Page 3286 - Week 09 - Wednesday, 21 August 2019
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
In conclusion, the ACT is working on many fronts to make our environment and farms more resilient to climate change and to mitigate the future impact on our food production industries while protecting the welfare of farm animals. We can achieve this because of strong economic management. Our government has shown that you can grow the economy, help Canberrans and also protect the environment.
MRS JONES (Murrumbidgee) (3.59): I speak today in place of Ms Lawder, who is unwell. I thank Ms Le Couteur for her motion today. Regrettably, however, it is nothing new and nothing unpredictable and, like many of Ms Le Couteur’s motions—except for the completely crazy ones—this is like the curate’s egg: good in parts but not entirely good.
Ms Le Couteur should not have minced around what she was really advocating. The motion effectively says that eating meat is not good for the human race or the planet and we should all eat more vegetables; sorry; plant-based foods. I think it is more commonly known as vegetarianism, although a high proportion of plant-based eating is also obviously possible. Ms Le Couteur talks about a shift towards plant-based diets being beneficial for health outcomes. She talks about animal welfare concerns in intensive farming. She references that 12 per cent of the population is now effectively vegan. She then calls on the government to “support a shift to more plant-based foods through its operations and to support a shift more broadly in the ACT through a range of initiatives”, which she then goes on to list.
As I said at the beginning, this motion has all the hallmarks of the curate’s egg: it is not an even balance of good and bad ideas. A shift towards more vegetables and other plants in a diet has long been recognised as a sound practice, especially as one ages. The benefits include the claims that it can reduce cholesterol, aid with weight loss and reduce the risk of colorectal cancers. But it has to be said that when health experts talk about reduction of consumption of meat they are mostly referring to red meats and processed foods, so it does not apply to all meats, and with red meats it is the fatty red meats that cause most health complications if eaten in significant quantity. Chicken and pork are regarded as low-fat meats, as indeed many red meats are these days.
Moving towards eating less meat as a way to reduce weight is good, but eating less is a personal choice that does not require motions moved in here. There are people who love fresh bread, which is entirely plant-based, but you do not lose weight on a bread diet—I can attest—so weight loss is not necessarily achieved by going off meat. In any event, health experts do not advocate a definitive no-meats policy, just a sensible balanced diet. Some health experts today promote a ketogenic diet, which requires a high proportion of protein and only certain non-starch-based plant foods.
Ms Le Couteur references the animal welfare concerns related to intensive farming of animals. I think that that statement also needs to be put into perspective. Australia is still a major producer of broad scale pasture-based meat productions. Feedlots are developed in Australia largely as a response to overseas markets. Intensive production is under increasing scrutiny to ensure best animal welfare practices. Of course, here in the ACT we have a ban on intensive piggeries, so on that score the motion is not applicable.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video