the frowns.. Yep we really need to help those private schools with their overseas trips and school chalets at Hotham and Falls Creek- could someone please tell me what role this contributes to the economy. It is greed and it is a disgrace.

  16. And a late but little absorbed grab on Lateline, Annabel Crabbe and Arthur Sinodinos. Late but little, seems Annabel is intending to pursue Kev, on ‘the buck stops here.’ Bit of a change from her pre election posture. Arthur has returned to the Howard camp, despite his desertion earlier. Most likely Arthur wants the new bucks to stop with him.

    And, as Tom Eagleton summed it ‘all this before Kevin has set foot in Parliament.’

  17. I’ll just stick with one topic at a time – private health insurance is a little bit complicated – but suffice to say that it needs serious reform to make it work properly.

    But on the education thing; Why should we provide our tax payer money for private education? Because:

    a) it costs us less money to get education outcomes the same or better than if we didn’t provide private school funding.

    It passes the Pareto optimality test.

    b) People that choose to spend additional money outside of their taxes on their kids education rather than alternative expenditure shouldn’t be penalised simply on the basis of ideology that ignores what’s actually happening!

    It’s true that private school educated kids have a greater chance of getting into university, but they also have lower overall university performance than their publically educated counterparts.

    Now where you seem to believe that the increase in uni enrollments from students of a private school background is purely the result of the private school background itself, and probably crowds out opportunities for public students – how much of that seemingly extra opportunity that private schools, at least on paper, provide for university entrance is actually a result of the private schooling and how much is the result of parents actually giving a real shit about their kids education? Parents that provide a good education environment at the home will have their kids qualifying for university regardless of which type of school they attend.

    You seem to think that all private schools are some rollicking good rugger affairs, where its excursions to St Moritz in the summer, and off to the heated pool in the winter. There are only a handful of schools like that in the entire country! The overwhelming majority of private schools are small, low cost jobbies. So that’s what you’re actually dealing with here when talking about ‘private schools’

    I understand fully what public ownership means – pretty much nothing other than public ownership. The ownership isn’t important, the educational outcomes – the results, the kids getting the best education possible for a given budget is what is important. Some imposed government monopoly in an area where no such natural monopoly exists, forcing all parents to accept any flavour of education they like as long as it’s vanilla is a pointless exercise – it costs more and dilutes (i.e. reduces) overall per student education funding.

    And far from some long term reduction in private school enrollments ( that’s a quite mysterious thing to say really) the absolute opposite is the case. Let me quote the data:

    “The proportion of school students attending government schools fell from 71% in 1995 to 67% in 2005.” from the ABS here:
    http://tinyurl.com/3b6xqt

    Over 2006/07, that pattern has continued.

    And due to nature of governments only funding each private school enrollment at a fraction of the cost of funding a public school enrollment, private schooling increasing per-student public schooling funding (as a result of the semi-mixed student-capita/fixed costs nature of public school funding) is far from bollocks, its the reality we live in.

    That money could indeed fund public school places, but it wouldnt fund the number of places in the public system that it abolished in the private system, leaving an education budget in deficit. And it certainly wouldnt cover the capital costs required to build new schools (and upgrade existing schools) from such a large surge of public enrollments.

    Marky, Class warfare is deranged – especially when all you’d be doing is rogering everyone except the very wealthy that wouldnt need the private school subsidy anyway.

  18. 267

    Hey Possum, re your comment: “It’s true that private school educated kids have a greater chance of getting into university, but they also have lower overall university performance than their publically educated counterparts.”

    You mean to say that a disproportionate whack of my hard-earned goes to support private school types so they can enjoy an inferior education AND crowd out public-schooled kids (whose parents couldn’t afford the fees) from university. Sounds like a GREAT use of the education $.

  19. dyspnoeia, you should be happy that they’re in private schools. If they were all in public schools, you’d be paying more of your hard-earned to educate them than you do now.

    The question over uni enrollment is really one of: “How much of the apparent extra opportunity that private school students receive for getting into university is the result of private schooling, and how much is the result of having an upbringing in a home environment conducive to learning?”

    There’s a big correlation between private schooling and that environment.Unfortunately it’s almost impossible to control for in any actual data analysis to find the exact answer.

