Tony Zappia (Makin, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Manufacturing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Industrial Chemicals Bill 2017 and associated bills establish the legislative framework for the Australian Industrial Chemicals Introduction Scheme, which will replace the National Industrial Chemicals Notification and Assessment Scheme, otherwise known as NICNAS. NICNAS, which regulates the introduction—whether by importation or manufacture—of industrial chemicals, is one of four national regulators of chemicals. The Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority, the APVMA, oversees pesticides, agricultural products, veterinary medicine, food for animals and pool sanitisers. The Therapeutic Goods Administration, the TGA, is responsible for medicines and medical devices. Chemicals used in food for people are regulated by Food Standards Australia New Zealand, FSANZ. Where a chemical has multiple uses, each regulatory scheme must be followed. These bills deal only with the regulation of industrial chemicals. I turn to the detail of these bills.

The Industrial Chemicals Bill and the Industrial Chemicals (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill define an industrial chemical for the purpose of the legislation, require introducers of industrial chemicals to be registered and establish a streamlined system of risk based categorisation largely based on self-categorisation of industrial chemical introductions, which consists of six authorisation pathways. Those pathways provide that an industrial chemical may be introduced if it is (1) a listed introduction and the terms of the listing, as detailed on the inventory, are met; (2) an exempted introduction and the requirements in the rules relating to exempted introductions are met; (3) a reported introduction and the requirements in the rules relating to reported introductions are met. This will be on the basis of risk assessment and evaluation undertaken by or in association with a trusted international body. The pathways further provide for (4) an assessed introduction and the introducer complies with the terms of the assessment certificate; (5) a commercial evaluation introduction and the introducer complies with the terms of the commercial evaluation authorisation; and (6) an exceptional circumstances introduction and the introducer complies with the terms of the exceptional circumstances authorisation.

The bills also establish the Australian Inventory of Industrial Chemicals; describe the information and reporting obligations of introducers, holders of certificates and authorisations, and persons covered by certificates; enable people to apply for the protection of confidential business information; establish the Australian Industrial Chemical Introduction Scheme and an executive director as an independent statutory officeholder, and describe the role and functions of the executive director; provide AICIS with access to more contemporary tools to enable it to monitor compliance and take action in the event of noncompliance; provide a framework for the executive director to initiate evaluations of industrial chemicals or matters relating to industrial chemicals; implement Australia's obligations under certain international agreements, including provisions enabling bans or restrictions on industrial chemicals subject to certain international agreements; establish the power for the minister to make rules which will contain the operational detail of the act, as well as general provisions for applications and for review rights; and lastly, provide the legal framework for the transition to the new scheme. The Industrial Chemicals Bill will disallow the use of new animal test data to support the introduction of chemicals used exclusively as cosmetic ingredients.

I turn to the Industrial Chemicals (Notification and Assessment) Amendment Bill, which amends the Industrial Chemicals (Notification and Assessment) Act to, firstly, make changes to the definition of new synthetic polymer to more closely align with international approaches; secondly, make changes to the notification requirements for new chemicals such that polymers of low concern would be exempt from notification; thirdly, remove the requirement for introducers to provide annual reports to NICNAS for permits and self-assessment certificates; fourthly, remove the requirement for introducers to provide a final statement of the value of the relevant industrial chemicals actually introduced in a registration year; and, lastly, make consequential changes to the IC(NA) Act relating to these changes.

Just briefly, in turning to the Industrial Chemicals Charges (General) Bill 2017, the Industrial Chemicals Charges (Customs) Bill 2017 and the Industrial Chemicals Charges (Excise) Bill 2017, collectively these three bills enable the Commonwealth to collect an annual charge on the introduction of chemicals into Australia by import or manufacture in accordance with the Industrial Chemicals Bill 2017, which itself provides that:

Presently, the costs of administering NICNAS are recovered through fees and charges on manufacturers and importers of industrial chemicals, mainly from registrations and assessments. The cost recovery principle will be retained in the new scheme. I understand it is proposed that rules made under these bills will base the registration charge on the value of industrial chemicals introduced by the entity in the registration year.

