As expected, Ashenden's prolific analyses of Gonski (accessible on the Jesuit policy/arts e-journal, 'Eureka Street') demonstrates the highest level policy commentary on Gonski that I have read.

One question arises whenever I read him, which I would dearly like to have answered. Ashenden was Ministerial Consultant to the Minister for Education, Senator Ryan. He must have been aware then of some of the policy shortfalls inherent in the tripartite systemic school-funding model that Peter Karmel proposed and the Whitlam government enacted.

En route to that enactment, there was some discussion about introducing a New Zealand-style fully-funded public sector-integrated school model for those Australian school systems, principally Catholic, that would mitigate against the negative social-inequality effects of the tripartite school-funding model that is at the heart of the problem he now identifies.

Put simply, such a model would have put paid to an ever-burgeoning publicly-subsidised private sector, which would have logically remained unfunded.

Where was Dean Ashenden's persuasive policy voice when Minister Ryan was deliberating on this question, which, if properly considered, would surely have resulted in a much less inequitable set of funding-policy outcomes than we currently confront?

Rhrosty,

No one openly argues against needs based funding, but people disagree about how needs should be determined.

As we already have a progressive tax system, there is no reason to charge for government-funded services on a means-tested basis, either in education or in health.