Page 5905 - Week 14 - Thursday, 8 December 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
The first amendment proposes to amend the act to allow for the display of a closure notice when a prohibition order is served on the proprietor of a food business. How would you feel if you went up to the door of your favourite restaurant and found a notice stating “closed due to family emergency”? Quite naturally, on your next visit you might express concern at their recent closure when in actual fact the business may have been ordered to be closed by the Health Protection Service under a prohibition order. I am informed that notices about renovations and the like have been seen by the Health Protection Service when they visit premises after an order has been served. I and the government are concerned that this is misleading Canberrans.
The display of notices and orders exists in other legislation. For example, section 63 of the Public Health Act 1997 requires the display of a copy of a prohibition notice.
Prohibition orders issued under the Food Act can be detailed and quite technical. The proposed closure notice would be a sign in clear and simple terms explaining that a prohibition order has been served on the premises, resulting in its temporary closure. The authorised officer who serves the order on the premises will place the notice. A closure notice can only be displayed for the duration that a prohibition order is in effect. It will be an offence for a person to interfere with the closure notice in any way, including moving or removing it from where it was placed by an authorised officer, obscuring or defacing it.
I would also like to reassure the Assembly that a closure notice will only be displayed at a premises in very circumscribed circumstances. This is where a prohibition order has been served because it was considered necessary to prevent or mitigate a serious danger to public health and as part of the order the premises was directed not to use the premises for the sale or handling of food. I consider that the restricted nature of a closure notice provides an appropriate safeguard for a food business while increasing food safety regulatory transparency.
The second transparency measure proposes to mandate the display of registration certificates at a food business premises. Acquiring a food registration certificate is an essential compliance step in establishing a food business, and registrations are for one year. It was identified that the display of a registration certificate was not a requirement under the act. During recent consultations with food businesses a number of proprietors indicated that they already displayed their registration certificates. These businesses are to be applauded for their conscientiousness. It is considered that the display of registration certificates would help the community to identify a registered food business.
The third amendment amends a current provision in the Food Act to allow for a public register of convictions. Section 146 of the Food Act authorises the Chief Health Officer to publish details of a convicted food business for offences in relation to the handling of food intended for sale or the sale of food. The Chief Health Officer is required by the section to publish the notice in the newspaper. It is proposed to amend this section to provide for a public register. In time this register will be accessible on the internet. There is some work that will need to be done by the Health Directorate around providing information on the internet. In the meantime it will be available for
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video