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

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker Southcott, and I congratulate you on your retirement and service to the country. I move:

That this House:

(1) notes that the:

(a) majority of Australians believe the use of animal testing to evaluate the safety of cosmetic products and ingredients is unnecessary; and

(b) regulatory framework in Australia for chemicals, including cosmetics, is complex; and

(2) moves to phase out the unnecessary developing, manufacturing, selling, advertising or importing into Australia of cosmetics, or ingredients in cosmetics, which have been tested on live animals to evaluate the safety of those products and ingredients.

Cosmetic testing on animals is wrong, it is barbaric, it is cruel and it is no longer necessary. 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.

It is time for modernisation and increased global harmonisation of Australia's cosmetic-testing regulations through the implementation of a cosmetics animal-testing ban. This private member's motion highlights the need to prohibit new animal testing for cosmetic products or their ingredients and the manufacture and sale of cosmetics newly tested on animals or containing newly animal tested ingredients. I would like to take this opportunity to thank Hannah Stuart from Humane Research Australia and the Choose Cruelty Free campaigners, as well as Bruce Poon from the Animal Justice Party, for bringing this issues to me and for being so passionate about protecting animals.

Testing the ingredients of cosmetics like mascara and shampoo on living creatures is completely unnecessary cruelty and it is time Australia joined the growing number of countries around the world which have banned this practice. There are already testing bans on importation and sales in place in the European Union, Norway, India and Israel. Also, a ban has recently been put in place in New Zealand and now there is consideration for legislation in the United States, Canada, Taiwan, Brazil, Vietnam and other countries. Without a comprehensive legal ban, there is nothing to prevent cosmetic animal testing taking place here in Australia or overseas during the development of products which are to be sold in Australian stores.

A ban in Australia would be good for animals, consumers and science, and it is what the overwhelming majority of Australian citizens want. A majority of Australians oppose animal testing on cosmetics and support banning the sale of newly animal tested cosmetics. Polling conducted in May 2013 by Nexus Research on behalf of Humane Research Australia found the following. An overwhelming majority of Australia—85 per cent—oppose using animals in the development of cosmetics. A large majority support a national ban on the sale of cosmetics tested on animals—that is, four out of five Australians who support a national ban. A recent opinion poll from July 2014 by Roy Morgan Research also showed a significant level of consumer concern about animal testing of cosmetics. The data revealed that there is now a strong shift towards cruelty-free beauty products, with 'not tested on animals' being one of the top three features that Australian consumers look for when buying cosmetics, ranking higher than anti-ageing benefits and sun protection factors.

Prohibiting cosmetic animal testing and the sale of newly animal-tested cosmetics in Australia would reflect both the growing global trend to end cosmetics testing and the will of the Australians who oppose using animals for the development of cosmetics. Currently, hundreds of companies, including Lush, Nature's Organics, Natio, Australis and many others, such as those listed in the CCF list, have sworn off animal testing yet still produce new, safe and fabulous beauty products. They do so by using existing ingredients with established histories of safe, state-of-the-art, non-animal tests that can produce faster, cheaper and more relevant test results. Many animal tests are decades old and have inherent, well-known scientific weaknesses due to species differences that make regulation based on animal tests highly questionable.

I will just describe some of the tests and the results. In the acute toxicity test, the test substance is forced down a rat's throat using a syringe. Animals may experience diarrhoea, convulsions, bleeding from the mouth, seizures, paralysis and, ultimately, death. In repeated dose toxicity tests, rats and mice are force-fed a substance every day for 28 to 90 days. At the end of the experiment, the animals are killed and their organs are then examined. In the skin allergy test, the test substance is applied to the surface of the skin, or it is injected into the ears of guinea pigs or applied to the ears of mice. They end up getting ulcers, scaling, inflammation and itchiness.

This must stop. It must stop now, and I strongly encourage the Australian government to end this practice.

Andrew Southcott (Boothby, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the motion seconded?

Steve Irons (Swan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.

Clare O'Neil (Hotham, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I really do want to thank the member for La Trobe for taking the trouble to put forward this motion for the House to discuss. It is a really important issue and, I know, a subject of real passion for him. I fully support the motion that the member for La Trobe has put forward. I believe that testing on animals for cosmetic purposes should be banned in Australia, and I believe that because Australia has responsibilities beyond our borders we should also ban the sale, the marketing and the production of cosmetics in our country that have been tested on animals. I hold this view because I believe that testing on animals for cosmetic purposes is fundamentally unethical. I think there are some debates that we can have around the borders of the ethics regarding animal cruelty as to what can and cannot be justified, but the notion that we would put our quest for beauty as humans ahead of the rights of animals to live without pain is fundamentally incorrect. The idea that animals should die in pain so that we can have better lipstick or better moisturiser for our skin is fundamentally wrong.