The new scheme implements a more risk based approach to regulation of industrial chemicals. Significantly, this will mean that there will be less emphasis on pre-introduction assessment of lower risk chemicals and a greater focus on post-introduction evaluation and monitoring. That approach, according to the government statement, will see the number of new industrial chemicals that are subject to pre-introduction assessments drop by more than 70 per cent from about three per cent currently to 0.3 per cent in the future. Furthermore, it will be industry which self-assesses low-risk chemicals, albeit against objective criteria. The government expects business will save around $23 million per year through these changes, and approval of many industrial chemicals will be fast-tracked, thereby making Australian business more competitive with their overseas competitors. Remaining competitive is important, as more than 60,000 people are employed in the chemical industry, and it contributes around $11.6 billion annually to our GDP.

These reforms are, however, extremely complex, and much of the technical detail will be enacted through regulations which are presumably yet to be drafted. The government is saying that this approach will enable the regulator to focus on higher risk chemicals and that it will encourage businesses to use lower risk chemicals which may fit in under the exempted introduction, where the regulator will not be notified. It seems the government was rushing this legislation by introducing it whilst consultation was still ongoing and whilst submissions on Consultation paper 5, which sought feedback on matters to be included in the delegated legislation, was still open. Furthermore, the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee was being pushed to finalise its inquiry by 13 June this year, making it nearly impossible to carry out its work. Labor senators insisted on an extension of time for reporting and public hearings, and that extension was granted, with the Senate report being handed down on 8 August. Were it not for the Labor senators, the whole matter would have been rushed, and people who quite properly wanted to make submissions to the committee would not have been able to.

I acknowledge that there has been a considerable consultation process associated with this legislation, but I also note the comment by NICNAS:

… there are some aspects of the reforms that are contentious and for which there is an absence of agreement across stakeholder groups.

That comment makes it clear that there was not universal support for the measures in this bill. Indeed, in introducing this legislation, the assistant minister acknowledged that stakeholders did not all share the same views. A wide range of stakeholders, including unions, health groups and environmental groups, have flagged significant concerns with these bills. They are concerned that the focus of these reforms is to reduce red tape and that, in pursuing a reduction in red tape, health and environmental outcomes will be compromised.

I just turn for a moment to the exempted introductions, because this is a matter where considerable concern was expressed. In addition to concerns about the reduction in the chemicals that would be subject to premarket assessments, there were also concerns that the introduction of some new chemicals would not require notification other than a statement by the introducer that chemicals had been introduced under this category—that is, the exempted category—thereby reducing transparency in the regulatory system, and that there would be an increased reliance on self-assessment by the introducer. In a submission on the reforms, the Public Health Association of Australia states:

It is unacceptable that new chemicals can be introduced into Australia on the basis of self-assessment by importers or manufacturers without any prior notification to AICIS and no listing of such chemicals on a Government or public record.

That statement is absolutely clear. It makes the point very strongly and very clearly that it should not be part of our standards that a chemical can be introduced into this country without any notification to AICIS of the specific nature of that chemical and with no government record kept. The government's claim would presumably be that the increased risk will be balanced out by the greater focus on postintroduction monitoring and evaluation. If we're going to have postintroduction monitoring then we need to ensure that there are the resources to do it; yet, as the Public Health Association of Australia again notes, there are no additional resources set aside specifically for postentry audits. It is one thing to say that they will be carried out but it's another to actually do that when there's no provision within this legislation to provide the resources to enable that process to proceed.

Whilst the bill provides that industrial chemicals can be assessed on the initiative of the executive director, the details are not in the bill and, as I understand it, nor will they be in the delegated legislation. It is impossible to know how the executive-director-initiated assessments will compare with the process they replace, how many assessments will be carried out and whether those assessments will be just as rigorous as those carried out presently. At this point the government are once again asking us to trust them on the details.