  20. I agree some of the things you state on this occasion, yes private school student outcomes at universities are poor but it does little to deter my argument that it is private school students who get to university in the first place and get into courses of high calibre which suggests to me their are inherent problems in the system. Hence you suggest it is home life and yes that may be partly to blame but i also know it is a result of parents not having the resources to help their children and being able to afford such resources whilst people with money can attend private schools can gain access to such resources – something which the taxpayer should not be subsiding.
    And yes i agree it is only a handful of private schools gaining significant funding and most are smaller either independent, religious based private institutions.
    Some may I agree should get some help but i am against funding religious based schools, religon should not be a part of the budgetary process.
    And yes enrolments have increased but that is because funding to such schools has also increased rapidly during this period which encourages people to go to such schools at the expense of the public system. Plus the economy has boomed and people have more money, of course to go into debt with. Additionally private schools have become part of this system of greed which suggests that by sending my children to such a school i will keeping up with my friends and neighbours and that you are of a higher status.
    People require a world class public system not simply schools which are inequitably based in regards to resources and needs. Put simply how do you know we will have an education deficit where are the facts? Still private schools would exist as parents and high income earners would keep them running, I am just suggesting don’t fund them.
    And by the way what is wrong with raising taxes on the rich to pay for funding public schools or borrowing some cash, no cannot do that it would be so wrong.
    I went to a public school and suffered the burden of inequitable access due to being brought up in a single parent household, you seem to think that it is easy and we can all achieve if we try hard the same economic ratiionalist talk i hear everyday that we can all make it and it is purely rubbish. Look at the economy now people heavily in debt and spirally out of control because of this private funding fetish we have got ourselves into.

  21. Marky, on some parents not having the resources to utilise private schooling while others can, then surely the way forward in a policy sense is to get stuck into fixing up the public education system to overcome that problem, rather than punitively punish middle income families for having the audacity to save a bit on the side so they can send their kids to a private school?

    Surely that would be a much better approach!

    As long as the religious component of schools of schools is not subsidised, I have no real problem with them. Sure it’s almost impossible because of the religious bent that may permeate the place in some instances, but there is, say, a dedicated hour of religious study every day as part of the school itself, then it’s simple to cut out 1 hour per student per day of public funding from that – again, we don’t need to wreck the two systems here to achieve policy goals.

    Sure, the public funding of private schooling has increased fairly rapidly, from a low base – and is still only a fraction of the tax payer funds spent on a per student basis for public education. If private schools were publically funded on a higher per student basis than public schools, I’d be howling from the nearest window with you, but as long as it’s less, then it remains a net benefit to the public system.

    People pay for the quickly dissolving privilege of having a ‘better class of friends’. But the government shouldn’t get its hands dirty in social engineering. If people a silly enough to think that sort of stuff will actually make much of a rats arse of difference compared to merit in these increasingly competitive times – more power to their delusions I say.

    On the education deficit – we *would* have one if vast numbers of private school enrollments from the small catholic and independent schools were forced back into the public system because of subsidy withdrawal. That’s simple maths. It costs the *government* less money to send a student to a private school than it costs them to send a student to a public school. So if all those low taxpayer funded private school places came back in to the high tax payer funded public school system, the budget would have to dramatically increase just to stand still on a per-student public funding basis (and that still ignores the large capital costs involved in needing to buil new schools and expand other schools just to house the public student influx)

    It’s silly to borrow cash to pay for recurring expenditure. Borrow cash to pay for a capital works project (where the value of that project pays for itself over a number of years), but for a flowing expenditure like education it is both pointless and dangerous.You still have to pay the debt back.

    Life will always deliver the full spectrum of households with the full spectrum of opportunity. The key for education policy is to lift the bottom and not penalise the top.I agree – public education needs to provide greater opportunity for those that aren’t fortunate enough to come from a wealthy household or a home environment that is conducive to learning. But that can be done without penalising everyone else in the process.

    As for peoples debt problems – they made the choice, the government can’t always hold peoples hands.

    And for the record, I spent my entire schooling in rural public schools in one of the poorest electorates in the country.

  22. Possum, it seems to me that a person’s view on what class warfare is, may be coloured by what class they consider themselves to be in. A rich person might say that class warfare is being denied the right to give my children an advantage when competing for position and wealth when they leave school. A poor person might say that class warfare is rich people using their wealth to give their children an advantage when competing for position and wealth when they leave school. Surely the politics of envy line died with the Howard government?

  23. This is my first blog on this 3 hour debate on Private School funding and realise my blog may contain errors but thats what Debate is for

    Marky I understand your idealism & some of your points have merit but query:

    1/
    ‘a fair go’ is supposed to be the Aussie way.
    Do our kids have equity of opportunity in Education irrespective of income.

