What a pity that Ruth doesn't give us an alternative way of better educating Indigenous children.

Despite all the verbage and calls to respect mythical 'rights', there is not one valuable insight into why 'paternalism' is a bad thing, but plenty of implied reasons why new paternalism is good!

"major problems with mutual obligation-based welfare policy ... stigmatises rather than supports recipients of income support... it is punitive ... it in fact removes responsibility from individuals, families and communities."

This quote shows some of the better reasons TO SUPPORT mutual obligation.
1: We should stigmatise the un-deserving poor. Why would anybody work unless there are carrots and sticks to encourage it?
2: It should be punitive. If you want spend your money as you please, it should be "your" money, not my taxes!
3: People need to be taught self-empowerment. these behaviours are good, and these are bad..

At the end of the day, breaking the cycle of poverty, family breakdown and high fertility (with associated child abuse and adult criminality), is a good thing.

But it will take policies that protect children... not failed policies of supporting and encouraging dysfunction.

It’s hard to see why aborigines in remote areas receive any welfare payments. “Mutual obligation” doesn’t operate there.

If other people leave an area where there is plenty of work to live in an area where there is little or no work, they received a grilling from Centrelink, and are very unlikely to receive welfare.

There are no jobs in these remote communities, and no requirement to leave the communities to find work. Now, there comes the expected whining when it is suggested that their welfare is cut off because their children won’t go to school so that they can obtain jobs one day. The “disparity” mentioned by the author is between one group of Australians and another.

They ranted against the previous government; they are now ranting against the current one. Australian politicians must have got something right at last.

I defy anyone to try to manage to raise a family on a Newstart allowance, let alone manage when half of the allowance is quarantined. Any one familiar with retail must wonder at the prices paid for basic foods in the community stores. If the australian government is worried about the nutrition of school age children then it should pay for school lunches to be provided in aboriginal communities, Dandenong, Elizabeth, and other welfare dependent suburbs of Australia. Perhaps provision of school lunches can be outsourced to Spotless who run corporate canteens. NO! use it as an opportunity to employ and engage the local adults. If bullying is s problem let the kids shower at school and provide clean uniforms through the school - or is the australian government all about punitive action for those least able to help themselves?

That was a very coy reference to lack of infrastructure which hides the fact that there are not enough teachers or classroom space for every koori kid in the NT to attend school.

Do we want all aborigines in outlying areas to relocate to urban areas where there is the possibility of work? Do we want to leave our northern landscape with no permanent settlements, just a collection of fly in, fly out mining camps?

Ruth McCausland is correct when she points out the difficulty in applying a broad-brush concept of mutual obligation and that it is not a panacea for aboriginal community dysfunction.

However the concept does have a place as an element of dealing with issues in any community not just those in the remote parts of Australia; aboriginal or not.

What is at issue is the future of children. All would agree that a lack of adequate schooling of the kind required of Australian children as a whole often condemns the non-recipient to a lifetime of dependency. All would agree that a lifetime of dependency is to be avoided for a person who otherwise could become independent and able to apply the talents obtained through family and society. This granting all Australian children the right to realise their potential is at the heart of what Australia wants.

Mutual obligation is a very blunt tool but it will work in some cases. It must however be seen as but part of the toolbox for achieving the objective.

Ruth is right when she points out "Lack of parental engagement or support for education undoubtedly plays a significant role in truancy." As well a mutual obligation programs, targetted effort must put into helping parents who have aspirations for their children and where children are responsive. There is a need to put high quality teachers and mentors into remote communities so that those children that could have a future are helped achieve their aspirations.

Tony Abbott suggests a special support service scheme for remote communities and perhaps this should be looked at as the basis of further improving opportunity in the bush.

I understand it cost $3000 per recipient to quarantine benefits which dis-empower people. Other costs that people have in acquiring their needs under this system needs to be added.

How many budget advisers and welfare workers could have been employed for the same money. I am sure there would be enough money to supply all communities with some over to train future workers.

This alternate course would have met the needs of the children, at the same time educating people to be good money managers and parents. Using money manager teams should be mainly voluntary.

Where there is a need to protect the children, the Children s's Court Orders could force some parents to become involved.

How do people stationed many of thousands kilometers away in cities have any idea of these peoples needs.

We will look back with sorrow at the waste the so called intervention has cost. The biggest loser's will be the children.