The lack of notification to the regulator of the introduction of new chemicals under the exempt pathway has other potential problems. Regarding nanomaterials and polymers, the PHAA submission states:

There are many new classes of chemicals, including nanomaterials and polymers, which deserve special regulatory consideration for health risks to humans, animals and the environment, and should not be categorised as Exempted Chemicals. Nanomaterials are designed to penetrate the skin and even deliver active biomolecules to intracellular sites, and none of these chemicals should be categorised as Exempted Chemicals.

Many polymers should not be categorised as Exempted Chemicals. There are risks that some low molecular weight polymers have the potential for absorption into the body, and many polymers that contain perfluorinated carbon chains could breakdown to perfluorinated chemicals which could persist in the environment, may bioaccumulate, or may be toxic.

The PHAA believes that the introduction volumes up to 100kg for nanomaterials used in R&D for classification as Exempted Chemicals needs to be reduced. It is not appropriate for such large quantities of these materials, to be introduced, even for R&D, without the knowledge of the AICIS Regulator, given the limited understanding of the risks they may pose to people and the environment.

Again, that statement makes it absolutely clear that there are concerns relating to aspects of this legislation.

During a public hearing of the Senate committee's inquiry the Cancer Council Australia said:

The second broad principle that we would like to support—again, it has been raised—is report everything. The simple notion of establishing the exempted category raises concerns for many of us. Again, the folks at NICNAS tell me there is a very high bar for the industry to get over to have a chemical meet the requirements of an exempted chemical and that means they are required to have a whole lot of data about the safety of use of that chemical before it can meet that criteria. Our simple question is: if there is such a high bar to get over to become exempted, why would it be that much harder to simply report the name of the chemical, its number and the quantity in use?

It is a very reasonable question to ask. If the bar has been set so high and introducers have to comply with so many other requirements, how much more difficult is it for them to provide the final report which says what the chemical is, what its particular chemical number is and what the quantity used is? I believe the public, quite rightly, would say, 'We have the right to know.' Yet this legislation does not give them information, nor does it provide information for the government itself, and that is even more concerning.

These comments come from both the Public Health Association of Australia and the Cancer Council of Australia, organisations that are quite reputable within the broader community. I believe they accurately reflect public sentiment and expectations relating to the regulation of industrial chemicals. My understanding is that the introducers will still need to keep records of the exempted chemicals they introduce and make annual declarations stating that they have introduced chemicals in the exempt category, but they don't have to specify the type of chemical, the date it was introduced or the quantities. Given that they have to maintain their own records in respect to those matters it does not seem to me to be an unreasonable request to have that material provided to government, perhaps as part of their annual reporting statement. The government, then, would have records that could be relied on in the future, should the need arise, if questions were asked about what chemicals were introduced and when.

If the regulator doesn't know what chemicals are being introduced it will make it even more difficult for action to be taken to mitigate risks, should they come to light. It could also be many years before some of those exempted chemicals are found to be more dangerous than thought when they were introduced, bearing in mind that—it is my understanding—it is self-classification by the introducers, as to which classification they bring the chemicals in under. So if an introducer believes that a chemical is of very low risk and it meets certain criteria, it is their judgement as to whether it should be exempt. I stand to be corrected on that, and the minister in his right of reply can tell us differently if that is the case, but that is my understanding. We are relying, entirely, on the assessment process of the introducer of the chemical.

I now turn to the inventory multi-tiered assessment and prioritisation, the IMAP, and the priority existing chemical process, which have been assessing 30,000 industrial chemicals that have never been assessed, and I understand that that process may be replaced. That was a process introduced under Labor to try to fix the backlog of chemicals brought into this country over the decades that were never formally assessed. It has been working well and progress has been made, and those unassessed chemicals are slowly being worked through. The process exists to assess chemicals already listed on the inventory—so these chemicals are already in use—and is used to assess those chemicals for which there are reasonable grounds for believing they pose a risk to health or the environment but they have never undergone any assessment. The Senate inquiry heard widespread praise for the IMAP framework. I know there have been assurances given to the inquiry that IMAP or a similar process will continue, but the reality is that there is no legislative guarantee within this legislation that that will be the case. We do not have it within the legislation. And I will come back to that in a moment because I have taken this matter up with the minister and we've had discussions with him about it.

