Division
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
House of Representatives, 2016-11-28. negative: ayes 71, noes 77.
Question
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
How each member voted
Per-member votes are not present in this static export. Consult the original division record.
Related bills
Only formal divisions leave a per-member record. A procedural vote is not necessarily a vote for or against a bill.