FOOD SAFETY STANDARDS

Adjourned debate on motion of Hon. J.D. Hill:

That the Social Development Committee investigate and report on the merits or otherwise of schemes that provide information to the public on the results of food safety inspections and noncompliance with the Food Act, such as the UK-style 'scores on doors' system or the New South Wales online register of businesses fined, and in particular–

(a) the aims and objectives of such schemes;

(b) whether the system improves compliance with food safety standards and legislation;

(c) the impacts on consumers, industry, local government and state government, including costs and benefits;

(d) the work needed to underpin, develop and implement the schemes;

(e) whether the schemes should be mandatory or voluntary for food businesses;

(f) any regulatory or administrative changes required to implement such schemes in South Australia; and

(g) any other related matters.

(Continued from 27 October 2010.)

The Hon. R.B. SUCH (Fisher) (11:39): I am delighted to speak in support of this reference to the Social Development Committee. As members would know from reading Hansard, I have been going on about this issue for quite a long time. Part of the background for advocating for reform in this area is that, each year, I have conducted a survey of the metropolitan councils—I would like to survey all councils—in relation to the number of inspections they carry out on premises that sell food, the number of prosecutions and the number of expiation notices, improvement notices and written warnings that are issued.

I will not go through them all, but what I can say in general terms is that very few offenders (in terms of people selling food that does not meet the standards) end up getting prosecuted. In fact, if we look at the list, the City of Port Adelaide Enfield had one prosecution. That is the only council in the metropolitan area that I can see had a prosecution in the 12 months up until October this year. That business is now closed, and one can understand why. I want to make a couple of general points. The extent to which councils actively inspect premises varies considerably. The Adelaide City Council conducted 1,543 inspections; some of the other councils a much lesser number.

As a result of that, the Adelaide City Council issued seven expiation notices and 31 written warnings. The Adelaide Hills Council has conducted 303 inspections and has issued seven improvement notices and seven written warnings. The City of Charles Sturt has conducted 553 inspections, there have been no prosecutions, and 13 expiation notices and 102 written warnings have been issued. The City of Playford has conducted 219 inspections and issued six expiation notices, 53 improvement notices and 203 written warnings.

I think the system at the moment could be described as soft. I have spoken to public health officers who have raised concerns with me that they are very reluctant to go in heavy on an organisation or business that has dirty premises because of possible legal ramifications. It will be an aspect that I hope the Social Development Committee looks at in terms of ensuring that councils are not put in a vulnerable position when they seek to protect public health. Presently in South Australia, the only information can be circulated publicly about dirty premises is if there has been a conviction.

When reading a Melbourne paper—I think it was the Herald Sun—in the last few days, I noted that photographs of cockroaches and other things were featured in the restaurant of the former lord mayor of Melbourne, so it is certainly not a problem unique to Adelaide. My basic contention is that, if you eat out or purchase food from a food outlet, you are entitled to be assured that the food has been prepared and has been kept in a hygienic manner.

It might surprise members to hear some of the statistics from the figures we obtained earlier this year from the New South Wales Department of Public Health: 5.4 million Australians contract food poisoning each year, and, in their view, most of these could have been prevented; and, in an average year, there are 120 deaths, 1.2 million visits to the doctor, 300,000 prescriptions for antibiotics and 2.1 million days of lost work; and the estimated annual cost of food poisoning in Australia is $1.2 billion. So, it is a very serious issue.

Scores on Doors is a positive approach rather than a negative one, and the committee can obviously look at other schemes as well. However, this scheme was introduced in the UK and a report has been released, and I am happy to provide it to the committee in due course. The Scores on the Doors system was trialled in the UK over a two-year period, and an evaluation paper was presented two years ago. As a result of that, they proposed some changes, but it showed that the scheme had strong support for a more extensive scheme in the UK. What they recommended was that there be a single UK-wide scheme. Ideally, in Australia, it would be nice to have an Australia-wide one, but at least here we are trying to do something in South Australia.

The scheme also operates in parts of the United States. In New York, 20,000 of the city's restaurants are on a website and can be searched by name, neighbourhood or hygiene point score, including establishments that have been awarded a Golden Apple for their excellent food safety practices. A similar situation exists in Los Angeles. Clearly, by having a positive approach, the retailers or purveyors of food want to get a positive listing and, therefore, there is an incentive for them to ensure their food practices are of the highest standard. Canada has a scheme called Dine Safe, Denmark has a similar one and so it goes on. In short, this is, I think, a good initiative.