There is another matter of concern to us, and that is the reliance on risk managers and the reports that they provide. NICNAS is conducting its assessment of chemicals and does a lot of good work in that space. However, the lack of uptake of the work by other regulators is of concern. For example, it has been suggested that had risk managers acted on NICNAS recommendations significant operational problems with the exposure of firefighting foams would have been avoided. This has become a serious public health issue, and it doesn't apply to just RAAF Base Amberley. I understand there are concerns arising in many other parts of Australia with respect to firefighting foams that have been used over the years.

Whilst it is beyond the scope of the bill to ensure the uptake of recommendations with respect to assessments that have been carried out by regulators in the past, there is now an opportunity to at least track and report on the actions taken by risk managers. When a problem arises, we need to know what action was taken in response to that problem. This bill does not make it clear that anything will occur as a result of those matters being raised. The IMAP process and reliance on risk managers are two matters we have serious concerns about. I raised these matters with the minister, who has assured both the Senate committee and me, through a letter sent to the Hon. Catherine King, the shadow minister for health and Medicare, that those processes will continue—that is, in respect of IMAP process—and that there will be a reporting process in place to assure us that any action arising from a post-market assessment will be followed up. I want to quote directly from the minister's letter to Catherine King: 'The Australian government is committed to continuing the work of the regulator to evaluate unassessed chemicals on the national inventory. This process commenced through the Inventory Multi-tiered Assessment and Prioritisation, IMAP, framework and will be continued under a new flexible and responsive evaluation framework.' I thank the minister for that assurance in the letter. It is because of that assurance that we will, at this stage, not be taking the matter any further and we will be accepting the minister's assurance with respect to that matter.

With respect to the other matter I referred to, again I quote the minister's response: 'The Australian government is also committed to ensuring that the regulator tracks and reports on the status of actions taken by risk managers to increase transparency in relation to any risk management recommendations made by the regulator to address identified risks. This will be implemented in a way that allows the timely publication of information which will be of benefit to industry and community groups.' Again, I thank the minister for that response. We will rely on that letter in order to overcome the concerns that we had with those two aspects.

Lastly, I turn to the question of animal testing and the new arrangements with respect to that. Consumers use a wide variety of cosmetics, with estimates that consumers use seven or more different cosmetics each day. Retail sales of cosmetics and toiletries in Australia were some $3.7 billion in 2015-16. Although most of these products are imported, in the same year 18,000 people were employed in the Australian cosmetics, perfume and toiletries manufacturing industry. The industry was worth $945 million, with exports contributing $535 million towards that figure. Imported and manufactured cosmetic ingredients are regulated as industrial chemicals. Animal testing has historically been seen to be the most reliable way to check for possible human health effects. Progress has been made and in many cases animal testing is now more expensive and more time consuming, whilst increasingly facing ethical and scientific questions. Whilst animal testing for cosmetic purposes no longer occurs in Australia, between 100,000 and 200,000 animals are estimated to suffer a cruel fate through cosmetic testing. Animal welfare groups have identified loopholes in this legislation, which I believe falls well short of Labor's Ethical Cosmetics Bill, which we pursued over a year ago. Firstly, they are concerned that the ban applies only to ingredients that are solely for use in cosmetics products, and therefore multipurpose ingredients could still be tested on animals. Secondly, they are concerned that regulations will permit chemicals tested on animals for another purpose to be re-purposed for cosmetic use after the cosmetic testing ban commenced. In their submission, Be Cruelty-Free Australia, a partnership between Humane Research Australia and Humane Society International (Global and Australia) stated:

As currently worded, Sections 103 and 168 fall short of international best practice. The EU-28, Norway, Switzerland, India, Israel, Taiwan and Guatemala have all banned new animal testing for both finished cosmetic products as well as all cosmetic ingredients, regardless of whether or not the ingredient is intended exclusively for use in cosmetics, and this same model is being heeded in similar legislation under discussion in the United States, Canada, Brazil and other major markets.

