Gary John's pragmatism belies more sinister ideologies

Many have been left speechless by the "no contraception, no dole" suggestion of former ALP Minister Gary Johns.

"There should be no taxpayer inducement to have children", writes Johns. He might be referring to the poor and unemployed but this is a sentiment that has already gained much ground. In many ways this assertion merely echoes recent changes in social policy expounded by both the government and the opposition and the Fair Work Commission.

There is a growing sentiment that taxpayers should not support other people's children. How often when the discussion turns to welfare do we hear comments in the media to the effect that childless taxpayers should not support those who choose to have children?

This is an extraordinarily myopic social policy.

Once upon a time, like way back in the 1970s, society believed that children served a common purpose as they were our 'future'. Government policies reflected this through generous tax deductions for dependent children and later a universal Family Allowance policy. This was known as horizontal tax equity that ensured families could provide adequately for their dependents.

In the 1980s, renowned sociologists Peter and Brigitte Berger wrote of the family as a 'mediating structure' in western society and as the best means for providing childcare, invalid care and aged care.

Since then all these functions have been appropriated by the state and are often in the news for not receiving adequate resources.

Johns suggests that, in the past, larger families were necessary to provide for parents in old age, but that is no longer the case as the provision of aged care services have developed. Excuse me, Mr Johns, but do not taxpayers contribute to these services? And, who are the taxpayers of tomorrow?

Universal family allowances have been means tested and eroded. Eligibility for family allowance is no longer based on the simple fact that raising children costs money and, that children will grow up to be the citizens of tomorrow. Increasingly family benefits became a welfare payment rather than a matter of equity.

The 2014 Federal budget saw the abolishing of Family Tax benefit B when a child turns six.

In June 2014, in a poorly publicized decision, the Fair Work Commission, departed from the principle of a family wage that had been enshrined in Australian political thought since Justice Higgins' Harvester judgment in 1907. The FWC now considers an individual – without dependents – as the basis for determining the minimum wage. Who will support the dependents of those on minimum wage? Johns' views by extrapolation should be extended to mandate those on the minimum wage to take compulsory contraception as they too cannot 'afford' to have children.

The idea seems to be that children are no longer a social good and to be supported by the community, but a private indulgence for those who can 'afford' them. Indeed, society is more and more encouraging the idea that the wealthy and better educated should have more children and the poor less. This is the idea behind Prime Minister Tony Abbott's generous maternity leave policy – to encourage women on higher incomes to have more babies.

The idea of children as a personal indulgence undercuts the promotion of common social values and encourages self-serving individualism. Children are now a product for personal satisfaction rather than an investment in the nation's future.

Perhaps Johns should look at alternatives to current social disengagement. An education system that caters to a broader stake-holder base. Better post-school training. Job availability – perhaps something to replace the huge loss of the motor industry, the effects of which are yet to hit our economy. Great to suggest the unemployed should postpone children until they can afford them. They might be waiting a lifetime.

Some of these ideas are presented as pragmatic approaches to current issues, but there are even more sinister ideological issues at play.

Gary Johns might like to revisit the manifesto of the Eugenics Society of Victoria founded in 1936. A key activist in this society was Richard Berry, professor of Anatomy at the University of Melbourne. These views were also prominent in the work of Margaret Sangster, the founder of Planned Parenthood. Initially, 'respectable' people did not use contraception but it was seen as a means of controlling the less desirable social groups. Eventually it became promoted as a 'common good'.

The Eugenics Society of Victoria and its predecessor the Eugenics Education Society supported a number of Mental Deficiency Bills in the Victorian Parliament. These Bills were presented in 1926, 1929 and 1939 by Premier Stanley Argyle a close friend of Berry's. They aimed to institutionalise and potentially sterilise a significant proportion of the population - those seen as inefficient. Included in the group were slum dwellers, homosexuals, prostitutes, alcoholics, as well as those with small heads and with low IQs. The Aboriginal population was also seen to fall within this group.

These ideas lost momentum and became an embarrassment after their escalation in Nazi Germany and the ensuing Holocaust – and the extermination of gypsies, homosexuals, and other minorities.

The targeted social groupings might have changed, but the sentiments espoused by Johns are the same. To seriously entertain his proposal is to embark on a dangerous route.

Further sinister underpinnings are the racist and sexist attitudes in Johns only being able to provide example examples of aboriginal women to support his argument. Never mind that the fathers of many children of aboriginal women are white men. Compulsory contraception and sterilization of aboriginal women is not a solution for solving complex problems. It is a band-aid approach that is hugely insulting to human dignity. Indeed, compulsory contraception can mask more serious issues of sexual abuse in certain communities.

Further, has Johns given any thought towhat will happen to children conceived while their parents are on benefits? Compulsory abortion? Compulsory adoption? Or will they be allowed to perish in poverty until another wit, such as Jonathon Swift publishes another "Modest Proposal"?

Clara Staffa Geoghegan is a freelance writer and educator. She has also worked as a policy advisor.

.