Iain Hall's SANDPIT

Home » Australian Politics » The lefty who doesn’t want poor young mothers to finish school

The lefty who doesn’t want poor young mothers to finish school


These poor women should not be made to complete secondary school!


I thought that lefties strongly believed in education, partly because it’s a way for poor people to improve themselves and their lot.

But it seems I may be wrong, after Jeremy Sear expressed his disgust that government welfare policies will now encourage young mothers from disadvantaged areas to finish secondary school:

Thank God we’re finally going to cut poor teenage mothers off welfare if they won’t find the magical time they don’t have to do Year 12, so their children can grow up in cardboard boxes while their mums go to school. And until they get the message, they and their children can starve…

Those darn people poorer than me. Man, it’s just so satisfying making their lives more difficult, isn’t it?

Anyone who believes in education for all would not think that making these young mums finish school is about “making their lives more difficult”. The benefit of finishing secondary school is obvious to anyone familiar with the realities of the labour market, where almost all employers prefer to hire candidates who have successfully completed their secondary schooling. Furthermore, the benefits of having superior literacy and numeracy, as well as a basic understanding of subjects such as science or history are also obvious.

But not obvious to Jeremy it would seem. Jeremy would presumably prefer young mums to be paid sit-down money and not have a future by obtaining a proper education.

Jeremy’s claim that children would “grow up in cardboard boxes” is another claim which shows just how out of touch with reality he is. In reality, most of these young mums will have parents of their own who already play an active role in the children’s upbringing. Those grandparents look after the kids when their mums go out partying with their friends. Young mums in low income families will also qualify for JET childcare, which means that they will be paying next to nothing for quality care for their young kids.

As a result, it is absurd to claim that this policy is about increasing the suffering of young parents.

What an ignorant, misinformed rant by Jeremy on this occasion.









  1. damage says:

    Not a clear thinker.

    Er, but isn’t onanous lefty a FREE site?

  2. Sax says:

    This very issue was discussed on a major current affairs program some time ago. I can’t remember which one, or when it was, but, there are already programs in place, sponsored by individual state governments, and even local schools for this very thing. Baby sitters are employed by the schools to assist with the care of the child, whilst the mum attends classes. A great idea, and in the era of the working mum, I would think that similar programs being expanded would have been a bit of a no brainer ?

  3. Craigy says:

    But I thought wingnuts were all for keeping the little woman at home?

    It’s hard to follow you at the best of times Leon, but I do agree that all women should go out to work or study with no other option even if they think they can give a fair explanation as to why they may need to be home. Kids are fine in daycare for 60 hours a week, it toughens them up for the future wingnut ‘real world’.

    Why should some of these leaches on society be able to get away with planning and organising their own life? And just like those on government benefits, they get public subsidy through the low rates of tax their husbands pay, by claiming the house as an office, and the many other tax deductions available only to the well off. Not to mention the middle class welfare introduced and maintained by right wing governments. We could have a budget surplus if these parasites would just do some bloody work, stop claiming benefits and pay full tax like the rest of us.

    I’m toying with the idea that you have suggested (or is a logical follow on from this idea) that if your husband can afford to keep you at home then the state should force you to either study or do work full time, as staying at home is unproductive and a drain on the economy and the taxpayer. After all we need every part of society to be productive, not just husbands. We could have a ‘green corp.’ for the housewives of the rich inner suburbs, I imagine you agree that these inner city, latte sipping, armchair Greens supporters should be made to help in the real world. Seems a bit lefty to me, but it must be okay if the right supports it.

    It is good you want to treat everybody the same and I agree with you, even though single mums are all just rorting the system. I mean just because they got pregnant at 15, come from a broken home, have no support from friends or family, have mental health issues or are victims of abuse, why should they get special treatment. Let’s keep the special treatment for the wives of the well off, but make them work for it I say and if they can’t, make them study…..brilliant…..our compassion is endless…..greatest country in the world etc. etc……

  4. Leon Bertrand says:


    I think your strange rant misses the point. The main reason why young poor mums should get educated is for their benefit, not society’s.

  5. damage says:

    If ever there was a clearer illustration of the fact that lefties cannot ever be satisfied, it appears today

    When you have been arguing for something for years, your arguments have been so effective that they have swayed the thinking of those in power and you’ve – at least in part – won the argument, then why mock?

