Operation Emu: Sedate, Confuse, Repeat

As the Historic Parliament of Australia (HPoA) reconvened to tackle the growing emu crisis, delegates were met not with clarity or coordination — but with a fog of confusion, conflicting information, and questionable suggestions.

One of the clearest signs of dysfunction was the constant cross-communication. Participation was limited to a familiar set of voices, attempts at meaningful conversation were quickly derailed by disorder. The Chair’s calls for order often went ignored, as the room circled around the same arguments without landing on a real solution. When the General Speaker’s List (GSL) finally opened, only the delegate portraying John Greig Latham voluntarily stepped up to speak. The rest of the list had to be filled by the Chair, as most delegates showed little interest in taking the floor — a clear sign of the committee’s sluggish momentum.

A delegate suggested the use of sedatives in crops to subdue the emus-the same crops that eventually make their way into the human food chain. The idea raised immediate concerns. John Gregg Latham pointed out that if people are too scared to enter emu-infested zones, planting sedative-laced food safely would be nearly impossible.. The plan posed obvious risks to human health and lacked any real practicality — yet it remained on the table longer than it probably should have.

Chemical solutions brought even more controversy. Organophosphates — a type of insecticide — were repeatedly brought up as a possible control method. However, several delegates seemed unclear on the science. Joseph Lyons incorrectly referred to organophosphates as “pesticides,” a claim later corrected in-session. Still, the core issue wasn’t terminology — it was toxicity. These chemicals, while effective on insects, are known to be highly dangerous to aquatic and human life if they contaminate water sources. Delegate Sir Walter Massy further warned that farmers exposed to these substances could suffer serious side effects, including respiratory and lung problems. The room seemed split — between urgency and recklessness.

Meanwhile, William Carroll proposed a bounty-like approach: higher pay for more kills. While it sounded effective on paper, John Gregg Latham quickly flagged the risk. The delegate warned that increasing the bounty could shift focus away from solving the crisis, as individuals might prioritize entering emu-heavy zones purely for profit — potentially ignoring regions with smaller, yet still significant, emu populations. The unintended consequences of this proposal cast serious doubt on its feasibility, bringing a rare long-term perspective.

As the session wrapped up, the takeaway was clear: the HPoA is nowhere near a unified plan. With public health risks, ecological concerns, and conflicting strategies on the table, the emus may be running wild — but it’s the Parliament itself that’s truly out of control.

Jusdrin K. Andieman

CNN