What is the controversy about?

The prime minister made the comments at the centre of the uproar during an interview on ABC Goldfields in Western Australia, about the proposed “closure” of up to 150 remote communities in WA.

Defending WA premier Colin Barnett’s reasoning that the cost of providing services to some communities is unviable, Abbott said it’s “very very difficult to close the gap” if people “choose” to live away from schools, jobs and services.

Host Kirstyn March asked if this was “penalising people for living in remote areas”.

“Isn’t that something you should encourage, to get people out of the cities?” she said.

Abbott responded: “It’s not the job of the taxpayer to subsidise lifestyle choices. It’s the job of the taxpayer to provide reasonable services in a reasonable way, indeed, to provide high-quality services in a reasonable way and then I think it is the responsibility of our citizens to shoulder the usual duties of citizenship. It is the responsibility of every Australian parent to send his or her children to school – Indigenous people no less than everyone else. It’s the responsibility of every Australian adult to look for work if you are capable of work, and, yes, while you are looking for work, the government will pay you unemployment benefits, but what we can’t do is endlessly subsidise lifestyle choices if those lifestyle choices are not conducive to the kind of full participation in Australian society that everyone should have.”

The suggestion that Indigenous people living on their traditional lands is a “lifestyle choice” has not gone down well among people who think the proclaimed prime minister for Indigenous affairs should know more about Aboriginal culture.

A Western Australian road sign points to Camballin, a non-Indigenous remote community not under threat of closure, and Jarlmadangah and Looma, Indigenous communities that could be closed. Photograph: Calla Wahlquist/The Guardian

How did this all start?

A decision to hand back responsibility from the federal government to the state has since descended into a war of words and blame between the two.

The proposal to close some communities centres around a funding agreement made between state and federal governments, announced in September last year. Previously, the commonwealth has contributed to provide municipal services to the remote communities, but in return for a lump sum payment to cover transitional years – $90m in WA’s case – the responsibility was handed entirely to the states, effective from July next year.

The federal Indigenous affairs minister, Nigel Scullion, said at the time: “In every other town and city across Australia, essential municipal services are the responsibility of state and local governments. It should be no different on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander land. We’re just getting out of the way and letting the states do their job.”

What did WA do?

The WA government reluctantly accepted the deal, saying it had a “gun pointed at our head” when signing it and couldn’t afford the responsibility.

Without federal funding, the state would not be able to provide essential services to all 274 remote WA communities and some would have to close, Barnett claimed.

Scullion hit back, saying the WA government had been discussing the closures well before the funding transfer was announced.

Barnett has justified the proposed closures by saying some remote communities are “not viable and the social outcomes, the abuse and neglect of young children, is a disgrace to this state ... This is the biggest social issue this state faces.”

In February, Barnett scuttled a remedy suggested by WA National party leader and regional development minister, Terry Redman, that mining royalties could be used to keep the communities open.

Criticisms over a perceived lack of consultation with the communities have been a constant presence. Barnett’s initial announcement took people by surprise and came with no detail about which communities would close or how it would be decided.

The Aboriginal affairs minister, Peter Collier, has said it was “nonsensical” to go out to each and every community slated for closure for consultation, but the government would liaise with Indigenous groups.

Scullion travelled to WA last week to meet Collier on another issue. He has since labelled the WA government “irresponsible” for announcing that communities would close with no apparent plan, and urged further consultation.

The WA government has said its federal counterpart made “the wrong decision” in withdrawing future funding.

Which brings us back to the prime minister’s comments this week which sought to defend both Barnett’s and the federal government’s claims of being unable/unwilling to pay.

What is happening in other states?

The federal government made the handover agreement with WA, Queensland, Victoria and Tasmania, and it’s already in operation in New South Wales. None of those states have slated community closures.

A separate agreement within Intervention legislation covers the Northern Territory.

South Australia declined to sign on, and remote communities in the state’s APY lands are under similar threat.

What do Indigenous leaders say?

Groups representing people in Fitzroy Crossing and 35 surrounding communities said they were “appalled” by the proposed closures, and that it was the “biggest threat to our people” since the 1960s, when the equal wage case saw Aboriginal people move off stations and into townships, resulting in devastating social impacts.

Others have called for more consultation and pleaded with the government not to kick them off their lands.

Guardian Australia visited remote communities in the Kimberley. For them, this is a matter of life and death.

There are strong fears the same devastating consequences of the closure of Oombulgurri will happen again, and there are also suspicions about the motive of the closures, as Indigenous groups need to maintain ties with the land to be granted native title.

In response to the prime minister’s comments, which have become another story within the narrative of community closures, Indigenous leaders, advisors, groups and politicians united in condemnation and disappointment.

Two of the PM’s trusted advisors, Warren Mundine and Noel Pearson are among them.

NT minister Bess Price – herself born in the remote NT community of Yuendemu – said Abbott should apologise and suggested he might need some “cross-cultural training.” Price also suggested the Yolngu people of Arnhem land – with whom Abbott spent almost a week last year as part of an election promise – would find the comments disrespectful.

What will happen next?

In March Barnett confirmed an investigation had begun into which communities would close. In an interview with PerthNow, he predicted the “comprehensive look” would uncover evidence of “appalling mistreatment of kids” in some communities. However no report on the findings would be released.

“I’m not into reports, that’s not my style,” he said. The interview occurred at the same time as a meeting of WA land councils in Broome which Barnett had been invited to but declined, citing prior commitments.

Nationals leader Redman did attend the meeting and confirmed Royalties for Regions funding would be available to fund “anything that moves toward reform”, but would not “backfill” federal funds.

Communities still don’t know which among them are being investigated, and have expressed frustration that Indigenous communities are being reviewed while nearby non-Aboriginal towns are not.

It’s not known when the review started, when it will finish or what will be done with the information. There is little chance of a backdown by the WA government.