Page 3290 - Week 09 - Wednesday, 21 August 2019
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Minister Gentleman spoke about respecting diversity. He is absolutely right. It is very clear that in our world today there are people with a series of quite serious allergies and we need to be very mindful of those to ensure that people do not have inappropriate and dangerous reactions. People have religious and cultural bases on which they make dietary choices.
What Ms Le Couteur’s proposal seeks to do is make sure that options are available for people that choose not to have an impact on our planet. She also seeks to increase awareness, because we have scientific imperatives to make a difference here. I ask members to read more carefully what was on the notice paper and listen more carefully to Ms Le Couteur’s remarks.
Let me close with this: one of the co-chairs of the IPCC, Hans-Otto Portner, summed up extremely well the point we are trying to make today. He said:
We do not want to tell people what to eat, but it would indeed be beneficial, for both the climate and human health, if people in many rich countries consumed less meat, and if politics would create appropriate incentives to that effect.
That is the central premise of what Ms Le Couteur is talking about today and I invite members to reflect on that, because as well as the environmental benefits there are significant co-benefits of improved health outcomes and animal welfare. They are things that we can take positive and proactive steps to achieve.
MS CODY (Murrumbidgee) (4.13): I have received this advice sometimes, but today I get to use it. It is wise to stop and think before you leap. And that may be the case today. Ms Le Couteur’s motion, as written, would kill me. I am sure that is not her intention. At least, I hope not. But this motion, as written, would not allow many other people like me with food allergies any options. I cannot eat vegetables; I cannot eat fruits; I cannot eat nuts; and I cannot eat other plant-based food products. They literally will harm me. I have to carry an EpiPen everywhere I go. I do not have a choice. I hear references were made to my absence yesterday. Unfortunately, it was caused by some less than accurate food labelling or handling. I am not sure which.
The Greens got some lovely virtue signalling yesterday in the media with this motion. Its deadly content is not virtuous at all. But I am not opposing this motion for the selfish reason of wanting to stay alive. I am also opposed to the implications in the motion. The religious practices of many people include the use of animals and animal products. In some cases this is ritual animal sacrifice.
As Mr Gentlemen pointed out, milk also plays an important part for some in our community. As for insisting that plant-based foods are the default option in hospital, I think this is a matter for the health professionals who are caring for those of us who spend our time in hospitals, not for us here with little or no medical expertise.
Canberra is a multicultural society. We are a tolerant society. The Assembly should and does protect those values. I absolutely respect the rights of vegans in our community to practise their beliefs but I intend to vote against this motion. I note that
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video