Competition and Consumer (Australian Consumer Law—Country of Origin Information for Seafood for Immediate Consumption) Information Standard 2025

The primary group affected is any business that supplies seafood products for immediate consumption in Australia and is not already covered by the general country-of-origin labelling standard for packaged food. This includes fish and chip shops, seafood restaurants, sushi bars, food trucks selling prawn rolls, oyster bars, and any café or takeaway outlet offering a seafood item on a menu that is prepared and sold for consumption on the spot or within 24 hours. The obligation also falls on food outlets that do not explicitly mention ‘seafood’ on the menu but use names commonly associated with seafood, such as ‘surf ’n’ turf’ which implies a serving of steak and prawns. Upstream suppliers such as wholesalers, distributors, and processors are also affected: if they supply a seafood product that does not meet the section 5 criteria (for example because the product is not intended for immediate consumption at the point of supply, or is supplied in bulk to a restaurant for further cooking), they must provide written origin information upon request to purchasers who need the information to comply with section 5 in their own onward sales. This creates a chain of information transmission. The instrument explicitly excludes canteens, schools, prisons, hospitals, medical institutions, and fundraising events from both the section 5 obligation and the section 6 request obligation. That means a hospital cafeteria serving a seafood pie to patients is not required to display origin information under this standard, nor must its supplier provide origin information on request for that supply chain. The exemption likely reflects the view that captive consumers in institutional settings have less choice and that compliance costs would outweigh benefits. The instrument also does not apply where the Country of Origin Food Labelling Information Standard 2016 already requires labelling, so a packaged frozen fish fillet with a pre-printed label is outside the scope. This affects the cost structure of compliance: businesses must determine whether their product falls under the general standard or this new specific one. Small independent takeaway shops are likely to feel the burden most acutely because they lack dedicated compliance staff and may need to redesign menus and display cards, train counter staff, and maintain paperwork for three months.

Section 5 imposes a duty on the supplier of a seafood product that meets all criteria to provide in writing, clearly, prominently, legibly, and in English, one of the following depending on origin: if the product contains only seafood harvested in Australia, the word ‘Australian’ or the abbreviation ‘A’ with additional clarifying text; if only imported seafood, ‘imported’ or ‘I’ with clarification; if a mix, either ‘mixed’ or ‘M’ with clarification, or separate words or abbreviations identifying which seafood is Australian and which is imported. The information may appear on a menu, a digital display, a sign, or any other written form. The supplier is not required to affix a label to each individual serving. Section 6 creates a duty on a supplier (including a wholesaler or processor) of a seafood product that does not itself trigger section 5 to provide written origin information upon request by a purchaser who needs it to comply with section 5. This right of request is limited: the purchaser must seek the information for the purpose of enabling compliance with section 5 when supplying the product or food containing it. The supplier cannot refuse on the basis that the request is inconvenient; section 137AA of the ACL makes non-compliance a civil penalty provision. Section 7 imposes a record-keeping duty: a person who offers to supply a section 5 product and has provided a written statement with required origin information must keep the records relied on for that information for three months after the product is last offered for supply. ‘Records relied on’ is not defined, so businesses must exercise judgment about what documents (invoices, catch certificates, supplier declarations) are sufficient. The short three-month retention period is notable: it may reflect the perishable nature of seafood and the fast turnover of stock, but it also means that if an enforcement action is taken more than three months after the product was last offered, the business may have already destroyed the records, potentially making a defence more difficult. There is no duty to provide origin information to the end consumer orally on demand; the duty is only to display the required information. However, if a consumer asks verbally, the business is not obliged to answer under this instrument, though other laws (such as the general prohibition on misleading conduct) may apply if the business volunteers accurate information.

Non-compliance with section 5 (the core display requirement) attracts both criminal and civil penalty consequences under the Australian Consumer Law. Section 136 of Schedule 2 to the Act provides that a person must not supply goods in relation to which an information standard applies unless the goods comply with the standard. Contravention of section 136 is a criminal offence with a maximum penalty of 300 penalty units. As at mid-2025, one penalty unit is $313, so 300 units equals $93,900. Additionally, section 224 of Schedule 2 provides for civil pecuniary penalties for contraventions of section 136: for a body corporate, the maximum is the greater of $50 million, three times the value of the benefit obtained from the contravention, or 30% of the body corporate’s turnover during the breach period (if the benefit cannot be determined). For an individual, the maximum civil penalty is $2.5 million. These amounts are substantial even by Australian standards and pose a serious financial risk for any business found to have supplied non-compliant seafood for immediate consumption. Section 6 and section 7 of the instrument are directly enforced through section 137AA of the ACL, which is a pecuniary penalty provision. The same maximum penalties apply. This means that a wholesaler who fails to provide origin information in writing upon request, or a takeaway shop that fails to keep the records it relied on, could face a civil penalty of up to $50 million if a corporation, or $2.5 million if an individual. The instrument does not specify a lower penalty or a default infringement notice scheme, so the penalties are at the full range available under the ACL. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) will be the primary enforcement body. The ACCC has a history of enforcing country-of-origin standards with targeted campaigns, including naming and shaming on social media. There is also the possibility of private actions for damages or injunctions by competitors or consumers under the ACL, though those are less likely given the low per-unit value of a seafood meal. The practical enforcement risk is that an ACCC compliance sweep of fish and chip shops or sushi bars in a local area could result in notices of penalty for those not displaying the correct origin descriptor. Because the instrument does not commence until 1 July 2026, businesses have a grace period, but after that date penalties apply in full.

