Food Amendment (Public Information on Offences) Bill 2008

About this Item
Speakers - Fraser Mr Andrew; Amery Mr Richard; Hodgkinson Ms Katrina; McKay Ms Jodi; Moore Ms Clover; Judge Ms Virginia; Lynch Mr Paul
Business - Bill, Message, Agreement in Principle, Passing of the Bill, Motion

FOOD AMENDMENT (PUBLIC INFORMATION ON OFFENCES) BILL 2008

Page: 5942

Agreement in Principle

Debate resumed from 28 February 2008.

Mr ANDREW FRASER (Coffs Harbour—Deputy Leader of The Nationals) [5.31 p.m.]: The Opposition will not oppose the Food Amendment (Public Information on Offences) Bill. However, we will raise some discrepancies in the bill. We do not see it as our job to fix Government legislation, but we do see it as our job to highlight inadequacies. Nine months ago the Government promised to introduce name-and-shame legislation. This legislation came about in response to articles in the Sydney Morning Herald about a sushi factory and photographs in the Daily Telegraph of retail kitchens that I would not allow my dog to eat food from. The Minister promised to fix the situation. I suggest it was a matter of fix the headline, not the situation.

Nine months later the Government has introduced a detailed bill that includes many amendments to existing legislation and threatens to name and shame. In reality, it does not do that. The bill states that the Food Authority may keep a register, not must keep a register. The fault in this simple amendment highlights the fault in the legislation. The agreement in principle speech read by the Minister for Emergency Services—who is at the table—on behalf of the Minister for Primary Industries, gave an example of unacceptable conditions that would lead to a person being named and shamed. The Minister said:

Observed fresh baby octopus in a deteriorated cement mixer. Cement mixer was badly rusted, with the edges of the cement mixer breaking off into pieces. A plastic tub below used to catch excess liquid from the mixer contained the pieces of metal which had broken off from the mixer during the processing of the octopus. Deteriorated cement mixer, covered in rust with flaking metal was being used to clean & tenderise fresh octopus. Confirmed during inspection and during recorded interview that the product in the mixer was intended for sale and for human consumption. The business concerned did not have an appropriate food safety program.

That would be a most extreme case and should not be given as an example by the Minister when introducing this legislation. The photographs in the Daily Telegraph showed kitchens of retail food outlets in Sydney with rotted food, rat faeces, cockroaches and broken tiles. Those problems were not referred to in the agreement in principle speech. The legislation states that when a notice or a penalty is issued following an inspection of premises the matter may go to court. We all know how slow the court system is in this State. Following the commencement of court proceedings, or alternatively the payment or partial payment of a conviction notice, publication of the matter is withheld. If an inspector issues a bluey, no matter how severe the offence, the easy way out is for the owner to partially pay the notice or defend the case in the court. If it is a case of the cement mixer or rat faeces or rubbish on a restaurant kitchen bench publication of the matter will not occur until such time as the matter is finalised. That is totally unacceptable. An article by Matthew Moore in last weekend's Sydney Morning Herald sums it up:

Herald

That is the sort of stuff we are getting at the moment. It is the sort of stuff that the Minister has delivered upon us and said, "This is going to be name and shame legislation." It is not name and shame legislation. I put to every member of this House that we have a right to know that when we go to the parliamentary dining room or to any restaurant in New South Wales that that restaurant has been passed as fit to produce food for human consumption and that it has not breached the Food Act in any way, shape or form. As far as we are concerned, salmonella is serious poisoning. There have been instances in New South Wales and across Australia where people have died from it, and when you have young children—

Ms Katrina Hodgkinson: And seniors.

Mr ANDREW FRASER: Seniors, as the member for Burrinjuck says, quite often will buy a meal out, purely in order to feed themselves or because there are only two of them. They deserve to know that the establishment from which they are buying the food has not been convicted of an offence. I suggest to the Minister that he should wander around some of the restaurants in Sydney. Some of the restaurants that I have walked past and looked into seem to be badly in need of some inspection to see what is happening out the back because the conditions and cleanliness inside the restaurant are fairly poor. I will not name the restaurants: it is the Government's job to name and shame them. If the Minister went for a wander around Potts Point or the eateries in eastern Sydney he would find some restaurants that have questionable standards compared with what we expect within our own kitchens or within any food outlet.

