It is wrong to cut off support to children that were already conceived on the promise of welfare (that includes the abolishing of Family Tax benefit B when a child turns six).

It is wrong to force the use of contraception.

But it is also wrong for some to be forced to finance the hobbies of others. Yes, satisfying the urges of one's genes to reproduce is a hobby!

It's long since children were needed - the world is overcrowded and if Australia needs young working hands, then all it needs is to open its gates a bit more and accept as many grateful immigrants as it likes, even saving the burden of education.

So while past promises need to be kept, no such promises should be given for those not yet conceived. There should be phasing out of all child support, including welfare, child-care, schooling and healthcare.

It is wrong to force others to understand that children are no longer a good thing, but if they interact with the system desiring something from it, be it welfare or government employment and contracts, etc., that could be a good time to explain it to them and present them with a contract. The contract should state that the benefit they seek is conditional on not having new babies and if broken, then they accept an appropriate punishment. Obviously it's the parents who should be punished for breaking their contract, not the children. How people keep their contract is up to them - whether they use contraceptives, abstinence, abortion, sterilisation or whatever, is solely their own business. What could that punishment be is open for discussion, but note that as the contract is consensual, it could include things that are otherwise unacceptable such as corporal punishment or expulsion to a third-world country.

halduall; "without population growth, the human race is facing an erosion of its base. The end of that will be the dying out of our species"

Sadly you have it completely reversed. If the world continues increasing the population at the present rate, which is the main cause of global warming, then the species will die out. It will take most other species with it.
I cannot see an end to overpopulation, it would be impossible for woman to stop having children in the amounts they are managing at the moment.
Even the Chinese one child law has not decreased their population sufficiently to solve their problem of commodity depletion and pollution.
Here in this thread no one has brought this up but rather strew the thread with red herrings about eugenics and nazification, totally ignoring the real problem
About five million children die every year from malnutrition and lack of clean water but it does not stop the galloping African birth rate.

@Poirot, thanks Joe, that was my point exactly. Within a community there were no strangers, but members of neighbouring tribes would never provide food for children of their rivals.
As for the suggestion that we provide more support for these children, well, that could be done financially, at even more expense to taxpayers,but who will provide the physical and emotional support these kids desperately need? Are we to supply live in nannies for these kids? Round the clock counsellors?
Like Joe I have seen mothers shovel food in their mouths whilst children cry in hunger, with arms outstretched, reaching for the food. Simply giving more money to these women doesn't solve the problem. What is needed is less children.
I very much doubt Gary Johns believes contraception should be compulsorily forced upon people, more that we need to stop providing incentives for women to constantly bear children unnecessarily.

Big Nana,
Living in inner Melbourne I've seen two mothers injecting heroin in a laneway as their toddlers sat squalling in their strollers, another overdosed and unconscious in the front seat of a car with two little girls in the back. When I lived in Bendigo a junkie who lived next door left her infant son strapped in his stroller in the blazing sun for three hours while she went to score, he nearly died but she got him back when he was released from hospital. Soon after I came home one night and my girlfriend was curled up on the couch with the same little boy asleep in her arms, the mother had asked if she could babysit for half an hour but she didn't come back for a week.
The absolute topper was one day in Smith St Collingwood when a wild eyed, filthy little girl about three years old scooted past me and under one of those A-frame footpath signs the shops put out, her junkie mother, instead of reaching in to grab her out or lifting up the sign started kicking the little mite and screaming obscenities at her. There were hundreds of people about and nobody did anything, the girl I was walking with managed to yell out "Hey!" but by then the child was being dragged across the road and away.
All of those incidents concerned White people,in all honesty I've never personally seen Aboriginal kids as neglected and abused as those examples, of course I believe they exist but the problems are just as bad among Whites.

Those people should be brought before a "Genetics court" and be examined by a panel of experts, if they're unfit to reproduce the humane thing to do would be to sterilise them, stuff the economic arguments, it's just the morally right thing to do.

Yes, Gary John's article is about eugenics.
And yes, the world is facing a population implosion. Europe is already well below a sustainable replacement birth rate.
On another note, if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck maybe it's a Scott Morrison. Could this be the opening salvo in a "stop the babies" campaign to go with his recent "stop the boats" campaign?

Malcolm King,

Nice attempt to derail this thread, which has nothing to do with Sustainable Population Australia, and is discussing a truly serious social problem, judging from the comments by Big Nana, Loudmouth, and Jay of Melbourne, even if Gary John's answer isn't the right one.

<There is a eugenics movement in Australia. It's called Sustainable Population Australia (SPA), although its had so many name changes, I can never remember if that's correct. They heartily endorse John's article.>

Lies. SPA has nothing to say about eugenics and no eugenic policies. It opposes racial discrimination in immigration. Anyone who is interested can look at its website and see that its concerns relate to the environment and the well-being of the existing population.

http://www.population.org.au/about

SPA has always rejected coercion in family planning, so could not support Gary John's proposals and had never endorsed them. Taking away pronatalist incentives such as the Baby Bonus is one thing, but threatening people with starvation really is coercive.

You are cleverly exploiting a loophole in the defamation laws, so that you can get away with defaming organisations provided that you avoid talking about named individuals. Here are the people running SPA

http://www.population.org.au/about/people

Go ahead and accuse them by name of running a eugenicist organization or promoting coercive family planning. I dare you.