Peter Khalil (Wills, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on this package of industrial chemicals legislation. I'll keep my remarks brief, but I was moved to participate in this debate as some elements of the bills which relate to animal welfare are quite significant and, I believe, warrant acknowledgement.

As previous speakers have touched on, including the member for Makin, these bills establish the legislative framework for the Australia Industrial Chemicals Introduction Scheme, which will replace the National Industrial Chemicals Notification and Assessment Scheme. The latter scheme, NICNAS, is currently responsible for regulating the introduction of industrial chemicals in Australia, whether by importation or manufacture. Under the new scheme, a risk based approach to the regulation of industrial chemicals will be implemented. Significantly, this means that there will be less emphasis on pre-introduction assessment of lower-risk new chemicals and a greater focus on post-introduction evaluation and monitoring. Whilst the government is telling us that this approach will enable the regulator to focus on higher-risk chemicals and that it will encourage businesses to use lower-risk chemicals, I think greater assurance is needed as to whether the right balance has, in fact, been struck.

These reforms are extremely complex, and much of the technical detail will be enacted through regulations yet to be drafted. But there are a number of concerns as to whether the reduction in cost to businesses has been prioritised over health and environmental outcomes. The process that has brought this bill to the House for consideration is also extremely concerning, from our perspective, given that the bills were introduced whilst consultation was still ongoing. Even stakeholders from industry, who are broadly supportive of the bill, accept that further consultation will be needed, and many have highlighted technical concerns which still need to be resolved.

As we've heard from the previous speakers in the debate, the bills were referred to the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee. The Senate inquiry process was going to be rushed as well, with the closing date for submissions being a mere seven days after the opening date. Given the complex nature of these bills, this narrow time frame for consultation was manifestly inadequate, and I'm pleased that the Labor senators were successful in their push for extensions of time for submissions and to for enough time to be allowed for a public hearing to be held. During those public hearings, a wide range of stakeholders, including unions and health and environmental groups, all flagged significant concerns. These related mostly to the focus on the reforms on the reduction of red tape and the failure to convince them that, in pursuing this reduction in red tape, health and environmental outcomes would not be compromised.

One area of particular concern to my constituency in the electorate of Wills has been the apparent loopholes in this proposed legislation identified by a number of animal-welfare groups, which is, to be direct, well below the standards set by the Ethical Cosmetics Bill 2016, which Labor introduced over a year ago. The animal-welfare sector raised these concerns—specifically, that the ban on the use of animal-test data for cosmetics has been drafted to be very narrow. In its current form, it seemingly contains a loophole which would allow animal-test data to be used where industrial chemicals are introduced for multiple end use. I'm pleased to note that Labor intends to introduce several amendments to tackle significant stakeholder concerns and improve these bills, in particular in relation to the animal-welfare concerns that have been raised. Labor's amendments will ensure that the cosmetics animal-testing ban applies to all introductions for cosmetic use, thereby closing the loopholes that I've referred to.

There are a number of further amendments we propose to move. They include requiring an annual post-introduction report with the name, volume and date of introduction of the industrial chemical for chemicals introduced via the exempted introduction category. Labor notes assurances given by the minister that the government will continue the work of the regulator to evaluate unassessed chemicals on the register and to ensure that the regulator tracks and reports on the status of actions taken by risk managers in response to recommendations from the regulator. We believe that our package of amendments will not be onerous on industry but will actually provide a more balanced approach with better health, environment and animal-welfare protections.

It is important to highlight that the government has dropped the ball in prosecuting the case for these reforms. While this type of legislation can be complex and often quite exhausting to examine, it is of the utmost importance that the legislation is passed in an acceptable form, given that the consequences of failure in the chemical regulatory system can be extremely severe.

I commend to the House the amendments moved by the member for Makin, which recognise the concerns relating to cosmetic testing on animals and go some long way to reshaping this legislation with due consideration to the concerns raised by all of the stakeholders.

Karen Andrews (McPherson, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Vocational Education and Skills) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is my pleasure to speak on this bill. I will, however, be quite brief on this. It is important that we take notice of the bill that is before the House and discuss it in detail and give it the respect and consideration that it is due before this chamber. The bill that is currently before the House is the Industrial Chemicals Bill 2017. The minister, in introducing the bill to the House, went through in great detail the key parts of the bill. So there are probably only a couple of points that I would like to add today. I will quote from the second reading speech, because it's important:

Industrial chemicals play an essential role in everyday life—they are in paints and petrol, and are used in the production of a wide range of consumer goods and products such as cosmetics, dyes, cleaners and plastics. They are also an integral part of Australian industry and are extensively used in mining, manufacturing, and the building and construction industry. But they can also present risks to human health, worker safety and the environment that require management through fit-for-purpose regulation.

