Does it get any more rich than this?

By   /   April 18, 2013  /   20 Comments

TDB recommends Voyager - Unlimited internet @home as fast as you can get

Just think what our public schools in low income communities could do with extra cash on this scale Instead or funding the educationally needy the government is funding the wealthy greedy.


Ministry of Education figures released under the Official Information Act show Prime Minister John Key has pumped money hand over fist into the elite private school attended by his son.

While the government pleads tough economic times whenever public schools call for more funding its subsidies for Kings College increased by an eye-watering 40% ($1,663,585 to $2,325,587) from 2009 to 2011.

It’s the same story for other private schools – schools of choice for National/Act cabinet ministers.

Here are a few of these schools showing their subsidies rocketing while public schools struggle.

  2009                    2010                       2011

Kings College     1,663,585           2,152,669              2,325,587

St Cuthbert’s       2,027,070          2,553,203              2,836,908

Kristin School    2,222,284           2,734,602             2,912,394

AGC Parnell        789,880              1,206,459             1,426,547

Diocesan School 2,057,681          2,740,298             2,940,455

Scot’s College       1,072,920          1,378,084             1,509,437

Christ’s College   1,172,637           1,461,804              1,633,170

Rangi Ruru           1,160,013          1,446,897              1,580,950

These private schools get funding despite the fact they are not an option open to most New Zealand children. They pick and choose who they want and charge massive fees –another barrier to keep the riff-raff out – on top of their skyrocketing government subsidies.

There’s not even any pretence at a choice-based freemarket with these schools. The enrolment choice is made by the school – not the parents or students.

John Key and other parents apply for enrolment at schools like Kings because they know they will get a socially-cleansed environment where their sons and daughters can escape the social problems caused by government policies.

It’s classic private sector parasitism on the state. In fact the only thing you can be sure of with most private sector groups is that they always have their hands out for state subsidies.

We shouldn’t be surprised. In every area of the economy the government’s priority is to shift the tax burden onto those on the lowest incomes while increasing state subsidies for all manner of private sector activity.

Just think what our public schools in low income communities could do with extra cash on this scale Instead or funding the educationally needy the government is funding the wealthy greedy.

And just a few days ago Education Minister Hekia Parata revealed the government was “actively considering” increasing these private sector subsidies even further in this year’s budget.

Does it get any more rich than this? The greedy bastards.

Want to support this work? Donate today
Follow us on Twitter & Facebook


  1. Ovicula says:

    I suspect more than a few Labour kids go to these schools as well. Politicians come from a better class than the rest of us, John. Not for them to see the results of their parents’ greed. They probably darken their car windows on the inside so they can’t see the mean streets of Papatoetoe and Otahuhu on their way to Kings.
    I don’t see why these schools should get anything from the taxpayer. The parents have already had their tax cuts and see it as their duty to avoid tax anyway. I believe in user pays when it applies to them.

    • douglas Robertson says:

      great work john it is good to see someone is doing the work to get this stuff into the public eye and make up for the tollal dirth of information from the so called media
      cheers doug

      • sct says:

        To be fair, there’s no link to sources used (I’m not implying any lies here though), no fleshing out of the process for or the requirements needed to meet funding.

        Am I to just take someones word for it? much like a politicians?

  2. Nitrium Nitrium says:

    I find this blog entry highly offensive. Here was I naively thinking that “private” in the context of schools meant “NOT Government funded”. This is even worse than corporate welfare, which is saying something. No one NEEDS to use these schools; I am fine with people wanting them, but they should 100% support themselves. It is frankly an outrageous misallocation of tax payer funds.

    • MikeNZ says:

      They already pay for schooling and now pay extra on top of thet.
      But they don’t get the funding they pay for so they are taxed twice.

  3. Adrian says:

    yet they cut funding for night classes

  4. Kingi says:

    And just a few days ago Education Minister Hekia Parata revealed the government was “actively considering” increasing these private sector subsidies even further in this year’s budget.”
    Given the nationwide demonstrations on education only last weekend, its hard to imagine how Parata’s comments could be any more insulting to everybody who works in public education. The woman has no shame.

    • Another David says:

      I don’t think there is much point in focusing on Hekia Parata too much. She’s merely a stooge for policies being directed by people further up the command chain. That’s why PM John Key didn’t get rid of her. She does a fine job of attracting all the flack. Her career in politics will be over when this government finally goes. She may possibly get good paying positions after that on boards of corporates or something similar through the intersession of influential supporters of National and right wing politics in general.

