Population Control

Honourable Member for Wills Kelvin Thomson has been causing something of a stir lately.

On 17 August this year, Mr Thomson made a speech in Parliament endorsing two propositions:

1. That the world's population needs to be stabilised.

2. That Australia's population needs to be stabilised.

The Hansard text is here, or you can watch the full speech below:



Most readers will know that population control is already practiced in a number of countries, particularly India and China. In the past few decades, notions of population control have been shunned in the west, largely thanks to relatively-recent support for the view that control over reproduction is a basic need and right for women. However, with unprecedented levels of concern over climate change has come calls - such as Thomson's - to revive discussions on how to manage overpopulation.

In his parliamentary speech, Thomson delivered no suggestion as to how we might remedy the problems exacerbated by overpopulation. Rather, he outlined how overpopulation might make more difficult the management of issues such as global warming, food and water shortages, housing affordability and over-crowded cities, species extinctions, waste and terrorism.

Naturally, the proposition that population requires stabilisation has been met with considerable criticism. But it has also received a great deal of acclaim. Neil Mitchell has observed that one way or the other, population management is a discussion this nation needs to have. Others have suggested a vote-harvesting exercise: that Thomson expects to achieve nothing more than public sympathy in the polling booth.

This last approach deserves closer attention. Population control is a matter of considerable importance for environmental groups, and Thomson stands to gain credence among these groups for his stance. But Thomson has also called to cut migration not for reasons of population control, but rather for national security. In a speech to school students some 10 days earlier, and subsequently in a mail-out to his constituents, Thomson suggested slashing Australia's migration programme to 1990s levels would 'provide authorities with much more time in which to assess applications, and thereby improve Australia's security'. This position is likely to prove popular with those voters who sympathised with the War on Terror.

How do we quantify the urgency of a national discussion of population control? When will it be too late?

Is there value in Thomson's suggestion that Australia should cut migration levels to permit a greater degree of national security?

Should Australia manage its population, and if so, how? How can population control be reconciled with individual rights for reproduction?

Thomson has foreshadowed a series of compelling national conversations. The way to ensure it is more than a vote-harvesting exercise is for the public to seize the initiative, and input their own views on population control.