I think the only way Gary John's suggestions could be workable in this day and age with all its informed public is only if the Federal government removed financial incentives & benefits from having too many? or any? children in the first place IF the parents can't afford to raise them to at least a "reasonable" standard of living. As general a statement as that maybe, I think that is the crux of the problem.
We have seen this issue exacerbated after ex treasurer Peter Costello bought in the baby bonus policy back in the Howard administration, this of course has now changed but only after 1 March 2014. This is only one example of how previous Federal government policy encouraged this problem that Gary John's is referring too.
Its too simplistic to brand Gary John's article an exercise in eugenics with its sneaking Nazism creeping in. The whole problem is far more complex than this.
Today, we do have generations of people in breeding age who have this psyche of entitlement from governments that they will pick up a good proportion, if not all of the bill for raising children. This has too change, country can no longer afford this. This also brings up another BIG & highly politically unpalatable issue known as "Taxation" and who pays what and when... another issue for another day.. but nonetheless highly relevant to this article from Gary Johns.
Also,once again, I support the comments of "Big Nana".

I see as usual the "ladies" could not argue against the first topic, it was just so obviously the way to go, they had no argument.

So what did they do, they changed the subject of course, & started arguing about support for the children. It's the usual "won't someone just think of the children".

The whole idea is to stop the slags, as Poirot names them, having continual children, so as to live off the tax payer funded income.

We then get some bleeding heart crying that if the unemployed have to wait until they are earning an income to have children, they might have to wait a lifetime.

Well so they damn well should. What ever gave any woman the right to spend other peoples money, on satisfying her desire to breed. No one should ever be given the right to spend other peoples money in that, or any other way.

There is no doubt we can tell the definite bad mothers to be, why should we not protect ourselves from wasting money on them.

Of course we should support existing children, yes, but by giving them in adoption to decent families. Hell, doing that might even give the kids some chance in life, provided they have nor inherited the mothers mental attitude.

Oh & in passing, just what is an "educator"? Could that be a euphemism for busybody, who wants to enforce their ideas on the rest of us.

Halduell,
Wrong, wrong wrong.
You're wilfully confusing the issue of eugenics with the racial policies of the NSDAP which had nothing to do with their scientific advances in public health and health education.
All developed countries run eugenic programs, vaccination is a eugenic measure, so is medicare and health education in schools.
The NSDAP eugenics program was insignificant in comparison to those in the U.S, France and elsewhere, it's well documented and studied and had nothing whatsoever to do with some fictional "holocaust".
The NSDAP eugenics programs included anti smoking campaigns, research into cancer and venereal disease, outlawing child labor, compulsory physical fitness programs in schools, obstetrics and maternity care and so forth.
The Third Reich also had progressive views on euthanasia and quality of life for the severely disabled, they gave next of kin the option of ending the suffering of severely handicapped people who had no quality of life.
The genetic health courts in the 1930's were set up to regulate the health of "Aryan" Germans and dealt with cases of congenital diseases, hereditary mental health, venereal disease and so forth, they had nothing to do with the deportation of Jews from Germany to Poland for forced labour or internment.

There is a difference between providing welfare for disadvantaged children that already exist and the effort to try and stop such a situation from happening in the future. If something is broken you don’t just throw up your hands and continue handing out money. We have to face the reality that you should not have a right to what you cannot afford. This goes for everything including children.

No one seems to be able to present a case as to why this principle should not apply in relation to children. The glib phrase ‘children are our future’ is meaningless. How can we have possession of a ‘future’? If we are not around to possess it then it is pointless saying that it is ours and if we are talking about a future then by its very definition we cannot possess it. It is a manipulative piece of rhetoric.

Those who want taxpayer assistance for those who choose to have children have to present a good argument for it but we get threats about the slippery slope and reminders about Nazi Germany as if these are logical arguments about the issue at hand. They are attempts to dramatise a situation rather than present cognitive arguments.

The taxpayer investment in supporting children is not a guarantee of value for money. Taxpayer dollars have enabled the development of terrorists, murders, robbers, embezzlers and dictators just as much as anything else. This cannot be sustained as an argument for child support.

There is no imposition upon us to continue the human race (and how many people seriously decide to bring a child into the world for that reason). We are free to do how we please with the resources we have and if we choose to squander them all on ourselves then that is our right. We cannot ‘owe’ anything to a ‘future generation’. How do we know that such an entity will exist?

We have to make decisions based on what is just for humanity now and child welfare funded by the taxpayer is not just now nor will it ever be.

Ah Poirot, a littlec learning .....

You write, perhaps in too much of a hurry:

"I do like this:

"Having your children supported by strangers is a totally foreign concept in indigenous life..."

You have got to be joking, if there is one thing indigenous people understand in a traditional setting, it's that the whole community is there to nurture each other...It takes a village to raise a child.

Within an indigenous community, there are no "strangers"."

That was Big Nana's point, to the extent that you accurately understood it. Which you didn't - the 'whole community' in any Aboriginal setting, is a complex of inter-related, and sometimes hostile, families. Families support children (to the extent that they actually do), not communities.

The vacuous slogan would be closer to reality if it declared, " .... it takes a family to raise a child."

But of course, even if that were true as it stands, that says little that is remarkable. In fact, one could add, " .... it takes a functioning family to raise a child."

Having seen mothers stuffing themselves with chicken while kids wailed for a bit, and one mother making herself chops for breakfast, ignoring her kids, and taking the chops back to bed, and kids looking in bins for scraps, or straggling the streets at winter dusk, trying to find where the mother is, sometimes I wonder if a functioning Aboriginal family is mostly just a hypothetical construct.

It takes a dysfunctional family, a self-absorbed mother, a useless, abusive and/or usually absent father, to destroy a child.

But would that they had resilience, as Craig brightly suggests. Yes, indeed. But the journey between infant neglect and jail is much shorter and more certain than the "How green was my valley" road via some edifying experience or dedicated educator who can inspire someone to be resilient for life. Oh, would that it were not so.

Joe

Big Nana and Valley Guy, you are to be commended for your comments. And it isn't just the Aboriginals who would come under it's ambit. We have too many unwanted children being brought up in undesirable circumstances, but as soon as someone with some gumption makes a practical suggestion about improving things, they get called names and derided. We already have too many people on this earth, so what is wrong with ensuring that those who are born are the best that we can produce. We have already passed the peak of our genetic potential, thanks to the intervention of modern medicine.
People such as Gary John should be applauded for doing the country a favour, instead of being derided by those who have no thought for the future of humanity.

David