      Stooge – “A person who serves merely to support or assist others, particularly in doing unpleasant work”

      • Michal says:

        She is gutless, she should have stood up to the bullies in cabinet, she doesn’t actually want charter schools but of course that man Banks… The bast… don’t give a shit about state schooling,and some of those with kids at private schools will be from Labour too. I have often thought it would be interesting to know which MPs in parliament don’t, for instance, have health insurance.

  5. LifesTruths says:

    “another barrier to keep the riff-raff out”. Good to see you understand the need to separate the wheat from the chaff.

  6. Don says:

    I think the money allocated to a child in a public school should still be allocated to a child in a private school. No more, no less. The user pays part is parents wishing to top up their child’s education.

    I think these figures only make sense if we see how many children they are spread over. For all we know, the increase in funding is due to an increase in students.

    These figures don’t really tell us enough information for anyone to have any reaction other than a knee jerk reaction.

    • Tom says:

      It’s also important to look at the final number, even if the recent increase is dramatic. Spending $2,325,587 on the 952 pupils at King’s comes to $2,442 per student.

      This should be compared against the average expenditure by government per secondary school student (public and private alike), which appears to be about $7,000.

      • The Daily Blog martyn bradbury says:

        How does that matter? That’s $2442 per student that is being taken away from public education to hand over to private education. NO MONEY should be going to private education and certainly not an increase in money.

        • Molisk says:

          You do realise that without this funding, private schools would not be able to maintain the high rolls of students they currently have? Removing the subsidy results in the private schools demanding higher fees resulting in less demand and thus more students flooding into the public sector resulting in larger classroom sizes etc.

          Private schools are good, they cater for those the government cannot. Also. Parents who send kids to private schools most likely pay MORE TAX and equally deserve to see their TAX spent on their kids as well.

          Many parents at private schools aren’t rich usually take big sacrifices to send their kids to private schools such as selling car / house / taking mortgage out or loan.

          “You don’t make the poor richer by making the rich poorer.”
          ― Winston Churchill

  7. Maxy says:

    Welcome to ‘Nationals tea party’ we only hate, segregate and discriminate! Because you do not ‘fit in’ if you meet our requirements of cutting all welfare benefits, making it hard for students to receive money to help with their tertiary eduaction, get rid of all the state houses and start building for the rich and out of town buyers; and if anyone challenges the national government they will make you suffer by having Big brother watching you! Would anyone like to join our ‘National tea part’?

    ‘Bunch of possoms’

    • Whatalaugh says:

      “hard for students to receive money to help with their tertiary eduaction”? You’re kidding, right? New Zealand, with interest free student loans?

  8. Brendon O'Connor says:

    The government provide schools for all and some parents rather than work with the system and help improve it so we have an excellent public education system choose to ignore the public school system.
    Fine, that’s where it should end.
    But no, they demand that their schooling be fully funded by the tax payer, not themselves.
    I have 4 friends in this situation. All of them boast about how they use LAQC tax structures to pay no tax and yet all are on high incomes and have a sense of entitlement to “their share” instead of using their ghost taxes to pay for welfare bludgers and wasting money on luxuries for prisoners etc, etc etc…..
    And when I say they are friends, I should say they are enemies of humanity.
    Of course National are just honouring their promises to the hollow men.
    Not a bad return for them for a $3 million “investment” in putting national into power.

  9. Tom says:

    Enjoying all your articles… but if only there was a way to get enough Kiwis behind credible policies so they couldn’t be resisted by sell out parties, and became law.

  10. midnitewomble says:

    just another leap towards nationals goal of turning us into a third world state run by and for a rich elite with an underclass of poor subservient slaves

  11. Adam says:

    The way I see it, public funding should go ONLY to public schools – those institutions which exist to do their best for ANY student who come through their doors, not just the ‘pick of the crop’. Funding schools whose enrolment schemes mirror the membership profile of a country club is just bizarre? What need is this funding responding to? These parents are CHOOSING fee-paying education because it reflects their elitist world view. They CHOSSE to opt out of the public system because for whatever reason they believe they and their children are above it. I’ve nothing against user pays, when it is genuinely so. But we’ve lost our way when those born into favourable circumstances are getting a ‘leg up’ off the back of our most disenfranchised students. I guess it comes down to how you view education. Is it a forum for a better society for all or a ticket to high society for a few? Mr Key purports to represent NZ and yet sends his son to a private school. I wonder, was it I can’t take anything that comes out of his mouth seriously? Even I know lip service when I smell it and I went to a PUBLIC school!