The link is to a short article by the Daily Telegraph. If you follow the link there to the original ABC article, you'll see it's a philosophical article. It asks how a society decides what's a fair and unfair advantage for certain children.
No one in the article was proposing that parents not read to their children. Instead they were weighing the ethical differences between family-strengthening activities that confer an advantage (like reading) versus those that have no familial benefit (private school). Society should support family strengthening activities regardless of advantage, but not support advantage activities that have no family effect.
The ABC article was interesting as philosophy. But like most modern philosophy it is in no way practical or useful. It's a thought experiment.
