Competition and Consumer Amendment (Country of Origin) Bill 2016

Bills Digest no. 9, 2016–17

PDF version [674KB]

Paula Pyburne
Law and Bills Digest Section
13 September 2016

Contents

History of the Bill

Purpose of the Bill

Background

History of country of origin food labelling
Creating prohibitions
Inserting ‘safe harbours’
Australian Consumer Law

Calls for changes to country of origin laws

Blewett Review
Government response to the review
Private members’ bills

Food standards

Content of the information standard
Priority and non-priority foods
Requirement to carry a standard mark
Meaning of grown, produced or made in Australia
Application of the information standard
Regulation of the information standard

Committee consideration

Selection of Bills Committee
Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills

Policy position of non-government parties/independents

Position of major interest groups

Stakeholder views
Specialist food organisations
Fruit and vegetable organisations
Farmers groups
Unions
Retailers

Financial implications

Statement of Compatibility with Human Rights

Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights

Key issues and provisions

Concluding comments

Date introduced: 1 September 2016
House: House of Representatives
Portfolio: Industry, Innovation and Science
Commencement: the day after Royal Assent

Links: The links to the Bill, its Explanatory Memorandum and second reading speech can be found on the Bill’s home page, or through the Australian Parliament website.

When Bills have been passed and have received Royal Assent, they become Acts, which can be found at the Federal Register of Legislation website.

All hyperlinks in this Bills Digest are correct as at September 2016.

History of the Bill

The Competition and Consumer Amendment (Country of Origin) Bill 2016 (the first Bill) was introduced into the House of Representatives on 4 May 2016.[1] The first Bill lapsed when the second session of the 44th Parliament was dissolved on 9 May 2016.

The Competition and Consumer Amendment (Country of Origin) Bill 2016 (this Bill) which was introduced into the House of Representatives on 1 September 2016 is in equivalent terms to the first Bill. A Bills Digest was not prepared in respect of the first Bill.

Purpose of the Bill

The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Australian Consumer Law, which is contained in Schedule 2 of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010[2] to simplify the test that is used to justify a claim that certain foods were ‘made in’ a specified country of origin. The Bill achieves this by amending one of the safe harbour provisions in the Australian Consumer Law.

Background

History of country of origin food labelling

Creating prohibitions

The Trade Practices Act 1974[3] (TPA) commenced operation on 1 October 1974. This was the first Commonwealth statute to contain ‘consumer protection’ provisions. In its earliest form, the consumer protection provisions contained in the TPA were:

a general prohibition against misleading or deceptive conduct in trade or commerce[4]
a broad prohibition against making a false representation about the country of origin of goods[5] and
a prohibition against engaging in conduct which was liable to mislead the public as to the nature (including the country of origin), manufacturing process, the characteristics, suitability for their purpose or the quantity of any goods.[6]

The TPA was amended by the Trade Practices Revision Act 1986[7] which inserted paragraph 53(eb) to provide a specific prohibition against making a false or misleading representation about the place of origin of goods.[8]

Inserting ‘safe harbours’

Australia’s country of origin laws continued to develop in line with domestic judicial determinations and consistent with Australia’s emerging international obligations as a member of the World Trade Organisation.[9] The Trade Practices Amendment (Country of Origin Representations) Act 1998 [10] inserted what were colloquially known as ‘safe harbour’ provisions into the TPA. The amendments established the regime for determining when goods would, and would not, be regarded as made in, or produced in, Australia—partly by reference to the extent to which production or transformation occurred in Australia. The same tests applied and continue to apply for the purpose of dealing with claims, to which the TPA applied, that goods had been made or produced in any other country.[11]

Australian Consumer Law

The TPA was renamed the CCA with effect from 1 January 2011. Schedule 2 to the CCA contains the Australian Consumer Law, which sets out the consumer protection provisions (including country of origin laws) in equivalent terms to those in the TPA.[12] The former ‘safe harbour’ provisions have been codified as defences.[13]

The effect of clauses 255 and 256 of the Australian Consumer Law (the defences) is that together they allow the following claims in relation to the ‘Australian‑ness’ of a good:

‘Made in Australia’ or ‘Australian Made’: for goods that have been substantially transformed in Australia and where at least 50 per cent of the cost of production or manufacture has occurred in Australia[14]
‘Product of Australia’ or ‘Produce of Australia’: for goods where Australia was the country of origin of each significant ingredient or significant component of the goods and all (or virtually all) the production or manufacture happened in Australia[15]
‘Grown in Australia’ or ‘Australian Grown’: where each significant ingredient or component of the goods was grown in Australia and all (or virtually all) processes involved in the production or manufacture happened in Australia[16] and
‘Made in Australia from local and imported ingredients’ or ‘Made in Australia from imported and local ingredients’, a qualified claim: where it is not possible for a standalone Made in Australia claim to be made. This could be because of uncertainty around the question of substantial transformation and/or whether 50 per cent of the cost of production or manufacture is met and/or to adjust to seasonal variation in availability of individual ingredients used.[17]

Calls for changes to country of origin laws

As early as 1998, there was significant debate about the test relating to whether goods are entitled to be labelled ‘Made in Australia’. Senator Bob Brown stated:

The Greens are saying `Made in Australia' should mean `Made in Australia' ... I give the example of a bottle of cordial. It is entirely possible under this legislation, because the manufacturing costs are a major component, that you could have Tasmanian raspberries going into one bottle of cordial and being put on the shelf and a mixture of raspberries from Chile and South Africa and maybe some from Australia going into a second bottle and being put on the shelf, and both of them will have `Made in Australia'. The consumer will not be able to know which is the real homemade produce through and through and which is the fake.[18]

These concerns about what ‘Made in Australia’ means in relation to goods, food and country of origin indicators more generally, have remained unresolved.[19]

Blewett Review

On 23 October 2009 the Chair of the Australia and New Zealand Food Regulation Ministerial Council announced that former Australian Health Minister, Dr Neal Blewett AC, would head up the Panel which would undertake a comprehensive examination of food labelling law and policy (the Blewett Review).[20]

On 28 January 2011 the review panel officially presented the final report entitled Labelling Logic to the Chair of the Australia and New Zealand Food Regulation Ministerial Council.[21]

The Blewett Review noted that there was a general level of consumer uncertainty ‘about claims to the ‘Australian-ness’ of a product’[22] and acknowledged that a Newspoll survey conducted in April 2010 reported that ‘63 per cent of respondents incorrectly identified the originating source of a product where the term ‘Made in Australia’ was used’.[23] The Blewett Review concluded:

The confusion is compounded by the ‘Australian owned’ claim and by a flood of ‘Australian Made’ logos... At the heart of the confusion is the ‘Made in Australia’ claim and the efforts of manufacturers to ‘highlight the Australian-ness of their foods’.[24]

The Blewett Review made a number of recommendations of direct relevance to country of origin in relation to food specifically:

that mandatory country of origin labelling requirements for all food products be provided for in a specific consumer product information standard for food under the CCA rather than in the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code (the Code)[25]
that Australia’s existing mandatory country of origin labelling requirements for food be maintained and be extended to cover all primary food products for retail sale[26] and
that for foods bearing some form of Australian claim, a consumer-friendly, food-specific country of origin labelling framework, based primarily on the ingoing weight of the ingredients and components (excluding water), be developed.[27]

Government response to the review

Of the three above recommendations in relation to country of origin by the Blewett Review, the Government did not support two of them and merely ‘noted’ another (the recommendation to extend mandatory country of origin labelling requirements to all primary food products for retail sale).[28]

Private members’ bills

In the face of apparent Government inaction, a number of non-Government Bills dealing with country of origin labelling laws have been introduced into the Parliament including:

the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Australian Food Labelling) Bill 2012: a Private Member’s Bill introduced by Adam Bandt[29]
the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Australian Food Labelling) Bill 2012 (No. 2): a Private Senator’s Bill introduced by Senator Christine Milne[30]
the Imported Food Warning Labels Bill 2013: a Private Member’s Bill introduced by Bob Katter[31] and
the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Australian Country of Origin Food Labelling) Bill 2013: a Private Senator's Bill introduced by Senator Christine Milne[32] and
the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Australian Country of Origin Food Labelling) Bill 2015: a Private Senator's Bill introduced by Senator Christine Milne and Senator Nick Xenophon.[33]

Food standards

Whilst the CCA and the various state and territory statutes deal with labelling in general, until recently the Food Standards Australia New Zealand Act 1991[34] (FSANZ Act) provided for specified standards to be made under the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code (the Code) about the labelling of particular types of foods.[35] The role of the Code ‘is to regulate food safety and the provision of information on the nutritional quality of food to assist consumers to make healthy food choices’.[36]

The food standards in the Code are incorporated into state, territory and New Zealand legislation and are legal requirements for food businesses.[37] In the lead up to this Bill former Part 1.2.11 of the Code [38], which set out the food labelling country of origin requirements for Australia only was revoked.[39] The current Standard 1.2.1 sets out when a food for sale is required to bear a label or have other information provided with it.[40] This new standard came into effect on 1 March 2016.

