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:
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.
© Commonwealth of Australia
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.