Many years ago Al's Pie Bar at Charlestown, I think it was, was investigated after much public complaint. It was found that the restaurant was putting canned dog food into its pies. This is the sort of thing that can go on, but there is no indication in this bill, and there is no acknowledgement by the Minister, as to what is a serious offence. It was suggested in the agreement in principle speech that an example of a serious offence was someone using a rusting cement mixer to tenderise squid. I suggest that that lot on the other side of the Chamber has been in government for far too long. Government members are getting silver service in excellent places far too often and they are not out in their electorates seeing what is going on in some fast food outlets and other areas.

We only have to look at photographs published in the Daily Telegraph and read about the sushi factory that the Sydney Morning Herald brought to our attention. That sushi factory was delivering sushi all over New South Wales. The offences were serious—people could have been killed—yet they were hidden. The Government can say it is not the case but I believe under this legislation such offences will remain hidden. When the legislation contains clauses that say that the Food Authority, at its discretion, may remove listings from its website, that indicates to me that no-one will know what is going on. If an argument put by a proprietor of a business that he or she might go bankrupt as a result of being named adversely is good enough, it gives the proprietor the opportunity to have that listing removed.

A listing may be removed or not put on the register purely because of the fact that a notice issued on the spot is being contested in court or a fine is partially paid. The process drags on for 6 to 12 months, during which time the Food Authority is held off. If the full fine is not paid, the matter goes to court and takes another 6 to 12 months. During that whole time a serious breach will not be notified to the unsuspecting buyers of the product from that food establishment because this legislation will allow any publication of the offence to be delayed. New sections 133A (3), 133A (4), 133B (2) (b) and 133D (4) allow the Food Authority not to publish or, alternatively, allow the Food Authority to remove information about a conviction. New section 133D (4) states:

What are the circumstances?

Mr Richard Amery: What if a new owner takes over the restaurant?

Mr ANDREW FRASER: I think that is appropriate. If a new owner takes over the restaurant and rectifies the problem, obviously the listing should be removed. But that is not stated in the bill. When the member for Mount Druitt was Minister I am sure he would not have let this piece of legislation pass from his desk without giving some guarantees to the public. We do not want to fix the headline; we want to fix the problem. I suggest that this legislation should go even further: it should apply to all public facilities that provide food or sustenance to people.

We eat in the parliamentary dining room. I have looked at the restaurant and the kitchen: it is spotlessly clean, and I congratulate the staff here on that. But when it comes to nursing homes, hospitals and so on, we need to ensure that they are subject to some form of governance and naming and shaming. Nothing could be more important to the public than to have, for example, public hospitals with clean kitchens. I will read an article that appeared in the Daily Telegraph on Monday 25 February. The article, written by Kelvin Bissett, is headed, "Enough to make you sick. Hospital kitchen filth". It states:

That is 94 per cent of 171 hospitals audited. It continues:

Daily Telegraph

We do not know which four they were. The article continues:

But the hospitals won't be named and shamed as the Food Authority claims it would be a breach of their business affairsconsidered more important than patients' right to know of threats to their health.

When one goes to a hospital one expects to be given food of the highest possible standard, served from kitchens and facilities that meet all standards. Four of these hospitals failed on all counts, but the public is not being told. A hospital patient I was planning to visit asked me to bring him a McDonalds hamburger because it would be far better than the rubbish he was being served. When I saw the meals being served I thought they were pretty ordinary. They may have been safe, but I am not sure. They were very unappetising, to say the least. The article continues:

What a load of rot! We are talking about hospitals, which is where people go to get well! They go in ill and hopefully they will be given the care and attention necessary to ensure that they leave fit and healthy. However, the excuse for not exposing them is that such action could result in their not cooperating with future audits. The audits should be mandatory; they should be included in this legislation so that food inspectors can undertake inspections, name and shame, and ensure that the highest standards are met. The article states:

that was a Freudian slip! We have freedom from information in this State. The article actually states:

We must take her word for that. When one reads about the offences it is surprising that there was no threat to public health. Someone coughed into a glove and did not remove it, and someone picked up food off the floor and served it to patients. For God's sake! This is the twenty-first century. People should expect to go to hospital and be served food that has been prepared in sanitary conditions. The article continues:

He was one person who was prepared to make a comment. The Opposition believes that this legislation probably will not achieve what the Government's media release says it will. As I said, one article shows that councils across New South Wales are not conducting inspections, or, if they are, they probably have the best restaurants in Australia. I know that Leichhardt is renowned for some of its restaurants. However, at the end of the day, we must ensure that public safety is paramount. The Government has an obligation and, dare I say, a duty to ensure that. This legislation will not do that.