In addition to Standard 1.2.1 of the Code, the Country of Origin Food Labelling Information Standard 2016 [41] (the Information Standard) made in accordance with clause 134 of the Australian Consumer Law, came into effect on 1 July 2016. Business has two years to transition to the new arrangements and current stock in trade can see out its shelf life.[42]

Content of the information standard

The Information Standard requires that certain food that is sold in Australia is to comply with mandatory country of origin labelling requirements.

The Information Standard is a comprehensive and detailed document made by legislative instrument. It was prepared following lengthy consultation with ‘consumers, food producers, manufacturers and interested stakeholders’.[43] There were 73 published responses to the consultation.[44]

The reforms contained in the Information Standard are based on feedback from consultations as well as the outcomes of the 2014 House of Representatives Standing Committee on Agriculture and Industry inquiry into country of origin labelling for food,[45] as well as submissions to, and reports on earlier inquiries such as the Senate Inquiry into the Truth in Food Labelling Bill 2003[46] and the Inquiry into the Food Standards Amendment (Truth in Labelling Laws—Palm Oil) Bill 2009.[47]

As it was tabled in the House of Representatives on 18 April 2016 it remains subject to disallowance until 12 October 2016 in that chamber.[48] As it was tabled in the Senate on 19 April 2016 it remains subject to disallowance in that chamber until 7 November 2016.[49]

This Bills Digest provides an outline of the main provisions in the Information Standard below.

Priority and non-priority foods

There are different labelling requirements depending on whether the food is classified as priority or non-priority for the purposes of country of origin labelling, and whether it is:

grown, produced or made in Australia
packaged in Australia
grown, produced or made in another country
packaged in another country.

Non-priority foods comprise seven food categories:

seasonings
confectionery
biscuits and snack food
bottled water
soft drinks and sports drinks
tea and coffee
alcoholic beverages.[50]

The Information Standard requires non-priority foods to carry a text statement of their country of origin on their labels. Use of the more detailed country of origin marks specified in the Information Standard is voluntary for non-priority foods.

The term priority food is not formally defined.

Requirement to carry a standard mark

Food that is grown, produced, made or packaged in Australia will be required to carry a standard mark.[51] The marks include an indication of the proportion of Australian ingredients by ingoing weight through text and a bar chart.

If the food was grown, produced or made in Australia exclusively from Australian ingredients, the information must be in the form of one of the standard marks.[52] These marks include the following features:

a logo to assist the consumer to easily identify that the food was grown, produced or made in Australia:

a full bar chart to indicate that the food’s ingredients are exclusively Australian:
a statement indicating that the food was grown, produced or made in Australia and that its ingredients are exclusively Australian.[53]

If the food was grown, produced or made in Australia and some of its ingredients are not Australian, the information must be in the form of one of the standard marks as set out below:[54]

a logo to assist the consumer to easily identify the food was grown, produced or made in Australia:

one of the following bar charts to provide a visual indication of the proportion, by ingoing weight, of the food’s Australian ingredients:
a Made in Australia statement, together with a statement that aligns with the bar chart and clearly states the minimum proportion, by ingoing weight, of the food’s Australian ingredients.

Where food that is packaged in Australia includes food that was not grown, produced or made in Australia the Information Standard provides that the relevant label does not include the kangaroo logo. In addition, it provides a range of examples of marks to be used which make clear to consumers the percentage of ingredients in the food, if any, that have been sourced from Australia.[55]

Meaning of grown, produced or made in Australia

Food can claim to be grown in, produced in or made in a country only if it meets specific conditions:

grown in and produced in mean that all of the significant ingredients of the food are from, and virtually all the processing occurred in, the country claimed as origin
made in means that the food underwent its last substantial transformation in the country claimed as origin.[56]

A food is said to have been substantially transformed in a country if the end product is fundamentally different from its ingredients.[57] Even if a food is partially or totally comprised of imported ingredients, it can claim a country as its origin if it was last substantially transformed in that country.[58] However, the simple action of adding water to reconstitute dehydrated or concentrated ingredients will not be sufficient. In that case the country of origin of the water is taken to be the country of origin of the dehydrated or concentrated ingredients.[59]

