Andrew Bartlett (Queensland, Australian Democrats) Share this | Hansard source

Great dinners, Senator Evans—wonderful stuff! The issue here, though, is not to try and impose a moral code on people. I should also note that, even though I am a patron of that society, I am not vegan and I am actually wearing leather shoes at the moment. So there is full disclosure going on here. The issue is about knowledge and choice. These are issues that are of concern and interest to many people. I would argue, as we have greater awareness about the environmental impacts of every aspect of our behaviour and the greenhouse impacts of every aspect of our behaviour, including our food consumption, that people will become more and more interested in how their food is produced and whether or not it contains animal derived products. I believe the public should be provided with information that lets them decide whether the food product is what they want and how they want to spend their money. Australians have a right to make informed choices and to take a personal stand against animal suffering with each dollar they spend at the supermarket. I have said previously that this not only enables them to make a more informed choice but also provides direct incentives for producers to, I would argue, expand market opportunities for them, for the growing band of consumers who take these issues into account in choosing what they buy in the area of food.

I am raising this issue at this stage, taking the opportunity of the second reading debate on this legislation, not to put forward amendments at this stage or anything like that but really to just open up the issue for wider consideration by the community, by the parliament, by the food standards authority. As I said, a lot of the issues and the greater detail are contained in that report put out by the Voiceless organisation. It is one that I think does need further consideration. It would need a lot of thought for it to be done properly and effectively in a way that did not create a lot of unnecessary costs on producers. But I would also argue that having a single, standardised, clear and enforceable national standard may actually assist producers and may assist in efficiency, compared with a lot of varied, imprecise, voluntary based and unenforceable regulatory regimes, which can actually provide people who are less scrupulous and more willing to be misleading with opportunities to exploit market opportunities that really they have no right to.

I leave my remarks for the pondering of the Senate and the wider community. These are issues that I will continue to raise in the future. I also seek leave to incorporate the speech of Senator Allison so we can get on to the committee stage of the debate.

Leave granted.