On Thursday Mr Turnbull named school education as one area where the federal government could wind back its involvement if states raised their own revenue. The federal government could walk away from its role in funding state schools under a tax reform proposal floated by Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull. "You could make a very powerful case for example that, if there was a revenue sharing, if the states had access to a portion of income tax, that they would have the resources and the money [to] have the responsibility for state schools," Mr Turnbull told ABC radio. "I suspect no federal government would retreat from funding and continuing to support the non-government school sector because there would be a concern that they would not get a fair go from state governments, who obviously would have a competing interest with their schools. "But in terms of state schools, state education, government schools, if the states had the money, if they had the money from a share of the tax base, would they not do a better job managing those schools themselves?

"That would be a question to ask the education ministers: does the education minister in Canberra know better how to run a primary school in Tasmania or South Australia or Western Australia than the education minister in those states?" Mr Turnbull said that the national curriculum should remain in place but the constant "arm wrestling" about who has responsibilities for schools should end. "We have a massive education department in Canberra, in the federal government, but we don't employ any teachers. You have got to ask yourself whether we should not have clearer lines of responsibility." Labor school education spokeswoman Kate Ellis accused Mr Turnbull of advocating "an extraordinary abandonment of public education". "This would lead to a drift away from public schooling and bring back divisive debates from decades past about the different school sectors.

You have got to ask yourself whether we should not have clearer lines of responsibility "The Commonwealth has been playing a role in public education since the 1970s. "The Gonski reforms were all about ensuring we move to a national system where all our schools are up to standard." Ms Ellis said federal governments have only been able to drive reforms such as Gonski, the national curriculum and the My School website because they allocate funds to public schools. "This is an incredibly reckless, ill-considered idea," she said.

Victorian Education Minister James Merlino said the proposal was a "cynical attempt" to justify the federal government's decision to abandon the Gonski school funding agreement. "It's not enough that they've torn up a signed agreement, they now want to brazenly ditch all responsibility for our government schools." The Victorian government has failed to commit to funding the final two years of the agreement. One of the nation's most experienced education bureaucrats, Ken Boston, last year slammed the proposal for the federal government to abdicate funding for public schools as "completely foreign" to the equity principles underpinning the Gonski funding model. "This would be the antithesis of Gonski," Dr Boston said, referring to the review's model of a needs-based funding model which applies equally across all school sectors.

"The idea should be ruled out completely." Education Minister Simon Birmingham said Labor's implementation of the Gonski model had resulted in 27 different funding agreements and it was time to end the blurred lines of education funding. "The Turnbull government wants to deliver clarity, accountability and the incentive for our school systems to innovate and be their absolute best rather than being strangled by multiple levels of government bureaucracy," he said. "Labor love a system where accountability is blurred and the buck can always be passed from one level of government to another." Follow us on Twitter