Application of the information standard

Generally speaking the country of origin labelling requirements apply to a sale of food in Australia if the sale is the retail sale or the sale is not a retail sale, but the food is sold as suitable for retail sale without any further processing, packaging or labelling.[60]

However, consistent with former FSANZ Standard 1.2.11: Country of Origin Labelling, the Industry Standard does not apply to a food that is sold to the public for immediate consumption by a restaurant, canteen, school, caterer or self-catering institution, a prison, a hospital or medical institution. Nor does it apply to, amongst other things, a food that is made and packaged on the premises where it is sold, or food that is delivered, packaged and ready for consumption, at the express order of the purchaser (for instance at a takeaway venue).[61]

Regulation of the information standard

Clause 134 of the Australian Consumer Law entitles the Commonwealth Minister to publish information standards in relation to particular types of consumer goods and/or services. It is a contravention to manufacture, possess, have control of or supply goods or services in trade or commerce, without complying with an applicable Information Standard.[62] Failure to comply with the requirements of this clause can result in pecuniary penalties, or fines of up to $1.1 million in the case of a corporation and $220,000 in the case of an individual.[63] Any person who suffers loss or damage as a result of non-compliance with the provisions of this clause may recover damages or seek compensation orders.[64] Section 32 of the Information Standard provides that the seller of food covered by the Standard must, on request, provide the regulator—the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC)—any information that is relevant to an assessment of whether the sale complied with the Information Standard and that the seller holds, or is able to access, at the time of the request.

Committee consideration

Selection of Bills Committee

At its meeting of 1 September 2016 the Selection of Bills Committee determined that it would defer consideration of the Bill until its next meeting.[65]

Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills

At the time of writing this Bills Digest the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills had made no comment in relation to either the first Bill or this Bill.

Policy position of non-government parties/independents

As can be seen from the list of Private Members Bills above it is likely that the Bill will be welcomed by Senator Xenophon’s NXT team and by the Australian Greens.

At the time of writing this Bills Digest, members of the Australian Labor Party had not expressed a view in either chamber in relation to country of origin labelling.

Position of major interest groups

Stakeholder views

As stated above, the House of Representatives Committee on Agriculture and Industry (the Committee) conducted an inquiry into country of origin labelling food in 2014. The 53 submissions made to the Committee are indicative of the stakeholders’ views in the country of origin labelling debate.

Specialist food organisations

According to the Australian Honey Bee Industry Council (AHBIC) the current Country of Origin Labelling is not satisfactory. It provided the following example:

The labelling of a product to indicate the ingredients needs urgent attention. As a recent example there was a product sold in one of the major supermarkets which was labelled “Bee Bear - Honey and Syrup”. When the ingredients label was examined it reads “Sugar syrup and honey (35%).”

Why is it not a requirement that the first name should be the major ingredient? In this case it is 65% sugar syrup so the product should be labelled “Syrup and honey”. It is assumed that in this case honey was used first to try to cash in on the good reputation of honey.[66]

Australian Pork Limited considers:

The current food labelling system is failing to meet its policy objective as it confuses, rather than informs consumers. Research suggests that consumers believe labelling should be clearer, and that many consumers don’t understand the existing Made in Australia claim.

Australian pork producers are similarly being let down by the current Country of Origin labelling regime. Existing rules for packaged food allow products processed or packaged in Australia (e.g. bacon made from imported pork or orange juice made of imported juice concentrate), to be labelled Made in Australia without indicating the main ingredient is not of Australian provenance. The problem is compounded by requirements for Product of Australia being so restrictive that some Australian grown food can’t use the label due to small quantities of imported ingredients which are difficult to source in Australia.[67]

Fruit and vegetable organisations

Citrus Australia—SA Region takes the view:

Any claim to ‘Australia’ on the label should have a higher threshold than the current 50% of weighted product, including the addition of water to reconstitute a product. Numerous consumer surveys clearly demonstrate the frustration consumers have with our current labelling laws. Australian farmers have had to endure a lot of frustration over many years when imported food competes on the supermarket shelf with our locally grown product but has the right to be labelled ‘Australian’.[68]

AUSveg would like to see the government:

... establish a Ministerial Taskforce, charged with developing an ‘Agreed Standard’ for Country of Origin Labelling. The taskforce would report to government six months from its establishment. This would provide for a mandate from government, for industry to develop a solution. It would also provide impetus for industry to coordinate and respond to the task set by government.[69]

Apple and Pear Australia makes the following points:

The current ‘Made in Australia’ label can be a little confusing, if not outright misleading. For example, ‘Made in Australia’ can actually mean that all the ingredients are imported, and simply mixed or packaged in Australia.