    I Think NO…..those who ague otherwise are being disingenuous

    The fact this is a world wide situation does not make it right

    2/
    The problems in achieving this equity of opportunity are numerous but clearly money is a dominant cause of the problem & part of the solution.

    The economic reason given in favour of Public funding of Private Schools is that
    Public funding represents only a small proportion of a Private School students costs with the Private School parents paying the difference.

    ie. if the Private School student moved to a Public School , the Public cost would be higher as the Private School parents subsidy would disappear.

    WITHOUT this argument , the economic case for Public funding of Private Schools is demolished….then such Public funding would be clearly inequitable

    Furthermore in the case of the disadvantaged ‘poor’ Private Scools especially the Catholic ones , the differential is clearly small

    The notion that ALOT of the average $16,000 to $20,000 top Private School fee per student is the actual cost for a Public School student is highly questionable

    3/ How strong is the Private Schools per student argument that their Parents are subsidising their kids vs EQUIVALENT facilities in a Public School

    This would necessitate an analysis of the respective true costs of both sectors

    Frankly this would require a thorough independent Commission to establish the true cost per student of Public vs Private for EQUIVALENT facilities and between the varying categories of Schools within each as they’d vary significantly

    The Schools Commission efforts in this regard are at best bureaucratic……
    and I contend the case has not been convincingly made , see point 8/

    5/ The political argument over Public funding of Private Schools is probably over because Rudd has committed to the Schools formula in the next
    period 2009 to 2013. otherwise Labor would lose an Election…political reality

    6/ Rudd has however attempted to reduce the inequity of opportunity by

    (a) providing equal Capital Expenditure on laptops etc & the like to ALL schools
    which does lift the equity of opportunity

    (b) mandating there be a National Syllabus which has crucial Univerity entry equity implictions.

    PRESENTLY , students doing Maths 2 and the Sciences generally tend to get re-rated upwards on their marks and Humanities the reverse way resulting in an advantage for Uni entry of the former category.

    Most of the best academically performing Private Schools re Uni entry have most of their students doing Maths 2 and the Sciences which increases their entry opportunities whilst the Public Schools are a mix but more to the later category

    Hopefully Rudd’s plan will overcome this and lift the equity of opportunity

    7/ What Rudd’s plan inclusive of State funding does not do is

    (a) recognise that there are numerous Private Schools especially Catholic ones that are just as disadvantaged as many Public Schools

    (b) fund the Capital improvement of ALL schools buildings & facilities to an agreed world class standard a referred to in 8/ ( not to a basic standard)

    (c) Teacher to Student ratio’s should be equal accross ALL Schools Public & Private and a Federal & State allocation “Capital” cost should be built into the Budgets to annually maintain an agreed world class ratio level

    These steps would further lift the equity of opportunity for diadvantaged Private & Public Schools

    This could be done without altering the Schools formula 2005 to 2009 nor the next one 2009 to 2013

    8/
    (a) Costs Detail & Allocation purposes needed:

    A benchmark of facilities & buildings: their age ,purpose , size , usage , $ value teacher & student numbers to each factor etc has not been conducted in a
    satisfactory form to enable EQUIVALENT facilities to be appropriately compared

    In respect to the total dollars I stand to be corrected but I believe the Federal budget is approx 42 billion of which 28 billion goes to Private Schhols & 14 billion goes to Public Schools

    In addition , each State Government allocates funds for Public Schools
    the amount of which I’m unaware

    I also understand that 30% of attendees go to Private Schools & 70% Public

    The breakup of all these Federal & State Government funds into Capital Expenditure , Wages , facilities , support services etc. are a crucial factor
    in making a sound comparison of per student costs Public vs Private

    Furthermore , the “creative accounting” I’ve seen in some Private Schools financial accounts to inflate per student costs would need analysis

    7/ (b)
    The substantial tax deductability benefits (greater for Private School tax payers) are paid by all tax payers from the Federal Budget & need to be added ONTO the respective sPublic & private Sectors costs per student

    There are other associated plus’s & minus’s to adjust to each sector

  24. CONCLUSION

    The issue is not class warfare

    The issue is equity of opportunity for children….. all of whom are born equal

    The child who in the future might have found the cure to cancer may through inequity of opportunity never had the educational opportunity to do so

    Educational advancement should not be based on the depths of a parents pocket but on the attributes of the student

    “Capital expenditure” outside of the Schools Commission formula is necessary
    for disadvantaged Private & Public Schools in the areas listed including facilities , syllabus & teacher numbers to attempt to redress equity of opportunity

  25. Good to see that Red Kezza has had a rejuvenating holiday break, jeez he gutted old Horatio Hornblower on the 7:30 report. One second Nelson was rabbiting about Labor taking responsibility for ‘now’, not blaming previous govt, the next he was into the old ‘we inherited labor debt blah de blah’. Kezza was on him like a horny Jack Russell terrier, great stuff, Nelson won’t last until June.