I am pleased the minister has responded this way and, whilst clearly it would be good to have the scheme operating right now, it is a positive move in the right direction. Accordingly, I support this motion for referral to the Social Development Committee, because I think it will be a major step forward in ensuring that people are able to purchase and eat food that has been kept as it should, that the proper hygiene standards are met, and that we might be able to reduce some of those astronomical costs which currently afflict South Australians and Australians overall because of poor hygiene in some food establishments. I commend the motion.

Mr PISONI (Unley) (11:47): As a member of the Social Development Committee, I am looking forward to the minister referring this matter to the committee, I will enjoy hearing the submissions. Perhaps we can even look at some of the work of Dr Borys around the advertising of junk food and the EPODE program actually being sponsored by junk food companies. That is a story for another day, minister; you are well aware of that one. This is something that I have been very supportive of for quite some time.

Being a small business owner for 22-odd years in the furniture industry, I know that you need to be able to back up the claims that you make. You need to meet standards when you are producing any sort of manufactured item and, not only that, customers and consumers expect information about the products that they purchase. It is no different when it comes to restaurants and fast food outlets. I think it is important that every South Australian can walk into a fast-food restaurant knowing full well that they are eating in a facility that is safe, clean and that is abiding by best practice when it comes to food hygiene.

I know with the volunteer work that I do with the Unley High School rowing club, when we are running sausage sizzles out at West Lakes, the rules and regulations that we must comply with include everything from providing running water to gloves on hands to different people taking the money and handling the food. All these are important issues when it comes to food hygiene and when it comes to the provision of safety of food for consumers. There is no reason why it would be viewed as unreasonable for those who are in a professional business of providing food to have their grades, if you like, up there and on display.

On a trip to New York several years ago, one outstanding feature that I saw there—and it is interesting that the member for Fisher made reference to a national body—in the United States is that every state and actually cities make their own laws when it comes to grading and informing customers about food inspections, grading and having those grades made public. In New York, of course, it is the first thing you see when you get to the front door. You see that the restaurant or food outlet that you are going to has passed the latest test. You see if in fact it has had a breach or if it has been warned. The details of that are there for you so that you can make a judgment as to whether you wish to participate at that restaurant.

The important thing there is that this is from a country that simply does not like regulation; it does not like interference from the state, and you will see that these rules happen in one way or another in almost every city in the United States. That has been consumer driven and I commend the legislators in the United States for listening to what consumers want and ensuring that consumers are in a position to make decisions as to whether or not they want to enter a restaurant and spend their money there.

Let's face it, without that information, how do you know? How do you know what it is that you are eating? How do you know that the restaurant that you are attending does in actual fact meet those safety standards and is passing those safety standards? I think it would be a very difficult argument for General Motors Holden, for example, which has to build its cars to stringent safety laws, to then say, 'Look, we've had it tested but we're not going to let you know whether or not the brakes failed our test.' I do not think that would be a very strong argument.

If we look at the overview from the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene about grading for sanitary inspections, it is not a bad model, and I would be very keen to explore it in the Social Development Committee. It goes on to cover why the health department is issuing letter grades to restaurants. The health department issues restaurant letter grades to help consumers make informed choices about where they want to eat, and I think that is important. I think it is important that the consumer is in a position to make informed choices—and that is another debate that we need to have about what we should label on our food.

If we want to support our local industries and if something says it is made in Australia, we should be entitled to know that it is made in Australia and is actually an Australian product, and that relates to our food products as well. That is an issue for another day. That would also extend, of course, to GM product. If consumers are eating GM food, they have a right for that to be on the label, and that again is a debate for another day.

Referring to today's motion—that is, the Social Development Committee look into food safety reporting schemes—and looking at what I experienced in the United States (particularly New York City), these schemes are not limited simply to one city. You will see them in all different cities across the United States and I think it is fair to say that our state governments in Australia have similar roles to those that city governments have in the United States; and, of course, New York, being a city of 14 or 15 million people, is much bigger than the state of South Australia.

Which establishments are graded? In New York, some food service establishments that require health department permits will receive and post letter grades that correspond to their sanitary inspection scores. These establishments include most restaurants, coffee shops, bars, nightclubs, cafeterias, retail bakeries and fixed-site food stands. This document uses the term 'restaurants' to establish all of these elements, so the reference is simplified there for everybody to understand.

Letter grades are not being issued to mobile food-vending units; temporary food service establishments do not have them. Food services establishments operated by primary and secondary schools do not have them, but they all know the rules, of course, and that is another important factor. The grade, of course, reflects how well a restaurant complies with the food safety requirements in the New York State Sanitary Code. When inspectors examine the restaurant's sanitary conditions and practices, they assign numerical points for different violations of the health code.