Worse, under current legislation ‘Made in Australia’ can be used in labelling processed fruit or juice if more than 50 per cent of the value of the product is added in Australia, regardless of where the fruit comes from. This can even include the cost of the container and the cost of labelling or the cost of the water. Hence, the fruit could actually be sourced from overseas and the label can still read ‘Made in Australia.’ In APAL’s view this is unacceptable because it leads consumers into believing that the food has a stronger Australian connection than it really has.[70]

Farmers groups

Australian Dairy Farmers considers:

Country of Origin Labelling laws as they are currently applied, allow for Australian dairy products to differentiate themselves from their international competitors on domestic and overseas shelves through use of either the “Product of Australia” or “Made in Australia” claim depending on whichever is applicable to the particular product.[71]

According to the National Farmers Federation:

... the current rules allow imports to masquerade as local produce, through the “Made in Australia” claim, while making it difficult for locally grown products to achieve the perceived premium claim of “Product of Australia”. The view is that this undermines Australian farmers, who are seeking to capitalise on their good reputation for animal welfare, quality and above all food safety.[72]

Unions

According to the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union:

The lack of clarity in the labelling regime has led to it being exploited. The two major grocery retailers, Coles and Woolworths, manufacture their own private label brands in direct competition with independent brand manufacturers. In the push for increased profit margins, Coles and Woolworths are increasingly sourcing their produce from international suppliers taking advantage of lax country of origin laws to source cheaper produce from countries with less restrictive (i.e. less costly) food quality regulation. There is a direct correlation between the increase in private label share of supermarket sales and increasing imports. Local manufacturers are struggling to compete with these cheap imports and are being forced out of the market. This, in turn, leads them to shed jobs.[73]

Retailers

The Australian Food and Grocery Council:

... understands the importance of country of origin labelling of food, but its impact on purchasing decisions needs to be kept in perspective. A 2014 Catalyst survey of Australian grocery buyers ... indicates that the main drivers of purchase decisions are price, quality, habit and brand loyalty. Unprompted, origin information is identified as a top 3 driver by 11% to 17% of grocery buyers, although 61% of respondents regularly check country of manufacture. [Country of origin labelling] is therefore an important, but secondary, driver of purchasing decisions.[74]

The Australian National Retailers Association states:

... members’ research shows that Australian households are increasingly concerned about where their food comes from, with a clear preference for domestically sourced goods. Retailers have responded to customers’ needs by making local produce readily available. Indeed, ANRA’s major supermarket members demonstrate a strong preference for providing Australian sourced produce whenever it is available at sufficient quantities and quality, at a fair and reasonable price. In practice this means that around 97% of all fresh food sold in their stores comes from Australian sources with imports typically being sold when seasonal shortages limit Australian supply.[75]

Financial implications

According to the Explanatory Memorandum, the Bill is expected to have nil financial impact.[76]

Statement of Compatibility with Human Rights

As required under Part 3 of the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011[77] (Cth), the Government has assessed the Bill’s compatibility with the human rights and freedoms recognised or declared in the international instruments listed in section 3 of that Act. The Government considers that the Bill is compatible.[78]

Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights

At the time of writing this Bills Digest the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights had made no comment about either the first Bill or this Bill.[79]

Key issues and provisions

Currently clause 255 of the Australian Consumer Law contains nine subclauses. Item 2 of the Bill repeals and replaces the first four subclauses being 255(1)–255(4).

Subclause 255(1) sets out in table form the requirements to be met by a person making a specific country of origin representation about a good or service. The proposed table provides:

At proposed item 1 in the table if goods are represented as being grown in a particular country then each significant ingredient or significant component of the goods must have been grown in that country; and all, or virtually all, processes involved in the production or manufacture of the goods must have happened in that country. Currently a representation that goods were grown in a particular country is at item 4 in the table. The representations as to goods being grown in a particular country are in similar but not equivalent terms. The amendment makes the nature of the representation beyond doubt.