I challenge the Government to amend the bill to include public facilities such as hospitals, nursing homes, the parliamentary dining room and any other public authority that serves or prepares food for sale. It should ensure that they are required to meet those minimum standards and toughen up the legislation so that when someone is charged the notification is made public. That has worked in America and England, but the Minister in his media conference said, "This is Australia." Why should we believe that Australia is any different? Surely as Australians we expect to have world-class standards or standards that are applied worldwide. We do not want a subset of standards based on the Minister' belief that a rusty cement mixer being used to tenderise squid is a serious offence but someone coughing into a glove or picking up food from the floor and serving it is not, especially when it occurs in a hospital.

As I said, the Opposition will not oppose the legislation, but we challenge the Government to amend this legislation to achieve what the public expect; that is, that food manufacturers, retail outlets and the public health system will be monitored so that appropriate information is provided. We do not want a rerun of the situation with the sushi factory last year. The Government finally came clean after the media got hold of the story. We need the Government to introduce legislation similar to that enacted in America to ensure that public health and safety in New South Wales are guaranteed and that anyone who breaches those standards is named and shamed.

Mr RICHARD AMERY (Mount Druitt) [5.56 p.m.]: I very happy to support what the Government and the Minister are doing with the Food Amendment (Public Information on Offences) Bill 2008. Although I will not go into too much detail about what the member for Coffs Harbour said in leading for the Opposition, I will point that the situation with the Food Authority has been evolutionary. I am comfortable in stating that the Australian and New South Wales system of paddock-to-the-plate food monitoring and quality assurance is the best in the world. There is a lot more to the Minister's statement that "This is Australia" than first appears. Australia does have an extremely good record in this area.

The member for Coffs Harbour was critical of various aspects of the bill and highlighted some cases and newspaper articles. He talked about naming people very quickly and ensuring that everything is publicised and the like. He also questioned whether a restaurant or food outlet could ever be removed from a register. Food quality and policing is a very technical and scientific public policy area. When legislation was introduced to deal with SafeFood New South Wales and the action it was taking to ensure that butchers in country New South Wales were complying with food safety regulations, the member for Orange made representations to the Government. I am not criticising the member because what he said was valid. He said that we should proceed with caution and take the industries and outlets with us. That was the tenor of his submissions to the Government when we were moving towards establishing an authority to police food standards. It is not as easy as it appears and action cannot be based on media horror stories.

As I said, I am happy to support the bill. It is a good bill and it follows on from various aspects of the administration undertaken by the authority, such as issuing penalty notices. That was not in the system a couple of years ago. The Minister is doing the right thing in making steady progress by introducing legislation providing the authority with more power on a year-by-year basis. The Food Authority and its predecessor, SafeFood New South Wales, were probably the only positive outcomes from the competition policy induced deregulation of a number of entities and industries in New South Wales, particularly the dairy and meat industries. Prior to that deregulation process, food safety was a fragmented area of government policy. It was a hotchpotch arrangement.

Local government played a role, but responsibility was divided between many council areas, most of which did not involve themselves with the council next door, let alone councils in other parts of the State. The member for Coffs Harbour highlighted one council that may never have launched a prosecution and others that did it very well. In other words, the local government role was inconsistent and based on boundaries or priorities determined by local government. The Department of Health played a role, but its food safety role was historically poorly resourced and played a secondary role to primary health and the management of hospitals, and so on.

The only effective food safety regimes in place prior to this deregulation were carried out by the then New South Wales Dairy Corporation and the Meat Industry Authority, together with perhaps fruit and vegetable monitoring through our Sydney market system and New South Wales Agriculture, which played a monitoring and quality assurance role. Regulation, the collection of levies, and the like, allowed these organisations, which no longer exist, to fund monitoring and quality assurance programs and enforcement. Picking the best of all these agencies and programs allowed the establishment of SafeFood and its evolution in the New South Wales Food Authority, which has made it the organisation it is today. The Government and the community should be very proud of this organisation. In his second reading speech, the Minister for Emergency Services and Water said:

It is probably the only statement of the Minister that I disagree with. It is certainly an understatement. I believe the Government and the Minister are being too modest. The work of the Food Authority, its link to other agencies—particularly Health—and its work to bring the coordinating role to local government, something which was lacking in years gone by, make it already the leading food authority in Australia. I believe the bill will only further enhance that record. In fact, other States have looked to New South Wales as a model for embellishing and bringing up to date food safety across the country. This was stated by the Minister for Primary Industries, the Hon. Ian Macdonald, in his foreword to the authority's annual report. I know that annual reports can be very sterile publications and do not make for very good reading, but the annual report of the Food Authority is a good read and I commend it to members. Minister Macdonald said:

The authority is still the only fully integrated food safety agency in Australia.