Different violations carry different numbers of points, depending on the nature of severity. The total number of violation points proves a measure of the restaurant's general condition under the new system and the health department will use the source from its certain inspections to generate a letter grade which is easier for consumers to interpret. The examples they give here are grade A, which is 0 to 13 points for sanitary violations; grade B, 14 to 27 points for sanitary violations; and grade C, 28 or more points for sanitary violations. So, it is quite clear to consumers that the further away you are from that A grade, the less likely you are to have a meal that is risk free.

The guide goes on to discuss a number of different points. You can search for restaurants to learn more about restaurant inspection history—that is all available on a website. All restaurants will have a grade and letter when this begins in July 2010. This has just recently been introduced and broadened in New York. It also discusses how the health department responds to comments from the restaurant industry and consumers. This is a good example, I think, of a well-researched bit of legislation by a local authority in another country.

I am sure there will be many more of these examples that the minister and his department will bring to the committee. I am sure we will hear from the restaurant and hotels associations, unions in the industry and also from consumer groups in the industry about the work that they have done. I am certainly looking forward, as a member of this committee, to appraising and hearing the evidence when it is brought before the Social Development Committee.

I know that the Social Development Committee has a number of referrals at the moment. I know that the Hon. Jing Lee, in the other place, was successful in referring an inquiry into the facilities for and the ability of migrants to participate in the South Australian community when they arrive here. I am looking forward to that one as well and I commend the Hon. Jing Lee for bringing that to the committee.

The Social Development Committee is a very exciting committee this year. I must say that I am enjoying the discussions we are having at the moment on same-sex parenting. We have particularly heard a lot of evidence on the issue of the ability of a same-sex parent to be included on the birth certificate and we are hearing lots of other different examples of the difficulties that same-sex parents are experiencing in South Australia.

In a lot of instances, these difficulties are unique to South Australia because we are so far behind the other states with laws to remove discrimination from same-sex parents. When a state like Tasmania, which was the last state to decriminalise homosexuality, is ahead of South Australia on social reform, you have to ask: what would Don Dunstan really be doing? My guess is he would be crushing his safari suit, rolling in his grave about the way this government is dealing with social policy. I do commend the government on this and I look forward to participating in the Social Development Committee referral.

Mr PENGILLY (Finniss) (11:59): I also indicate my support for this motion, and I would like to make a few comments and refer to the fact that I think it is about time we used a bit of common sense in some of these things. We are over-governing, over-legislating and over-regulating and giving these self-important little health inspectors around the state all the room in the world to go out and belt good people going about their business.

We are very lucky in this country that we do have clean, good food. We are very lucky. I know a parliamentary delegation went to China recently and they all ended up with the Shanghai etc. These things vary so much overseas, but here in Australia we are sensibly disposed towards our food, and things have come a long way. However, as children we used to run around the yard, the streets and the paddocks with dirt all over us and eat fritz and sauce for lunch and we actually all got through it, so I just wonder whether we are not sterilising the system so much that we are making a soft nation, so to speak.

The restrictions that are put on sporting clubs at barbecues and on service clubs providing food are just extreme. There is a store in my own electorate of Middleton whose owner, I would suggest, has been persecuted by the local health inspectors over a number of years over trivial incidents. The inspectors called in recently and saw something that was a couple of days out of date and the next day a $500 (I think it was $500) expiation notice turned up in the mail.

This is what we are doing in South Australia. We just want to back off a bit and use some common sense. We have the ability to put all these things in place, and I wish the Social Development Committee well in talking about this motion. I would say that I do not necessarily agree with my colleague the member for Unley. He went off on a bit of a tangent a minute ago about a few other issues that I actually have quite a different opinion on and a different version of events.

However, I think this motion is a step in the right direction, but I ask that, in its deliberations and when it reports back to the parliament, or wherever it reports to, the committee injects a fairly liberal amount of common sense into its discussions and does not put further imposts on good organisations that are raising money for charity or for community needs, etc., and have most unfair and costly restrictions placed on them in their efforts to do things in the best interests of South Australians.

This impacts on consumers and on industry, and no doubt something will come out of it that local government will have to pick up and administer again, probably at an additional cost, and that is something else that we need to think about. Local government has just struggled through the election cycle in this state (and I will have something to say about that later in the week), but the fact is that it is being impinged on further and further by our making laws and regulations in this place that make it costly for our constituents, who happen to be ratepayers as well.

