Hardly a surprising article from Mr Johns and no doubt attractive to some who share his undoubted ability to think deeply about superficialities.

However, it doesn't stand even a little scrutiny, which is a common feature of Mr Johns's work. Consistently producing crap is a skill, but not one that most people would regard as worth acquiring.

Let's examine the problem.

1,2,3,4...n-1,n. Mr Johns doesn't like the idea of his taxpayer funded income being threatened by someone else's claim to a taxpayer funded income, especially if they aren't white, like him.

n+1. Something Must Be Done

n+2. Some families have a history of intergenerational poverty
n+3. Poverty creates the conditions for violence and generally debauched living conditions.
n+4. Aboriginal people are over-represented among this group (implied, but never stated by Mr Johns and undoubtedly a fact)
n+5. Someone Orta Do Something.
n+6 - n+x. See 1-n
n+(x+1). Aboriginal people have far too many snotty-nosed kids anyway.
n+(x+2). If poor people didn't breed (especially Aboriginal ones), Mr Johns and the other righteously superficial could have a higher taxpayer-funded income, so there.

I hope I did justice to the argument. Since my taxpayer-funded income is considerably less than Mr Johns', I apologise to Mr Johns and his fellow parasi...learned colleagues for having bred and thereby potentially threatened their taxpayer income. In my defence I can only point out that I don't have Aboriginal ancestry.

It's great to have such an inspirational role model as Mr Johns.

What a twat.

Hmmmm....it sure is an interesting socio-political climate these days.

My question would be how Does Mr Johns suggest the authorities go about policing the said contraception? And would these controls be applied to men as well as women?

(Well said, Craig Minns)

Well said Craig Minns.

What a dreadful article!

How would the author suggest we force the undesirables from having children?
Could we slip contraceptive drugs into the local water supply?
Will we round up the women, drug them and tie their tubes under anaesthetic?

It is obviously aimed at women (the dreaded single mother, the immoral ones who had several partners) because how could we 'force' the equally naughty men to have contraception? Maybe chemical castration?

And if we are not successful in preventing undesirables from breeding, what then?
Do we just stop supporting these unfortunate children, for the sins of their parents?

I speak here as someone routinely and quite viciously abused as a very small child, which culminated in a terrifying attempted murder, one dark and stormy night that will live forever in my memory.

And only saved from drowning in a wild flooded river, by a young sapling on the bank that bent and then threw me back when thrown, so I'm here to speak for the as usual, voiceless consulted children!

(La, da, dee, dee, da, da, da, da. La da dee dee da da dee da.
The trees and the flowers, the abuse by the hours!
She threw her children away, she threw her children away, she threw her children away.
Sung to the tune, they took the children away)

So, I would go further than that advocated, with the permanent removal of unsupervised unnurtured children, where the was an ongoing unresolved issues with routine domestic violence and or abused children; be they black, white of brindle!

And there simply has to be a case made for compulsory sterilization, (third strike and you're out) in the case of permanently welfare dependent drug or alcohol addled parents; unable or unwilling to constrain their urges; or earning a living providing unprotected sexual services, or both!

Simply put, we cannot stand idly by, while mothers/grandmothers, driven completely around the bend by the demands placed on them; do something unthinkable.

I'd sooner take the children away, than see them murdered in their beds; or worse, however culturally appropriate!?

And I dare say that would include the mandatory removal of those kids from their communities!

If the elders and others object, then it is entirely up to them to take adequate measures; and if, and only if they're up to it, protect the children!

Inherently decent people everywhere, have had a complete gutful of the endless excuses, or the fallback position, the endless self pitying victim mode!
Rhrosty.

I couldn't agree more with the author. For decades I have watched the inevitable result of enabling young single women and long term unemployed couples to produce large families, all at tax payers expense. Young men prey on vulnerable single mothers, looking for a meal ticket and accomodation. Long term unemployed with large families receive incomes larger than the basic wage without having to get out of bed in the morning. Women dont bother with contreception because the thought of another child isn't a problem. Men father multiple children to multiple women with no fear of consequences.
The natural outcome of these situations is more entrenched poverty, appalling child abuse and neglect statistics, a disturbing level of juvenile crime, a shameful level of youth suicide amongst indigenous youth and an ever increasing demand for more taxpayer support.
I accept that mistakes happen. Contraception is not 100 % foolproof. Rape happens, as does incest and sexual abuse. But these pregnancies only account for a very small number of the births to people on welfare. We need a policy that supports the genuine cases of women abandoned by husbands, leaving them with a number of small children to support, which is what the initial policy was designed for. For those having children whilst already on a single parent payment or unemployment benefits the message should be clear. Yes, have as many children as you want, but don't expect someone else to pay for it.

Great idea in principle, but I agree with the former posters, it wouldn't work unless sterilisation was introduced and that creates all sorts of unacceptable forces. It all boils down to education and self responsibility and there are many who are drug induced or illiterate for which it is far too late. My mother often said that she would have liked to have 4 children but had no way to afford them in the days before social security, so had to restrict her off spring to two.
Unfortunately we now live in a society that thinks someone else will always come to the rescue and pay. We are fast approaching a system when the 50% of tax payers who are responsible for total income tax will just "jack up" and either go elsewhere to forge an income for themselves or say "what the hell' and jump on the band wagon too. I have friends who think I'm stark raving mad for refusing to take the Old Aged Pension, but why should I take something from someone else when I can afford to look after myself ?