That is the fact, and yet we have been working on this for a number of years. Food safety is something that we, in this country, take for granted—and perhaps too lightly. We have been lucky. The great majority of us can buy uncooked food and take it home, knowing that the quality and safety of the product is not in question. When we dine in a restaurant, I would argue that the last thing on our minds is whether the food put in front of us is safe to eat. We have this feeling of security because, apart from some occasional outbreak or incidence of an upset stomach, food quality has always been of a high standard in Australia, particularly as compared with the position in other countries—a matter highlighted by the member for Coffs Harbour. Picking up the tenor of the contributions of the member for Orange and other members of The Nationals who have raised these issues in years gone by, I too am of the view that despite this situation we should not be complacent.

I believe that every outlet wants to supply a high-quality product. It is good business practice to provide a high-quality product and not be caught up in a food quality scandal or scare. Owners of food outlets want to stay in business; they want us to return to their establishments on another day. The people at the Food Authority have never gone out of their way to jump on a retailer who has had the misfortune of having had some contaminated food inadvertently delivered to his or her premises, or whose employee, perhaps a casual employee, has caused a food safety issue. In the past, in answers to questions about prosecutions, the authority has been at pains to point out that it is about educating food handlers, correcting poor practices done in good faith, and prosecuting only as a last resort. I hope that with this new power the authority does not lose sight of that emphasis on education to prevent incidences of food poisoning and working with the industry and outlets.

This practice should be supported by all of us. No-one wants to see the authority go the way of many local councils, which when given the authority to police parking offences and so on have come to regard it as a lucrative and easy way to raise revenue. This has been highlighted in the media over many months. Any similar action by the Food Authority would not benefit small business and would destroy the reputation of the authority, which is getting worldwide acclaim for its role in changing practices and working with groups, businesses and other authorities to get the best outcomes for consumers. That is not just an idle boast about one of our own government instrumentalities. The organisers of the Beijing Olympics are using the New South Wales Food Authority to set up food safety practices for the next Olympic Games. Who have they gone to for quality food programs? It is the New South Government and the New South Wales Food Authority.

Of course, there are always those businesses that, no matter how hard you try and no matter how many warnings are given to them or prosecutions lodged against them, just do not get the message. They regard an infringement notice or court prosecution as just another overhead that has to be met by the company. Such outlets should be the target of this legislation. The Minister has highlighted a number horror stories in his agreement in principle speech, and I will not repeat them all. The member for Coffs Harbour drew attention to the octopus in the cement mixer example as a good reason for giving the authority the power to act. In this regard I agree with the member for Coffs Harbour. It is probably an extreme example, but I think it is a good one to attract attention.

An example comes to mind to highlight the fact that no one is bulletproof, as it were, from the effects of food poisoning. On the very day that the former Safe Food Authority launched one of its corporate logos in this Parliament two of its senior officers were carted off to hospital following a lunch at a well-regarded restaurant nearby at which they consumed contaminated food. I suppose the public could be forgiven for saying that if officers of Safe Food can be admitted to hospital as a result of dining at a well-regarded Sydney restaurant no-one can take food safety as a 100 per cent given.

In conclusion, I believe the Food Authority is doing a commendable job. It is regulating some 55,000 businesses across New South Wales. The number of prosecutions—I will not read them out; they appear in the Minister's foreword to the annual report—is quite significant, but it is a small percentage in view of the number of businesses that are regulated. I think that is good news. I do not believe that we should be running off and giving every food premises a ticket because a staff member or casual employee has done the wrong thing on one day. I would hate to think that a highly regarded restaurant, because of some indiscretion that can be corrected by counselling and so on, would have its name on a register forever. That is why I believe the authority should have the discretion to remove premises from a black list, if you like, once it has shown it is complying with food safety standards. Surely an establishment that changes ownership should not remain on such a register. I think that would be very unfair.

The number of prosecutions and infringements issued, and warnings given, is impressive. More importantly, it shows that prosecutions and taking people to court are not the main game of the organisation. Its work on partnerships with local government and other government agencies has been one of its strengths over the past few years. Unlike the former speaker, I commend the Minister and the Government for their continued support of the authority, and congratulate them and Mr George Davey, the director general, and his 118 staff, on their industry-leading work on behalf of all consumers in New South Wales. I congratulate the authority and its staff also on being chosen by other countries for their expertise to ensure that the people of Beijing have a proud food safety record for their Olympic Games. I am very proud to commend this bill to the House.