I just think we ought to pull back from all this nonsense and take it very easy. Sure, we have to have good food and, sure, we have to have a safe environment for people to go out and eat in, but we need to be sensible and balanced about it, and that is what I ask the committee to think about when it examines this motion.

Dr McFETRIDGE (Morphett) (12:03): The motion before the house is an important one, and I think all of us in this place can remember the Garibaldi food poisoning case and the lifelong impact that eating contaminated food has had on many people in South Australia. You cannot under-emphasise the need to have healthy food. Whether you buy it from supermarkets or whether you buy it from restaurants, it does not matter; it has to be healthy. It is also very important that we handle food safely in our own home, especially on hot days like today.

In my own case, my wife bought some cheese made from unpasteurised milk; we ate it, and the next day there was a warning on the radio and in the press about listeria in cheese. Fortunately, neither of us had any side effects from listeria, as listeriosis is a very debilitating illness. The hazards are out there, and we need to make sure that we are monitoring them, and that is something that the government is not doing. The government is giving the councils a hard time about this. The minister has introduced this motion into the house, and I look forward to seeing the report from the Social Development Committee on the benefits or otherwise.

If we look at Budget Paper 4, Volume 3, page 8.21, we see what the government should be doing. Under 'Public health—No. of food inspections conducted in areas not covered by local governments', the target is 200. What did they do? They did a total of 138 inspections. So, the government is not even doing its own homework on this, and it is not protecting the people of South Australia. The government really needs to look at its own backyard, as well as looking at restaurants and other establishments.

It is very, very important, though, that we make sure that restaurants and other food outlets are serving food that is wholesome, fresh and, above all, healthy to ensure that there are no detrimental effects to people. People go to these establishments with the expectation that it will be at no risk at all to their health. People just want to have a good meal and some social interaction with good friends, and they should be able to do that without any fear or trepidation.

In relation to food safety systems, I do not think that naming and shaming is the way to go. However, Scores on the Doors may be the way to go, and I have looked at what they are doing in the UK. I see that on the latest phones you can get a radar app or application, where you can put your phone at the door of these restaurants and it will download everything about that restaurant, such as the type of menus and the food scores for health—the whole box and dice is there.

It is becoming more and more available and achievable and, I hope, not necessary because I would like to think that the vast majority of owners of food outlets, whether they be fast food outlets or three-star Michelin restaurants, are able to provide wholesome and healthy food. Whether scores on the door or some other system will provide the answer, that is for the Social Development Committee to look at. I look forward to reading the report when the committee brings it down, which I assume will be in the autumn session of parliament next year.

Mr VENNING (Schubert) (12:08): This subject is pretty close to my heart, and I will talk shortly about why that is. I welcome the fact that the Social Development Committee would take on a reference such as this; I think this is the sort of issue that should come before that committee, particularly if it is in relation to food safety reporting schemes, as this is.

This is quite a serious issue, as has been highlighted by previous speakers. Accreditation is an issue we live with today. Whether it be food production, growing crops or chemical supplies, everyone is subject to accreditation. Even though I recommend some caution with respect to this issue, I do support the concept.

We really do have to trust those who do the inspections and put the score on the door, so-called. Businesses must have the right of appeal against a negative result. I believe that, if someone gives you a score that would be ruinous to your business, you should have some redress to at least ask the question or seek a second opinion, because I can see some horrific results happening here, particularly if someone is vilified and picked on.

The bottom line is that every person walking into a restaurant, cafe or any other place that prepares food should be assured that the food is hygienic and safe and that it is prepared with reasonable precautions. You have only to watch Fawlty Towers to see what can happen in a restaurant. I know the show is hypothetical and done for a laugh, but it could actually happen in real life, with food being chucked around the kitchen and landing on the floor or whatever—and there would be some Basils around the place. Also, the waiter in the show is a bit of a character.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson interjecting:

Mr VENNING: I wasn't going to name Manuel because I don't want to be called racist or anything else, but Manuel is certainly a character. It is one of those shows I get a really good laugh out of, more so than Yes Minister, actually. Yes Minister hurts a bit because much of it is true. With Manuel, Basil and Sybil I think, if that is a restaurant, you can laugh about it, but I hope it is not one I eat in. It can happen.