The instrument interacts most directly with the Country of Origin Food Labelling Information Standard 2016 (the general COOL standard). That standard applies to most packaged food sold in Australia and requires a kangaroo logo, a proportion statement, and other origin information. This new standard carves out products that are already subject to that general standard: section 5 does not apply if labelling is required by the 2016 standard. So for a pre-packaged smoked salmon slice with a label that already complies with the 2016 standard, no additional display is needed under this instrument. However, for unpackaged seafood sold for immediate consumption (e.g. a serving of fish and chips served on a tray without any pre-printed label), this instrument fills a gap. The instrument does not displace other provisions of the ACL. The prohibition against false or misleading representations about the country of origin (sections 29 and 151 of the Act) continues to apply. A business that labels seafood as ‘Australian’ under this instrument but knows it contains imported seafood may face both a breach of this standard and a separate contravention of the misleading conduct provisions, with potentially cumulative penalties. The Food Standards Australia New Zealand Act 1991 and the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code also govern seafood safety and labelling, but this instrument does not override them; it adds an additional requirement. The definition of ‘food’ in this instrument cross-references the Food Standards Australia New Zealand Act 1991, so there is consistency. The instrument also contains an express note that additional location labelling (e.g. ‘Tasmanian’, ‘Vietnamese’) may be used provided the required A, I, or M descriptor is also included. This means a restaurateur can promote the provenance of seafood (e.g. ‘King Island salmon’) but must still include ‘Australian’ or the abbreviation. The record-keeping requirement under section 7 is separate from any tax record-keeping obligations under the taxation law, but the same documents (supplier invoices, catch certificates) may serve both purposes. The short three-month retention period contrasts with the five-year period typically required for business records by the Australian Taxation Office, so businesses must be careful not to destroy origin records prematurely if they also serve tax purposes.

This instrument is newly made; it has no amendment history. It was signed by the Minister for Industry and Innovation on 24 June 2025 and will be registered on the Federal Register of Legislation. It will commence on the later of the day after registration and 1 July 2026. The instrument is a legislative instrument made under the Competition and Consumer Act 2010, and it may be amended or revoked by the Minister at any time by a subsequent instrument. Any future amendment would be required to follow the same general legislative process and be registered. The transitional period until July 2026 provides time for businesses to become aware of the requirements and to adjust their operations, but it is not a phase-in by stages - the obligations will apply in full from commencement. The instrument is not accompanied by an explanatory statement that sets out the Minister’s reasons or a regulatory impact statement, but the Act itself does not require one. If a future government or minister decides to expand the standard to other types of seafood (for example to include shelf-stable products) or to reduce the exemptions, that would require an amending instrument.

There is no litigation history directly concerning this instrument as of the date it was made. It has not yet commenced. However, there is a broader body of case law on the meaning of ‘country of origin’ representations under the ACL and on the enforcement of information standards generally. Cases such as ACCC v. TPG Internet (2013) and ACCC v. Coles (2014) establish that the courts take a broad, purposive approach to whether a representation is misleading. The definitions in this instrument may be tested if the ACCC brings a proceeding against a supplier who used the abbreviation ‘A’ without clarifying text and a court must interpret whether ‘additional information making it clear’ was adequate. The definition of ‘seafood product’ is also likely to be litigated if a supplier argues that a product falls within the excluded categories (e.g. a sauce containing pureed shellfish) and the ACCC argues that some solid seafood remains. Past cases under the food standards code, such as ACCC v. De Kock (2012), have examined what constitutes ‘harvested in Australia’ in relation to seafood, and that case law will be relevant here. Because the instrument uses the same language for ‘harvested in Australia’ as appears in the general COOL standard and in the ACL’s country-of-origin provisions (sections 255-259 of the Act), existing case law on those provisions will inform enforcement. For example, if a prawn is caught in Indonesian waters but landed in Australia for processing, the question of whether it is ‘harvested in Australia’ may arise. The definition in this instrument is territorial and exclusive economic zone based, so a strict geographic approach likely applies. For now, the litigation history is limited to related matters, and this instrument will likely generate its own enforcement actions after commencement.