    If you’re never going to be happy why should we even bother to listen?
    Like his lookalike Will from Inbetweeners – wanker with a hot mum.

  6. Craigy says:

    So Leon, should all women who don’t have year 12 have to go back to study? They may be poor at some time in their life and so it would benefit them to finish VCE ….. Or is this only for a section of the community? If so, why do you think we should force single mothers into training or work and not anyone else?

    damage, as usual your cryptic comments make no sense to me. Learn to talk straight mate. When do I get my bottle of Grange?

  7. Sax says:

    It is sad to see here, that instead of being balanced, we are seeing extreme views, from both sides.

    If a young mother wants to stay at home, not work, to look after new arrivals, we are fortunate, that we live in a country, that allows that as a right. If it costs the society money, then fair enough. After all, the federal government, in their baby bonus, have been attempting to get us to “breed”, to increase our population for years. Why the angst, when some people choose that route ?

    But, society has a limit though, doesn’t it ?

    For career mothers, those that have babies just for the money, as we have all seen on current affairs programs, then a rethink is necessary. The policy should be flexible enough to ascertain, and then discover those ripping off the system, and exclude them from the program.

    Although, for my money, why a girl would get pregnant, go through the pain and rigmoraul of child birth for a few thousand bux, is beyond me ?

  8. Leon Bertrand says:


    I believe that every school student should finish year 12, unless they find full time work before then.

  9. Angel says:

    I am actually going to agree with Craigy, partly. No child should have to be brought up in a child care centre for 60 hours a week. There babies have different carers and should be bonding with their mothers, not strangers who could not genuinely show the same love that a parent will.
    Why should it be that girls can use an escape from education using a clause that is not available to the boys. If they want to have a child, then fine. but if the law states that Year 12 must be attended else employment, why should this not be across all genders. Throwing a baby into a mass care facility is not in the best interests of the child and is costly to the taxpayer when the going rate is around $100 per day but a single mother can be charged around only $5 with subsidies. Have a baby then show responsibility and look after it, and complete the education externally at home. Easy all round.

    Craigy, we could not expect all to go back and complete Year 12 if hadn’t been done previously just because the laws have now changed. Would you like to go back on your provisional drivers license for the next 2 years just because the standard is now 3.

  10. GD says:

    Leon, I believe that many school students should finish Year 12, while many others should be able to take up apprenticeships after Year 10, in order to apply themselves in a manner more suited to their abilities and natural inclination. Angel is correct to point out the one redeeming point of Craigy’s attempt at sarcasm, that is the bonding of mother and child.

    I’ll throw a firebrand in here and suggest that girls who have a child at that age, and are as mentally ill and abused as Craigy reckons, would be better off letting their baby bond with a carer rather than continuing the cycle of dependence and suffering. At least for a few hours a day, while Mum learns some skills that will enable her to be a functioning mother in the future.

  11. Angel says:

    A few hours a day means jack sh*t when the child returns to that dependant suffering background.

  12. GD says:

    Better than nothing, Angel. For the kid and the mum. Kid is cared for properly, and mum hopefully learns something other than pop out a kid and stay on welfare for the next eighteen years, or longer if she has another one. Lefties like Craigy and Jezza think that leaving these all too young Mums alone with their babies and the welfare state is all that’s needed. That is not the case at all. Somewhere the cycle must be broken. Money won’t do it. Education will. A few hours a day is a good start. In cases like Craigy pontificates about, Mum would be spending those few hours drinking bourbon and cokes or having a toke or both. Not too much bonding going on there.

    Make it less attractive to become a mum, and if it happens, make it a proactive solution rather than a reactive solution.

  13. Angel says:

    Better than nothing is not good enough. I have seen the results of leaving a child to fate, even for a few hours a day.

