Last week, Jenny Macklin, the Minister for Indigenous Affairs in a 21st century Labor Government led by a prime minister from the left of the party, announced a new raft of welfare measures for Aboriginal communities in the Northern Territory.
To her credit, Macklin has long conceded that the Howard Government Intervention was implemented in a ham-fisted, culturally insensitive and racially discriminatory manner.
But last Monday she said: 'School attendance in these new sites is particularly poor, and it is clear that our efforts in these townships must be strengthened to ensure children are getting a decent education and go to school every day.'
She was joined by Education Minister Peter Garrett who said parents must 'understand that their income support entitlements may be affected if their children are not going to school'.
When interviewed by Fran Kelly on ABC Breakfast, Macklin said: 'It may be that we have to address bullying at school, it may be making sure that a child is helped to get up in the morning and walk to school. What we want to do is work closely with parents, work closely with the Northern Territory Government, to make sure that children do get to school every day.'
Special measures for Indigenous Australians should be imposed only on those individuals or communities which seek them, and with provision for individuals to opt out if they do not wish to avail themselves the special community measures being imposed.
There is no substitute for relationships and respect for human dignity when designing welfare measures for the assistance of the poor and the excluded of our society, especially Indigenous Australians in remote communities.
The historic Apology by our national parliament provided the basis for the ongoing building of that relationship. But it ended last Monday with ministerial calls for the racially targeted docking of welfare payments for parents whose children are not regularly attending school on remote Aboriginal communities in the Northern Territory.
Legislation is to be introduced to the House of Representatives this week. Presumably this will require the placement of truancy officers, rather than additional teachers, in remote Aboriginal communities.
Where is the evidence based approach which shows that this could possibly work? There have been no trials with demonstrable results. This approach would not be attempted by the Commonwealth government for any other group in society.
In Cape York, Noel Pearson and the Cape York Institute convinced the Queensland Government to set up a Family Responsibilities Commission three years ago covering four Aboriginal communities. In its 2009–10 annual report, the Family Responsibilities Commissioner noted: 'The Local Commissioners have been pivotal in gaining the trust and understanding of community members in regard to school attendance obligations and the rights of families to live peacefully and in safety.'
As yet there are no flash results to report from the Queensland project. But at least it is based on the right principles. Instead of appointing local commissioners, the Commonwealth is more interested in the cost efficient and more controlled use of government officials to impose outcomes by means of the 'stick approach', reducing welfare payments of non-compliant parents.
If the Queensland model is judged by the Commonwealth to be too expensive, giving insufficient return by way of measurable outcomes for the investment in the local community, there will be no reason to expect better outcomes from an approach which gives less emphasis to trust, understanding and involvement of the local community.
There is no evidence that the truancy officers who will have to visit remote communities regularly will be able to achieve anything more than the dedicated teachers living permanently in these communities. We will have Commonwealth public servants entering houses to help children get up in the morning. We will have public servants walking children to school in circumstances where parents are not motivated to assist.
This is the nanny state on steroids.
And who will be responsible for feeding the children whose parents have had their welfare payments suspended? Presumably the truancy officers will double up as providers for hungry children.
While applauding Macklin's commitment to improving school attendance and educational achievement in remote communities, I would urge her to leave the conditional welfare payment stick behind this time, and to take on the harder and more expensive challenges elucidated in the Stronger Futures Report on Consultations released last month.
Namely, the provision of mentors and parenting education, greater Indigenous involvement in school teaching and curriculum, greater involvement by parents and elders in school activities, the provision of more local or regional high schools, the need for 'vocational education, careers advice in schools, and education that was linked to jobs' and 'the need for school to be an interesting and positive experience for children living in remote communities'.
If these things are not provided, what purpose is served by docking the welfare payments of parents lacking the motivation to send their child to a school which seems irrelevant and useless, probably because it is?
The Commonwealth should embrace one of the benefits of a federal system and await clearer outcomes from the Queensland experiment with the Family Responsibilities Commission before making Aboriginal parental welfare payments conditional on child school attendance.
Let's not be treated to another Federal Labor charade, that the targeted docking of Aboriginal welfare payments is to be classed as a special measure under the Racial Discrimination Act for the benefit of those who will not receive full payment.
With trust and a commitment to relationships built on respect for inherent human dignity and cultural difference, we can strengthen the welfare safety net for the neediest First Australians without constructing a nanny state bound to fail with Commonwealth truancy officers wandering remote communities wondering about their purpose in being there at all.
Fr Frank Brennan SJ is professor of law at the Public Policy Institute, Australian Catholic University and adjunct professor at the College of Law and the National Centre for Indigenous Studies, Australian National University. This is an extract from the 4th Annual Gerald Ward Lecture on Social Justice delivered by Fr Brennan at the National Library of Australia on 18 November 2011 (full text).