I'm not surprised to see that some commentators have brought up sterilisation. What's next? Eugenics? There is a very slippery slope inherent in this article, and not one worth taking the first smallest step on.
We are not yet Nazis, the current Federal government's support for Ukraine and Israel notwithstanding. We can still keep it that way.

I agree in principle with this theory from the author, however implementing contraception would be practically challenging to say the least. A better method of control or discouragement would be something like the UK conservative MP Iain Duncan Smiths "2 child policy" proposal, which was talked about back in 2012. I'm not sure of its status at the moment however. But Iain's proposal makes a lot of sense, even here in Australian society.
A problem could be what if a mother has triplets?

But in any case, something seriously has to be done to control the ever burdening mindset of parents on welfare benefits expecting newborns to be cash cows for their own hip pockets... As an ex Taxi Driver in Sydney & Tasmania, I have seen first hand in real life what goes on in these lower socio economic areas such as public housing, with its filthy streets, dirty unsupervised children running haphazardly around the place... where are the parents?? boozed and/or drugged out at a "friends" house? or wherever? doesn't matter to the parents, the kids are "things" to get money from welfare...

Big Nana, your comments are spot on!

This shows the rise of fascism in the West. It's Ok for George Brandis to protect ASIO and their associates from any criminal activities under the guise of terrorism. They can even like the USA carry out assassinations legally under the guise of terrorism.

So next we'll see the rounding up of homeless people by our Dept of Homeland Security like Hitler had and find a nice gulag for them.

It is the Central Bankers who created this GFC which continues to worsen. Too big to fail and jail bankers are the real criminals who need rounding up and not let breed. Iceland jailed them why cannot we ?

Why not periodic checks on women every month, at the dole office.

Governments should control what they have a right to control. They should have a right to control where they distribute welfare but they should not have the right to control the bodies of its citizens.

This would be much less of an issue if they refused to distribute any welfare to people because they have children. Having a child should be as much an economic choice as anything else. We all have to make choices according to our finances and if you cannot afford a child then you should not have one. Unfortunately we have a culture which suggests that the decision to have a child should be supported by the government. If you grow up expecting such support to be there then you have grown up with a deficient sense of justice.

Having a child is a choice – no better or worse than many other lifestyle choices. By singling out such a choice for special treatment the government has made a rod for its own back and created a sense of entitlement which is totally unjust. How many people on welfare would have a child knowing they had to pay for it themselves? Removing the automatic expectation of support would make a great deal of difference to the expense of the taxpayer.

Few people dare to question the justice of this support because it may make them question why they want children at all. Is it because of the emotional pressure brought to bear upon them or because they truly want that relationship with a child? If it is the former then they will turn a blind eye to the injustice of it all but if it is the latter they will be prepared to pay for it themselves or at least accept gracefully that they cannot afford it.

To continue...

Mr Johns does have a point about intergenerational poverty and there is no question that the problem of violence in the Aboriginal community is significant. However, his proposed solution is attacking the symptom rather than the cause. Like so many (read George Orwell for the authoritative report)he addresses the what, when the real problem is the why. He, like all of his ilk, are no more than rent-seekers who seek to protect their own primary claim to special treatment. Poor, miserable creatures one and all.

Poverty is an extreme modality of a multimodal system. So is extreme wealth. In order for the mean to remain close to the median, the lower mode has to be significantly broader than the upper one. In other words, there need to be a lot more poor people than rich people to make the average close to the middle-class. Johns is, in his own intellectually limited way, a representative of the meanest of the mean (both statistically and ethically).

If the poorest of the poor are allowed to prosper, the rich have to be allowed to stagnate, or the middle will become dissatisfied.

From where I sit, that doesn't seem like a problem.

From where the rent-seeking former Assistant Minister of Industrial Relations in the Keating government sits, it is a potentially large threat to his hold on the public teat.

The price of his integrity is a sour trickle.