Ms KATRINA HODGKINSON (Burrinjuck) [6.08 p.m.]: I join other members in supporting the Food Amendment (Public Information on Offences) Bill 2008. I am a proponent of hygiene, particularly when it comes to food preparation. Nothing is more important in the sphere of public health than food hygiene. We do not necessarily know when we go to a restaurant or cafeteria where the food we are about to eat is prepared. Similarly, a patient in a nursing home or hospital would not know where the food they are served has been prepared. For that reason I support what the member for Coffs Harbour, who had carriage of this debate for the Opposition, said earlier. The Government should indeed be legislating to require that any breaches of the Food Act by public hospitals and other government bodies be published.

In May last year the Government promised to name and shame food manufacturers and/or outlets that breached the provisions of the Food Act. In that regard the member for Coffs Harbour gave a couple of examples. He referred particularly to a sushi factory in Sydney that was operating in extremely unhygienic circumstances, which led to a number of people being poisoned. Not all examples are as extreme as that. On several occasions I have suffered from food poisoning but fortunately I am of an age at which I can handle it better than others can. The more senior and frail members of our community would be less likely to handle a case of botulism or salmonella. These serious illnesses are totally avoidable in this day and age. I seem to recall that the member for Mount Druitt, in his former capacity, introduced the Food Act in 2003. I spoke in debate on that legislation at the time.

Mr Richard Amery: I spoke on it earlier than that.

Ms KATRINA HODGKINSON: Earlier than that as well. It is important that we do not compromise when it comes to standards of hygiene. As representatives of the general public, we must ensure that those we represent are safe when consuming foods prepared for the public at large. Whether one is serving in a five-star restaurant or preparing cook-chill for a government institution, standards of hygiene apply—as they do for food served in our nursing homes, cafes and boarding houses. Food handling is as important as food ingredients. Sure, it is great that plastic gloves are used by food handlers, but they must not use the same gloves to coiffe their hair or to handle money and then handle food again. I am sure all of us have seen examples of this, whether in a fast food cafe or elsewhere. I am continually amazed that people serving behind counters are not given adequate training to teach them that they must not handle money with the same plastic gloves that they will then use to make an egg sandwich.

The member for Mount Druitt referred to amendments to the regulations in relation to butchers. To clarify the position for the member, my concerns and those of the member for Orange are not about the hygiene of butchers and that aspect of the regulations; our concerns relate to compliance costs for country butchers. Such costs sent many butchers to the wall. A butcher who traded in Gunning three days a week could not meet the compliance costs and his butchery closed. I have spoken in this place about the effect compliance costs would have on the Murrumbateman butchery. My concerns are not about the hygiene side of things but the cost of compliance. I make that distinction today because small businesses are continually impacted by regulations agreed to in this place. It is important that the Government realises that it can send a small business to the wall. I am happy to say that the Murrumbateman butcher is still operating as one of the best butchers in this State, providing absolutely top-quality meat. I am a regular consumer of meat from the Murrumbateman butchery.

The Opposition does not oppose the bill but we believe it could have been strengthened in many ways. The member for Coffs Harbour referred to the failure to guarantee the publication of all convictions. He referred also to the fact that subsections (3) and (4) of proposed section 133 will provide for offences not to be published, subject to a successful conviction or after an appeal against a successful conviction is finalised. Proposed section 133A (3) allows for a penalty notice served on a person not to be published if the amount under the penalty notice has been fully or partly paid. Parts of this legislation will not necessarily name and shame the individual organisation involved. The bill is a bit misleading, but overall we continue to support strengthening laws that will enhance food hygiene and food preparation and also the quality of the contents of food served to the public.

Ms JODI McKAY (Newcastle) [6.14 p.m.]: I support this bill also and remind the House of the enormous progress made by this Government in advancing food safety in New South Wales since the inception of the Food Authority in 2004. Members will recall debate only last year to introduce amendments to the Food Act to facilitate the role of local councils in the administration and enforcement of the Food Act and the Food Standards Code. These amendments were to ensure a greater level of consistency between the 152 local council areas in New South Wales. I was pleased to speak in support of those amendments. In my electorate, Newcastle City Council has an excellent history of enforcement in relation to food safety, and I am hopeful it will continue to offer its full support to the Food Authority's enforcement programs for the benefit of residents.

