Page 3287 - Week 09 - Wednesday, 21 August 2019
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
I trust that Ms Le Couteur’s motion is not an attempt to shame meat eaters into abandoning their eating habits. Some people would have nothing left to eat if they could not eat meat. I trust that she is also not trying to drive out of business the numerous beef and sheep producers here in the ACT who supply meat to our area. We have numerous viable small operators in the region and their livelihoods depend on continuing demand for their products from local consumers, be they families, restaurants or cafes. If her response to this would be that they can instead grow vegetables, that demonstrates an even poorer understanding of agriculture. The land around Canberra is largely unsuitable for vegetable production, save for a small number of plots that have access to significant water supply and endless inputs of nutrients. And what of the struggling butchers who battle daily against the supermarket chains for business? They should continue to do their work too.
It is important that good eating habits are taught at an early age, but I trust that Ms Le Couteur’s call to action about what is taught in our schools will not lead students to falsely believing that a carnivorous diet is wrong or somehow unethical. Ms Le Couteur also proposes that ACT Health promotion programs including healthier choices Canberra et cetera be updated to better support plant-based foods. But why should they? Why should meats not be considered part of a healthy diet? The program provides a considerable amount of guidance already. Businesses can choose to use their healthy options logo on their menus if they want, and people can be guided by those logos to make their own choices.
Why does the government continue to treat its citizens as unable to make their own intelligent food decisions? People can work out without prompting that a chicken or a chickpea salad are healthier options than a double Big Mac burger with cheese and fried onions. They just might prefer to eat the Big Mac, and that is their choice.
If you or anyone else chooses to be a vegan, that is fine; it is your choice. Some of my best friends are vegan. But do not come in here and lecture those of us who do eat meat, believing it to be good, that somehow by doing so we are damaging the planet and killing the world.
If we were to produce a hundred per cent of our food from vegetables, this planet could not support the people who are living on it now. Evolution provides us with canine teeth for a very sound reason: to eat meat. As to providing better options at public events—and even having only plant foods, because Ms Le Couteur says people will eat them when they are offered—yes, people will eat plant-based foods if that is all there is to eat. But it does not necessarily mean that it is their preference. It is called availability. If a function provides only vegetarian food, non-vegetarians will of course eat it. That does not in any way suggest a preference for that food. It is simply a matter of availability that drives such consumption.
In all the invitations that come across my desk, I cannot recall one that does not make reference to dietary requirements and asking for information about preferred food types. There are genuine problems in our health and custodial facilities here; until recently the food at TCH needed serious work. The prison has a very significant set of issues, but increasing vegetarian options is not the most important issue right now.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video