I would like to associate myself with the minister's second reading speech for this bill, and I commend the bill to the House.

Jason Falinski (Mackellar, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to 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.

Steve Georganas (Hindmarsh, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Before I start, I thank the member for McPherson for jumping to her feet and filling the gap while we were waiting for the member for Mackellar to come in. This is an important bill. It's a bill that fast-tracks industrial chemicals, and that has benefits. It assists some of those companies that are producing particular industrial chemicals to get their product onto the market quickly so that they can compete with overseas competitors. So it's a good thing. But we need to ensure that we fill some of the gaping holes that are in it. We heard the member for Makin say earlier that he will be moving some amendments and that there are some flaws in the bill, even though this side of the House will be supporting most of it.

The things that are lacking in this bill are, basically, the ability to create a register that tells us where the chemicals are being used, who is using the chemicals, how much of the chemicals are being used, and at what times over a period of time. Currently, companies must maintain records, so we are asking: why not just pass that record on for future governments, for future agencies, to be able to tackle any issues that perhaps arise in the future? Looking back in history, there are many products that were deemed to be very safe, but today we know of their long-term massive health effects on human beings. One of them that comes to mind, and I am sure everyone is aware of it, is asbestos. For many years we used this particular product in everything from buildings to paints—you name it—thinking it was safe. Then, years later, we discovered it was a very unsafe product and actually kills people. Another one is tobacco. For many years people thought it did no harm to your health—even though it is a different type of chemical to the ones we are talking about here—but we now know that it, too, kills people.

For us to get to the results and a final admission of danger to human life, it took many years. With asbestos, even today it can be in the body for years before tests show someone is affected. Therefore, we are saying there should be some form of register with an agency. There could be issues to do with ensuring that that register is used to track when issues do come up, when things go wrong in the future—and let's hope they don't—so that they can go back and know who has worked with that particular product, what sort of work has been done, where it has happened and what needs to be done.

A great example of this really important issue, something that resonates with many in the community, includes former firefighters and others in my electorate. My electorate has the airport in the middle of it, and firefighters use dangerous chemicals. For many years they were testing foams for emergency use at the airport. They were all told it was safe many years ago. They were told it was safe; they wore safety equipment. But now we know that it was very unsafe. These chemicals have seeped into the ground. They seep into the bloodstream of people working with them. I'm really glad that ABC's Four Corners recently raised this issue. They raised the issue of contamination around airports and RAAF bases all around Australia. Today we know that people who worked with those chemicals have had some adverse effects.

I first raised this matter in this place early last year, following a visit to my electorate office from some very concerned firefighters who had worked with chemicals at Adelaide Airport. We know it's not just limited to Adelaide Airport; there's Edinburgh in the northern suburbs of Adelaide; there are many RAAF bases around the country; and there are many airports around the country and in fact around the world that use this particular product. This particular constituent was a retired firefighter. He had 35 years of experience at Adelaide Airport as a firefighter and he was very concerned that when he was working there, in his younger days, this product was deemed to be safe, and then he found out later that it was not. Because it was in a confined area, they know where it was used, where the testing was done, where they did their emergency training and therefore where it has seeped into the ground, so they could contain it.

Many constituents and firefighters are asking for a greater government commitment to develop and to implement a testing and monitoring regime for some of these people. They have raised it with me on many occasions. They've raised it with the government on many occasions and through the firefighters union that covers them. I hope one thing today that these speeches do is raise this issue which has affected many people that worked with this foam in airports around the country and in RAAF bases that did training for fighting fires. It's an ongoing issue of contamination for defence and aviation sites around Australia—and the impact it is having on people in defence and aviation sites. Even residents around these areas are now concerned. But, as I said, because this particular product was used in one area, we know where it was tested and we know where they used it for their emergency training. We know exactly where it is. You can imagine the concern if this particular product was used all over the place—and it was used in many other products—and we didn't know where it was.

This legislation will create a register that's with a government agency. It will tell us where the chemicals have been used, what they've been used for and who has used them, for future reference. It has been said that that may be an onerous job for the industries and the companies that use these particular products, but they already must maintain a record of where they are using it, who is using it et cetera, so why not pass it on? It would be a very simple thing to do. We heard the member talk about ideology and things before. This is nothing to do with ideology. It is about common sense.

