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.

The Feds: Feeney and the Kelvinator

Moreland is lucky enough to host two federal politicians. Senator David Feeney has recently settled just across from the Post Office Hotel, while Kelvin Thomson, Member for Wills, has long been located just around the corner near the Coburg RSL.

Moreland Shriek powerfully endorses both the Post Office and the Coburg RSL, and some of their gloss may yet rub off on the feds.

Feeney, as he is known to those who hope that calling him 'Feeney' will somehow impart characteristics similar to Chuck Feeney (but not Tom Feeney), has only been in parliament since mid-2008. The jury is still out on Feeney, but he does have the inestimable good fortune of being married to a top-notch legal eagle who goes by the fabulous name of Liberty Sanger, so it is safe to assume he will make a very good case indeed.

The Kelvinator, as he is known to the friends he has not yet met, is a bit of a dude and an all-round champion. He's tall and bald and lean and mean, and he gives a big damn about Edgars Creek. He also mixes it up with the local hoods: Tony Mokbel, Phil Cleary, Bob Hawke. All came before the Kelvinator, yet only the Kelvinator remains.

He has also lately been having a stern word with high school students about population control. But more of that later. First, there are more important matters to attend: do you prefer the Post Office Hotel or the Coburg RSL? M.Shriek readers will immediately realise the importance of this question. M.Shriek suggests the answer is crucial to political fortunes in Moreland.

Being concerned about political fortunes in Moreland, M.Shriek thought it wise to put this question to both Feeney and the Kelvinator. But in the spirit of good faith, we do not resile from stating M.Shriek's position:

Hocking draught with respect for tradition is important, and both the Post Office and the Coburg RSL honour tradition in their own unique way: one through homage to the seediness of Moreland's penal past, the other through respect for a retired serviceman's need to sit somewhere with guns on the wall and quietly drink cold beer.

But M.Shriek prefers the Coburg RSL - it has lawn out the front.

It is Coburg, after all.