At proposed item 2 in the table if goods are represented as being the produce of a particular country that country must be the country of origin of each significant ingredient or significant component of the goods; and all, or virtually all, processes involved in the production or manufacture of the goods must have happened in that country. Currently a representation that goods are the produce of a particular country is in item 2 of the table. There has been no change to the nature of this representation.

At proposed item 3 in the table if goods are represented as having been made, manufactured or as originating from a particular country then the goods must have been last substantially transformed in that country; and the representation must not be a representation that the goods were grown or produced in that country. There is no equivalent representation currently.

At proposed item 4 in the table if goods are labelled with a mark specified in an information standard relating to the country of origin labelling of the goods then the goods must satisfy all the requirements under the information standard relating to the use of the mark. The representation in item 4 has a similar equivalent in item 3 of the current table. However, the enactment of the Information Standard clarifies the rules which are attached to the use of the kangaroo logo and the bar chart.

Proposed subclause 255(2) sets out the definition of the term substantially transformed. Goods can be represented as being made, manufactured or as originating from a particular country if they were substantially transformed in that country as a result of one or more processes undertaken in that country. In that case the goods must be fundamentally different in identity, nature or essential character from all of their ingredients or components that were imported into that country. Under proposed subclause 255(3) the regulations may prescribe processes or combinations of processes that do not result in goods being substantially transformed and may include examples of processes or combinations of processes that bring about that result.

Item 4 of the Bill repeals and replaces subclauses 255(8) (currently about packaging materials) and 255(9) (currently about water content) of the Australian Consumer Law. The proposed subclause 255(8) makes clear that if goods are represented as being grown in a particular country any packaging materials are not treated as ingredients or components of the goods.

Under proposed subclause 255(9) if goods are represented as being grown in a particular country then water added to an ingredient or component is treated as having the same origin as the ingredient or component, regardless of its actual origin, if the ingredient or component has been dried or concentrated by the evaporation of water and the added water returns the water content of the ingredient or component to no more than its natural level.

Item 5 of the Bill repeals existing clause 256 (which sets out the calculation of costs of producing or manufacturing goods) and clause 257 (which sets out the rules for determining the percentage of costs of production or manufacture which are attributable to a country).

Concluding comments

The amendments to the Australian Consumer Law which are set out in this Bill go a long way to clarifying the various representations which may be made about the country of origin of goods. By linking the table in subclause 255(1) of the Australian Consumer Law to the Information Standard which has been made under clause 134 of the Australian Consumer Law, the Bill ensures that Australian shoppers will have greater certainty about the origin of the food they eat.

[1]. Parliament of Australia, ‘Competition and Consumer Amendment (Country of Origin) Bill 2016 homepage’, Australian Parliament website.

[2]. Competition and Consumer Act 2010.

[3]. Trade Practices Act 1974.

[4]. Trade Practices Act 1974, section 52.

[5]. Trade Practices Act 1974, paragraph 53(a).

[6]. Trade Practices Act 1974, section 55.

[7]. Trade Practices Revision Act 1986.

[8]. The history of food regulation in Australia (including labelling requirements) between 1788 and 2001 is available as a chronology from the Parliamentary Library: R Polya, Food regulation in Australia – a chronology, Chronology, 1, 2001–02, Department of the Parliamentary Library, Canberra, 18 September 2001.

[9]. Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, opened for signature 15 April 1994, 1867 UNTS 154 (entered into force 1 January 1995), Annex 1A, (WTO Agreement).

[10]. Trade Practices Amendment (Country of Origin Representations) Act 1998.

[11]. Trade Practices Act 1974, sections 65AA–65AN.

[12]. Australian Consumer Law, clauses 18 and 29.

[13]. Australian Consumer Law, clauses 255 and 256

[14]. Item 1 of the table in clause 255 of the Australian Consumer Law. Clauses 256 and 257 of the Australian Consumer Law subsequently set out the rules for working out the cost of producing or manufacturing goods and the rules for determining the percentage of costs of production or manufacturing attributable to a country.

[15]. Item 2 of the table in clause 255 of the Australian Consumer Law.

[16]. Item 4 of the table in clause 255 of the Australian Consumer Law.

[17]. Item 5 of the table in clause 255 of the Australian Consumer Law.

[18]. B Brown, ‘Second reading speech: Trade Practices Amendment (Country of Origin Representations) Bill 1998’, Senate, Debates, 3 July 1998,
p. 4885.