We also need to check out making unused food available to the less fortunate. We have had representations and briefings on this in the last few months, Madam Deputy Speaker. I think you, yourself, were involved in one of those briefings in relation to charities being able to have unused food the day after. Until now we have not been able to do it. Even the use of doggy bags, taking home some uneaten food from restaurants, has been banned. I think that could come under some scrutiny here because, if you are not hungry and you only eat half of the main course, I cannot see a problem with your taking the food home if they supply a hygienic bag, even if it is just to feed to Rover the dog, or whatever, even if you wanted to re-use it yourself.

This debate has been going on for quite some time, particularly with the rehydrating of foods, particularly with irradiation. That issue has gone quiet lately, but the irradiation of food is certainly an issue that could come before this committee to be discussed. In some of my first speeches made in this place, the subject had been the irradiation of food and whether it should be illegal. All sorts of information came forward, and it was seen to be undesirable, even though microwave ovens are now commonplace and in every home.

We have to make sure that, if we are able to use food for less fortunate people, we have to be more flexible. It will be an interesting reference for the committee, because I think it will be far-reaching. As I said, I am very cautious about it, because an unfair assessment by an overzealous inspector could ruin a business. Up-front, before a bad score, I think every business should have some recourse.

As I have previously mentioned about sports clubs, particularly their barbecues, I hope there is not too much bureaucracy in relation to this because, if you want to put the rulebook across every country barbie, there could be a problem. If you want to be officious about that, you know what will happen: we will not have any country barbies. It will be the end of it. It is the same with the trading tables today. So much food used to be prepared for trading tables, but it does not happen today, because of these regulations. I can understand that a cake on a cake stall or a trading table has the ingredients written on it and who made it, and that is okay, but I think the trading tables in many communities have gone because people do not want to run the risk of being sued. They avoid it. So please protect the country barbie at the sports club.

Representing the Barossa Valley, I feel impassioned to make this speech today. It is an area world-famous for its food and wine, particularly for German smallgoods. I love them. These are manufactured using many different processes and, without being too specific, a lot of it is uncooked or smoked sausage. I love mettwurst, bratwurst and particularly black and white pudding. I do not ask questions about it. I do not know what it is or how it is prepared.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: It's blood.

Mr VENNING: It is. It is blood. The member for Croydon is right. But I trust absolutely; I do not ask too much about it, but I have great assurance that we have an excellent reputation in relation to preparing these products.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: Arguably, it is consumption that is prohibited by scripture.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: We are not here to discuss the merits of the Good Book. Carry on, member for Schubert.

Mr VENNING: Prohibited by scripture. I have never heard that before. I will raise that with the Lutherans and we will have a look, but it is an interesting sideline and thank you for that interjection. I certainly will research that one.

The German foods are very famous and people go up there not only to try the wine but also to have these beautiful smallgoods. I could list three or four major companies that have a fantastic reputation. I can also remember the Garibaldi incident, which was very sad indeed. There has been another one (I will not name the company) even later than that. These things are unfortunate and should not happen. It will be a very interesting reference, and I wish the committee all the best and certainly look forward to its deliberations.

The Hon. J.D. HILL (Kaurna—Minister for Health, Minister for Mental Health and Substance Abuse, Minister for the Southern Suburbs, Minister Assisting the Premier in the Arts) (12:15): I thank all members for their participation in this debate. I take it from the general tone that there is broad support for the proposition to refer this set of measures to the Social Development Committee. The motion I have moved does not contain a viewpoint but really says to the Social Development Committee: here are the issues that have been raised. There has been debate in the community about these issues and suggestions have been made; the Social Development Committee should look at all these issues, consider the merits of the proposition and come back to us with consolidated advice.

That is a good way of using a committee. It should not be a political thing or about what one side of politics thinks but what an intelligent group of people working together are able to come up with, having consulted broadly with the community. Members opposite expressed the two issues that are in my head, namely, how we balance the needs of the community to be safe with the rights of businesses and others to get about their business without being overly regulated.

That is the balance, and where it lies between those two propositions is something the committee can work through and bring a report to our parliament. I would hope that during the process they will look at evidence to see whether or not there are a lot of restaurants that are unwittingly or even wittingly poisoning people. Is there a big problem that needs to be fixed, or are we trying to use a sledgehammer to crack a nut? They are the issues the committee can look at, and I have every confidence it will come up with—

Mr Venning: Give them a warning.

The Hon. J.D. HILL: I am happy for the committee to come up with what it wants to, and I am sure we will be able to properly consider it and, if we want to make changes, come up with something that has been properly thought through, where businesses, particularly the restaurant and takeaway food industries, have had a chance to be consulted and express a viewpoint. I commend the motion to the house.

Motion carried.