The particular substances that were used had great qualities in terms of doing the industrial work that was required. They had the ability to repel oil, grease and water and put out fires. They've been used in firefighting foams and chemicals and many other products around the world. In addition, these foams containing these chemicals have been deployed on fires at traffic and railway accidents, and even at building fires. It's not just those metropolitan areas; it is country and rural areas as well that have an issue with this particular product.

The foams have been used for nearly 50 years on defence and civilian facilities and in airports in Australia due to their effectiveness in extinguishing liquid fuel fires. Firefighters trained every day on airport facilities with these chemicals. Today we know that there have been some tests and that their blood has been tested. Some people have fairly high levels of this particular chemical in their systems. But unfortunately there are no regular checks. The levels may be safe today, but we don't know what the future holds for these people. There should be some form of regular testing for them so we can tell exactly how their health is going and how they are doing with this chemical that we know causes harm to humans. It also impacts our waterways, our groundwater and our oceans. It's not just firefighters and those who work with it; all of us are affected by these particular chemicals.

We heard the member for Mackellar talk about animal testing. There is a loophole in the legislation for a company that wishes to produce a product, if it's for cosmetic testing. We know that there are no animal products that should be used because we also know, as the member for Mackellar said, that companies really want to sell the product to consumers, who don't want to be turned off by hearing about animal testing, et cetera. But the loophole nevertheless exists, if a company wanted to circumvent this particular 'no animal testing' law. If it's for cosmetics, yes, there is no animal testing. But if you are producing a chemical or a product for industry, then you can use animal testing. It's no secret that on this side of the House we would stop animal testing altogether if we could. There is a loophole there and that has to be looked at as well so companies cannot circumvent the legislation that currently exists.

To put it in a nutshell, the bill establishes a legislative framework for the Australian Industrial Chemicals Introduction Scheme, or the AICIS, and that will replace the National Industrial Chemicals Notification and Assessment Scheme. It'll regulate the introduction, whether by importation or manufacture, of industrial chemicals. There's a cost recovery principle, which will be retained in the new scheme. The new scheme implements a risk-based approach to the regulation of industrial chemicals. Significantly, there will be less emphasis on the pre-introduction assessment of lower-risk new chemicals and a greater focus on the post-introduction evaluation and monitoring.

As I said at the beginning, I don't think we have a problem with the concept of the bill. It does assist companies to fast-track the industrial chemicals that they're producing. There are benefits for them, and it ensures that they're competing with overseas companies that are producing the same sorts of products. This is a good thing. But we just want to ensure that some of the small loopholes that are there are filled so that we don't go through what we've already been through over the years with a range of other products that we thought were safe. We had human beings who had been working with these particular products for years and it was being denied that there was anything wrong happening to them because of the product they worked with. We saw that with asbestos. We saw the massive court cases that took place, with people fighting and saying, 'No, it had nothing to do with your bad health today.' What we must do is maintain a good register so that, in years to come, if there are any issues with a worker who has worked with these products, we know where to find them and how to track them down so we can give them the assistance that may be required.

Many new products come on the market. They are deemed safe and they look good, but we don't know what the results will be for years. I mentioned two of them very quickly—asbestos and this foam, which has an effect in my own electorate and many electorates around the country that have airports. They are both products that people worked with, that they thought were safe and that did good things. But, in the end, we found out that, for all the good they did in putting out oil based fires and liquid based fires, they also did a lot of damage to the environment and massive damage to human beings. But because those were contained within the airports around the country, we know the people who worked there and we know the geographic land area where these chemicals were used. So we want to ensure that that takes place. We want to ensure that that loophole is closed to keep people safe when they're working with products.

Adam Bandt (Melbourne, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I wanted to make a few brief remarks about this bill, the Industrial Chemicals Bill 2017. There will be a more lengthy contribution from the Greens, particularly Senator Rhiannon, when it reaches the other place. I want to make a couple of remarks about the issue of animal testing in cosmetics, which is dealt with in this bill. There have been a number of organisations—in particular, the cruelty-free campaign, Animals Australia and the Animals Justice Party but also many others—that have campaigned for some time, with the full support of the Greens, for a ban on cosmetics that have been tested on animals. There are great companies in Australia like the Lush brand and many others that are already cruelty free because they know people in Australia want to be assured their cosmetics haven't been tested on animals. Many, many people have done some very, very good work on that.