Several provisions can trap the unwary. First, the 24-hour window in section 5(c) - ‘supplied within 24 hours after purchase’ - may create confusion. A fish and chip shop that sells raw fish for customers to take home and cook the next day may not be caught, but if the fish is sold intending consumption within 24 hours (e.g. for dinner that evening), the standard applies. There is no de minimis threshold, so a single serving could trigger the obligation. Second, the ‘marketed as being or containing seafood’ test is broad. A menu item called ‘seafood linguini’ is obvious, but a product called ‘the lot’ that contains both steak and prawns may be caught because the name is commonly associated with seafood. The instrument’s note specifically gives ‘surf ’n’ turf’ as an example, but many businesses may not realise their menu items fall under this description. Third, the exclusions for shelf-stable and pureed products (paragraphs (b) and (c) of the seafood product definition) might be misinterpreted. A restaurant serving a ‘Thai fish cake’ made from minced fish that is cooked and then frozen for later use may appear to be a ‘shelf-stable’ product, but the exclusion requires the product to be both shelf-stable and consist of chopped, diced, minced, pureed or shaved seafood. If the fish cake is not shelf-stable (i.e. it requires refrigeration), it is not excluded and must display origin information. Fourth, the record-keeping requirement in section 7 is only for three months after the product is last offered for supply. This is very short compared to typical business record retention. If a business disposes of records after three months but the ACCC conducts an investigation 18 months later, the business may be unable to prove its reliance on the origin information it displayed. That may not be an offence per se, but it could weaken a defence if the ACCC challenges the accuracy of the display. Fifth, the information must be ‘clearly visible, prominent and legible’ and in English. A small print note at the bottom of a menu may be challenged as not prominent. Sixth, the abbreviations A, I and M are permitted only if accompanied by ‘additional information making it clear’ what the abbreviation refers to. A mere letter without context is insufficient. Seventh, the section 6 duty to provide information on request applies only if the purchaser requests it for a specific purpose: enabling compliance with section 5 in relation to supplying the product or food that uses it as an ingredient. A wholesaler does not have to volunteer the information unprompted, but once a request is made, the information must be provided in writing. The request does not have to be in any particular form, but the supplier should keep a record of the request and the response to demonstrate compliance. Finally, the exclusions for institutional settings and fundraising events are narrow: a church fundraiser selling seafood platters is exempt, but a commercial food stall at a school fete is not necessarily exempt unless the event itself meets the definition of a ‘fund raising event’ under the 2016 standard. That definition is not set out in this instrument, so businesses must cross-reference the 2016 standard or risk misapplying the exemption.

A business that supplies seafood for immediate consumption should start by determining whether its products fall within section 5. The test is cumulative: is the product a seafood product (i.e., not a sauce, not shelf-stable minced, not for special medical purposes)? Is it intended for immediate consumption after supply? Is it marketed as being or containing seafood? Is it supplied within 24 hours after purchase? Is it not supplied by an excluded institution? Is it not already labelled under the 2016 standard? If the answer is yes to all, the business must ensure that for each product, the correct origin descriptor (Australian, imported, or mixed) appears in writing, clearly, prominently, legibly, and in English, on the menu, a digital display, a sign, or any other written medium. Abbreviations may be used only if accompanied by additional clarifying text (e.g. ‘A - Australian’ or ‘I - Imported’). The business should verify the origin of all seafood ingredients. For each fish species used, obtain from the supplier a written declaration stating whether the seafood was harvested in Australia, outside Australia, or a mix. Keep these declarations as records. If the supplier will not provide a written declaration, the business must decide whether it can rely on other evidence such as catch certificates or import documentation. Section 7 requires that the records relied on be kept for three months after the product is last offered for supply. A practical approach is to keep a simple log showing the origin of each seafood type, the date range it was offered for supply, and the supporting document reference. If the business does not directly supply a section 5 product but supplies seafood to other businesses that do (e.g. a wholesale distributor selling raw fish to a restaurant), it must prepare to respond to requests for written origin information under section 6. The business should develop a standard response template that states whether each product is Australian, imported, or mixed. Upon receiving a request, the response must be provided in writing. Keeping a copy of the request and the response is wise for record-keeping, though section 7 does not strictly require it for section 6 products. Staff training is essential. Counter staff and kitchen managers should understand the definitions and be able to locate the origin information. Regular audits of menu displays should check that every seafood item carries the required descriptor. For businesses that change their menu frequently (e.g. daily specials), the origin information must be updated accordingly. Given the significant penalties (up to $50 million for corporations under section 224 and section 137AA), robust compliance processes are not disproportionate. A simple spreadsheet tracking seafood origins, menu dates, and record retention can reduce risk substantially.