  26. marky marky @ 262 – What you seem to be saying is that the government should not contribute a cent to the education of kids going to a private school, even though their parents pay taxes just like the parents with kids at public schools, and that tertiary places should be awarded on the basis of family poverty, not academic achievement.

    LOL. No wonder you consider us all right-wingers. No doubt even Marx is a fascist in your book.

    Possum Comitatus @ 267
    Parents that provide a good education environment at the home will have their kids qualifying for university regardless of which type of school they attend.

    The best proof of that is how many children of immigrant families get to university. Mostly, their parents work multiple poorly paid jobs and do without – at the risk of being scorned as ‘rich’ by folk like markey – to give their kids the opportunity they didn’t have and encourage a high work ethic in their kids to ensure they can make the most of that opportunity.

  27. GG

    They had to be dragged kicking and screaming, not all are happy.

    “While the practice was unacceptable now, many people who removed indigenous children from their families had the best of intentions”

    Of course they did, many believed that it was inevitable that the aboriginal race was dying out.

    Maverick Nationals senator Barnaby Joyce says the Rudd government has used the issue to play wedge politics. “This is gun-to-your-head type of politics which is really forcing a political point for advantage rather than trying to help indigenous people,” he said.

    Wedge politics, OMG!

    http://news.smh.com.au/mps-back-removal-of-some-indigenous-kids/20080206-1qkx.html

  28. Mayo Feral- do not misconstrue my comments. I do not believe that university enrolments should be based on family poverty. I believe in equality of opportunity for all, for kids from public schools and elsewhere, thus if this was the case results would then determine university places.
    As I stated last night why is it that private school students dominant places in Law and Medicine. No doubt because of better opportunities and money.
    And yes asian students do tend to get into such places by parents working hard, yep lets make this people work hard whilst it would be better that you did not flog them to death.
    I have worked with some of these people and seen their health problems and opportunities in life (travel) cars, food that they have gone without just for their children. And the pressure upon children succeeding is immense, and have heard of children suiciding or attempting such.
    Your statements are a typical economic rationalist view of the world that says money should determine the way we live. Yep the wealthy do pay more taxes and if you suggest they deserve to get much more from governments as a result than the poor will never get anywhere because they pay little tax.
    The views of people regarding funding private schools are bizzare. Why? because more kids attend public schools and generally come from low income households. Thus funding for these schools should be reduced as per normal because private schools take the pressure of government budgets, hence greater spending creates deficits. But predominately wealthy students attend private schools hence they deserve funding. So if public schools have predominately people from poorer backgrounds then they can do without- how do we expect these people to succeed without adequate funding?
    As private schools predominately have students from wealthy families why do they deserve funding from governments? Check graphical results as evidence of private public schools attendance and income backgrounds
    http://www.aeufederal.org.au/Debates/index2.html#ED and go to social makeup of schools based on income levels.
    I also include a very article which looks at how the lack of funding on public schools and poor socio economic backgrounds contributes towards crime, health problems and prime reasons as to why these students do not attend university. Good home life is about having the resources to achieve results such as computers, food on the table, employment, job security being able to afford to attend sporting activities and be a part of society unfortunately their is a view here that good home life is easy sorry Mayo Feral good home life is about many things. Economic ratiionalism gone mad.
    Go to link also: Free for all Is there a future for universal services?
    Funding for private schools should not occur and i will continue my attacks upon it.

  29. marky marky you seem to be under the delusion that governments spend more per private school student than public school student. That is incorrect. It varies slightly from school to school, but on average, private schools receive only 47% of the amount per student as a government school.

    Overall, the 3 levels of government spend 78.4% of their combined (non tertiary) education budget on public schools, only 21.6% on private schools, despite private schools educating 31% of primary and secondary school kids.

    And still you’re not happy. You want to rob their parents even more and have them pay 100% instead of 53%. Well, if you want to pay even more tax please continue your campaign. As someone once said, be careful what you wish for, you might get it.

    Personally, I wouldn’t sent my kids to a private school, but if others want to reduce my tax burden I’m not going to complain.