There have also been people in this place from across the political spectrum who have also wanted to see that change. On the government back benches some have spoken up, including in this debate, saying that that's a change we need to see. It's a change that the Greens have called for and pursued for quite some time. So, to the extent the government is taking a first step towards addressing that, that is welcome, but, as is often the case with many of the things that come from this government, it's not as good as it seems. It comes bundled up in something that has nothing to do with the issue of animal testing and, in fact, seeks other reforms that could potentially jeopardise those very good reforms. As has been said many times during the debate, there are loopholes in the government's proposal around animal testing. They are loopholes that do need to be fixed. That will be dealt with further when the matter comes to the Senate.

Also of concern is that, as I am briefed by the various people who have been campaigning for that, there is a deal of concern that the government has wrapped up a measure around animal testing in amongst something much, much broader that goes towards changing the way that industrial chemicals more broadly are regulated and in a way that has nothing to do with cosmetics and nothing to do with animal testing. But, under the guise of talking about animal testing, the government may well be attempting to get through a bunch of other changes that might actually mean that people are more at risk from harmful chemicals.

We've heard from some of the other members in this debate the kinds of risks that people currently face when it comes to industry. One of the ones I'm particularly familiar with is the risk that firefighters face. If there was a fire in this building at the moment, most of us would run one way—out—and the firefighters would run in. They run into rooms where things are burning and creating a huge amount of toxic smoke. In your average home, there are tens of thousands of chemicals that have been used to make the plastics that surround your TV set, that go into the couch, that are in the carpet or that are in the paint. When those chemicals burn, we now know that they, in many instances, produce cancer-causing smoke. If you're a firefighter, no matter how good your equipment is, you've got to be able to breathe, and breathing out to let the heat out of your body also means that air comes in.

As a result, even with the best equipment in the world, the best PPE—personal protective equipment—in comes toxic smoke into your system. Firefighters have told me that you could be scrubbing yourself for a couple of days after a big job and still be seeing black gunk coming out of your skin, out of your system. We now know that a lot of that is cancer causing. As a result, firefighters find themselves with much, much higher rates of cancer than their counterparts. Firefighters tend to start in the job being healthier than the average human specimen. After five years, they could find themselves having twice the risk of getting leukaemia, for example. That's the kind of risk we're asking them to face, because they go into environments where they're faced with chemicals. But we also know that they're exposed to industrial chemicals through their training.

We're now seeing some of the consequences of the use of chemicals called PFOS and PFOA at Defence bases. We have also seen them being used in firefighting training areas for some time, most notoriously in Fiskville in Victoria, where a lot of the chemicals that were used, the PFOS and PFOA, as well as others, found their way not just into firefighting systems but into the water, and they have contaminated the ground. Every major airport around Australia has a firefighting base on it, as it should have. The aviation firefighters spend a lot of time training so that they can get to a plane should a tragedy ever befall it or if a plane catches on fire. They have to be able to get there quickly and know exactly what they're doing, so they spend a lot of their time training. Quite like the Defence bases and Fiskville, a lot of the training done at airports uses firefighting foams containing chemicals that were banned elsewhere in the world and that were only relatively recently banned in Australia. The firefighters do a lot of training, using a lot of foam. Those chemicals seep into the ground and then into the watertable.

At the Gold Coast Airport, those chemicals are now finding their way into the water system. The Gold Coast Airport abuts a broadwater, just south of the border, and a creek. We know that the government intends to dig up part of that and extend part of the Gold Coast Airport. Worryingly, we are hearing that these industrial chemicals, which relate to the subject of this bill, are sitting in the soil, potentially having leached into the water. When you dig that up to extend the length of the runway, more of them are going to come out and find their way into the water system. As a result, they will potentially put at risk not only all the people who've worked there but everyone around the area who catches fish and eats it, plus the wildlife in the area and in the waterway itself.

So we've got a very, very long way to go with industrial chemicals in this country. If the government were serious about health and welfare on that front, we'd be using this bill as an opportunity to rein in what is going to be a level of scandal that's going to require a royal commission to deal with Defence sites and airports, and other training grounds, where we've used chemicals that have put people's lives at risk and that are continuing to put people's lives and the environment at risk. Sadly, that nettle isn't being grasped, despite all the warnings, but it is something that is going to come back and rightly bite this place and the governments that have made decisions in the past to allow the significant use of those chemicals.

