Food Amendment Bill 2021
Ms WEBB (Nelson) – Mr President, I too support this bill. The amendment in 2015 greatly benefited many mobile food businesses in Tasmania with a single statewide registration system that was introduced at that time. It significantly reduced the registration costs for many businesses. Prior to that coming into effect, mobile food businesses needed to apply in each council area where they wanted to trade and with 29 councils – I know from talking to mobile food business owners that it had some drawbacks then.
Many instances have been described to me where mobile food businesses that would require registration for food preparation or a restaurant in one council area, may have had regular market or street sales in others, as well as registrations for festivals and events and the like. Multiple registrations were very expensive and repetitive and a real administrative burden for what are, essentially, very small businesses.
As we know, different councils have different requirements. One example described to me was Hobart City Council allowing home kitchens to meet required standards to be registered for commercial food and preparations, but Kingborough Council will only register dedicated commercial kitchens. Lots of challenges there.
The single statewide registration process addressed these compliance issues and costs for businesses and was very well received, by all reports, by food vendors. It was noted in this place in 2015, however, that for all its benefits there were possible inequities in the statewide registration system. These inequities included registration fees being paid in one council area, but responsibility for food safety and compliance inspections falling into another council area. The changes set out in the bill we have here will help rebalance some of those inequities, I understand. As the 2015 bill assisted mobile food businesses themselves, this bill will now assist councils and regulators to reduce unnecessary duplication on administration costs through sharing that information collection and dissemination.
I believe it is also going to help those mobile food vendors. Those with a good history of compliance and safety will be noted, and patterns of noncompliant activity can be more easily monitored across municipalities and events, and that is a positive outcome.
With 29 councils potentially doing their own thing, this bill will go some way to creating consistency in how food safety incidents are managed and monitored.
The Director of Public Health will be able to stipulate the information required, and with access to that information ensure that regulators have the necessary data to manage food safety issues across the state.
However, I did have queries regarding the bill and the other sorts of impacts it may have. I am interested to know, for example, if councils are going to feel an impact in terms of changes to the systems that they have, and if there is going to be any impost on them; and if they need to be compensated in some way because of the legislation.
In a similar way, I am interested in the information collection element. What types of information will be collected? I understand it is not too prescriptive in the bill itself, but I am curious as to what specific information the Director of Public Health has in mind in terms of collection of data and information.
I note there are assurances in the bill where it stipulates what information can be shared with whom and when, and that breaches will be subject to fines. However, could you clarify whether businesses will have the right to view the information that is held about them; and will they be able to amend that information or have it amended if it is inaccurate?
Other than those straightforward questions I support the bill.