[19]. B Baily, It ain’t necessarily so: country of origin labelling, Current Issues Brief, 20, 1994, Department of the Parliamentary Library, Canberra, 28 September 1994, pp. 1–2; Polya, Food regulation in Australia – a chronology, op. cit.; N Blewett (Chair), Labelling logic: review of food labelling law and policy, Department of Health and Ageing, Canberra, January 2011, p. vii.

[20]. Australia and New Zealand Food Regulation Ministerial Council, Final communiqué, media release, Brisbane, 23 October 2009.

[21]. Blewett, Labelling logic: review of food labelling law and policy, op. cit.

[22]. Ibid., p. 108.

[23]. Ibid., p. 109.

[24]. Ibid.

[25]. Ibid., p. 12, recommendation 41.

[26]. Ibid., recommendation 40.

[27]. Ibid., recommendation 42.

[28]. Legislative and Governance Forum (Convening as the Australia and New Zealand Food Regulation Ministerial Council), Response to the recommendations of Labelling Logic: review of food labelling law and policy (2011), last updated 15 January 2016, pp. 43–45.

[29]. Parliament of Australia, ‘Competition and Consumer Amendment (Australian Food Labelling) Bill 2012 homepage’, Australian Parliament website, accessed 26 March 2015.

[30]. Parliament of Australia, ‘Competition and Consumer Amendment (Australian Food Labelling) Bill 2012 (No. 2) homepage’, Australian Parliament website.

[31]. Parliament of Australia, ‘Imported Food Warning Labels Bill 2013 homepage’, Australian Parliament website.

[32]. Parliament of Australia, ‘Competition and Consumer Amendment (Australian Country of Origin Food Labelling) Bill 2013 homepage’, Australian Parliament website.

[33]. Parliament of Australia, ‘Competition and Consumer Amendment (Australian Country of Origin Food Labelling) Bill 2015 homepage’, Australian Parliament website.

[34]. Food Standards Australia New Zealand Act 1991.

[35]. Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ), ‘Food Standards Code’, FSANZ website.

[36]. Explanatory Memorandum, Competition and Consumer Amendment (Country of Origin) Bill 2016, p. 77.

[37]. See: Fair Trading (Australian Consumer Law) Act 1992 (ACT), Fair Trading Act 1987 (NSW); Consumer Affairs and Fair Trading Arrangement (National Uniform Legislation) Act 2010 (NT); Fair Trading (Australian Consumer Law) Amendment Act 2010 (QLD); Fair Trading Act 1987 (SA); Australian Consumer Law (Tasmania) Act 2010 (TAS); Fair Trading Amendment (Australian Consumer Law) Act 2010 (VIC); Fair Trading Act 2010 (WA).

[38]. Food Standards Australia New Zealand Act 1991.

[39]. Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code—Standard 5.1.1—Revocation and transitional provisions—2014 revision.

[40]. Australia New Zealand food standards code: standard 1.2.1: Requirements to have labels or otherwise provide information.

[41]. Country of Origin Food Labelling Information Standard 2016.

[42]. Department of industry, Innovation and Science (DIIS), ‘Country of Origin Labelling’, DIIS website.

[43]. Ibid. Explanatory Statement, Country of Origin Food Labelling Information Standard 2016.

[44]. Department of Industry, Innovation and Science (DIIS), ‘73 published responses’, DIIS website.

[45]. House of Representatives Standing Committee on Agriculture and Industry, A clearer message for consumers: report on the inquiry into country of origin labelling for food, House of Representatives Standing Committee on Agriculture and Industry, Canberra, October 2014.

[46]. Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs, Inquiry into Truth in Food Labelling Bill 2003, The Senate, Canberra, 1 March 2004.

[47]. Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs, Inquiry into Food Standards Amendment (Truth in Labelling—Palm Oil) Bill 2009, The Senate, Canberra, August 2010.

[48]. House of Representatives, Disallowable instruments list, 12 September 2016, p. 24.

[49]. Senate, Disallowable instruments list, 12 September 2016, p. 24.

[50]. Country of Origin Food Labelling Information Standard, section 9. Many of these particular foods are further defined in clause 3 of the Dictionary to the Information Standard.

[51]. See Australian Government, ‘Australia's food labels are getting clearer’, Australian Government website.

[52]. The marks are set out in Country of Origin Food Labelling Information Standard, section 18.

