Jason Falinski (Mackellar, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I am privileged in that many schools in my electorate of Mackellar choose to send their students to visit Parliament House. It is a real pleasure to meet these young kids—our future leaders of Australia—show them around Parliament House, and talk about what it is like to be a member in this place. Importantly, it gives me an opportunity to find out what matters to them and what would make a difference to their lives. I get the usual replies: they would like to see more skate parks, and they would certainly like to see less homework. I'm sure that is nothing new to other members in this place. But I'm asked one question particularly often, and that is around the testing of animals when creating cosmetic products.

The reality is that Australians haven't been testing their cosmetics on animals for a very long time. What we have done in the past is used information from animal tests done overseas when evaluating whether a specific product or ingredient is safe for us to use. The average Australian uses at least seven cosmetic products a day. That is a lot of products and ingredients to manufacture, test and bring to market. Indeed, some of my colleagues don't look this way naturally; it's the cosmetics they use every morning that help them look as good as they do now.

Even Australian-made products often use chemicals imported from different parts of the world. So it is all well and good to say, 'We don't test on animals here' but, if we use the data from overseas tests to evaluate the products we allow to market, isn't that implicitly allowing tests in the first place? That is why we are here today. This government is finally putting the regulatory framework in place to make sure we stop using any data derived from animal tests when deciding whether these cosmetic products are fit for Australian use. At the same time, we are streamlining the approval processes so that Australian businesses that manufacture, import and sell cosmetics can spend more time growing their businesses than jumping through regulatory hoops.

We are making sure that Australian consumers get as much choice in the products they want while knowing that we have not allowed these products to be tested on animals in order to be on the shelves. Currently, chemicals in Australia are regulated under a number of schemes. If a chemical is not for a therapeutic, agricultural, veterinary or food use, it is considered an industrial chemical under the existing scheme. This will not change for the new scheme. When a business wishes to introduce a medium- to high-risk industrial chemical in Australia, it will need to provide information, including data, so that the regulator can make an assessment of the risks of that chemical and provide information to promote their safe use. This maximises protections for both Australian consumers and our environment.

Our commitment to banning cosmetic testing on animals was cemented in the 2017-18 budget. This bill is the first step. We are creating the regulatory framework so that animal test data will no longer be used to support the introduction of chemicals used exclusively as cosmetic ingredients. We are replacing the Australian Industrial Chemicals Introduction Scheme with the National Industrial Chemicals Notification and Assessment Scheme and a new inventory. Six categories of introduction will be created, proportionate to the level of risk to human health and safety or the environment. Transparency will be increased, putting more choice in the hands of Australian consumers. Businesses can rest assured that the system by which the regulator evaluates any chemical is responsive, flexible and transparent. Data derived from an animal test from 1 July 2018 will be banned and disregarded when used by companies to support the introduction of a cosmetic ingredient.

We are also making sure that our framework aligns with the highest international standards. The marketplace for these ingredients is global, so harmonising the rules around them will help businesses and increase protection for consumers. It has the added benefit that the different regulators can exchange information and assessment—something that can be done only if the standards are of comparable quality.

As a Liberal, I am particularly supportive of the light-touch regulatory approach we are taking. Ham-fisted, one-size-fits-all regulations—those often favoured by my colleagues opposite—have a tendency to backfire when taken out of the Canberra bubble and applied to the real world. There is no need to apply the same regulatory burden on businesses using the lowest-risk chemicals as those choosing to use higher-risk ones. Introducers will be required to apply for assessment only for higher-risk chemicals. Overall, assessments are expected to reduce from three per cent to approximately 0.3 per cent of all new chemicals introduced. Ultimately, we are lessening annual reporting and making the introduction process much simpler and faster by providing same-day registration for introducers. This will reduce industry's annual regulatory burden by around $23 million. Companies introducing chemicals will now also be able to use relevant international risk assessments to a much greater extent, reducing double-ups and having an added benefit of adjusting our regulations to international standards—only, of course, if the risks are no higher than those we would accept here. All these changes, particularly this new stepped approach to the regulatory burdens, will encourage businesses to veer towards lower-risk chemicals. They will encourage products to be reinvented and improved—once again, more and better choices for Australian consumers.