According to Be Cruelty-Free, only a small proportion of chemicals are used solely in cosmetics; most have multiple end uses. I also point out that the ban on the use of animal-testing data can help create new industries in toxicity testing techniques that do not involve animals.

I note that in the submission from Accord, the national industry association representing manufacturers and marketers of various products, they have raised concerns that section 103 and section 168, which deals with animal testing, could be in breach of Australian, World Trade Organization and bilateral free trade agreements. In one of its publications, Accord goes on to say that animal testing 'is not a high-profile issue for consumers' and that the industry should be allowed to develop an industry code of conduct for animal testing of cosmetic products. The RSPCA and Be Cruelty-Free dispute that assertion that animal testing is not a high-profile issue to consumers. Indeed, in the committee inquiry, the RSPCA said about the comment that animal testing is not a high-profile issue for consumers:

That is completely contrary to all of the signals that the RSPCA has received from the broader Australian public on this issue. It's certainly of high concern to people.

The Department of Health's submission to the inquiry noted that 4,269 chemicals were introduced solely for cosmetic use in 2014-15, with only three of those using animal-testing data derived since the ban in the EU. For multiple uses, there were 2,839 chemicals introduced, with only 11 using animal-testing data. The department's submission states:

This would mean that, on the department's own figures, applying a more comprehensive ban as provided in the amendment that we will be moving would not be onerous for either the industry or the regulator.

Finally, even stakeholders from industry who are broadly supportive of the bill believe that further consultation will be needed, especially with respect to the regulations. Many highlighted technical concerns which presumably still need to be resolved.

Let me summarise Labor's concerns with these bills. First is the lack of notification of the introduction of chemicals through the exempted introduction category. Second is the replacement of the IMAP framework. Third, the broad shift from pre-market to post-market evaluation is of concern, and whether the AICIS will have the resources to carry out the post-introduction assessments if it is to rely only on registration fees. Fourth, the bill and the explanatory memorandum contain no detail on the risk categorisation mix. Fifth, the explanatory memorandum refers to critical chemical volumes but contains little detail or guidance on the characteristics of chemicals and volumes, other than high and low risk. Sixth, there is little in the explanatory memorandum to indicate how enforcement will or can be used. Last, the ban on the use of animal-testing data for cosmetics implemented in this legislation falls short of community expectations and contains loopholes.

Labor will not be opposing this bill in the House. However, on account of the serious concerns raised by stakeholders, and evidence heard during the Senate inquiry, we will be moving amendments. Those amendments will address the most serious concerns about the legislation—that is, the introduction of some chemicals through the exempted introduction category without interaction with the regulator, and the loophole in the ban on the use of new animal-testing data. Labor will also closely scrutinise the regulations, and we reserve our right to disallow any regulations which we believe do not adequately protect human health and the environment. With those comments, I move the amendments circulated in my name:

That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

"whilst not declining to give the bill and related bills a second reading, the House calls on the government to:

(1) remove the loophole in the ban on use of animal test data for cosmetics implemented in this legislation; and

(2) require an annual post introduction report to be given to the regulator listing basic information about industrial chemicals introduced through the 'exempted introductions' category".

Thank you.

Rob Mitchell (McEwen, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the amendment seconded?

Lisa Chesters (Bendigo, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.

Rob Mitchell (McEwen, Australian Labor 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 an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. If it suits the House, I will state the question in the form that the amendment be agreed to. The question is that the amendment be agreed to.

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

Mark Coulton (Parkes, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour and the member will be given an opportunity to conclude his contribution at that time.