Bill
Competition and Consumer Amendment (Country of Origin) Bill 2016
passed, as at 2017-02-22. Industry, Innovation and Science portfolio.
- Sponsor
- Not recorded
- Portfolio
- Industry, Innovation and Science
Recorded stages
- introduced — 2016-09-01
- second reading — 2016-09-01
- second reading — 2016-11-24
- second reading — 2016-11-28
- second reading — 2016-11-28
- third reading — 2016-11-28
- introduced — 2016-11-29
- second reading — 2016-11-29
- second reading — 2017-02-08
- second reading — 2017-02-08
- committee — 2017-02-08
- third reading — 2017-02-08
- passed — 2017-02-08
- royal assent — 2017-02-22
Divisions
- Matt Thistlethwaite I am speaking on the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Country of Origin) Bill 2016 in support of the amendment moved by the member for Perth. Australian people deserve to know where their food comes from. They deserve clear and concise food labels to ensure that they can make informed decisions regarding the food that they and their families are consuming. The purpose of this bill is to amend the Australian Consumer Law to simplify the test that is used to justify a claim that certain foods were made in Australia in a specified manner. The bill achieves this by amending one of the safe harbour provisions in the Australian Consumer Law. The Trade Practices Act 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 and commerce, a broad prohibition against making a false representation about the country of origin of goods, and a prohibition against engaging in conduct which was liable to mislead the public as to the nature, including any country of origin, the manufacturing process, the characteristics, the suitability for their purpose or the quantity of any goods. Australia's country-of-origin laws have continued to develop in line with domestic judicial determinations and consistent with Australia's emerging international obligations as a member of the World Trade Organization. The Trade Practices Amendment (Country of Origin Representations) Act 1998 inserted what were colloquially known as 'safe harbour' provisions into the trade practices laws, establishing the regime for determining when goods would and would not be regarded as made in, produced in or substantially grown in Australia. The TPA was renamed the Competition and Consumer Act with effect from 1 January 2011, codifying the safe harbour provisions as defences. Under the current law as it sits before the i — 2016-11-28, House of Representatives: negative, ayes 71, noes 77
- Nick Xenophon I have a number of questions in respect of the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Country of Origin) Bill and in relation to the second reading amendment which was just defeated. I outlined the basis of that amendment in my second reading contribution—in other words, that there be an administrative arrangement to determine whether labelling laws were being complied with. In particular, this matter was raised in the context of the inquiry into this bill. It seems to me that there ought to be an analysis and report on the benefit of an administrative mechanism which would give manufacturers the ability to apply for a ruling on country-of-origin labelling claims. In my additional comments in the Senate committee's report into this bill, I made a recommendation that legislation ought to be introduced to this effect. What I respectfully put to the minister is that there is a real issue as to how the supply of inputs is determined to be Australian or not. In particular, Australian Made Campaign Limited, whilst it supported the removal of the 50 per cent cost test, noted: … some concerns that it may result in adverse consequences for some Australian suppliers of inputs. This will occur where a manufacturer opts to source cheaper inputs offshore, knowing that it will not affect their capacity to make a Made in Australia claim. An example of this is a manufacturer of soft gel capsules who currently purchases gelatin from an Australian manufacturer because it assists them to meet the 50% threshold. The local packaging industry may also be impacted adversely by this change. AMCL raised concerns that there was currently no mechanism by which manufacturers could obtain a definitive answer regarding country-of-origin claims, and this could result in companies being hesitant to make a claim for fear that competitors would challenge its validity. That is contained in the committee report. So that is a particular issue that I would be grateful if the minister could ad — 2017-02-08, Senate: negative, ayes 12, noes 37
Plain-language summary
Written by a model from the explanatory memorandum; not the record, as at 2016-09-01.
The bill would change how businesses can label products as 'Made in Australia' under consumer law.
It would replace the current 'substantial transformation' test with clearer rules, removing the requirement that 50 per cent of production costs be incurred in Australia.
The change is estimated to save businesses $48.5 million per year, offsetting the $48.2 million annual cost of a new food labelling standard that began on 1 July 2016.
- Simplifies the test for claiming a product is 'made in' Australia.
- Removes the '50 per cent production cost' test.
- Provides a new legal defence for using a label specified in an information standard.
Businesses that make country of origin claims, particularly food businesses, and consumers who read such labels.
Sources
em
billhome
frl act