When it comes to public and worker health and safety regulations, these reforms will continue to maintain Australia's high standards for protecting the community, workers and the environment. The executive director will be able to impose conditions on new, higher risk chemicals and refuse to allow a chemical to be introduced. He will also have more flexibility to rapidly respond to risks from new chemicals or chemicals already on the market. Modern enforcement tools will be available, and used, to ensure compliance and identify noncompliance.

I mentioned transparency a little earlier, and I come back to that. By linking the inventory listings to assessment statements, we are making more appropriate information than ever before available to Australian consumers so they can find out about the risks of any particular industrial chemical and make informed decisions. Of course, we must also protect our businesses' ability to compete in the market, so confidentiality will be protected by the use of partially masked names or use where appropriate.

Under our legislation, committed to and introduced by the Turnbull government, no section of the inventory will be confidential any longer. Thanks to the work of the Assistant Minister for Health, the member for Lyne, Dr David Gillespie, there is overwhelming support for this legislation from both sides—from animal welfare groups and from the industry. We are leading the charge, enacting legislation that has taken the European Union 10 years to legislate. We will get it done in one year.

So what's the problem? As always there is the one outlier, one black swan, one group that wants to make the perfect the enemy of the good, supported by the Greens; they would rather we end up with nothing. No masked data here. And then there is the Labor Party, refusing to come to the table and ban what Australians overwhelmingly condemn as cruel practices—because why would they help us achieve anything? Once again, they are playing politics with public policy that would actually benefit Australians. Using their traditional fear tactics, these groups are trying to scare constituents into believing their ideological opposition has merit. They claim our bill has a massive loophole that cosmetic companies will mercilessly exploit—that the companies will test their chemical ingredients on animals by listing them as multiple-use chemicals; they will sneak animal testing data past the regulator and ignore our safeguards.

This proposition is ridiculous. Cosmetic companies want to make money by selling things to people; therefore, they want to make things people will like. Why would they pursue a method of testing that is, firstly, more expensive; secondly, less appealing to the consumer; and, thirdly, more complex to achieve? In reality, the trend has been moving towards cruelty-free products for years. Most companies know their target market. They want to provide products that reflect the desire of Australian consumers to purchase cruelty-free cosmetics. People like to buy them.

The legislation specifically mentions chemicals solely for use in cosmetic products, because scientists agree that we need a safety mechanism to protect Australian consumers. It allows data provided from animal tests to be used solely as a last resort, to make sure chemicals that are used across multiple disciplines, like baby wipes or fragrances and detergents, are not harming us or our environment. These include, by the way, chemicals found in products such as paints, fabric dyes and household cleaners.

This added safeguard is all the more important when you think about the multitude of chemicals we can be exposed to each day. On any given day you could wash your hands, use a cologne or perfume, wash your face using a cleanser, and there you go: that's three chemical exposures racked up in a single day. If there is any data out there that proves any of the chemicals used in any of these products is unsafe for us to use, we would be harming our own people if we were to not take that into account. We are talking about preventing side effects ranging from skin irritations to more serious consequences of repeated exposure, like fertility and developmental issues and cancers—the list goes on and on. It doesn't mean we will allow any of that data to prove a chemical is safe to use, but, if it proves it is unsafe, how can we not protect consumers from harm?

How do people in this place not support this? How are the Greens so stuck in their own parallel universe of ideological superiority that they would rather we do nothing, disregarding what Australian consumers actually want, allowing this practice to continue implicitly, rather than supporting our package, with the added protection for consumers when it comes to multi-use chemicals? This is a good bill. It's a good reform. It's what the stakeholders, the industry and, most importantly, hardworking Australians want. Let's get it done, then I can go back to the schools in my electorate and tell them that politicians in Canberra don't just live in a bubble. They listen and they act.

See this speech in context