To come back to the question of cosmetic testing on animals, which is covered in this bill, I want to applaud the groups I mentioned before for their tireless campaigns, resulting in some partial step from the government towards addressing this issue. But we do need to fix it and we do need to ensure the government isn't trying to use that good move and the goodwill of the Australian people, who want to make sure that their cosmetics haven't been tested on animals, to try and get other legislation through. And we need to explore, when the matter goes to the Senate, whether there's a way of making sure we get good bits of legislation without letting through some of those other nasties that the government might be trying to get through and, if we get the good bits, that they actually do the job, by closing the loopholes, and that we don't just allow something to go through that ticks the box under the appearance of it having been done and we never come back to the issue again—and in fact then find that there are loopholes big enough to drive trucks through. That's the approach the Greens will be taking when this bill goes to the Senate.

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

I'd like to thank members for their contribution to the debate on the Industrial Chemicals Bill 2017 and the other five associated bills—the Industrial Chemicals (Notification and Assessment) Amendment Bill 2017, the Industrial Chemicals (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2017, the Industrial Chemical Charges (General) Bill 2017, the Industrial Chemical Charges (Excise) Bill 2017, and the Industrial Chemicals Charges (Customs) Bill 2017.

These six bills realise a longstanding acknowledgement, spanning several governments, that reform to the regulation of industrial chemicals was required. The bills create a new regulatory scheme in Australia, to be known as the Australian Industrial Chemicals Introduction Scheme. The reformed scheme was developed through many years of consultation with the stakeholders, and I thank them for their dedication and the time involved in this process. I'm confident that the new regulatory scheme strikes the right balance between benefitting the community as well as businesses.

This scheme will maintain Australia's high standard of human and environmental protection while seeing regulatory efforts made more proportionate to the risk. This means that the regulator will be able to focus its regulatory efforts on assessing the higher-risk chemicals where the greatest regulatory oversight is needed. By ensuring that this regulatory effort is proportionate to risk, we are removing unnecessary barriers to the introduction of very low risk chemicals in an effort to promote safer innovation. This should have the effect of encouraging these cleaner, greener chemicals while continuing to protect the Australian people and environment from any harmful effects from industrial chemicals.

The member for Makin has raised concerns around the use of the exempt category. These concerns are misplaced. The subjectivity he's objecting to is what exists now under the current NICNAS. Under the current regime, 97 per cent of chemicals are being introduced under an exemption category where the introducer determines that there is no unreasonable risk. The new scheme actually sets clearer, more objective criteria to ensure that the continuing protection of human health and the environment is paramount. The exempted category will contain only chemicals that are considered very low risk, including polymers of low concern, and chemicals introduced for the purposes of research and development, provided that their introduction meets the definition of R&D and some volumetric thresholds are met.

We have also heard calls for increased reporting for chemicals in the exempt category. It is not the reporting of these chemicals that will protect health and the environment but the new strengthened evaluation framework that we are introducing. This allows the regulator to respond quickly and initiate evaluations as soon as concerns about a chemical arise. This includes new, stronger powers to gather information. We're also strengthening the regulator's power to place conditions on certain chemicals, including new powers to refuse entry into the Australian market in certain circumstances and powers to remove chemicals that are already being used.

I should also emphasise that there are clear obligations on introducers to keep records of the information they have used to demonstrate their category of introduction, and the regulator will be able to audit these records and take appropriate and proportionate actions to ensure continued compliance by all introducers across all categories of introduction, including the lowest-risk categories. These strengthened monitoring and compliance powers, consistent with those used by other regulators, will ensure continued protections for the Australian people. This will ensure that workers, the public and the environment remain protected from any potential harmful effects of industrial chemicals.

Another concern that was raised was that the Industrial Chemicals Bill does not include any reference to continuing the Inventory Multi-tiered Assessment and Prioritisation framework, known as IMAP. IMAP was developed as a practical way to accelerate the review of over 30,000 unassessed chemicals that have been on a public list, known as the national inventory, since the NICNAS arrangements commenced in 1989. The excessively prescriptive evaluation process in the existing law had resulted in very few evaluations of these chemicals being completed. IMAP is widely considered to be an example of a very successful collaboration between government, industry and non-industry stakeholders, and has resulted in over 7,500 chemicals being assessed since 2012. I'd like to assure the Australian community that we will continue to prioritise these chemicals for systematic evaluation. So we are building on the success of IMAP with a new, more flexible and responsive framework in the Industrial Chemicals Bill that gives the regulator the flexibility needed to tailor an evaluation to address an issue or a chemical of concern. This framework will allow us to more effectively evaluate industrial chemicals in commerce in Australia and will lead to clear regulatory outcomes, which could include the removal of a chemical from use. This, I note, cannot be done through the current IMAP process or the current act. We will use this framework to continue to assess those unassessed chemicals on the national inventory.