  30. Have been a way for months but is just like turning on ‘days of our lives’ – some characters and positions just don’t change.

    Seems Marky still can’t come to terms with Howard’s loss. Yes, he is indeed a liberal man and enjoys nothing more than selling-down any Labor activity. The more inovative and sensible the activity the more repetitive and shrill the criticism.

    Will be back in two years to catch up with the latest marky mark shrill complaints Labor. ;]

  31. So Mayo Feral you are low income earner. If so than this tax burden problem may be of merit in your argument. Nonetheless Australia is one of the lowest taxed countries in the OECD and research has shown countries with high taxes have predominately better socio-economic outcomes. Read this article just as a precursor but if you want more i’ll get it.
    http://www.theage.com.au/news/tim-colebatch/how-lowering-tax-can-make-us-all-poorer/2006/01/30/1138590438861.html
    Yep i’ll gladly pay more tax. But in my view we need companies to pay higher taxes and the wealthy that is what progressive taxation is Mayo Feral.
    It was Labor who reduced the taxation threshold in 1980’s from 60 percent of dollar for higher income earners to 47 cents. We need to get rid of fringe benefits taxes for company cars and other perks and decrease the perks for Ministers of the crown. And their are many other ways to create a fairer spending ratio. If we educated people in fairer way with fairer outcomes as said crime, health problems and many other social problems would be reduced.
    Have a look at this article on policy outcomes and models based on western countries and scandanivan countries which i support signifcantly their outcomes are the way to go but instead with have this selfish view of i can acheive but you can’t and this seems to be your view Mayo Feral.
    http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=4088

  32. What i support Kino are governments which have the courage to put policies in place which will create a better society. Kino read about some of socio- economic results of Scandanivan countries and ask why can’t we slowly head the same way. Yep i criticise and carp but i did mention yesterday that since being in Government Labor has closed down the Nauru detention centres and allowed most of detainees residence here , this is a fantastic outcome, the signing of the Kyoto Protocol also is a good policy outcome but results will now have to be shown- bad start by not stopping the Pulp Mill in Tassie.
    If their are other achievements maybe you could enlighten me but to date i have not heard of anything else which overly pleases me. Kino just curious seeing you went overseas how do attend to offset those carbon emissions.

  33. Arbie,

    I didn’t read “kicking and screaming” into the comments by Ian Tuxworth and Shane Stone over the weekend. More, a re evaluation of their positon and a recognition that the time had come to settle the Apology so everyone can move on to trying to fix the real problems in indigenous matters.

    Most people here are focussing on the politics (not a surprise, really). However, I am hopeful that there has been a real change of heart on the conservative side and as such, the apology is genuine.

    In twenty years, the record will show that the vast majority of Parliamentarians supported the Apology. It will show us united as a nation in taking the first step to rectifying the terrible treatment meted out to our indigenous citizens.

    John Howard was right on one thing. Sometimes the things that unite Australians are more important than the thing that divide us.

  34. GG

    I agree it is good that the apology is to be on behalf of the parliament, not just the government but there are those in the libs still spreading misinformation.

    Abbott said he thought that some kids should have been taken away and that this should not be apologised for.

    I agree, and that is what the apology is about, to those who were taken away without good reason, but some on the lib side are even portaying that taking kids away because of mixed blood was misguided but not wrong because they thought they were doing right or it was the thinking of the times.

    It is this sort of warped mentality that I disagree with, one that Howard expressed when he said that was the done thing then and was the thinking of the times, plenty of oldies reacted to that by saying I’m as old or older than you mate and I never thought like that or agreed with it.

  35. Arbie,GG
    latest twisting of the simple act of apologising
    “Apology should be to ‘Separated Generations’: Liberal MP”
    http://abc.com.au/news/stories/2008/02/07/2156762.htm?section=justin


    “I think separated is probably a better word than stolen personally,” he said.

    Federal Opposition Indigenous Affairs spokesman Tony Abbott also questions the accuracy of the word “stolen”.

    “Some kids were rescued, some kids were helped,” Mr Abbott said. ”

    these bastards will never get it,no amount of contrition will hide their obvious UNAPOLEGITC feelings

  36. 2c on education: money should not go to wealthy private schools that have no trouble charging high fee’s. While I personally have an issue with paying public funds into low income private schools there is also a real-politic issue at work – Catholic systemic schools (at the bottom of the private school pile) have been funded for some 40-odd years now and still provide a basic (I went to one and it was basic…) school education at low cost. It is still used by many low income families. There is a case for continued funding of these and other low-income/low-fee schools.

