David Gillespie (Lyne, National Party, Assistant Minister for Health) Share this | Hansard source

I would like to thank the member for Makin for his comments. Just a brief word about the current system and the exempt category. Many of the opponents who have formed this opinion were of the mistaken understanding that this is creating an exempt category. As I mentioned in my speech, there is already an exempt category where 97 per cent of the chemicals that come into Australia are in the exempt category. What happens under the current scheme, though, which this new scheme is going to replace, is that it's very subjective. The introducers decide what is classed as exempted. We have changed that. There are very strict, objective criteria—not subjective and under the control of the introducer, as in, 'Trust us, we know this will be safe.' The regulator, or the executive director, sets exact criteria that they have to match. Many of these are very low volume substances that are in research and development, and some of them have very safe profiles because they are established chemicals that are known to be very safe and they are meeting the criteria that the new scheme sets.

The other comment that the member for Makin made is that we should make it better. Well, indeed, that is exactly the intention of this new objective set of criteria—to make the system better. Because no longer will they be able to just bring something in and say, 'Trust us.' In fact, if you look at some of the responses across the five community consultation papers, many of the industry people thought, 'You're making it harder for us.' As the member for Makin has told me in our six consultations—that's good, if you are getting pushback from industry. So, I am very confident that that exempt category will be a very tight category, and they will have to meet all those criteria. Then the second thing that's making it better is that the executive director has much more power to investigate, remove and assess immediately when there is any concern. Part of the system is currently very slow and laborious to get some intervention by NICNAS. For the regulatory and civil penalties, there are much stronger enforcement, investigation and assessment powers so that the community and the general public can be reassured that the regulation is tighter but it's proportionate to the risk. There's even a touch of paranoia in some of the comments that have been circulating in correspondence coming in and out of our office about the animal testing.

That's the last thing I would like to make a comment on. This is a major improvement. Ninety-nine per cent of animal testing for cosmetics—going forward from 2018, if you are bringing in a chemical purely for cosmetics, it won't be allowed. However, in the 1 per cent of cases where it's really important to know that chemical which is used in multiple things—because not every product has one chemical in it, and most products have lots of chemicals, and it's very important for people who are exposed to chemicals. As I mentioned to the member for Makin, in my career as an industrial cleaner and a hospital cleaner I was exposed to hundreds of solvents and various industrial solutions that had very little product information.

The jurisdictions have a place in this as well. It is a very robust system that we have. In an attempt to get absolute philosophical purity, those opposite are going to miss out on achieving a 99 per cent improvement and better regulation to prevent unnecessary testing on animals. This is better than jurisdictions across the Tasman Sea. As I mentioned, we have confirmation that we're in keeping with what they do in the European Union. We are as good as any other jurisdiction. I commend the bill to the House.

See this speech in context