There are around 700 restaurants and food outlets in the Newcastle area, and it is imperative that local people have confidence in the Newcastle City Council to continue its role in the enforcement process. Our city is well known for its dining experience, and the quality and diversity of food on offer. It would be disappointing indeed if Newcastle council were to opt for a category of involvement not commensurate with its resources, expertise and capacity. So I hope Newcastle council makes a decision that is in the best interests of residents.

The justification for this bill is clear. The public has a right to information on food law breaches by food businesses. Informed consumers can take compliance history into account when deciding where to eat or where to shop. Further benefits of the bill and the publication of convictions and penalty notices will provide an additional deterrent to non-compliance by food businesses, and will lead to increased levels of compliance. The bill will also provide greater transparency of enforcement action and help to enhance consistency across all enforcement agencies and promote best practice. Enforcement of the Food Act and its regulations is essential for the effective management of food safety risks and the prevention of misleading conduct in connection with the sale of food.

In developing the bill the Government has achieved an appropriate balance and developed a fair, consistent and transparent method of informing consumers while having regard to the fair treatment of food businesses. Importantly, the bill also provides for a right of review for an interested person additional to the court-elect available in the first instance. The Food Authority will assume responsibility for publication matters and maintain close management of the system to ensure consistent, fair reporting is maintained. Taking all that into account, I commend the bill to the House.

Ms CLOVER MOORE (Sydney) [6.17 p.m.]: The Food Amendment (Public Information on Offences) Bill 2008 will promote the publication on the Food Authority's website of convictions and penalty notices associated with the handling or sale of food. I support this as a positive step towards transparency of food safety but I still share community concerns that the bill needs to go further to ensure the food industry is open and accountable. There are social and economic reasons to inform the public about the safety of food available for consumption. The consumer watchdog Choice reports that there are around 5.4 million cases of food sickness in Australia each year, most of which are caused by the consumption of food prepared outside the home at restaurants or fast food outlets.

Food poisoning can cause physical pain and suffering, burden health resources and lead to loss of working days. The policy of the Council of the City of Sydney is to release information in full unless there is a compelling reason to withhold it. The city supports providing food safety information to the public. However, legal advice required the release of only partial information as there are currently no legislative provisions enabling councils to publish information about fines imposed on food businesses that breach regulations.

The New South Wales Ombudsman's Office confirmed that the position of the City of Sydney council is correct: its hands are tied by this legislation. The City of Sydney council works with businesses and conducts follow-up inspections when there are breaches to ensure compliance with the Act. At the same time the public has made it clear that it wants to know about these breaches. I agree that the public has a right to know. Under this bill information will not be published immediately because it requires payment of the penalty notice, the issue of a penalty notice enforcement order or at least 70 days to have elapsed. Furthermore, because information would not be published if a business chose to contest the notice in court there would be additional delays.

I am concerned that published information will not be timely. Choice magazine has called for all hygiene inspection information to be made public, including the findings of recent and previous inspections. It recommends a system of displaying certificates of inspection in restaurants. I agree with its conclusion that customers should be given information about hygiene so that they can make informed choices on where to eat. The Choice website includes reports on what other jurisdictions are doing to inform the community about food safety. Inspection results are available in restaurants for diners, for example, in Toronto, cities in Denmark, Auckland and Los Angeles, with a central website providing further information on inspections.

In New York inspection results for restaurants, both good and bad, can be accessed on an easy-to-navigate website, where potential customers can search by restaurant name. Choice refers to evidence in Los Angeles that shows that the display of inspection ratings results, importantly, in cleaner restaurants, reduced food-related illnesses, and greater profits for restaurants with excellent scores. I note that the Government stated it is exploring a rating system for New South Wales. I call on the Minister to advance this initiative for a statewide system to ensure fairness and to protect consumers across New South Wales. There are concerns that the bill will not require publication of the details of all breaches reported to the Food Authority because the authority will have discretion to publish what it deems to be in the public's interest to know. As the bill provides for information only on the website of the Food Authority, councils across New South Wales remain limited in publishing breaches. I support full disclosure inspection reports and I ask the Government to inform the House why it did not support this model.

Ms VIRGINIA JUDGE (Strathfield) [6.22 p.m.]: I support the Food Amendment (Public Information on Offences) Bill 2008 and commend the Minister and his ministerial and departmental staff for all their hard work and effort in formulating it. I wish to correct what I believe to be some erroneous statements that were made by the member for Coffs Harbour. This Government has initiative. When the mob opposite were in government—sadly, that was inflicted on this State many years ago—they did not introduce any consumer protection initiatives. This bill is the first of its kind in Australia, but I believe that Queensland and Victoria will be implementing similar legislation. New South Wales is also the first jurisdiction in Australia to publish information about convictions.

