The Ethical Cosmetics Bill 2016 was introduced in Parliament on February 29 by its sponsoring Member of Parliament; Clare O’Neil. This Private Bill amends the Industrial Chemicals (Notification and Assessment) Act 1989 in order to effectively terminate, and create offences against the importation, manufacture and trade of cosmetics tested on live animals within Australia. This Bill has been actively backed by Labor Party’s Deputy Leader and MP for Sydney; Tanya Pilbersek as well as O’Neil’s colleague; Steven Jones MP for Throsby and additionally 90% of consulted Australians. Vast majority of Australian’s believe that animals should not be tormented in order to have better cosmetic products. Many members of the community believe that animal
…show more content…
Companies have found “loopholes” in the Industrial Chemicals (Notification and Assessment) Act 1989, in order to continue these activities. Although these companies may have a license to conduct animal research, they are breaking the regulations stated in the Animal Welfare Acts among the country from which it is an offense for an individual to “ill treat an animal” for reasons separate from self-defence or survival.
The continued use of live animal testing has lead to the initiation of this Bill, as these practices contradict that of the Animal Welfare Act 1985 of South Australia (among the 7 others in different states and territories), and the Industrial Chemicals Act 1989. In order to cease the animal abuse caused by live testing, the Ethical Cosmetics Bill 2016 aims to terminate the importation and manufacture of cosmetics that have been tested on live animals and the unnecessary torment it …show more content…
The removal of these live subjects should matter little, as scientists have claimed that animals are no longer necessary to manufacture a safe product. Once this bill becomes enacted into a law, a vast majority of animals will be safe to live a fulfilled with supportive caregivers. O’Neil effectively describes how the community views strongly against animal testing, and has the community’s best interests in mind when introducing this Bill to Parliament.
This Bill is limited only within the borders of Australia, and does not serve to ban the practice of live animal testing overseas. This would therefore mean that animal experimentation would continue outside the authority of the Australian government even if this Bill were to become legislated. Although the Bill is limited to Australian businesses, it would still grant the freedom of countless animals held in captivity.
By introducing offenses regarding the business of live animal cosmetic testing, it would consequently terminate all careers in this field, such as scientists and technicians. Many will lose employment and therefore is a disadvantageous outcome for the Bill, which may cause the Parliament to hesitate in its
Companies have found “loopholes” in the Industrial Chemicals (Notification and Assessment) Act 1989, in order to continue these activities. Although these companies may have a license to conduct animal research, they are breaking the regulations stated in the Animal Welfare Acts among the country from which it is an offense for an individual to “ill treat an animal” for reasons separate from self-defence or survival.
The continued use of live animal testing has lead to the initiation of this Bill, as these practices contradict that of the Animal Welfare Act 1985 of South Australia (among the 7 others in different states and territories), and the Industrial Chemicals Act 1989. In order to cease the animal abuse caused by live testing, the Ethical Cosmetics Bill 2016 aims to terminate the importation and manufacture of cosmetics that have been tested on live animals and the unnecessary torment it …show more content…
The removal of these live subjects should matter little, as scientists have claimed that animals are no longer necessary to manufacture a safe product. Once this bill becomes enacted into a law, a vast majority of animals will be safe to live a fulfilled with supportive caregivers. O’Neil effectively describes how the community views strongly against animal testing, and has the community’s best interests in mind when introducing this Bill to Parliament.
This Bill is limited only within the borders of Australia, and does not serve to ban the practice of live animal testing overseas. This would therefore mean that animal experimentation would continue outside the authority of the Australian government even if this Bill were to become legislated. Although the Bill is limited to Australian businesses, it would still grant the freedom of countless animals held in captivity.
By introducing offenses regarding the business of live animal cosmetic testing, it would consequently terminate all careers in this field, such as scientists and technicians. Many will lose employment and therefore is a disadvantageous outcome for the Bill, which may cause the Parliament to hesitate in its