The reforms also provide greater transparency for both industry and the public, with each assessment and evaluation undertaken by the regulator from 1 July 2018 being published on the regulator's website, providing all stakeholders with important risk and safety information. Every new listing on the inventory will be linked to its assessment statement, outlining any measures recommended to mitigate known risks. We will also track and report on the status of actions taken by the national and jurisdictional risk managers in relation to any risk management recommendations made by the regulator. This reporting will provide timely access to information, which will be of greater benefit to industry and the community. For business, the risk based approach to regulation will remove unnecessary regulatory burden and, along with improved IT systems, will provide the opportunity for industry to self-categorise lower risk chemicals against—and I state this—criteria that we, the regulator, establish. This will reduce costs for business and ultimately for consumers. It will also remove the barriers to introduction of cleaner and greener chemicals which would benefit the Australian community and environment. Higher risk chemicals will continue to be assessed by the regulator before they can enter commerce in Australia.

Many Australians have expressed concerns about the welfare of animals and have called for a ban, like that seen internationally, on the use of animals when establishing the safety of cosmetics. At the same time, there is an international trend away from using animal testing for chemical research, including for ethical reasons. Developments in technology are enabling a reduction in reliance on animal testing as, for example, computer modelling becomes more sophisticated and reliable. As a result, very few industrial chemical introductions rely on animal test data to support assessments of risks to human health and safety or the environment. For this reason, the scheme established by this bill is specifically designed to not rely on animal test data except as a very last resort, where it's absolutely necessary to protect human health and the environment.

I am pleased to say that these important pieces of legislation include the government's commitment to introduce a ban on the use of animal testing for cosmetics. As in Europe, the new scheme recognises that we must continue to protect Australian workers. Also as in Europe, the new scheme allows the limited use of data from animal tests for chemicals that have other industrial uses in addition to use in cosmetics. Since the bill was introduced, there have been some calls to extend the scope of the ban—to include chemicals with other industrial uses in addition to a cosmetic use.

Amendments introduced by the opposition today promise to close some perceived loophole. But the amendments actually create loopholes. This is because they were written by people who have not sought to understand how the Australian regulatory system works.

We have spoken to key animal justice organisations that are keen to be part of creating Australia's ban on the use of new animal test data to support the introduction of chemicals used as cosmetic ingredients. I thank all of them for working with us to get the best outcomes for animal welfare.

The proposal from the opposition is not consistent with the regulatory framework in Europe and would place Australian industry at a disadvantage. Animal test data that are permitted for use in Europe for assessing multi-use chemicals could not be used here, even if the data showed risks to worker health and safety. This is not a regulatory arrangement that the government could support. Those proposed amendments will not result in an improvement in animal welfare outcomes and would likely result in some chemicals being considered of lower risk than would otherwise have been determined, which places human and environmental health at risk. Members may be interested to know that we received written confirmation just today from the European Chemicals Agency that Australia's proposed ban is consistent with that of the European Union.

Industrial chemicals form a multibillion dollar international market in which Australia is both an importer and an exporter. This new scheme provides alignment with the schemes of Australia's trading partners, and greater acceptance of assessments made by comparable international regulators. This will support Australian industry to become more competitive internationally, providing not only jobs, which everyone wants, but safe jobs for Australian workers. The new scheme is a proportionate approach to the regulation of industrial chemicals that will promote innovation in Australia and incentivise the introduction of safer chemicals into Australia.

The member for Makin referenced the huge number of jobs in Australia linked to the industrial chemicals sector. We have heard from key industry players that those jobs are at risk if Australia doesn't reduce the burden placed on the sector by our outdated regulation. This is apparent when we consider that other Western nations with markets far larger than Australia's are miles ahead of us in how they treat very low risk chemicals. The Australian community can be confident that Australia's high standard of protection of health and safety for people and the environment will be maintained in this new regulatory scheme. Thank you.

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

The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Makin has moved as an amendment that all words after 'that' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The question now is that the amendment be agreed to.

Question negatived.

Original question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.