    However, I do come back to agreeing with you GD regarding education being the best preventative. Children from the lower socio-economic groupings (lets assume welfare recipients) will have a higher rate of ;
    child maltreatment / school grade repetition (average 14 months behind academically) / low birth weight newborns / school drop out rates / violent death / being bottle feed instead of breast as a newborn / infant mortality / child neglect / adolescent drug use / chronic disease in adulthood / malnutrition / clincal depression and mental illness / being born premature / having a low to date weight babies / blood sugar levels / respiratory disease / SIDS / childhood accidents / stillborns / hearing and vision loss / possbility of dying in a car accident / asthma / headaches / insomnia / bowel conditions / lead poisoning / behavioural prolems / psychological disturbances / learning disabilities / juvenille arrest rate……Many many more. Not my opinion but proven from research.

    Education is proven to be the most effective way of reversing the odds above and breaking the welfare generational dependancy. Why then would Craigy and Co be so content in encouraging young mothers to stay home on welfare. Set up for failure.

    There is a definate correlation between education and socio-economic status.

  14. GD says:

    Wow, that was some comment. Too many conditions to address, but I like your closer, it sums up everything that is wrong with the leftist view on this issue:

    ‘Set up for failure’

    This is what they do. It is what they are doing with the indigenous, and is another reason why we need to expunge this faux government from Parliament and set Australia on a new course. One of firm and lucid direction, one of fiscal and social common sense and one freed of the shackles of this encroaching socialism.

  15. Angel says:

    Yes but aren’t the Aboriginals disadvantaged and to be kept on topped up welfare. Self fulfilling prophecy there much

  16. GD says:

    Isn’t that what I said?

  17. Angel says:

    Yes, Bloody Librans

  18. Craigy says:

    “Lefties like Craigy and Jezza think that leaving these all too young Mums alone with their babies and the welfare state is all that’s needed.”

    Sorry to disappoint you GD, I don’t disagree with all the points you and Angel have been making, but you are ignoring what is being suggested here. I don’t think cutting single mothers off support is the right way to get them back to school. They already have to do 15 hours of work a week once their kid is a bit older (for which they can be cut off if they don’t comply) and you hear many examples of people being arbitrarily cut off by Centrelink. I am told most times people have good reasons why they couldn’t meet the commitments, due to sick child, poor employment standards or other personal or medical reasons, it is just that Centrelink is underfunded and makes MANY mistakes that create much hardship or they don’t check things out properly and put the onus on the recipient to prove (in ridiculous detail) they are worthy.

    As a wealthy developed country we have no reason not to look after these young people with proper support rather than arbitrary carrot and stick approaches that rarely help. This does happen, schools in some areas have special support programs to allow young mothers to complete VCE while having the child with them at school. Social support like housing and health is also very important as is encouraging employers to enable young single mums work and study in a way that allows them to raise their child in a good environment without large amounts of time in childcare. These changes are slowly being adopted.

    Anyway, Howard’s baby bonus did more to expand the problem of young mothers still at school, you must agree that is the case.

    Angle, your offensive generalisations about Aboriginal people are getting up my nose. You simply can not make race based statements like that and not get called out by me or someone else as showing an astonishing ignorance which appears to be wilful. “

  19. damage says:

    Imagine making offensive generalisations? Only a bigot would do that.

  20. Craigy says:

    Imagine making a bet with someone then making pathetic excuses for not paying up, only a loser would do that, or someone without any integrity or self respect.

    Who could that be?….I’m to scared to mention his name but I’ll make a comment aimed at him, just like the coward I am, oh and I’ll throw in some thinly veiled insults because I’m so frightened to speak my mind or tell anyone who I might really be…. I claim to be a member of a religious club and then say I’m not when the argument I’m trying to have turns against me and I start to look silly, I used to go by the name BJ or HJ or something, but made a fool of myself and got called out for being an aggressive tosser, so now I go by another secret name to hide from those who blog under their real names, that way I can snipe away and make cowardly comments with my poor communication skills……

    Who could I be talking about……???

  21. damage says:

    Now that’s a childish leftist rant full of lies, invention and bigotted bile.
    Who would that be from?

    Hope you enjoy the new CFA adds.

  22. Angel says:

    Craigy, I’m trying really hard to imagine you with a personality, if I am showing ignorance then please show me the error of my ways and enlighten me.

