A belief in merit, individual effort and opportunity means little if children begin life with radically unequal chances. Strong public education should be as much a Liberal commitment as a Labor one.

For years, when writing about the neglect of public education, I have directed most of my criticism towards the Labor Party. That seemed reasonable. Public education should be central to Labor’s historical purpose: the institution through which the circumstances of a child’s birth are prevented, as far as possible, from determining the possibilities of their life.

Almost without acknowledging it, however, I had largely excused the Liberal Party from the discussion. I assumed public education occupied little place in its political imagination beyond providing a necessary service for families unable to purchase an alternative. Private schooling represented choice and aspiration; the public school ensured nobody was left entirely without an education. The box had been ticked.

But that assumption now troubles me. Why should a party that professes to believe in individual opportunity, personal effort and advancement not be among the strongest defenders of the institution that gives every child some chance to exercise them?

I began reconsidering this through memories of Liberal-supporting colleagues in the early 1970s. We disagreed vigorously about the role of government. I placed greater faith in public provision and collective responsibility; they emphasised private enterprise, individual initiative and the dangers of excessive government. Yet I do not remember doubting that we were arguing about different ways of improving people’s lives. We disputed the means, but not the broad social purpose.

Memory can romanticise the past. The common good imagined by 1970s Australia excluded many people, and the Liberal Party was never social democratic. Nevertheless, it contained a recognisable social-liberal tradition in which markets generated wealth but........

© Pearls and Irritations