House of Assembly Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2) 52 2 Parliament of South Australia House of Assembly published Parliamentary Committees Parliamentary Committees Social Development Committee: Inquiry into Food Safety Programs SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE: INQUIRY INTO FOOD SAFETY PROGRAMS Adjourned debate on motion of Ms Bedford: That the 33^rd report of the committee, entitled Inquiry into Food Safety Programs, be noted. (Continued from 31 October 2012.) The Hon. R.B. SUCH House of Assembly Fisher The Hon. R.B. SUCH (Fisher) (11:51): I notice the honourable member who has leave to continue is not here, so I will say a few words. I was a member of this committee and I have lobbied for a long time to have this issue canvassed. I was pleased that the Social Development Committee was able to look at what is a very important issue. It is not a matter that gets a lot of public attention, but it does have important ramifications for the wider community. The committee looked at a whole range of measures relating to trying to ensure that food safety and food hygiene are maintained in eateries at various levels throughout the state. There are programs; members may have heard of some of them. One is called Scores on Doors, which is used in the UK and New York, where restaurants and other eateries are rated according to the standard that has been inspected in those premises. That approach has some value. The trouble is that someone, or some institution or establishment, might get a rating one day and then not live up to that rating the next day. That scheme has some merit. New South Wales has a name and shame model. That has its positives and negatives as well, given that someone at an establishment may do something wrong and if that establishment is named publicly as being unhygienic then that will do tremendous damage to that business; in fact it will probably put them out of business. There are some pros and cons for each of those approaches. Scores on Doors establishments will, I guess, aspire to get a higher rating. Of course, there is the current practice in South Australia, where you have random inspections by environmental officers, who used to be called health inspectors. That can be hit and miss, and it varies according to the resources of the councils. Some councils in the metropolitan area and the eastern board of health share some of those officers. People involved in that inspection regime tell me that some establishments have not been inspected for years. I will not be too specific, but I have a relative who is involved in the food supply industry. He sees what happens behind the front door in some of these establishments and he has been keen to tell me which ones to avoid. What we have in South Australia is a mixed bag. Anyone operating a food business would be foolish not to maintain proper standards because, as I say, if the word gets out that your place is dirty or people can see that it is dirty, if there is a lack of hygiene or there are rats or whatever out in the store area, I think your business has got a short life. Some councils in the metropolitan area have adopted different approaches. Several of them are trialling different methods. I think the important thing is that we have a consistent approach across South Australia so that whichever eatery you go into you know that it has a high standard. A lot of the things that are required are very basic, such as people washing their hands before handling food. I mentioned this when the committee was conducting its inquiry, but if you go into the fast-food outlets, you will see kids come in—and by definition they eat with their hands in those places—and very few wash their hands. They are places where, if you are not careful, you can spread all sorts of viruses, bacteria and so on. I would encourage members to read this report. Committees produce a lot of good material in this place but, sadly, much of it is left to collect dust. I know this committee spent a lot of time looking at the issues and I think its recommendations are reasonable and sensible. We do not want to put too heavy a burden on business, but we want to ensure as far as possible that, when people go out to eat or get takeaway, the food has been properly prepared and kept under refrigeration where necessary and there has been proper hygiene and proper storage standards because the consequences of poor food hygiene can be quite horrendous. Where they have introduced very detailed food hygiene programs in New York and elsewhere, they have cut down hospital admissions for gastro drastically and that would happen here if we followed suit. I commend the committee. I think it did a good job. I would urge members to read the report and, importantly, the government to implement the recommendations. Ms BEDFORD House of Assembly Florey Ms BEDFORD (Florey) (11:57): I just rise to say thank you to the member for Fisher for his remarks. It was a long investigation. Unfortunately, we did not get to go out and eat at a lot of places—did we, member for Fisher?—but we did our very best to make sure that some sort of regime could come into place to assist diners. We, of course, urge everyone to eat out as often as possible in Adelaide to keep those businesses going. Motion carried.