The member for Coffs Harbour criticised this Government and made negative statements about it, but it has initiative. This bill is just another initiative to try to protect consumers. The member for Coffs Harbour used a newspaper article as his primary source of information, so he was obviously pretty keyed up. I commend the Government for demonstrating leadership, initiative and commitment to food safety in this great State. This bill provides another significant step forward not only in protecting consumers in our State but also in ensuring that the food industry generally lives up to its legal and moral obligations to provide safe, suitable and properly described foods.

The vast majority of food manufacturers, importers, wholesalers and retailers—honest traders—endeavour to ensure that they provide a product that will meet consumer demands for safe and suitable food produced, stored, transported and displayed under appropriate conditions using appropriate approved ingredients and marketed in a manner that will not mislead them. Sadly, however, in other areas a proportion of traders, albeit only a small number, either through contempt or indifference fails to achieve the standards expected by government and, importantly, consumers. At some point we are all consumers. The major obligation of government should be to protect consumers, but there is also an obligation to protect honest traders.

This bill will enable the Government to provide public information to permit consumers to make more informed choices about the food they buy, the places in which they eat and the shops where they buy their groceries. The bill also affords honest traders protection by exposing rogues and charlatans in the industry. There is much more to this bill than providing advice about the hygiene record of a restaurant or cafe. Retailers can benefit from advice that manufacturer A produces a dodgy product and should not be stocked for sale. Manufacturers can benefit from advice that supplier B operates under squalid and unhygienic conditions and should not be used to source ingredients.

By affording protection to honest traders the bill also provides additional and effective protection to consumers. It is useful at this point to recognise that the Food Act, in its current form, is concerned about the sale of food generally. The bill, therefore, will have implications for all manner of situations where food is sold. In my electorate of Strathfield a large and diverse range of food businesses will be subject to this legislation. The area has an impressive record in food safety enforcement. Recently that led to the conviction of OBO Trading Pty Limited, a chicken shop, for illegally dosing chicken mince with sulfur dioxide, which is used to mask old or substandard meat.

This initiative is not limited in any way to spirit manufacturers, hot bread shops, takeaways or local supermarkets. Food is sold or prepared for sale in abattoirs and butcher shops, cafeterias and the most exclusive restaurants. It is transported in a wide range of vehicles on land, sea and air. Food is produced and consumed at wedding receptions, bar mitzvahs, twenty-first birthday parties and retirement functions. This bill seeks to protect all consumers, and I wholeheartedly commend it to the House.

Mr PAUL LYNCH (Liverpool—Minister for Local Government, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, and Minister Assisting the Minister for Health (Mental Health)) [6.27 p.m.], in reply: I thank all members for their contribution to debate on the Food Amendment (Public Information on Offences) Bill 2008. I would like to reflect on the Government's strong commitment to food safety in this State. This bill, which is a pioneering bill, gives consumers in New South Wales the benefit of using the compliance history of a food business to inform their food-related choices. It is the first of its kind in this country. The bill is an example of this Government reacting to a significant public concern and applying a fair solution in response.

Enforcement of the Food Act and its regulations is important to manage food safety risks and to protect consumers in New South Wales from misleading conduct. Informed by a stakeholder forum in August 2007, the bill promotes public access to convictions and penalty notices without the risk of unfairly impacting on the reputation and integrity of complying food businesses. This balance requires refraining from publicising penalty notices issued for lesser offences that do not provide information regarding food safety performance.

[Interruption]

The member for Lismore should not provoke me. The right to elect to have the matter that is the subject of a penalty notice decided in court when facts are in dispute, and the avenues for review of the publication provide the required protection in consideration of fairness. Further, this bill provides for greater transparency on the issuing of penalty notices by all enforcement agencies across the State. Effectively, this will translate into the consistent application of enforcement powers at local and State levels. I will deal briefly with matters raised in debate and, in particular, matters raised by the member for Coffs Harbour. The Food Authority has identified that other information schemes have been implemented with varying degrees of success in a number of countries. In fact, most of these are developmental schemes or trials. Due to the wide range of schemes and publication methods used internationally and varying reports on their effectiveness and fairness, the authority will continue to explore the efficacy and applicability of such systems.

