POPULATION GROWTH

The Hon. R.B. SUCH (Fisher) (12:48): I move:

That this house urges the federal government to acknowledge that population growth and lifestyle are the major drivers of climate change and to initiate and support measures to control world population growth.

All members would be aware (unless they have been hiding somewhere) that climate change is a real and pressing issue that we face, not only here in South Australia but also throughout the world.

There are two main drivers, as the motion suggests. One is the way we live and the other is the number of people on earth. It is a very sensitive issue when you start talking about population and population control, because you are dealing with very fundamental aspects. We know the pain and trauma that has been caused in China, which has adopted a one-child policy in order to curtail its population. However, we need to address this issue in a way that minimises any ethical impact that can be categorised as negative. We have to plan and do things now.

Some would say, 'We already have the problem of climate change. Population policies now will not stop the immediate problem.' That is true: they will not and they cannot. However, if you have a program and a plan in place, over time you can ameliorate some of the problems that would otherwise arise. To put this in context, between 1980 and 2000, the world's population rose from 4.4 billion to 6.1 billion, and by 2150 it is expected to reach nine billion.

It is not simply about the way you live, what you consume or whether you live a very resource intensive lifestyle; it is also obviously about the number of people. This is where we clash with people from India and China who say that we are being more than cheeky in pointing at them with their large population. They say that most of their people do not live at the same resource-consuming level we do. So, we have to be mindful of that and be careful that, in implementing a population policy, we do not get into a situation where we resurrect the old colonial arrogance that suggested that somehow there should be a double standard. I do not support that.

We need to get this issue of population growth on the agenda. We need to get people talking about it and, more importantly, doing something about it; if we do not, we will end up with the situation in China, where there are drastic solutions many of us would want to avoid. I do not speak against abortion, if a woman chooses it, although I do not like it or rejoice in it. I think it is sad and unfortunate when it occurs, and I would prefer that it not occur, even though I understand that nature itself brings it about at times. In decades ahead, I do not want to see the world facing a population situation where we have to resort to very drastic measures to control population, as has occurred in China.

I do not kid myself that this motion will change things overnight; it will not. However, I want people to think about the fact that it is not simply about changing the light bulb in your house; it is also about the number of people. This applies in Australia because, if we equate our population with that of India in equivalent consumption terms, we do not have 20 million people, we have more like 160 million.

Despite the fact that this issue is very sensitive and has all sorts moral and religious aspects, you cannot hide from the fact that it is not just climate change but also other related issues. Without getting to the alarmist stage that occurred a few years ago, when I think people got a bit carried away talking about some population control measures, if we do not deal with this issue sensibly and rationally and take positive steps now, it will bite us so hard—not only us but also our children and grandchildren—that there will be widespread trauma and grief the like of which we have probably never seen before.

By nature, I am an optimist, but we cannot sit back and say that population growth is not an issue. It is an issue, and it will continue to be if we do not take steps to deal with it now. Through its foreign policy, the Australian government should make sure that the measures it supports allow for sensible family planning in countries that receive our aid. We also need to be mindful in Australia of our own population growth, and we should be having a debate about our desirable population size. We need enough people to defend ourselves and enough people to be sustainable as a society. However, I know one lovely lady who believes that it is someone's will for her to keep having children. She has eight children, she is in her mid-30s and she is going to keep going. Why? For what purpose?

The Hon. R.B. SUCH: The point is that we are aware of this issue now. Years ago people were not aware of these problems. You can pretend that there is no issue; you can pretend that there is no problem, but that will not get rid of the problem. You can fool yourself, but the problem of climate change, as well as a lot of other issues, are directly related to the number of people on the earth and the way they live. You can kid yourself as much as you like, but you will not avoid the inevitable impact that will arise from an ever-expanding population.

It might be nice to say, 'Have as many kids as you like; have as many people as you like,' but it will come back to haunt us in due course. I urge the federal government, which has responsibility, particularly in terms of this whole area of population policy, to make sure that both domestically and internationally we are actively pursuing a policy which is based on the sustainable aspects of the earth and that we do not get ourselves into the position, down the track, where we regret that we did not do something about it earlier. You cannot use some drastic solutions, because they are unacceptable, but if you allow yourself to get into that situation you will end up with something that is even worse than the Chinese solution. I commend this motion to the house, even though I know it is controversial and that a lot of people may disagree. However, when they reflect on it, I think they will find there is merit in it.

Mr KENYON (Newland) (12:56): This old chestnut comes up again. People may remember a group of people who were hanging around in the sixties or seventies called the Club of Rome. The Club of Rome suggested that the world was about to end, we were all going to starve and that we should probably buy a bunker somewhere in the hills and get a couple of shotguns. Getting a shotgun is not necessarily a bad policy but, specifically, that we should get shotguns so that we could defend ourselves against the imminent resource wars that were about to occur.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Fisher was heard with respect.

Mr KENYON: The whole point I am trying to make is that it did not happen. Imminent resource wars, starvation and world chaos did not happen. The reason they did not happen was because of technology. It was because of plant breeding and because a bunch of people sat down and thought: how can we apply technology to get around this problem?

You cannot deny that if more people exist they consume more; everybody knows that. If there are more people, more food gets eaten; that is true. If more people need to be clothed then more cotton is consumed, or alternative fibres—that is true; everybody knows that. However, the question is: how do you get around it? How do we apply technology to get around that? Millions, if not billions, of capitalists around the world are coming up with solutions continuously. Motions like the member for Fisher's completely wipe out any concept that technology may be able to make some sort of contribution to human problems.

That flies in the face of our experience over the last 2,000 years, and particularly over the last 50 or 100 years. The population has increased rapidly, as never before, in the last 50 to 100 years but, at the same time, our application of technology has increased and our ability to apply resources at the appropriate time has increased. We have had massive, incredible improvements in distribution logistical networks. It was not that long ago that it took nine months to go from England to Australia; now a container ship does it in 30 days and you can do it in less than 24 hours in an aircraft. That has had an effect.

That application of technology has had an effect on getting resources to where they are needed when they are needed. It has averted mass starvation in many cases. There have been droughts and there have been cases of starvation on a huge scale, particularly in Africa. That has happened, but it is not particularly a population problem, because they have been resolved. We know it was not a population problem, because they have been resolved; we have been able to feed those people, on the whole.

The thing that creates starvation now is not population: it is war and the chaos that goes with it. Although all of Asia was supposed to explode 30 years ago and everyone was going to starve, it did not happen. It was called the green revolution; they learnt how to feed people. This idea, brought up by the member for Fisher, that every country has a natural carrying capacity, is not true. Even if you look at farming, the carrying capacity has increased over time because of technology, because of the application of science. While that has flowed through, the idea that we have a carrying capacity of people in Australia, for instance (or any other country) is wrong. It is wrong because we can apply technology, we can apply distribution, we can apply economics and everything else to overcome these problems.

Debate adjourned.

[Sitting suspended from 13:00 to 14:00]