Jason Wood (La Trobe, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

As Abraham Lincoln once said:

I am in favour of animal rights as well as human rights. That is the way of a whole human being.

What we no longer want to see are those terrible videos of mice and rabbits having chemicals dropped into their eyes, or rashes all over their skin, just so we can show that it's safe to use a mascara or lipstick. Carolyn Sugden, a local woman in my electorate of La Trobe who refers to herself as 'the crazy bunny lady', contacted me a number of years ago to discuss the importance of banning cosmetic testing on animals. My sincere thanks to Carolyn and all those local residents who have been advocating strongly on this issue for so many years. A commitment we announced at the last federal election was actually Carolyn's rabbit runaway orphanage. Our commitment was to ban cosmetic testing on animals in line with EU regulations. We committed to having a bill introduced in July of this year, a commitment which we have met. I would like to take this opportunity to thank Assistant Minister David Gillespie, and Bruce Poon, Najree Walsh and Leah Folloni from the Animal Justice Party, who have worked closely on this issue over the last 12 months.

The Industrial Chemicals Bill 2017 and associated bills highlight the need to prohibit new animal testing for cosmetics products or their ingredients and the manufacture and sale of cosmetics newly tested on animals, or containing newly animal-tested ingredients. This is a package of six extensive bills to reform industrial chemicals regulation. It includes a ban on the use of data derived from animal tests from 1 July 2018 to support the introduction of a cosmetic ingredient, increased international harmonisation and greater use of international assessments from compatible regulators, and a continuation of Australia's obligations under certain international agreements. This ban will apply on the use of animal testing for more than 99 per cent of cosmetic ingredients introduced into Australia. The remaining less than one per cent is in circumstances where these chemicals are also used in other industries. This information is critical to ensure the protection of consumers, the public and workers, and the environment. Can I say to the House that NICNAS would not support this legislation unless it had that safeguard in there. Either we have this safeguard, or we don't have legislation.

Testing the ingredients of cosmetics like mascara and shampoo on living creatures is unnecessary cruelty. I'm happy to say that Australia is now joining the EU in its approach to this issue. I'm proud to say that Australia is now the world leader in this space. Comparatively to the EU, we are now banning the sale and import of cosmetics and ingredients developed specifically for use in cosmetics, just as they have. However, we will be doing the same in a much shorter period of time—one year versus 10 years, as it is in the EU. While I understand that no cosmetics products are currently tested on animals in Australia, it is important to remember that without a legal ban there is nothing to prevent this happening in the future, particularly when it comes to developing products in Australia for use in countries such as China, which requires cosmetic testing on animals if it's sold in a chemist or a shopping centre.

A ban in Australia is good for animals, consumers and science, and it's what the overwhelming majority of Australian citizens want. 'Not tested on animals' is one of the top three features that Australian female consumers look for when buying cosmetics, ranking higher than anti-ageing benefits and sun protection factors. It is important to understand that when we are talking about cosmetics, it's not just mascara and lipstick. Cosmetics are used as everyday products. In oral hygiene, there is mouthwash and toothpaste. For soaps and deodorants, there are antiperspirants, bath gels, body washes, antibacterial handwash, shampoos and conditioners. In make-up and beauty, think of nail polish, mascara, hair dyes and perfumes—so it's very broad. For skincare, it includes skin cleansing, acne washers, secondary sun protection products with an SPF of 15 or below, lip care creams, anti-ageing creams, moisturisers, shaving creams and, surprisingly for many, some baby care and hygiene products.

Unfortunately, it has come to our attention that some false and misleading information has been spread in the community regarding this legislation, and sadly the Labor Party has completely gobbled this up. A media release was issued by the Humane Society International on 12 May 2016 which was factually incorrect and misleading and lumped Australia into the same category as countries like New Zealand, who have a ban only on testing animals within the country. When Senator Anne Ruston and I first saw this media release, we stopped the legislation going into the coalition party room, because I was shocked to read that it wouldn't cover most of the products, but it soon became apparent that, sadly, the intention was to mislead the public and also the Labor Party and other political parties.

Australia's ban doesn't allow any data to prove the health and humane safety of any ingredients that are used solely for cosmetics inside or outside Australia. It is allowed in only as a last resort if absolutely necessary for multipurpose chemicals. For example, you may have data which could be determined in previous years in a product which may have been in Australia for a number of years. In Germany, for example, scientists may be concerned that it could have carcinogenic effects on customers, so the data could potentially be used in Australia as a very last resort to ensure Australian safety. Personally I would prefer to have the 100 per cent ban, but there's no way this could actually be in place unless we had that safeguard.

Let's be clear: the media release issued by HIS paints a picture where there is a giant loophole rather than a tightly worded safety mechanism in place. We now know that, when we actually look at 2014-15 NICNAS figures, 4,269 new chemicals were introduced for cosmetic use in Australia, and out of that, even prior to this legislation, only three products had been tested on animals. This in the future will be completely banned. When it comes to chemicals with multiple uses, there were 2,889 chemicals, of which 11 actually had dual uses. So in total, of 7,158 new chemicals introduced in 2014-15, 15 chemicals were used with animal data.

I also make this very strong point: Australian customers do not want to see products tested on animals. If it were a selling point, companies would be proudly trying to sell products tested on animals. It's simply going out of date. This legislation is very symbolic, though, to send a clear message to the world that Australia is doing their bit. The other reason we've had Labor ridiculously opposing this bill is that they've been misled, as I said, by HIS again in saying that our legislation does not meet the same standards as the EU ban, and this has been floating around. However, we now have confirmation in writing from Geert Dancet, the executive director of the European Chemicals Agency, that the functions of the EU regulations match the functions of our legislation before the House today. Sadly, we're potentially having Labor and the Greens lining up with Senator David Leyonhjelm, who we all know is absolutely supportive of chemical testing on animals. How bizarre would that be? I strongly argue for the ban and passionately believe we don't want to see products tested on animals.

The situation at the moment is that either we get something that will exclude 99.9 per cent of all cosmetic ingredients tested on animals—this is advice from the Department of Health—or we reject the bill and we don't get any protection against cosmetic testing on animals. I acknowledge and thank the shadow assistant minister for saying that Labor would not be opposing amendments being put forward. The truly sad aspect of this is that if this bill were opposed, that would mean in the future, in Australia, people and companies would be able to test ingredients on animals and also to allow chemicals which have been tested on animals to come into Australia. We definitely don't want that. Australia and the Turnbull government are taking a very firm approach on this. If you compare it with the EU, their implementation will take place over 10 years; ours will take place over a period of 12 months. Australia will be taking a huge lead and will be used as a benchmark. Earlier I referred to New Zealand. New Zealand has a ban in place locally, but it will still allow other products from right around the world to be imported.

See this speech in context