Ex Australian Democrats Senator for South Australia Sandra Kanck has called for Australia to adopt a “one-child” policy for reason of environmental stability.
The ex-MP, who championed euthanasia and abortion legislation, when in Parliament, heads a group called Sustainable Population Australia Inc.
This group Aims and Objectives are:
* To contribute to public awareness of the limits of Australian population growth from ecological, social and economic viewpoints.
* To promote awareness that the survival of an ecologically sustainable population depends on its renewable resource base.
* To help promote policies that will initially lead to stabilisation of Australia’s population by encouraging near replacement fertility rates and low immigration rates.
* To promote urban and rural lifestyles and practices that are in harmony with the realities of the Australian environment, its resource base and its biodiversity.
* To advocate low immigration rates while rejecting any selection based on race.
* To help promote policies that will lead to the stabilisation, then reduction of global population.
Population reduction policies are necessary if we are to see a sustainable future. But what sort? Do the aims justify means such as one-child policies?
We know from the Chinese experience that negative values ascribed to females, and to people who have a disability, are hard to separate from such policies.
It seems unfortunate that Ms Kanck should have been the person to publicly advocate a one-policy. A sustainable world needs caring values that model acceptance of diversity, limits and interdependence.
Such values are difficult to separate from the other pet policies she stood for when in Parliament. So how can we separate prominent people like Ms Kanck from what Sustainable Population Australia Inc stands for?
I look forward to their voice on this issue.
Source:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/04/22/2549917.htm