I hold that view, and it is important to point out in debates like this that so do the vast majority of Australians. We know that somewhere around 85 per cent of women—who are the primary users of cosmetics—and around 80 per cent of Australians overall support a ban on the testing of cosmetics on animals. We can argue very passionately about these subjects in the House, as we often do, but as policymakers we do not do any favours to the public unless we recognise the complexities that are inherent in the regulation of this sort of issue. There are lots of community values that we have, but putting them into law is not always as straightforward as it sounds. That is what Tanya Plibersek and Bill Shorten had in mind last year when they asked me to run a national consultation in to the banning of cosmetics tested on animals in Australia to try to understand what some of those issues are and get to the bottom of whether this is possible and what the best legislative means would be.

Running this national consultation was really an extraordinary experience. We met with stakeholders, animal rights groups, cosmetic manufacturers and scientists—people from all over the country who have a view on this type of issue. We held public forums in six capital cities, where we spoke to hundreds of Australians about their beliefs. One of the best parts of this was that we enabled ordinary Australians to make submissions to this inquiry, and we received 14,000 submissions—14,000 people around this country put their names forward and put forward their views and ideas about this important issue. Just for reference, the Gonski review—this incredibly fundamental reform which will change how our schools are funded—received about 7,000 submissions. That just gives you a sense of how strongly so many Australians feel about this.

When we look at what came out of the national consultation—there is a report which I will put up online if people are interested to see it—firstly, it is crystal clear that there is a strong view in the community that this practice is unjustified. That support is growing over time. Some of the things that the member for La Trobe pointed out are absolutely correct. There is a view among scientists that animal testing is not really telling us much more than we can get from other tests. There are lots of issues with inferring results that we see in animal testing onto humans. Something else that I heard from a lot of people was that some people who argue against this process say, 'You could just look at the ingredients on the back of packages in supermarkets,' but that is not what consumers want. They do not want to have to reflect on ethics every time they go into the supermarket aisle get some toothpaste; they just want the law to reflect their values and I believe that that is possible.

It is important to note that the notion of applying this retrospectively was not supported by anyone that we consulted with. Even the animal welfare activists said to us that if we banned cosmetics that had already been tested on animals, those animals would have died for nothing. It is important, I think, that we maintain that principle when we talk with scientists and cosmetics companies about this. Very well-informed people from around Australia pointed out to us that this ban is absolutely possible because it has been done elsewhere around the world. The European Union is the largest organisation of governments so far to ban cosmetics tested on animals. They have shown that it is possible and so it cannot be beyond us here in Australia.

Finally, I would just say that it was a fantastic experience running this consultation. We saw that when we gave the public the chance to give their views they really stepped up to the plate; they took account of the complexities of the facts and they still ended up with this very strong view that cosmetics tested on animals should be banned, and I do support that. (Time expired)

Steve Irons (Swan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to join with my colleagues the member for La Trobe, the member for Hotham and the member for Scullin in supporting this motion, that the majority of Australians believe the use of animal testing to evaluate the safety of cosmetic products and ingredients is unnecessary. It was interesting to hear that the member for Hotham has run an inquiry and forums around Australia and the amount of submissions—14,000 submissions—received does show that Australians are very passionate about this. I must admit that, when I came into my office this morning, I had received an email that was sent yesterday from someone in my electorate, talking about animal-testing use for cosmetic production. I thought they must have seen the speakers' list, because I have not spoken about this issue before. It is obviously an issue that a lot of people in Australia, and particularly in my electorate, are passionate about.

It is good to see the member for Hotham has taken that report. I do not know whether the report has ever been tabled or whether she would like to share it, but it would be fantastic so that we could use it in a bipartisan approach to move this issue forward. It was also interesting to hear the member for Latrobe talk about the majority of Australians opposing animals being used for the development of cosmetics, from the Roy Morgan and the Nexus polls. That, again, supports the argument that this should be banned in Australia and it should not be allowed.

On the RSPCA website it states that many people believe that animal testing in cosmetics is a thing of the past, but the sad truth is that thousands of animals worldwide still suffer in the name of beauty. An estimated 27,000 animals are still being used for cosmetics testing across the world. This includes the use of mice, rats and rabbits in tests which can cause pain and distress.    The Assistant Minister for Health is currently considering options to phase-out the use of animal testing data for the introduction of new chemicals in Australia for use in cosmetics.

While cosmetic companies do not test their products on animals here in Australia, many well-known brands do test their products or ingredients on animals elsewhere in the world, which then end up on our shelves for sale. There is much debate surrounding a need for legislative change to this, which is fantastic, but we think cosmetic products that have been tested on animals should not be sold anywhere in the world at all.