    “They already have to do 15 hours of work a week once their kid is a bit older”
    That a bit older age you refer to is actually 8 years of age. So technically a girl can stay on welfare for practically all of her fertility period. Having say 5 children with a 4 year gap between will ensure a work free life for 24 years before they are “cut off”. Doesn’t seem quite so trivial now does it?
    Having to do 15 hours of work a week, what is this country coming to? You would find that the criteria is one, and only one of the following – 15 hours per week in employment, studying, OR looking for employment. BTW, I see many remain in the last category coming in for interviews and not really giving a damn if they get the job or even wanting it, just concerned with ticking a box for Centrelink. They get by ok.

    “..due to sick child”
    A chronic illness entitles the child to a disability pension and to the parent a carers pension. Different scenario.

    “poor employment standards”
    Everyone has to start at the bottom somewhere. Kids of today do not grasp that concept and expect to start right at the top, skipping the trolley collection or dishwashing stage of employment.

    “Centrelink is underfunded”
    Underfunded or overutilised?

    Doesn’t it look a different argument when you consider actual facts in it?

  23. Ray Dixon says:

    Hope you enjoy the new CFA adds.

    Charming thing to say to someone like Craigy who lost his own home and witnessed the death of friends & neighbours on Black Saturday, “damage”. Absolutely bloody charming. And you wonder why you are the most despised twerp on the Internet. No wonder you don’t post under your real name and fiercely protect your identity. Watch out, Craigy, my guess is HJ/Damage/etc has already stalked you at your place of work (he’s done it to others). He might even have photos (to wank off to). Guy’s a freakin fruitcake.

  24. Craigy says:

    I just read your last post Ray…..oh dear.
    I knew he was trouble but I didn’t know that he was dangerous, I will leave him to his madness from now on, thank for the warning.

    Angel, thanks for your comment, we are not that far apart, you have misunderstood me though and I will get back and explain later.

  25. Angel says:

    Craigy – I noticed yesterday the comment that Damage wrote and yeah I agree with Ray’s first 2 sentences, it was below the belt and uncalled for. Especially given the controversy surrounding the media campaign and the pressure to have it pulled off air.
    Ray went further below the belt with his usual paranoia, if he was that bad then don’t you think Ray would have had him banned before now, not just moderation as he currently. Make up your own opinion, not Ray’s, cause its rarely unbiased.
    I’m sorry you had to read that but maybe Ray could have removed the post instead of highlighting its existence.

  26. Ray Dixon says:

    It’s Iain’s blog you idiot, Angel, and as such I can’t ‘ban’ anyone from it … nor do I want to. As for “maybe Ray could have removed the post instead of highlighting its existence”, I don’t do that. As you point out he is on moderation here (Iain’s decision alone) which means that when I first saw his crap comment about Craigy it was not publicly viewable and so I simply decided to leave it there unapproved because it’s not my call to delete comments, only to moderate – would you like me to explain that again, dumbarse?.

    If it were my blog I would not have let it through but Iain did. Not that I’m complaining because, as you point out, it gave me the opportunity to highlight what an absolute arsehole damage/HJ is. As for “paranoia”, stop being so ignorant. HJ/damage – call him what you will – once ran a personal hate blog in which he wrote probably one of the creepiest posts the Internet has ever seen (in a foreign language) about how he’d secretly stayed at my holiday apartments to observe me. He thought it was such fun he even made up crap to post about it elsewhere too. I don’t give a shit what you think, Angel, but just know that HJ/damage (call him what you will) is the weirdest and creepiest person you’ll ever come across here. Now mind your own business please.

  27. Angel says:

    So you have a PERSONAL vendetta? You are right, not my business.

    You don’t remove posts – We know that is not true. But go on Ray, not my business.

    “it gave me the opportunity to highlight…” On the back of someone’s misfortune. Maybe that should not have been your business either at that time.

  28. Ray Dixon says:

    No, Agel, it’s damage who has “personal vendettas”, not me. He has one against Craigy, against JSear, against me and against a lot of other people – he’s a vindictive and obsessed arsehole and that’s well known around the Internet.

    And no, I don’t “remove” (i.e. delete) anyone’s comments. I have put unacceptable comments in moderation now and then but I do not delete or remove them – that’s Iain’s call. So far he’s agreed with my moderation decisions.

    As for commenting on damage’s comment, do you seriously believe that his behaviour was no one else’s business? Honestly, Angel, I think you just say the first thing that comes into your small mind.

    Now shut up – I don’t enjoy talking to you.