[53]. Country of Origin Food Labelling Information Standard, section 6.

[54]. Country of Origin Food Labelling Information Standard, section 19.

[55]. Country of Origin Food Labelling Information Standard, section 22.

[56]. Country of Origin Food Labelling Information Standard, subsection 8(1).

[57]. The term substantial transformation has the same meaning as in the Australian Consumer Law from time to time. Source: Country of Origin Food Labelling Information Standard, Dictionary. See subsection 255(3) of the Australian Consumer Law.

[58]. Explanatory Statement, Country of Origin Food Labelling Information Standard 2016.

[59]. Country of Origin Food Labelling Information Standard, section 12(2).

[60]. Country of Origin Food Labelling Information Standard, subsection 14(1).

[61]. Country of Origin Food Labelling Information Standard, subsection 14(2).

[62]. Australian Consumer Law, clause 136.

[63]. Australian Consumer Law, clauses 203 and 224.

[64]. Australian Consumer Law, clauses 236 and 237.

[65]. Senate Standing Committee for Selection of Bills, Report, 5, 2006, The Senate, Canberra, 1 September 2016.

[66]. Australian Honey Bee Industry Council, Submission no. 15 to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Agriculture and Industry, Inquiry into country of origin food labelling, 1 May 2014, p. 2.

[67]. Australian Pork Limited, Submission no. 6 to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Agriculture and Industry, Inquiry into country of origin food labelling, 23 April 2014, p. 2.

[68]. Citrus Australia—SA Region, Submission no. 28 to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Agriculture and Industry, Inquiry into country of origin food labelling, 29 April 2014.

[69]. AUSveg, Submission no. 39 to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Agriculture and Industry, Inquiry into country of origin food labelling, 5 May 2014.

[70]. Apple and Pear Australia, Submission no. 23 to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Agriculture and Industry, Inquiry into country of origin food labelling, 2 May 2014, p. 1.

[71]. Australian Dairy Farmers, Submission no. 43 to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Agriculture and Industry, Inquiry into country of origin food labelling, May 2014.

[72]. National Farmers Federation, Submission no. 42 to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Agriculture and Industry, Inquiry into country of origin food labelling, 2 May 2014, p. 6.

[73]. Australian Manufacturing Workers Union, Submission no. 22 to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Agriculture and Industry, Inquiry into country of origin food labelling, May 2014, p. 2.

[74]. Australian Food and Grocery Council, Submission no. 35 to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Agriculture and Industry, Inquiry into country of origin food labelling, 5 May 2014, p. 4.

[75]. Australian National Retailers Association, Submission no. 21 to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Agriculture and Industry, Inquiry into country of origin food labelling, 2 May 2014, p. 1.

[76]. Explanatory Memorandum, Competition and Consumer Amendment (Country of Origin) Bill 2016, p. 1.

[77]. Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011.

[78]. The Statement of Compatibility with Human Rights can be found at page 84 of the Explanatory Memorandum to the Bill.

[79]. Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, Index of Bills and Legislative Instruments considered by the Committee in 2016, last updated 5 May 2016.

For copyright reasons some linked items are only available to members of Parliament.

Creative Commons

With the exception of the Commonwealth Coat of Arms, and to the extent that copyright subsists in a third party, this publication, its logo and front page design are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Australia licence.

In essence, you are free to copy and communicate this work in its current form for all non-commercial purposes, as long as you attribute the work to the author and abide by the other licence terms. The work cannot be adapted or modified in any way. Content from this publication should be attributed in the following way: Author(s), Title of publication, Series Name and No, Publisher, Date.

To the extent that copyright subsists in third party quotes it remains with the original owner and permission may be required to reuse the material.

Inquiries regarding the licence and any use of the publication are welcome to webmanager@aph.gov.au.

Disclaimer: Bills Digests are prepared to support the work of the Australian Parliament. They are produced under time and resource constraints and aim to be available in time for debate in the Chambers. The views expressed in Bills Digests do not reflect an official position of the Australian Parliamentary Library, nor do they constitute professional legal opinion. Bills Digests reflect the relevant legislation as introduced and do not canvass subsequent amendments or developments. Other sources should be consulted to determine the official status of the Bill.

Any concerns or complaints should be directed to the Parliamentary Librarian. Parliamentary Library staff are available to discuss the contents of publications with Senators and Members and their staff. To access this service, clients may contact the author or the Library‘s Central Enquiry Point for referral.