In parallel the government continues to work towards reducing the need for animal testing in the regulation of cosmetic ingredients, whilst protecting Australian consumers. There are already more than 20,000 chemical ingredients available to producers of cosmetic products that are considered to be safe, so there is no excuse for any more animals to suffer. Consumers can play a big part in this. Consumers can call on top national and international cosmetic companies to commit to not use animals to develop new products or ingredients, to no longer market products in countries where animal testing is a requirement and to help further development of humane alternative testing methods. Doing these three things will prevent future unnecessary suffering of thousands of animals every year. As I said before, as the consumer you have the power to encourage these companies to change their ways. It is time to take a stand and make sure no new cosmetic products or ingredients are tested on any animal anywhere in the world.

During the 2014 autumn sittings, the Australian Greens introduced a bill to amend the Industrial Chemicals (Notification and Assessment) Act 1989, the ICNA Act. The End Cruel Cosmetics Bill 2014 seeks to amend the ICNA Act to prohibit developing, manufacturing, selling, advertising or importing into Australia any cosmetics or ingredients for cosmetics which have been tested on animals. The government is currently considering the implications of the bill and the National Industrial Chemicals Notification and Assessment Scheme is committed to reducing the use of animals for testing chemicals in cosmetics. For health effects which have validated non-animal tests such as skin and eye irritation, NICNAS accepts this information instead of animal testing results. NICNAS accepts the results of the test that meet internationally agreed standards and does not require tests including those using animals that have already been undertaken overseas to be repeated in Australia.

In finishing my speech, again I applaud the member for La Trobe, the member for Hotham and the member for Scullin for taking up this issue, talking about it in this place and moving it further forward. Again, I was really surprised by going on to the site that showed all the countries that still use animals in developing cosmetics. People should make themselves aware of that. I support this motion.

Andrew Giles (Scullin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

When I was first elected as member for Scullin, something that really surprised me was the depth of feeling right across the Scullin electorate on issues of animal welfare. It continues to amaze me how often I receive correspondence around the full gamut of issues which go to concerns about the treatment of animals in Australia and overseas. In particular there has obviously been a focus on concerns expressed in respect of the live export industry, but the concerns go across the full spectrum and I think they show that across the communities I represent—and this is a pattern which is consistent right across the Scullin electorate, from Hurstbridge to Thomastown—we, in this place, ensure that we do give a voice to prevent suffering for those who are otherwise voiceless if we do not take that action. I think that is particularly important in the case of a motion such as this, when the suffering is on any of you, entirely unnecessary, as I think the member for Hotham expressed with characteristic clarity.

I am very pleased to be able to support the motion moved by the member for La Trobe today and to join with the member for Hotham and the member for Swan in doing so. I think it is important that, in this place, we give expression to issues that are so important to so many of our constituents and do so in a bipartisan manner, where we can look at the evidence, look at the moral framework around this issue and step forward, hopefully, as one parliament. In doing so, I do hope that members opposite—and I know the member for Swan touched on this quite generously in his contribution—pay heed to the work that has been done by the member for Hotham at the request of the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, because I think the consultation she touched upon in her contribution should be more widely read. It is not a particularly partisan document but it does express two really important things: (1) the depth of interest right across the Australian community in these concerns—six well-attended forums and 14,000 submissions received—and (2) the fact that she has also worked through, with the benefit of these contributions, some of the complexities that go to really dealing with these concerns in an effective way. She has not simply introduced a private senator's bill for the sake of it; she has tried to tidy up all the regulatory issues and all the practical concerns to give effect to the values that this motion expresses.

I think this goes perhaps to a couple of wider concerns and, for my part, I would like to acknowledge the importance of the advocacy of groups like Animals Australia and World Animal Protection in bringing together concerned citizens to aggregate and articulate these concerns effectively. It is critical, in my mind, that we build together a confidence that formal politics, not just community activism, can make these concerns, which are so genuinely and passionately felt, something that not only drives conversations in the community but drives real outcomes in this parliament and works through these issues, where appropriate, with industry and manages the parliamentary process and the process of government to bring it better in line with the legitimate expectations of the Australian people.

On that point, the member for Swan touched upon the role of consumers, and this, of course, is important. But labelling and consumer awareness can only take us so far. It is a responsibility of this parliament and the Australian government to do more. I think, with the very limited time that is available to me, I should make clear how pleased I am to be able to support this motion. I thank the member for La Trobe for putting it on the Notice Paper. I am very pleased to stand with the overwhelming majority of the Australian community and trust that the assistant minister will do likewise in the very near future.

Debate adjourned.