  29. GD says:

    Ray doesn’t remove comments, he may suggest, but he doesn’t remove.

    – signed the very Libran GD

  30. Angel says:

    Well then GD, I suppose I should address you as I am not to talk to Ray. He doesn’t enjoy it. Stuff knows why not?

    Should I repost some of mine that were removed by Ray and see how long they stay there. I still have them. By deleting I mean removing off the screen for all to see. I don’t know what he does in the back end, can’t see that. I can only refer to facts.

    Thanks for listening GD

  31. GD says:

    It’s Iain’s blog. As far as I know, Ray has to put up with whatever is posted. It’s up to Iain. I also reckon his points about the damage/Craigy post were valid. You pinpointed one aspect, with your rapier-like observation, but I reckon Ray was right.

  32. Angel says:

    I also thought his points about Damage were valid. They did however lack compassion to Craigy. The post wasn’t removed, fair enough, so Ray made a point of Craigy seeing it when it had gone unnoticed. A person with true compassion would not do that. You don’t rub salt in an innocents party’s wounds for a personal vendetta.

    It is indeed Iain’s blog. Wonder why Ray has to be reminded of that so often.

  33. Ray Dixon says:

    For the last time, brainless, I did not approve “damage’s” crap comment about Craigy – Iain did. I do not “remove” comments from Iain’s blog, I only place inappropriate ones in moderation for him to adjudicate, which is as it should be. In damage’s case his comments are already in moderation so if one is made that I don’t think appropriate there’s nothing I can or need do but to leave it there for Iain’s discretion, which is what I did. Is that clear, Einstein?

  34. Angel says:

    Ssshhh. Did anyone hear anything??? Sounded like Ray was talking to me.

    Couldn’t be too important. Carry on with what you were all doing.

  35. GD says:

    Angel, don’t exacerbate the issue. You won’t win with Ray. Retire gracefully, like the hard-hitting and astute lady that I reckon are.

  36. Angel says:

    I don’t expect to have a chance in hell. Would like him to show respect for people, yeah you are right, no hope in hell of that either.

  37. GD says:

    totally off-topic, although much of this thread has been, but gorgeous…

  38. Angel says:

    Angel the monkey / Ray the dog

  39. GD says:

    You could have said it nicer than that Angel, like cheeky monkey and puppy dog….

  40. Iain Hall says:

    Damage is an idiot who I barely tolerate, to be honest I don’t pay that much attention to his posts beyond checking to see if they are likely to bring new threats of litigation. So please don;t blame Ray for approving any of his comments.

  41. Angel says:

    I will email you Iain

  42. damage says:

    MMm When Craigy is offended then it’s evil – anyone ever ask why Craigy is so obsessed by abusing those he thinks are Catholic?
    Ever asked if any of his victims are not catholic for a reason?
    Ever concidered that they may not just be Craigy’s victims?

    When Craigy goes below the belt it’s cool because it’s about the church. When he cops it back – different story eh?

  43. Iain Hall says:

    make good upon the bet that you have lost and stop insulting Craigy, In fact any further comemnts attacking him personally will be heavily edited or just not allowed at all

  44. Craigy says:

    Iain and Ray, thanks for your support, it is appreciated. You are right to point out the timing of damages insult was very poor.

    damage, I have left the topic alone for long periods of time and you continue to troll me and make snide remarks to try and get a rise out of me.

    You do this by constantly misrepresenting me as a religious bigot by asking me questions about other organisations that were not a part of our original argument and asking me to comment.

    I have no interest in continuing with you and have told you this before on a number of occasions, but I will make my points clearly and fairly when you misrepresent me, so that others don’t believe your smears.

    You stop trolling and sniping and stick to the topic of the posts and I am happy to never comment on your views again.

    But I imagine your response will be that you can dam well say what you like, and that’s true, but if that’s your attitude why do you come back and whine when I respond to your trolling and smears?

    My view is that you are as described by Ray above and I want nothing more to do with you.

    So you can give up on your attempts to continue to ‘out’ me to make you feel better, no more from me again.

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the Sandpit

I love a good argument so please leave a comment

Please support the Sandpit

Please support the Sandpit

Do you feel lucky?

Do you feel lucky?

%d bloggers like this: