The recent call by Dr John Irvine to consider charging parents for crimes committed by children under the age of 10 highlights a fundamental social challenge. 

Instead if detaining juvenile offenders maybe this prison should house their parents. Photo: AAP

Juvenile crime and delinquency is a growing problem within our schools and the wider community – costing millions of dollars each year.  Recent Bureau of Crime and Statistics research indicates a 44% rise in juvenile offences since 2001.

Dr Irvine thinks that the ability to charge parents for the crimes their offspring commit “would help” and therefore it’s certainly worthy of debate and discussion. It’s hard to dispute his assertion that the Labor Government is too soft when it comes to dealing with the guardians of troubled children under 10.

The fact is, however, that many of these parents or guardians are not being held accountable for their own actions – let alone those of their children. Dr Irvine himself outlined the case of a child who was trouble from the day he enrolled at school, presumably at around 5 years of age - “Mum was on drugs, there was no father on the scene”.

So Dad had bolted – how do you force him to accept his parental duties? Or pin a rap on him?

And hang on.  Mum’s on drugs.  She’s obviously not being held to account for her own illegal activities, why would she fear being held accountable for her son?  In fact, it’s likely she has avoided any penalties for her drug habit because she has “parental responsibilities” (However poorly executed).

Part of the problem is Labor’s “soft on crime” approach generally, which puts more stock in individual rights than personal responsibilities.  Where laws are constantly bent, rehabilitation is not enforceable and where there is a real reluctance to put the needs of children first. (As the sad failures we’ve seen in Children’s Services across the nation attest).

The fact is, especially with children under 10, the problem comes back to a lack of parental guidance and responsibility. So if the removal of children from such a dysfunctional household is an absolute last resort - the fundamental question is, how do you force someone to “parent”? 

Many of these parents face their own personal challenges and many have never had a proper role model themselves on which to base their parenting. 

The answer is pretty clear – early intervention.  And lots of it.  These parents and their children need plenty of practical support and hands-on direction to learn the skills of parenting that so many of us know instinctively as a result of the way we were raised.

And as a society, we’ve got to put a premium on the role of being a parent. All parents need to know the importance of raising happy, healthy kids with respect for authority. It’s the most vital job in the world – but it is so under-valued by those who think it “old-fashioned” to talk about family and the traditional institutions and values that under-pin our society.

There is certainly more column space and social discourse these days on the merits of gourmet food preparation and how to be a masterchef, than there is on the vital and challenging job of being a parent.

The vast majority of parents love their children dearly and strive to provide them with not only the material things they need, but with a value code to live by that will help them succeed.  Their kids aren’t the ones beating teachers for fun or vandalising buildings in the middle of the night.  These parents don’t need big brother government looking in their children’s lunchboxes or making them feel guilty about a half hour spent in front of the telly during the most hectic part of the day.

But a small minority of parents need very serious intervention.  They need to be held to account.  Most importantly, their children need to be protected and properly cared for – even if that means removing them from their biological parent - and that is where we need to direct our resources.  It’s time we got serious about setting basic standards and ensuring they are met.  No excuses.

Dr Irvine’s comment that “I’m yet to meet a child in serious difficulty who has a loving parent” is probably the most telling and heart-breaking in the whole debate.  For how does the Government legislate for “loving behaviour”?  And how do you expect children who grow up in a loveless and lawless household to know any different when it comes their turn to parent?

The key is breaking the cycle through early intervention. Research like that of US sociologist James Heckman (who Mr Rudd is fond of quoting) clearly points to the value of intensive, carefully-targeted, community-based intervention.  But Labor does Australian families a disservice in continuing to ignore the central premise of Heckman’s work – that resources need to be carefully targeted to those who need it most.  A one size fits all approach doesn’t work.

Juvenile crime (and fundamental family breakdown) is a complex issue that we can begin to tackle. But it will take some serious resources and an end to excuses and moral relativism.  I’m not sure our current Federal or State Governments have the stomach for it.

81 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Jason says:

      09:16pm | 01/02/10

      “How can we legislate against loveless and lawless parents?”

      Simple, the cycle needs to stop. In my opinion the best way to achieve this is to stop wasting time on getting the parents to change, and attempt to install love and discipline in the child or children though the education system. Also scrap the baby bonus and make abortion easier.

    • Emma says:

      02:57pm | 01/02/10

      We seem to be forgetting that ‘It takes a village to raise a child’ - Everyone is so PC, so afraid of strangers and so afraid of being judged that no one is willing to offer help and when help is offered, we are too scared to take it!

    • Sean Hambrook says:

      01:19pm | 01/02/10

      I personally believe that 13 years of schooling with a curriculum crowded with all sorts of crap we never use, why, oh why, isn’t there any subjects on relationships and sex.  We almost all will have relationships and if we are lucky sex at some point in our lives.  Most relationship problems and breakdowns are inter-generational.  We as a society leave it to chance and a child’s observation of parents and grandparents relationships to learn about loving each other in a healthy way.  We need to break the cycle now with an increased self awareness and education about how to negotiate relationships from year one of school.

    • Sad sad story says:

      10:06am | 01/02/10

      I think perhaps changes to the baby bonus might help. I know of some people that had a kid for a quick $5000, and let me say that a flat screen TV and DVD player DOES NOT help raise a kid.

      The baby bonus should only be redeemable for things that directly help the child like nappies, food, medical care and injections and cots & prams etc etc…NOT cash.

      I have seen parents resent the very kids they created for quick cash, because they are a burden now that the money has run out…. and not one cent of that money has been spent on raising that child. These kids are now delinquents constantly in trouble and so many of the parents don’t care in the hope that the kids get taken away to be QUOTE “someone else’s problem”

      Babies are not a quick means for cash it is a lifetime commitment and anything less is just cruelty. Planned or unplanned pregancies happen all the time and the vast majority of people spend their lives putting their kids needs first, but it is those that cheat the system to get cash that end up creating a generation of delinquents and future prison inmates…...and they couldn’t care less!

    • Old School says:

      08:05am | 01/02/10

      Gee Gerard - you know….. you’re right.  Let’s let our kids run riot in the neighbourhood from an early age lest they feel beaten down.  It’s better the short, sharp shock of prison (or worse!!!) rather than the short sharp shock a loving parent would deliver for their own good. Really??!! I’d hate to be your kid.  Obviously you don’t have any kids or you would care more about their future.

    • Mathew says:

      05:02pm | 31/01/10

      I agree with most of the article, but find it amusing (read how stupid is the writer or the person they are quoting) when they blame a political party, especially one that has been in power less than a term.  Were these problems none existent during the Howard years and only started when Rudd was elected?  No!  The Liberals had nearly 12 years, why didn’t they fix the problem?  Simple, because it is a really difficult issue.  To say it is a “Labor” problem is just plain dumb.  It is societies problem, and society (read both side of politics) need to work together to fix it.  Not use it as an excuse to beat each other over the head and claim one side is not spending enough money on it when the other side didn’t when they were in power!!!

    • Old School says:

      03:55pm | 31/01/10

      For a Government to want to hold parents accountable for their childrens’ wrong doings they first have to give the parents the right to discipline. 

      Too often parents are fearful of disciplining their children for fear of do-gooders and legislaters persecuting and prosecuting them for doing so.  I’m not advocating child abuse - just the same measures of discipline that I received as a child of the 70’s - I turned out great and thank goodness my parents taught me to respect authority and myself….. and yes my parents did smack me when it was necessary.  They used the age old - ask, tell then smack.

      Then there’s (again) the do gooders and legislators feeding our children their “rights” in great heaping spoonfuls.  What good is having rights if you have no guidance about using them and no-one empowered to set you boundaries?!  In our household everyone had rights - but not until they earned them.  Children have the birth-given right to food, shelter, love and guidance - but thereafter you have to to earn your rights.

      Let’s give our kids back their right to be children and have important decisions made for them until they have the knowledge through education and experience to make them for themselves.

      Bring back capital punishment in schools and give parents the rights and support to discipline their children to know right from wrong…..... then and only then can you consider holding parents accountable for their children’s wrong doings.

      Whatever happened to the tried and true - Spare the rod - spoil the child .... a short, sharp shock ...... a firm hand and a loving heart to guide them??!!

    • gerard says:

      06:50am | 01/02/10

      Bring back capital punishment? Why not send them down chimneys, into the coal mines, or to Australia? Ah, those were the days.

      Children knew where they stood then and behaved . None of that nonsense of individuality and growing up into responsible adults.

      Yes, the days of ‘The forgotten Children’ by David Hill of the ABC should be compulsary reading for those that want to know about sparing the rod and spoil the child.

      A short, sharp shock…I don’t think so.
      http://oosterman.wordpress.com/

    • Rob Wearne says:

      02:39pm | 31/01/10

      We shouldnt need to legislate against these parents on welfare who allow their children to get up to criminality - they should not be allowed to keep the children in the first place. Prima facie we are taxing the responsible parents and subsidising those with poor life skills and creating a welfare trap. Yes we need to look after those in the community that are less fortunate than ourselves - this is the moral thing to do. The problem with getting the govt. involved to legislate for morality and taxing others to pay for it is an entitlement mentality arises amoungst the recipients….. This is one of the significant causes behind the rise in the single parent pension. If we were serious about fixing the increasing disfunctionality in our communities we would;
      1) Get the Federal govt. to cede control of the marraige act and let people decide on the marriage/partnership contract that suits them. let the people decide whether they want no fault divorce/seperation or not and choose what suits them.
      2)  End Federal govt welfare for single parents -  let their communities and families pick up on it. People would be more inclined to be charitable if their taxation burden was not supporting bureaucrats who are a massive impost.
      3) Parents whom are unable to support their children are unfit and should have them put up for adoption. This should be the rule not the exception.
      4) Get the govt. out of the business of deciding on whom is a deadbeat dad. If women new they could’nt count on an income stream for opening their legs then maybe they would be more inclined to keep them shut. Yes I believe it is a moral duty for a man to support his children if born out of marraige but the federal govt getting involved just creates a tilted playing field toward women and creates moral hazard.

    • Gerard says:

      01:01pm | 30/01/10

      Legislation on human behaviour let alone against human behaviour will always fail.
      Educating is a better option.

      The loveless way Governments have reacted to refugees, especially during the J.Howard era was hardly setting an example. Remember ‘the children overboard’?

      http://oosterman.wordpress.com/

    • doosra of canberra says:

      11:11am | 30/01/10

      Ah, Sophie Mirabella on the perfect world, white picket fence soapbox again. Question Soph, why didn’t you do anything about it when the Libs were in power for 12 years?

    • Maggie Hall says:

      07:23am | 30/01/10

      Such a lot of ignorance in the community on crime!
      Sophie - how do you “enforce rehabilitation? I’ve tried for years in my various jobs - drug and alcohol worker, parole officer, local courts lawyer.
      Rehabilitation is an internal process helped by factors like stable accomodation, meaningful employment. Most prisoners get out with nothing - how are they supposed to be rehabilitated. There are more drugs in prison than outside, prisons are violent, horrible places.
      Our criminal justice system blames individuals for not rehabilitating themselves when the tools to do so are not there.
      For once I am happy to be in NSW, where even our opposition , Shadow Attorney Greg Smith has called for the politics to be taken out of crime. By accusing Labor of being “soft on crime” Sophie Mirabella is asking for the type of “law and order auction” mentality which has prevailed in NSW and led to huge increases in imprisonment without corresponding decreases in crime. Wake up, Sophie and do some reading, sounding like Alan Jones is just not good enough for a politician any more.

    • Tizzanne says:

      07:06am | 30/01/10

      Perhaps we should not be saying “how can we legislate against loveless and lawless parents?”, instead undo the legislation already in place that so severely restricts parents, teachers, police and other relevant parties from teaching kids the ways to become good citizens by disallowing them the ability to punish and impose consequences according to the unacceptable behaviour of kids.  Lack of consequences is the problem and I am not talking about indiscriminate hitting.  Kids today can get away with just about anything because the laws enable them. 

      A 14 year old boy runs away from home because he is getting into trouble for damaging school property.  The parents call the police to find him, and the police do find him but cannot bring him home because he refuses to go.  The department of families get involved and the child is lost to his parents forever because the child decides his parents are too strict and he doesn’t want to be there any longer.  There is no abuse, no reason for the child not to come home except that he cannot get his own way.  The child is paid for not being able to live at home, much more money than his family income can provide him if he stays.  The child is in seventh heaven and the family is destroyed.  Is this just a story?  No, it happened to me and none of the effort I had made in trying to impart good morals, honesty, love or responsibility to my son made any difference in the end.  My son was unnecessarily protected by laws that are purely designed to make the goody-goodies feel better but do nothing to help keep families together.

    • David says:

      04:48pm | 01/02/10

      You hit the nail on the head Tizzanne,  more legislation and government departments cannot and will not replace the role of parents.  Good discipline sometimes requires more than words,  that is why we have prisons! 

      It is about time that those who think that the child comes first in every instance take a long hard look at where that thinking has got us so far!

    • Evan Findlay says:

      09:43pm | 29/01/10

      I find your assertions uneducated, and as vile as they are, typical of those in parliament. You talk of early intervention and lot’s of it, but when in power you did nothing! Leave it for a Labor Government….It’s not our problem, we’ll make it there’s, an election issue. Are your so stupid too think that the electorate would say “Hey the Howard government was so good on social issues that this is a Labor problem” The goal posts have changed and there is no doubting that. I believe that social issues are the domain of all Australians and all political parties.The problem I have with the Liberal Party is that social issues only become important in opposition, because in opposition you can score political points without having to spend any money or actually do anything. We all know that social justice is not at the forefront of political thinking when it comes to the Liberal Party. I mean these problems have existed for over one hundred years but only now, through the wisdom of the Federal MP for Indi, in opposition, should the incumbent government take control. I don’t mean to politicise her grievance, but whilst she was in power, why couldn’t she do it?

    • Oliver S says:

      03:42pm | 29/01/10

      As much as I hate to point out contradictions in ideology here Sophie (actually thats a bald-face lie), I don’t understand how you can have such strong views on the responsibilities of parents when you are so violently opposed to things such as abortion. One sure fire way to increase the proportion of uncaring/irresponsible parents is to make people who don’t want to be parents go through with it anyway.

      But as for the rest of the article, I don’t think I can actually see any suggestions in there. By all means put in the petty attacks at the Labor party if you want, but you might try offering suggestions….

      Have a serious discussion about lowering the threshold for taking away children from their parents if you want - but you had better be prepared for discussion about the impact of the Forgotten Australians.

      Have a serious discussion about ‘tough on crime’ policies - but you would probably want to answer the question of how these kids are going to be brought up to respect the law if they hate police officers for taking their parents away.

      You did hit the nail on the head though - early intervention is the way to go. But why did your government do nothing about this the whole time they were in power? And why does your party advocate increased funding for private education, thus disadvantaging lower SES public schools and making it even harder for children in these families to escape the cycles of violence and poverty?

      Sorry Sophie, but unless you show drastically different opinions to those that you have voiced in the past, I don’t think anyone will listen to you on issues such as these.

    • H of SA says:

      02:32pm | 29/01/10

      Sophie,

      While I reckon this was by far your best punch article, I think some of the response on here - some more harsh than others - show a problem of perception which is bad for the Liberals, good for Labor and bad for voters in terms of offering choice. Allow me to articulate:


      Whilst many of us are dissatisfied with the way state Labor in particular has underesourced the youth, family and child protection services - we fear that the Liberal party will under-resource these areas even more. Because this is what has occured historically.

      I understand that the Liberal party says it believes in a government which is as big as it needs to be and no bigger - historically though this has meant that services like child protection have not been adequately resourced under the Liberals. I fear the inevitable budjet cuts to child protection that will occur if we vote the Liberal party in (in fact here in SA several candidates have publically stated their desire to make public service cuts) - this is one of your parties problems - the perception you won’t fund these services enough.

      Perhaps thats something to take to your colleagues - the need for an across party commitment to not underfund family support services. Because if Labor and Liberal are under-resourcing - but Labor spends a bit more - we the voters are probably going to vote Labor on this issue, though we would want better.

    • Paul says:

      01:49pm | 29/01/10

      Sophie, you stood by in power and let particular suburbs slide into hopelessness and ghettoism and you want to entirely blame the families? You concentrated the mentally ill and others, into some of these areas and starved these areas of community support services while spending big on Oil warmongering and political advertising!  Act like a political leader Sophie, not some weak Howard, kicking the poor or those that need some community support -for cheap political points. As for your War on Crime or War on Families… Yawn!

    • fluffy says:

      01:25pm | 29/01/10

      thanks E - at least someone bothered :D
      Why are the politicians trying to distract us with fluffy talking points rather than get on with the serious stuff. ?

      im on a mission… to expose the fluff!

    • ja says:

      01:12pm | 29/01/10

      oops… i meant quantity over quality smile

    • jaded says:

      06:20pm | 29/01/10

      I don’t know what use all these people will be. The planet is stuffed with people now. You might take the time to think about it one day.

    • ja says:

      03:04pm | 29/01/10

      Amen.  It seems that we are all capable of understanding this individually, but collectively we seem to lose the ability to rationally discuss values and morals, as there is enormous pressure to avoid being a wowser or to be seen as an advocate of censorship, so we tend to fall in line with the marketers and popular culture - we sell out to light hearted and fun.  Thus, I find this article quite refreshing, and some of the responses a bit disheartening :(

    • H of SA says:

      02:51pm | 29/01/10

      It does indeed ja. I absoultely agree that community as a concept is weakening, its easy to see this - the solutions are harder. But I think whatt you spoke about with the search for meaning in material wealth is a big part of the problem.

      The commercial culture is sold as “light hearted and fun” but there are absolutely consequences for us as a nation by accepting it. I strongly feel for example that the addition of raunch culture and the sexualisation of children has had horrible consequences for our nation. Even aspirational thinking and pride in ones posessions rather than actions is very significant.

      I remember a Jack Johnson song entitled Cookie Jar having a lot to say about what we are consuming in the west “We only recieve what we demand and if we want hell then hell is what we’ll have” - God help us.

    • ja says:

      12:58pm | 29/01/10

      I’m worried that the push for a major population increase does not seem to factor in these social issues.  IE: the implications of having proportionately more children inevitably finding themselves in loveless and lawless families.  In my mind pop. growth is a solution of quality over quantity

    • ja says:

      02:21pm | 29/01/10

      hi H of SA,
      I guess i did take a bit of a leap there.  In my mind there is a correlation between population size and ‘disconnectedness’ (to the env, each other).  (There is an entire discussion based on these ideas, worthy of it’s own page here, or in philosophy journals).  Suffice to say that the quality of aged care, childrens education, etc, comes down to the values that we as a community hold dear. 
      In a large disconnectd population that increasingly finds meaning in material wealth, and less and less in each other and our surroundings, i do worry that our values are detiorating.  It’s a mantra often espoused through the years, but i feel there’s truth in it. 
      make sense?

    • H of SA says:

      01:59pm | 29/01/10

      Hi Ja, (I have seen your correction below)

      Population shouldn’t really factor into it in the case of children If the population is increasing,  for every extra child born into a loveless family - there should be more community members ready to help families raise them, there should be more community members to work in professional positions to help intervene on childrens behalf, and there should be more people earning the bucks and therefore the tax dollars to generate enough resources to assist families via government support.

      The problem is not population increase, its the fact our society just doesn’t value children enough

    • Elle says:

      12:37pm | 29/01/10

      Thoughtful article. It’s about time we had more transparency and some honest debate.
      There are plenty of families and single carers out there ready willing and able to provide good homes for children, and so break the cycle. But here’s a taste of what’s needed:
      Recruitment of carers with a guarantee of permanency (leading to adoption) of the children. Too often the ‘system’ attempts to put children back with birth families time and time again.
      Carers who see the activity as a vocation - ‘creating a life for a child’ -  not a job that brings in some extra income.
      Carers recruited specifically who have excellent parenting skills (excellent, not adequate) to deal with special needs children.
      Better training of carers - much of the foster care training is on how to identify abuse, not how to seriously rebuild a child’s life (psychology, behaviour, health, school, security, stability).
      A social welfare system that sees foster/adoptive parents as a vital partner, not just someone ‘doing a job’.
      A system prepared to be honest about birth parents and their prospects - I have heard comments from workers that are simply deluded in relation to a birth parent’s ability to care for their child.
      And yes, I’m speaking from experience. We can turn prospects around for children if we have the guts to do it.

    • IMHO says:

      12:02pm | 29/01/10

      A little device, implanted at birth, which deactivates fertility. Adults wishing to have children must undergo 2 years part time parenting course, be drug free, have no major outstanding criminal issues, and, ideally be in a long term partnership! Then, the device is removed, and off you go. Simple.

      Also, whilst removal of children from their parents is an emotional topic, unfortunately many parents have lost their right to retain their children. Whilst a loving natural parent is best, a natural parent at any cost is not. More support for long term, permanent, and crisis foster care and carers. Once a parent has “lost” a child to foster care it should be nigh on impossible to get that child back barring a miraculous turn around in fortunes and attitudes!

    • jaded says:

      06:14pm | 29/01/10

      Stop the welfare at two children. People need to be taught that there will be no future in breeding and they will have to think seriously about working for a living.

    • Oliver S says:

      04:04pm | 29/01/10

      Well papachango, totalitarians do tend to be effective at making sweeping national changes…

      Of course the lengths that we are willing to go to to make these changes are really the issue here. I think that IMHO has it right - that would certainly make parents be more committed to the act of parenting. But it probably isn’t worth the cost.

    • papachango says:

      01:12pm | 29/01/10

      go look up the definition of the word ‘totalitarian’ in the dictionary…

    • AdamC says:

      12:01pm | 29/01/10

      This was a good, well-balanced article. (Though I don’t believe ALP governments are always soft on crime. Despite Victoria’s PC-extremist attorney-general, prison sentences have been trending up for many years now.)

      Some commenters have mentioned the two elephants in the room here: family breakdown and drug (including alcohol) abuse. In the most dysfunctional families, both of these likely act in combination.

      There is no point charging parent (no s, very rarely a plural in these cases) where a young kid goes off the rails completely. As Sophie says, most of the time the parent is already off the rails (and the wagon) themselves.

      There is simply no neat solution to these issues.

    • Natalie says:

      01:31pm | 29/01/10

      Yes exactly. This is a very difficult issue with no easy answers.
      I would propose support centres staffed with social workers and psychologists, where parents can go for support, training and advice, and make a connection with a caring person.

    • Badger says:

      11:12am | 29/01/10

      Do what Singapore did a few years ago, Publicly Punish the offenders with the Rattan, a beating that will really hurt them, that would take the smile off their faces, when they say “You can’t touch me” to the Police.
        It is a very safe place now in Singapore, not like our streets late at night with the carrying of knives buy a few rebellious kids that will not take direction in any way.
        Let the Police give them a swift kick up the backside when they catch them misbehaving, it didn’t affect me that I can tell, and made me aware of my actions while in public.

    • E says:

      10:50am | 29/01/10

      yeah fluffy brings up a good point.
      When politicians are habitual liars, who is setting the example?
      When both parties happily send young men and women to kill and be killed, based on ‘flawed intelligence’ (an apt term to described the political apparatus) and then giggle about it afterwards (aka Blair) or just change the subject, when our own PM lies on a daily basis as is obvious for all to see, and that the likelyhood is that the other team will do the same, when PR is seen as a respectable career choice, who is setting an example for parents or children?

    • papachango says:

      01:23pm | 29/01/10

      Phil -

      FYI, Godwins law states that whoever is the first to mention Hitler or the Nazis in an Internet debate automatically loses the argument and cedes victory to the other side. It is a corrollary of Godwin’s Theorem that the longer and more heated an internet debate gets, the probability of someone mentioning Hitler or the Nazis approaches one.

      While I agree with your points, James is therefore technically correct. You could try to argue that it was an appropriate Nazi reference, but really, to blame the rise of Hitler on poor parenting is tenuous at best. This exception only really works if the debate topic is acutally about the Nazis

    • DG says:

      09:49am | 29/01/10

      Sophie -

      Is the Liberal Party proposing that, should they win the next federal election, they will seek to take responsibility for crime (enforcement) and children’s services (out of home care and the likes) from the state governments? Or is this more pointless rhetoric?

      I have no doubt that there is little in the way of consequences for inept or incompetent parenting. There is certainly very little in the way of incentive for people to be parents at all, after all the former Federal Government worked hard to get parents out of the home and into the workforce. I’m sure that you would refute any suggestion that the former Federal Government had failed in it’s attempt to increase the number of mothers in the workforce during it’s 12 years in office.

      To the next point, Community based intervention, this relies heavily on the existence of community. But, with increased working rates there is less community. Schools are closing their canteens a few days a week as there are insufficient “community” minded members of the public who can get time off work to help out in the school canteen, sports clubs are on the brink of folding because parents wont get involved and so on.

      A community based initiative assumes community - church attendance rates are down, parent participation rates in school functions is down (to the point that many schools now hold their fund-raising fetes during school hours as parents were unwilling to get involved on weekends to help out) and local “drop-in” centers are dropping out of existence. Community has died a horrible death due to many factors ranging from increased working hours to the ease of accessing entertainment in the household - accordingly these community based initiatives are doomed to fail unless the community can be re-established.

      While parents dump their kids in day car, go to work come home, put their kids to bed and zone out in front of “the box” - nothing is going to change. While the divorce rate remains high - nothing is going to change, while children have ‘rights’ that protect them from discipline - nothing is going to change.

      Finally, it is the Australian Law Reform Commission that argued that children should never be made to feel shame for their actions. If they are never feeling shame for their behaviour, what incentive do they have to do the right thing? After all, it’s not the well behaved kids that get the attention of parents and teachers - but the ones that push boundaries and break the rules. Perhaps it’s time to reconsider our attitude to the protection of children. Indeed there are things from which children should be protected - shame for doing the wrong thing is not one of them, nor is failure.

    • persephone says:

      08:21am | 30/01/10

      And one of the consequences of that, Natalie, was, of course, that (as mums were forced out to work) schools and the community lost a valuable source of volunteers.

      As Mike Moore points out in ‘Bowling for Columbine’, one of the boys involved had a mother who, because of similar legislation by Bush, was forced to work sixteen hours a day and thus was not able to supervise her children.

      The Liberal’s laws were also interesting, in that they did not penalise couples in the same way.

      So it was OK to stay home on government payments if there were two of you, but if there was only one (and therefore, arguably, you couldn’t share the parenting load around) then you had to go out to work.

      Never been able to get my head round the logic of that one.

    • Natalie says:

      01:17pm | 29/01/10

      Lots of good points here DG.
      Well, the Liberal Government was responsible for cutting a cool 10 years off the single parenting pension, and did so fairly quietly (it was advertised in the papers as: if you are recieving a single parenting payment, read this). Being one of the lucky ones to be signed on at the time and thus able to keep it until my youngest turned 16, I was able to do part time work and study and be a decent mum. The idea of the pension was always that the children would not be disadvantaged and thus not become delinquent. But society has forgotten this. They seem to forever bag single mothers as lazy, irresponsible and getting purposely pregnant for money… when there is a majority of single mothers out there working their butts off to bring up decent citizens.

    • Lucie says:

      09:48am | 29/01/10

      He did say something Graham, Increase in population was due largely to Immigration which was increased by the other mob and it was out of the Governments hands. I know it sounds unbelieveable that could come out of a Prime Ministers mouth, but it did. Yep Sophie, you should use some of this in your campaign.

    • H of SA says:

      09:02am | 29/01/10

      Hi Sophie,

      Your right about the need for plenty of early intervention in child protection . But to get it to an adequate level is going to cost the public purse. Personally I don’t mind paying more tax if that helps reduce child abuse, but what about society in general?

    • Graham says:

      09:02am | 29/01/10

      What a doozy that interview was, took ownership of nothing. No opinion on anything he was asked. The master of talking for 10 mins and saying nothing. Sophie you should use that interview with Rudd in your election campaign.

    • pete says:

      08:35am | 29/01/10

      are you proposing that the politicians can bring influence and pressure to bear on the judiciary to influence outcomes?  Thats probably closer to the truth why the nazis were successful. They pervaded all levels of government. A very good reason not to go down that road.

      and no Phil, I’m not a leftie, just fed up with the abundance of the blame game and lack of leadership from our chosen ones.  If they are talking rubbish I’ll bag them no matter what part of the spectrum they gravitate to.

    • Muzz says:

      08:31am | 29/01/10

      How can we legislate against loveless and lawless parents?
      I’m not sure Sophie, but one thing I know is don’t ask Kevin Rudd because he will have “no opinion” After watching his unbelievable backflip on his support for ‘A big Australia” last night. Has now decided he has “no opinion” on it. Apparently he says immigration is largely responsible for population growth but it’s out of the Governments hands. Go figure?????? I thought that immigration was the responsibilty of the Government, but apparently not according to Rudd. Sounds like the latest escape root on issues will be “I have no opinion”. He also blames “the other Mob” I guess thats you guys Sophie.

    • jaded says:

      05:54pm | 29/01/10

      This is particularly significant as he was such a fan of measures to control climate change. Number one method is to reduce world population.

    • Craig Lambie says:

      08:21am | 29/01/10

      Great story Sophie!  Very insightful, but as others have commented, and you said yourself, I think neither side of politics has the strength of will to do this.
      Crime and punishment in general at all levels is ineffective. 
      The number or repeat offenders is a clear indicator that going to jail is not a way to rehabilitate criminals, I would even suggest that it is a great way to increase crime as the “education” people get in Jail allows them to move to other areas of crime.
      Taking a youth from a unloving family would be a good start, but where will you put them? How many families would open their arms to a young child from a drugged up mother, that causes trouble… and then openly love them and treat them well to bring them across.
      So… Suggesting we remove them from families is great…. but you need to have a loving and nurturing environment for them to go into before you take them from their families, no matter how bad they are.
      Maybe treating their parents Mental issues would help…. Medicare doesn’t do such a good job at treating Mental issues, and this is a large percentage of the cause of many many other issues….

    • jaded says:

      05:49pm | 29/01/10

      There is an entire industry that benefits from crime. Until the streets are patrolled with heavily armed police and punishment becomes more fitting, there will be no change.

    • Natalie says:

      01:05pm | 29/01/10

      Yes I agree Craig, where would you move such children to? I was a single mother and when my eldest son took a shine to the retired farmer across the road, the nice old man soon told me he didn’t want to be a mentor to my son. And this was just an occasional visit! There are few people willing to be involved with other people’s children let alone foster.

    • Wayne Hutchins says:

      08:01am | 29/01/10

      I heard on Sky news this morning that a rapist has escaped jail in Victoria ( I think they said Victoria but i could be wrong). They knew when he absconded because he was fitted with an ankle devise that set of an alarm. Can’t find him because they didn’t fit it out with a tracking devise because that would be a breach of HIS privacy. What a joke!  Thats whats wrong with the system. We support the criminals rights over the victims rights every day.

    • T.Chong says:

      07:47am | 29/01/10

      Sophie and Phil: just a couple of examples of Labors “soft on crime” please?
      Left wing judiciary is claimed, so presumably you advocate political partisianship ( big C conservative of course)in the judiciary.
      Political bias in the judiciary sounds rather totalitarian,
      Yous want that?

    • Phil says:

      08:05pm | 29/01/10

      Oliver S

      What do you propose given the current situation is failing.

      We have many welfare dependant families whose children have little or no self belief. They generally have too much time on their hands, and statistically live in poorer areas.

      They see a life of crime in probably a similar vain to Ned Kelly, a bit of fun. But society pays for this, be it in vandalism, or when they commit an armed robbery, then during a high speed get away crash and kill others or themselves.

      These people are in fact a debt to society, albeit not entirely by their own doing.

      If we get tough on crime, by such as New York did some time ago, by getting tough on 1 broken window, by enforcing the law, be that possession of a small quantity of dope, to fare evasion you will usually find that these same people are wanted for more serious crimes.

      Our governments have lost the battle currently on crime and the streets need to be reclaimed in order that lawlessness is a thing of the past. If that means we need to build bigger correctional facilities then so be it. Currently they are more interested in spin on falling rates of crime than they are enforcing the law. Most wont mind their tax dollars going to increased law inforcement and punishment, rather than conferencing and a slap on the wrist.

      If governments pass wrong laws they will be dealt with at the polls. Currently NSW which I live deserves the dickheads they put into power.

    • jaded says:

      05:45pm | 29/01/10

      @T.Chong: You is the plural of you.
      @Phil: I don’t understand your reference to Bob Carr. He retired in 2005.
      It would help if you all read up a little before offering your opinions.

    • Oliver S says:

      03:30pm | 29/01/10

      Phil: The reason why we need to have an independent judiciary is so that when the Governments pass bad laws for political gain (eg the popes visit to Sydney, the moving of notorious former criminals from department of housing accommodation) we will have some measure of protection when it comes to actually punishing people for bad laws. I don’t want judges to simply ‘apply the laws that are passed’ if they are bad laws.

      But regardless of your ‘tough on crime’ arguments, (Incidentally if the whole tough on crime policy actually worked then we should probably see falling rates of incarceration. Do we see that in the US? {I can only assume that you think they are sufficiently tough on crime}) I fail to see how legislation new forms of crime can really have any impact on bad parenting practices. Can you perhaps illuminate us on that one?

    • Phil says:

      11:06am | 29/01/10

      T Chong. Most courts that these kids come before are state. Not sure which rock you have been under, but we have had (until WA say the light) wall to wall labor state governments, who have spoken about being tough then gone all soft on it.

      Bob Carr came to power with tough on crime stance. Not sure when he proposes to start this. Now we have conferencing. Smacks on the wrist.

      I dont want to choose judges or magistrates. They simply apply the laws that are passed. A bit better legislation would go a long way.

      That and coming down hard on petty crime and drugs. It starts there and moves on further up the scale. Just like we are not all in our first real job (cept Kevin) we want more, well so do the criminals.

    • papachango says:

      10:43am | 29/01/10

      For countless examples look at Victoria and our attorney-general Rob Hulls, who is extremely partisan and ideologically committed. The Age, which shares his ideology, did a fawning piece on him recently, calling him the ‘great crusader’ for criminal justice reform. He has stacked the supreme court with appointees from left-wing ‘civil-libertarian’ groups (Speaking as a real libertarian they don’t deserve that title), and has an approach to criminal justice that focusses on rehabilitating rather than punishing the criminals. Not that rehabilitation is a bad thing but it has meant that sentencing for all kinds of violent crimes has been very soft, preferring the ‘chat and a cup of tea’ approach.

      I agree that a poltiical bias in the juiciary is very totalitarian, since they are not elected they should be politically impartial (or at least have a balance of political views).  However, if I make the observation that there is currently a leftwing bias in the judiciary how does it logically follow that I advocate a rightwing judiciary? Logic is not a strong point for you lefties, is it? It’s a bit like the criticism of the ABC bias - no one is saying it should become rightwing, just a bit more balanced.

    • John A Neve says:

      07:41am | 29/01/10

      The result of a crime has nothing to do with the age of of the person who commits it. If you are bashed, raped or killed it matters not the age of the perpetrator.

      Costs/damages caused by a person under 16 years should be paid by the parents. If the act is by a person over 16 years the costs/damages should be on them, debit their Newstart or salary until restoration is made.

    • Oliver S says:

      03:55pm | 29/01/10

      Okay the problem with that is that it could lead to what they call ‘secondary offending’. The more we place people in that situation under financial stress by debiting their Newstart the more we are preventing them from moving ahead in life in a positive manner and the more likely that they will reoffend.

      In NSW they have recently released a new program for payment of fines - you can pay them off by doing community service. This is good because it means that instead of having so many people who can never get a license (because they have too many fines) and thus can not find work, they can now start to move forward.

    • E says:

      07:30am | 29/01/10

      Ahh yes the approaching ‘Costello Crime Wave’ but thats another story smile
      Yep good call, end to moral relativism and re-instating some standards in society. Problem is that how will the Libs or ALP survive the even handed application of the law, since they are essentially criminal organisations?

    • Oliver S says:

      03:51pm | 29/01/10

      In “Freakonomics” they talk about Wade vs Roe as a cause for the decrease in crime in America in the 1990s. It will be interesting to see how the opposite effect with the baby bonus plays out…

    • Blaise says:

      07:27am | 29/01/10

      Great article Sophie! Insightful, thoughtful, and interesting as always! Keep up the great work!

    • Phil says:

      07:25am | 29/01/10

      Very well written Sophie.

      Of course the lefties will come on here and bag you. But they would do that even if you gave labor praise. Labor are typically soft on crime. Please show me where this is not the case. The judges/magistrates are generally left wing and their decisions reflect this. Harm minimisation does not work.

      Absentee parenting is a major problem. It was one of the reasons Hitler got so much traction in Germany in the 30’s and why today so many young ones find themselves in trouble.

      I am not advocating that parents must stay together if things are disfunctional, or abusive, but the idea that I can wake up this morning and decide that my secretary looks better than my wife without another thought drives home the its all about me attitude of today.

      When couples decide to have a child they need to think this is a 20 year committment. Not just till the good sex runs out, or one partner puts on 10 kilos and does not look as attractive, but a long term committment. Anything less is just stealing from your children. It will not always work, but its better than the alternative. Not all relationships break down from abuse.

      My children come first in my life. If I am wrong with my attitude them they just get showered with a bit more love than they need. I do not wish to contemplate any alternative.

      Parents also need to seriously check out the peers they and the children have. Children will often copy parents.

      Many a good parenting has gone up in smoke due to the wrong group of people.

    • Adam says:

      01:16pm | 31/01/10

      Godwins Law is hilarious I can not believe I have not seen it used before. Classic Internet!

    • jaded says:

      05:24pm | 29/01/10

      Godwin’s law is a humorous observation made by Mike Godwin. It is often used as censorship or diversion. Ignore them.

    • Phil says:

      12:39pm | 29/01/10

      James Not sure what drugs you have taken, but its clearly effecting you ability to function. WTF has Godwin got to do with this ?

    • James says:

      11:50am | 29/01/10

      I call Godwin’s Law - you lose Phil.

    • Liz says:

      06:56am | 29/01/10

      Charge the parents and the kids and put them in programmes to teach solcial responsibility.

    • fool says:

      04:56pm | 29/01/10

      @eat the rich: learn to read. it’s a valuable communication tool.

    • Eat The Rich says:

      08:54am | 29/01/10

      So you advocate parent and children swapping? Or perhaps the child could down to the local parent market and trade in their old model for brand spanking new one.
      Perhaps you should go back listening to Alan Jones and just continue to blame lefty teachers and social workers.

    • pete says:

      06:55am | 29/01/10

      And where was the early intervention (and lots of it) when the coalition was in government?  Successive governments have turned collective blind eyes to all of these problems, so cut the coalition versus labor record crap you are all abysmal when it comes to handling socail problems and the safety of children. 
      The only thing that came from your lot was the belated , hurried and ill conceived “intervention” into indigenous communities to try and “fix” what the government (no matter of what ilk) caused in the first place.

    • Merry says:

      05:34am | 29/01/10

      I think a lot of the problem is that the punishments dealt out to kids are too weak. Most consist of a slap on the wrist. I was in school about 10 years ago, and I saw kids that would do the worst things, and all operating under the attitude that the cops can’t get them. And these came from the kids who did have good parents at home. If they were to get in trouble at school, they aimed for a suspension, because that meant that they had the day(s) off school. It was the Saturday detentions that were the worst, in their mind.

      On the flip side, I knew a kid that came from those types of disadvantaged parents that are talked about. He didn’t play by the rules because he didn’t know what the rules were. Once we told him what they were, and that if he didn’t follow them, we weren’t going to play with him, he straightened up and was a darling. We dated later in highschool. But by then he became a teenaged boy, and therefore was a bit of a prick :p

      So it comes down to the basics of psychology. If you want a behaviour to stop, punish the kid or, reward the kid for doing behaviour that is acceptable. Letting things slide or dealing out inappropriate punishments and/or rewards isn’t going to do the work.

    • Oliver S says:

      03:48pm | 29/01/10

      True enough Merry. But to use learning theory effectively to shape behaviour you need to use reinforcers that are more unusual to the child. This is true with children with ADHD - they are more used to punishment for bad behaviour, therefore it stops being effective. On the other hand they are less used to being rewarded for good behaviour and it is the most effective way to behaviourally shape them.

      Most of the kids in these households would be subject to all manner of verbal and physical abuse. They would have grown up with their parents, friends, and relatives being arrested and going to gaol, or being punished at school. This would all be par for the course for them. It will no longer be effective. What you described with the kid that you knew sounds more like a reward schedule - you taught him that if he was good he would be rewarded by playing with you.

    • Eric says:

      05:21am | 29/01/10

      A large part of the problem is the divorce industry and single motherhood. The children of single mothers are more likely to be abused, and more likely to become criminals when they grow up.

      Repealing the no-fault divorce laws, and reforming the sexist family court, would go a long way toward restoring fathers to their rightful role in raising children.

    • Ana says:

      08:33am | 02/02/10

      I am a single mother. I work a middle management job and do not rely on government handouts. My daughter is, according to her teachers, one of the best behaved kids in her class and is very confident, loving and affectionate.

      The reason I’m a single mother? I refused to stay with my husband who was emotionally abusive to both my daughter and myself.

      If anyone is being sexist here, Eric, I believe it is you. You cannot judge a total demographic on the behaviours of a small minority.

    • persephone says:

      08:13am | 30/01/10

      Which, jaded, makes up about 2% of ‘single mothers’  (according to govt statistics).

      I remember, years ago, looking around my community and identifying half a dozen women I thought were typical ‘single mothers’ - all teenagers who had left school to have a baby ‘out of wedlock’.

      A few years later, I looked at them again. Most of them were in stable relationships - in fact, most were still with the father of their children, and if not were in another long term relationship. All of them had jobs. None of them were on any government payments (apart from the usual parenting type ones).

      Taught me a lesson about making assumptions!

    • jaded says:

      04:49pm | 29/01/10

      Thanks ignoramus. I’m a single mother and my son is doing a phd. These “single mothers” you refer to have a series of boyfriends and as such are never actually single but collect welfare continuous due to an overgenerous welfare system. Genuinely single mothers are very good parents.

    • James says:

      11:47am | 29/01/10

      Patrick,

      There is a statistical correlation between single parent households and children committing crimes.  But this correlation is no more or less than that between poor, welfare dependent households and children committing crimes.  It just so happens that most single parent households are also poor and welfare dependent.  Plus, correlation does not imply causation.  The most likely causal factor is poverty and welfare dependency.

    • persephone says:

      11:09am | 29/01/10

      Fine, Eric, but most of the single mothers I know didn’t start off intending to end up that way.

      And of the three divorced couples in my immediate circle, in each case it was the husband who broke up the marriage and left the wife and kids, with the wives in each case devastated.

      And, in each of these cases, any ongoing trauma in the kids’ lives has come from the way the father has treated them and their mothers - as inconvenient reminders of a past they want to forget, and don’t want to pay for.

      Don’t let sexism cloud your judgement here!

    • Patrick says:

      10:18am | 29/01/10

      There isn’t really any research, studies or statistics to back up that assertion however.

    • E says:

      08:40am | 29/01/10

      I agree with the fist paragraph of this post, I think its well documented, but its not the mere fact of having a single parent, its growing up in a loveless lawless environment.

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Paul Colgan

Greece makes the final and Ireland gets in on a golden ticket. How awkward and embarrassing. Love it. #sbseurovision

Anthony Sharwood

Every single #eurovision band is roxette #sbseurovision

Anthony Sharwood

The weird thing about #eurovision is you've got this massive collection of dorks in a room and no one is wearing Spock ears #sbseurovision

Anthony Sharwood

Europe has the large hadron collider which is light years ahead of its time and #eurovision, where the eighties never die

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

Eurovision can’t drown out the human rights abuses

Eurovision can’t drown out the human rights abuses

Last year, thousands of Azerbaijanis spontaneously took to the streets of Baku shouting and chanting.…

Revenge. It doesn’t get a whole lot better than this

Revenge. It doesn’t get a whole lot better than this

Last month, Katy McCaffrey boarded the Disney Wonder cruiseliner. At some point during the trip, a sneaky…

Friday dilemma: can school bullies grow out of it?

Friday dilemma: can school bullies grow out of it?

ClubsNSW is set to introduce a fresh new effort to combat schoolyard intimidation, insisting on a principal’s…

Gentle jabs to the ribs

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

A private school girl’s family is sueing her elite, extremely expensive private school for not… Read more

243 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free daily Punch newsletter