It is also important to show appropriate deference to the nationally consistent food regulation system that operates in Australia. The key benefit of the amendments proposed by this bill is that they relate to breaches of the Food Act, which is a uniformly consistent piece of legislation; it has equivalents in operation in each Australian State and Territory. The respective food Acts incorporate the Food Standards Code, which is applied across all Australian jurisdictions. Whilst New South Wales is taking the national lead, a consistent Australian approach to a positive-based scheme would be a long-term project requiring national effort and cooperation. The responsible Minister will advise his national counterparts on New South Wales' progress and will argue for a national approach in this regard.

The member for Coffs Harbour asked why one would publish penalty notice information. Under the Food Act one of the functions of the New South Wales Food Authority is to "provide advice, information, community education and assistance in relation to matters connected with food safety or other interests of consumers in food". The public has shown, and continues to show, a great deal of interest in the performance of food businesses. Media outlets have relayed this interest and have called on the Government to provide information on food business performance to consumers and to name and shame those food businesses that are doing the wrong thing. The Food Authority is already publishing details of successful convictions on the website, and New South Wales was the first Australian jurisdiction to do this. Victoria and Queensland have only recently followed suit.

In relation to the publication of penalty notice information, we are once again leading the way not just here in Australia but also internationally. Of course, there will always be people who are hard to please and who will argue that this initiative does not go far enough. The Government argues that this initiative goes a long way towards addressing the need for information. People want to know whether their favourite restaurant is doing the right thing. They want to know whether the venue they have in mind for their wedding can be trusted. With the information published online, they will now be able to get information on who cannot be trusted.

The member for Coffs Harbour raised further matters about publication. I indicate that the authority has developed a technical publication tool to ensure the proper publication of penalty notices for offences relating to the sale or handling of food. This confirms that the penalty notices meet the publication criteria. The process essentially involves a penalty notice being assessed for publication by a Food Authority enforcement professional. This assessment is based on the level of food safety risk posed by the business generally and whether the specific circumstances of the alleged offence posed any risk to health.

The upshot of this process is that publication is underpinned by integrity and accountability. It takes into account the many hundreds of types of offences that are incorporated into our law by virtue of the national Food Standards Code, but it is clear. In short, it strikes a balance—albeit in favour of consumers—that recognises that the Government wants to ensure that no business is unfairly or unduly punished under this system. Some offences under the Food Act do not relate directly to food safety. For instance, a business may be penalised for failing to display its licence. This is a compliance issue for the Food Authority but it does not provide information about that business's food safety performance: it might be top-notch despite that technical breach. It would be misleading and unfair for it to be lumped in with those who have been caught with cockroach-infested premises or mixing food in rusty cement mixers.

With respect to the entities to which the new laws apply, I advise that any business, enterprise, person or activity that involves either the handling of food intended for sale or the sale of food may be liable for prosecution or served with a penalty notice under the Food Act. This is coverage provided by the Food Act. Therefore, any one of these persons or entities may be subject to the provisions of this bill relating to the publication of conviction and penalty notice information. I understand the member for Coffs Harbour raised the question of who is or is not named. The clear indication is that these laws will apply equally across the board. That includes public and private hospital food preparation areas, cafes, butchers, restaurants, food wholesalers and processors. Basically, anyone and everyone who handles food for sale or sells food in New South Wales will be subject to these laws.

The Government wants high-quality and accessible information to be available to New South Wales citizens, particularly when it comes to serious breaches of the Food Act, and that is exactly what these new laws will do. If people involved in either the handling of food for sale or the sale of food, whether business or government, are convicted of a Food Act offence or if the Food Authority or a local council issues them with a penalty notice, they can expect to be identified. The member for Sydney referred to the timely publication of information. There are important due process requirements that are necessary in relation to both prosecutions and penalties.

People are entitled to pursue appeals and to have their matters heard by the court. As soon as those important civil rights are finalised publication can then occur. I note that the member for Sydney made further points but I have already responded to those in my reply to the member for Coffs Harbour. In conclusion, the legislation shows due regard to the national food regulation system that exists in Australia. Overall, the bill encourages food businesses to consider food safety as the priority in conducting their businesses. New South Wales consumers will be the first in the country with the food safety performance information required to make informed food choices. I commend the bill to the House.

Question—That this bill be now agreed to in principle—put and resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Bill agreed to in principle.

Passing of the Bill

Bill declared passed and transmitted to the Legislative Council with a message seeking its concurrence in the bill.

Last modified 28/04/2008 08:48:52 : Update this page