Competition and Consumer Amendment (Country of Origin) Act 2017

The Competition and Consumer Amendment (Country of Origin) Act 2017 is an amending Act. It changed the country of origin safe harbour rules in the Australian Consumer Law, which is Schedule 2 to the Competition and Consumer Act 2010.

The key practical effect is that businesses now have a clearer table of country of origin representations and the requirements that must be met for those representations. The amendment also replaced the earlier substantial transformation wording, clarified the treatment of packaging materials for certain claims, clarified how added water is treated for certain dried or concentrated ingredients, and removed some earlier provisions.

The safe harbour matters because the legislation says a person does not contravene certain misleading representation provisions only by making one of the listed country of origin representations if the corresponding requirements are met. Businesses should still be careful with the overall presentation of labels and advertising, but the table gives a direct starting point for assessing common origin claims.

The amendment is relevant to any business that makes country of origin claims about goods supplied to consumers in Australia. That commonly includes manufacturers, importers, distributors, retailers, private label brand owners and ecommerce sellers.

It applies where a business uses wording such as "grown in", "produce of", "made in", "manufactured in", "originates in", or a prescribed country of origin mark under an information standard. The claim can appear on packaging, labels, online product listings, catalogues, point of sale material or advertising.

The Act does not deal with services. If your business only supplies services and does not make origin claims about goods, this page is usually not the main compliance issue. If you supply both goods and services, focus on the goods side of the business.

The amended section 255 sets out a table of country of origin representations and the requirements for each one. Businesses should match the exact claim they want to make to the correct item in the table.

Here is a practical quick reference.

Quick reference table

"Grown in" a particular country
Each significant ingredient or significant component of the goods was grown in that country, and all or virtually all processes involved in the production or manufacture of the goods happened in that country.

"Produce of" a particular country
The country was 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 happened in that country.

"Made in", "manufactured in", or otherwise "originate in" a particular country
The goods were last substantially transformed in that country, and the representation is not one to which the "grown in" or "produce of" items apply.

Prescribed mark under an information standard
The requirements under the relevant information standard relating to the use of that mark must be met.

The wording differences matter. A business should not assume that a looser local connection supports a stronger claim. For example, a claim that goods were "grown in" a country has a stricter ingredients and process test than a claim that goods were "made in" a country.

Also note the structure of item 3. A "made in" or similar claim is only within that item if it is not really a claim covered by item 1 or item 2. That means businesses should choose claim wording carefully and assess the right category first.

For "made in", "manufactured in" or similar origin claims, the central concept is whether the goods were last substantially transformed in the claimed country.

The amended law says goods were substantially transformed in a country if either of two pathways is met. First, the goods met, in relation to that country, the requirements for the "grown in" or "produce of" items. Second, as a result of one or more processes undertaken in that country, the goods are fundamentally different in identity, nature or essential character from all of their ingredients or components that were imported into that country.

This is a practical test about the result of the processing. The legislation does not say that every local process is enough. It focuses on whether the goods become fundamentally different from all imported ingredients or components. Businesses should be cautious about relying on simple assembly, packing, relabelling or other limited steps unless they are confident the end product is fundamentally different in identity, nature or essential character.

The law also allows regulations to prescribe processes or combinations of processes that do not have that result, and to include examples of processes or combinations of processes that do have that result. So before relying on a substantial transformation analysis, businesses should check whether any regulations affect their product category.

The amendment includes two specific clarifications for item 1, which is the "grown in" claim.

First, packaging materials are not treated as ingredients or components of the goods for the purposes of that item. This means the origin of packaging does not need to be counted as part of the ingredients or components analysis for a "grown in" claim.

Second, water added to an ingredient or component is treated as having the same origin as the ingredient or component, regardless of the water's actual origin, if two conditions are met. The ingredient or component must have been dried or concentrated by the evaporation of water, and the added water must return the water content to no more than its natural level.

These rules are narrow and specific. They help with the item 1 analysis, but they should not be treated as a general rule for all origin claims or all product formulations.

You should review this legislation if your business does any of the following:

These trigger points matter because origin claims often remain in circulation across multiple channels. A claim that was accurate for one production run may become inaccurate after a sourcing or manufacturing change. Businesses should treat origin claims as a live compliance issue, not a one-off packaging decision.

The Act itself is short, but the practical compliance work can be detailed. Businesses should be able to explain why each origin claim fits the correct category and how the legal test is met.

Businesses should also be careful not to overstate what local activity means. Local packing, blending, finishing or relabelling may not support the same claim as local growing or local origin of all significant ingredients. The safest approach is to test the exact wording you want to use against the exact statutory requirements.

The Act received Royal Assent on 22 February 2017 and, under its commencement table, the whole Act commenced on the day after Royal Assent, being 23 February 2017.

It is an Act in force. Because it is an amending Act, businesses should read it together with the current Australian Consumer Law provisions it changed, especially section 255 of Schedule 2 to the Competition and Consumer Act 2010, and any applicable information standards or regulations.

Before finalising an origin claim, a business should confirm a few points internally.

If any of those points are uncertain, the claim should be reviewed before publication. Origin claims are often reused across packaging, websites and retailer portals, so one incorrect statement can spread quickly across the market.

This page is based on the text of the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Country of Origin) Act 2017 as published on the Federal Register of Legislation. The Act amends the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 by changing provisions in Schedule 2, which is the Australian Consumer Law.

This page explains the amendment at a practical level. It does not reproduce every surrounding consumer law rule that may apply to marketing conduct more broadly.