Competition and Consumer Amendment (Australian Consumer Law - Country of Origin Representations) Act 2020

The Competition and Consumer Amendment (Australian Consumer Law - Country of Origin Representations) Act 2020 is a short amending Act. It amends the Competition and Consumer Act 2010, specifically the Australian Consumer Law in Schedule 2, in relation to country of origin representations for goods.

The operative change is narrow but important. Schedule 1 inserts a new paragraph at the end of subsection 255(2) of Schedule 2. The added paragraph says that the goods underwent in that country one or more processes prescribed by the regulations.

In practical terms, this means subsection 255(2) now includes an additional pathway that may be relevant when a business is assessing whether it can make a country of origin claim for goods. The amendment is not a complete rewrite of the country of origin rules. It is one targeted addition to the existing ACL framework.

For businesses, the key point is that the Act may help in situations where goods include imported ingredients or components but still undergo qualifying processing in Australia. However, the Act does not itself tell you which processes count. That detail is left to regulations, so the Act must be read together with the current regulations before a business relies on this pathway.

One of the main points businesses need to understand is that this amendment adds a pathway. It does not simply rename or replace the existing concepts in the ACL.

Businesses often focus on whether goods were substantially transformed in Australia. This amendment does not say that substantial transformation is no longer relevant. Instead, it adds another route within subsection 255(2): goods can also qualify if they underwent in that country one or more processes prescribed by the regulations.

That distinction matters because the two ideas work differently. A substantial transformation analysis turns on the existing ACL framework. The prescribed process pathway depends on whether regulations identify one or more processes that count for this purpose, and whether your goods actually underwent those processes in the country named in the claim.

So the amendment should not be read as a blanket permission to make Australian origin claims whenever some work happens in Australia. The safer reading is that there are now multiple possible pathways under the subsection, and a business needs to identify which pathway it is relying on and whether the legal requirements for that pathway are actually met.

This amendment is relevant to businesses that make country of origin representations about goods. That includes statements on packaging, labels, websites, catalogues, online marketplaces, social media ads and other promotional material.

It is especially relevant where a business uses imported ingredients, raw materials or components but carries out processing in Australia before sale. Common examples can include blending, roasting, bottling, assembly, finishing, packaging and other production steps. It can also affect retailers and brand owners that do not manufacture the goods themselves but still decide what origin claims appear on the product or in advertising.

Importers, distributors and private label businesses should not assume this is only a manufacturer issue. If your business controls the wording used on the goods or in marketing, you may still need to verify that the claim is supportable.

Businesses are usually outside the practical scope of this amendment if they do not make any country of origin claim at all. But if your branding, imagery or wording implies Australian origin, it is sensible to review the position carefully under the ACL rather than focusing only on express statements.

You should revisit your country of origin claims whenever something changes in your supply chain, production model or marketing. A claim that was supportable at one point may become risky if the process changes, the location changes, or the regulations do not cover the process you now use.

Common trigger points include moving from local to imported inputs, changing contract manufacturers, adding or removing processing steps in Australia, changing packaging copy, launching a new product line, or expanding online sales where origin claims are repeated across multiple channels.

Another trigger point is any regulatory update. Because this Act relies on regulations to prescribe the relevant processes, businesses should not assume that an old compliance assessment is still current. If you have not checked the regulations recently, that is a reason to review the claim again.

Even a simple packaging refresh can create risk if the new wording is broader than the legal basis you have actually checked. The more prominent the origin claim becomes in your branding, the more important it is to confirm the basis for it.

The amendment is narrow, but the compliance work around it is practical and ongoing. If you want to rely on the prescribed process pathway, you need to do more than point to the Act. You need to confirm that the regulations prescribe the process your goods undergo, and that the process occurs in the country named in the claim.

You should also make sure your claim matches the actual production story of the goods. The amendment does not mean every product with imported content can safely be marketed with broad Australian origin wording. The exact words used still matter, and the overall impression created by the label or advertisement still needs to be accurate.

Good record keeping is essential. Keep manufacturing specifications, supplier information, batch records, production descriptions, contracts with processors, and copies of labels and marketing materials. If your claim is questioned, those records will be central to showing what happened and where.

Businesses should also make sure all channels are aligned. A compliant product label can still be undermined by inaccurate website copy, distributor descriptions or marketplace listings that overstate the product's origin.

Country of origin compliance is not only about what happened in the factory. It is also about what your business says publicly and what documents you can produce if the claim is challenged.

Useful records may include supplier declarations, manufacturing instructions, production logs, contracts with processors, freight and import records, packaging approvals, artwork versions and screenshots of online product pages. These materials help show both the actual production steps and the wording your business used at the time.

Conduct matters too. If your business changes suppliers, changes ingredients, moves a processing step offshore or starts using a different contract manufacturer, the legal basis for an origin claim may need to be reassessed. A claim can become problematic not only because it was wrong at launch, but because it stopped being accurate after the supply chain changed.

Businesses should build origin claim checks into product launch, packaging approval and supplier change processes. That is often more reliable than trying to fix the issue after labels and marketing have already gone live.

The Act is in force. According to the commencement table, sections 1 to 3 commenced on the day of Royal Assent, which was 10 November 2020. Schedule 1 commenced on 1 October 2020.

That means the amendment to subsection 255(2) of Schedule 2 to the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 is taken to have commenced on 1 October 2020. If you are reviewing older labels, advertising or conduct around that period, the commencement date matters.

The Act is recorded as No. 94, 2020 on the Federal Register of Legislation. The title is listed as in force.

Before making or keeping a country of origin claim, check the current text of the ACL provision you are relying on and the regulations that prescribe relevant processes. This amendment is only one part of the legal picture.

You should also review the exact words used in your labels and advertising, because different origin claims can carry different legal risks. If your product has a mixed origin story, or if manufacturing is split across countries, a careful legal review is sensible before launch or before a packaging refresh.

If you sell through distributors, marketplaces or retailers, make sure all versions of the claim are consistent. A compliant label can still be undermined by inaccurate website copy, product descriptions or promotional graphics.

Where the regulations do not clearly cover your process, do not assume the amendment helps you. The prescribed process pathway depends on what the regulations actually say, not on a general sense that the local processing was significant.

The operative amendment made by this Act is the insertion of paragraph (c) at the end of subsection 255(2) of Schedule 2 to the Competition and Consumer Act 2010. The inserted text states that the goods underwent in that country one or more processes prescribed by the regulations.

The Act received Royal Assent on 10 November 2020, and Schedule 1 commenced on 1 October 2020. The Act itself does not list the prescribed processes, so businesses need to check the current regulations for that detail.