    The issue of curriculum, if addressed as an issue of a standard curriculum across all schools, is not a problem, and they should have to abide by the same laws as everybody else in relation to discrimination, especially if they are going to receive public funding. I mentioned on a thread last year the situation of private schools providing services where no public school (or Department) is available or willing to provide those services (ie; remote indigenous schools) being funded. This can be extended across the basic curriculum to ensure that the needs of all school age children are met.

    Finally, how to know which school to fund? Methods using the socio-economic status of parents based on where they live is deeply problematic – its no better than looking at a postcode, saying “oh, poor people live there” and handing over the money on that basis. The same goes for when you apply this to the location school (as if parents wont enrol their children even if they live miles away – Frensham springs to mind). This is obviously the most vexed question of all, but in part it should relate to school facilities available, level of school fee’s paid and the level of capitalisation within the school. Indeed, I would like to think that private schools should be funded on the basis that they do not charge any fee’s as in some European countries, but then we are approaching full public education with associated costs (another argument perhaps?).

    Hmmm, slightly more than 2c, but there you go.

    On the topic of polls – still no idea from anybody about a new Newspoll or NSW state poll?

  37. Hi Arbie and Gusface,

    There are a few days to go. But, I think we will get there with the Apology. You got to understand that repudiating a view of life you have lived for decades is not a simple process. Please feel their pain.

    I acknowledge that Abbott is having a few problems. However as this old video says, “Words don’t come Easy’.

    http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Words+Don%27t+Come+Easy&search_type=&search=Search

  38. GG

    You’re right, I feel their pain and realise they are hurting, and hurting bad some of them.

    I agree we should encourage every step, no matter how little, back towards humanity.

  39. 290
    Greeensborough Growler said:
    I acknowledge that Abbott is having a few problems. However as this old video says, “Words don’t come Easy’.

    The faithful must be very glad he left the seminary because the milk of human kindness doesn’t seem to flow strongly in him.

  40. Actually Martin B,
    I think you’ve got it the wrong way around. Nelson does really agree with the apology but renounced it in December as part of getting the leadership.
    Now he’s had to spend the last two weeks unravelling that pragmatic position.
    I’m glad the Libs (or most of them) will be supporting it, I think it’s important to make unanimous.

  41. On the funding of schools debate, is everyone here happy that Julia Gillard’s plan to maintain el Rodente’s school funding model ensures that the tax payer continues to fund the Exclusive Brethren schools to the tune of $18M over the next four years? Only Exclusive Brethren members can attend the schools and the children are brainwashed into thinking Intelligent Design is an ultra-radical heathen concept at odds with the flawless creationism model. I believe Ruddski referred to the EB as a “dangerous cult” and included special criticism of their schools. I will be interested if that was all puffed-up rhetoric for the benefit of the voters, or whether he’s actually going to show some leadership on the issue.

  42. Diogenes – Are the EB that much different to other religions in this regard? Are religious schools even required to teach evolution theory? I’m guessing most of the emphasis is on the religious view and ET gets, at best, only a passing mention.

    And could any government withhold funding based on a religion’s beliefs? IMHO, that’s a can of worms that shouldn’t be touched under any circumstances.

  43. It’s but a tiny little gaffe really, but did anyone hear Malcolm Turnbull on Insiders this morning? Did you notice he called the Chairman of the US Federal Reserve Bank “Bob” Bernanke?

    Poor Malcontent, jilted for leader over policies they are now following, and he’s stuck trying to explain why Krudd and SwanDive have rogered the economy…ah, that’s before they’ve even set foot into the new parliament! LOL

    Mal’s got a big problem: he does not know how to shut up! Nor which battles to leave well and truly alone.

    God, Horatio Hornblower almost looks like a class act in comparison, and that takes some doing.

  44. For those not overly interested in the comings and goings of the US Presidential Election campaign there is some interesting reading provided by Laurie Oakes from March 2006 through to the present that will evoke a lot of memories of the historical time-line and events of the recent electoral jousting in this country.

    http://news.ninemsn.com.au/oakes

    I found it fascinating to compare what was perceived to result from various actions by the parties, especially the Liberals, and what eventually did come to pass.

    Almost enough there to put together with appropriate linkages etc and publish as an historical record of probably the most fascinating election campaign since the war.

Comments are closed.

Comments Page 6 of 7
1 5 6 7