SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE: INQUIRY INTO FOOD SAFETY PROGRAMS

Adjourned debate on motion of Hon. J.M. Gazzola:

That the report of the committee on an Inquiry into Food Safety Programs be noted.

(Continued from 19 September 2012.)

The Hon. J.S. LEE (16:52): As a member of the Social Development Committee, I wish to make a brief contribution to the motion of the Hon. Mr Gazzola that the report of the Social Development Committee on an Inquiry into Food Safety Programs be noted. In speaking to the motion, this is an important inquiry because in the past decade eating out has become a way of life for many Australians. Australians dine out for catching up with friends, business meetings, work functions, or for the sake of not cooking after a busy day at work. Therefore, we need to protect South Australians from getting any food-borne illnesses and maintain a healthy, hygienic standard of food handling in South Australian restaurants.

The report of the inquiry tabled in state parliament on 18 September has recommended the introduction of a voluntary food safety rating scheme to provide information for consumers about the cleanliness of cafes, restaurants and take-away food outlets. Such a scheme would improve food preparation standards and ensure that food businesses are complying with food safety regulations that already play a vital role in preventing food poisoning outbreaks by ensuring that food is safe to purchase.

When the Social Development Committee undertook the Inquiry into Food Safety Programs, it was alarming to read the statistics from the 2010 Galaxy poll, which estimated that one in every three Australians over 18 years of age is eating out in cafes, restaurants and hotels at least once a week. Every day people purchase food from take-away food outlets, delis, bakeries and caterers. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, more than 3 per cent of household expenditure goes towards eating out.

Out of the statistics, research has shown that approximately 5.4 million cases of food poisoning are reported across Australia each year. This costs the community an estimated $1.2 billion annually and results in more than two million days off work. This is costing both the productivity and economy of Australia.

In the course of the inquiry, the committee received a total of 18 submissions, consisting of 11 written submissions and oral testimonies from seven separate groups of witnesses. The committee notes that there is a proliferation of public disclosure food safety schemes operating in Australia and overseas. There are two voluntary schemes currently operating in South Australia in the City of Charles Sturt and the City of Salisbury councils. However, the committee noted that there is no consistency between the operation and enforcement of any of these schemes. It is difficult, therefore, to assess which one is the most effective. The committee, as a whole, has concerns that there is a potential to cause confusion amongst the community if there is not a consolidated, uniform approach of assessing food safety standards.

In conducting this inquiry, the committee supports the development and implementation of a uniform statewide food safety rating scheme to provide transparency for consumers and promote accountability amongst the food service industry. The scheme would be supported by clear aims and objectives, a uniform food business inspection checklist and supporting guidelines to ensure there is a consistency and fairness of approach when it comes to conducting food safety assessment and rating of food businesses.

The committee is of the view that there still needs to be frequent inspections by the local government environmental health officers to ensure that food safety standards are being met. The committee notes and thanks the significant work already being undertaken as part of the SA Health and Local Government Association Work Plan 2010-2012. This work has certainly provided an important foundation for the development of a food safety rating scheme for South Australia.

During the committee stage, we also recognised that in the first instance the scheme should be voluntary for councils and food businesses, and it should be aimed at medium and high-risk food businesses that prepare and sell ready-to-eat food, such as cafes, restaurants, hotels, clubs, caterers and takeaway food outlets. Food businesses in South Australia already undergo routine food health and safety inspections. It would be pragmatic to use the outcomes of these inspections to let consumers know whether a particular food outlet is clean and safe to eat in. Consumers should know if food such as chicken is not handled properly and hygienically, given the potential food poisoning risks.

Most of the witnesses who provided evidence were in support of the development and introduction of a consistent statewide food safety rating scheme. Restaurant and Catering SA and the Australian Hotels Association presented an opposing view, and it is important to hear these views as part of the records. In its submission to the committee, Restaurant and Catering SA stated that there is a potential cost burden for food businesses and increased red tape. They will support the introduction of a scheme such as Scores on Doors as long as it is voluntary, consistently applied, supports businesses to achieve high standards and there is a right of appeal concerning inspection result and public disclosure. The Australian Hotels Association (SA) endorsed the position held by Restaurant and Catering SA and stated:

Sections 3.2.2 and 3.2.3 of the Food Standards Code are sufficient. They proposed that education and training was a more effective way to improve food safety outcomes.

As the parliamentary secretary for small business, I would like the committee and the chamber to take on board some of the findings as well because this is very important in adopting those 20 recommendations being put by the committee.

In conclusion, I would like to thank Social Development Committee members: the Presiding Member, Hon. John Gazzola, the Hon. Dennis Hood and the Hon. Kelly Vincent and Ms Frances Bedford, Mr David Pisoni, Mr Alan Sibbons and the Hon. Dr Bob Such from the other house. I would like to thank them all for their contribution. It has been a pleasure working with all those involved. I commend the report to the chamber.

Motion carried.