Mr TICEHURST (11:32 AM) —I am delighted to be speaking in support of the Industry, Tourism and Resources Legislation Amendment Bill 2002. The bill will correct out-of-date references and technical errors that have occurred as a result of drafting and clerical mistakes and will also clarify provisions to ensure that they operate in the way that was intended. The bill will also repeal two acts that no longer have any legal operation and that are redundant.

The Automotive Competitiveness and Investment Scheme, ACIS, was established to provide transitional assistance to encourage competitive investment and innovation in the Australian automotive industry. The act provides incentives to registered organisations for eligible production, investment in plant and equipment, and research and development. Currently these incentives come in the form of duty credits that may be sold or transferred to other people or used to offset customs duty liability on eligible imports. At present, it is not clear whether there is authority for those duty credits to be used for refunds on duties that have already been paid. This amendment will make specific provision in the act for this use of the ACIS duty credits. ACIS participants will benefit from this amendment as it effectively increases the flexibility of ACIS duty credits. The intention is to deliver the same level of benefits to the industry so that there will be no budgetary impact.

The bill amends the Trade Practices Act 1974 to correct a drafting oversight in the Trade Practices Amendment (Country of Origin Representations) Act 1998. The Trade Practices Act currently protects certain conduct and representations as to the place of origin of products. If a product meets a general test for country of origin representations, it cannot be subject to litigation for misleading or deceptive conduct. Where suppliers respond to consumer demand for information about the country of origin of the goods that they buy, the provisions of the Trade Practices Act provide a framework to ensure that the information provided to consumers is accurate.

The criteria for what can be described as `made in' and `product of' are intended to protect the consumer from misrepresentations regarding the origin of goods and to enable the consumer to make an informed choice about their purchases. The criteria set out in the Trade Practices Act is as follows. To be made in a country, the goods must have been substantially transformed in that country, and 50 per cent or more of the cost of producing or manufacturing the goods must be attributable to processes that have occurred in that country. For goods to be a product of a country, the country must be the place of origin of each significant ingredient or significant component of the goods, and all of the processes involved in the production or manufacture must have happened in that country.

For example, consider a lawnmower that was assembled entirely in Australia from parts that were prefabricated in the USA. Assume that the cost of assembling the lawnmower in Australia is negligible. If the lawnmower is subsequently sold with the claim that it was `made in' or a `product of' Australia, it would clearly breach both tests. Alternatively, assume that the mower was assembled in Australia from parts that were manufactured in Australia but it still contained a substantial amount—say, 20 per cent—of components that were produced in the USA. In this situation, the goods could certainly be labelled as being `made in Australia'. A claim that the country of origin of the goods was misrepresented would fail because the claim `made in Australia' falls within the defence provided by section 65AB of the act.

These defences currently apply only with respect to representations as to the place of origin of the goods. However, claims can also be made that the history of the goods has been misrepresented. For example, selling a flower described as `grown in New Zealand' would be a representation as to the history of the goods. However, a representation like this could also refer to New Zealand as the country of origin of the goods. By extension, the terms `product of' or `made in' can also imply facts about the history of the goods.

As a result, it is possible to make a claim that there is a misrepresentation as to the history of the goods even if the terms `made in' or `product of' are used. Because the `made in' and `product of' defences only apply to representations about the country of origin's goods, the defences could be circumvented by making a claim with regard to the history of the goods. Also, the history of the goods is an unlikely basis for making a claim as to country of origin. It is a legislative oversight which amendments in the bill are intended to fix. The amendments would extend the defences of claims under both country of origin and history of the goods. The legislation also protects vendors who are labelling their goods correctly, enabling them to gain whatever marketing advantages arise from labelling goods with the country of origin or information about the history of the goods. These amendments close an oversight in the drafting of previous amendments and will protect vendors from claims which were unintentionally made possible under the legislation as it stands.

The bill also amends the Pooled Development Funds Act 1992, the PDF Act, to correct a drafting error which rendered section 4A inoperative. Section 31 of the PDF Act restricts certain persons that are not widely-held complying superannuation funds from holding more than 30 per cent of a pooled development fund, subject to the approval of the PDF Registration Board. Subsection 4A(1) of the PDF Act defined a widely-held complying superannuation fund as one that was not an `excluded superannuation fund' under the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993, provided it met certain tests. From 8 October 1999, the definition of an excluded superannuation fund was repealed under the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act. This meant that the definition of a widely-held complying superannuation fund became inoperative. This bill amends the PDF Act to correct the error by amending the definition of a widely-held complying superannuation fund to provide that such a fund must have a minimum of five members.

The bill also repeals two acts that are no longer relevant. The Aluminium Industry Act 1960 provided the legislative approval to allow for the Commonwealth's interest in the Bell Bay smelter in Tasmania to be sold to Comalco Limited. The Management and Investment Companies Act 1983 established a scheme that ceased to operate in 1991, with the related clawback provisions—protective refund clauses—becoming inactive in 1995-96. These acts have served their purpose but are now redundant. The Howard government has a commitment to remove from the statute books unnecessary business legislation. The other amendments are technical in nature and involve no change to the substance of the law, so I will not speak on them today. I believe the bill will serve to clarify provisions to ensure they operate in the way that we intended, and I commend these amendments to the House.