Number of prohibition orders issued to Canberra's food businesses almost quadruples
- Replies 0
The number of prohibition orders forcing food businesses to temporarily close in the ACT almost quadrupled during the last financial year.
There were 26 prohibition orders issued by the ACT Health Directorate for food safety breaches during the 2024-25 financial year — up from seven the year before.
A business cannot serve food when subject to a prohibition order.
In a statement, an ACT government spokesperson said the most common breaches of food safety compliance during inspections were hand-washing facilities, cleaning and sanitising, temperature control, maintenance, and appropriate pest control.
ACT Health's Health Protection Service executive branch manager Victor Martin said the increase in forced closures was not caused by any one factor.
"It is very difficult to draw any conclusions from numbers. There are so many factors and variables," he said.
He said the 26 prohibition orders represented just 1 per cent of all food safety inspections.
"And the number 26 is still a relatively small number," he said.
Only 0.2 per cent of all inspections conducted during the 2023-24 financial year led to prohibition notices.
Mr Martin said inspectors worked to educate business owners and issued improvement notices before a prohibition order was enforced.
He said prohibition orders were issued because "a business is presenting a significant and imminent risk to public health" or because "the business hasn't complied with an improvement notice that we've previously issued".
"In most cases, businesses turn business around and are compliant,” he said.
Across the border, NSW has an online "name-and-shame list" of non-compliant businesses.
Food safety consultant Gary Kennedy said one of the disadvantages of the system in the ACT was that would-be customers could not find out what caused the breach.
He said an online system in the ACT would improve transparency.
"There would be more information for the public," he said.
"If you're on the named-and-shamed list people stop coming to your business."
He said new laws introduced in 2023 that required business owners to keep records could have caused the spike in prohibition notices.
"In the old system you only had to be OK on the day the inspector showed up. Now you have to be OK for at least three months beforehand," he said.
Yet, Mr Kennedy said it wasn't difficult to stay on top of compliance rules.
"The majority of venues do," he said.
"We support an approach that focuses on education, rather than immediate enforcement action," he said.
Mr Gatfield said the rise in closures was likely due to increased activity from the regulator.
"Food safety is critical for both public health and business reputation, and the vast majority of food businesses in Canberra do the right thing," he said.
"You'd be mad not to [have good food standards]. It's a part of what you do for the community and what you serve," he said.
"Being clean is of the utmost importance."
Mr Nocera said the rules were not too hard to comply with and gave the public peace of mind.
"They are there for a reason," he said.
"We do have to protect the people eating in our restaurant. You have to keep your restaurant clean for your customers.
"It's not hard to comply as long as there's that due process and you're given the necessary information."
Written by Emily Anderson and James Tugwell, ABC News.
There were 26 prohibition orders issued by the ACT Health Directorate for food safety breaches during the 2024-25 financial year — up from seven the year before.
A business cannot serve food when subject to a prohibition order.
In a statement, an ACT government spokesperson said the most common breaches of food safety compliance during inspections were hand-washing facilities, cleaning and sanitising, temperature control, maintenance, and appropriate pest control.
Common breaches of food safety compliance are to do with hand-washing facilities and cleaning and sanitising. (Adobe Stock)
ACT Health's Health Protection Service executive branch manager Victor Martin said the increase in forced closures was not caused by any one factor.
"It is very difficult to draw any conclusions from numbers. There are so many factors and variables," he said.
He said the 26 prohibition orders represented just 1 per cent of all food safety inspections.
"And the number 26 is still a relatively small number," he said.
Only 0.2 per cent of all inspections conducted during the 2023-24 financial year led to prohibition notices.
Mr Martin said inspectors worked to educate business owners and issued improvement notices before a prohibition order was enforced.
He said prohibition orders were issued because "a business is presenting a significant and imminent risk to public health" or because "the business hasn't complied with an improvement notice that we've previously issued".
"In most cases, businesses turn business around and are compliant,” he said.
The name-and-shame list
When an order is issued in the ACT, an A3-sized notice is displayed outside the business. There is no public register for breaches.
An A3-sized notice of a prohibition order issued by the ACT Health Directorate to Bakers Delight Dickson in May. (ABC News: Mark Moore)
Across the border, NSW has an online "name-and-shame list" of non-compliant businesses.
Food safety consultant Gary Kennedy said one of the disadvantages of the system in the ACT was that would-be customers could not find out what caused the breach.
He said an online system in the ACT would improve transparency.
"There would be more information for the public," he said.
"If you're on the named-and-shamed list people stop coming to your business."
He said new laws introduced in 2023 that required business owners to keep records could have caused the spike in prohibition notices.
"In the old system you only had to be OK on the day the inspector showed up. Now you have to be OK for at least three months beforehand," he said.
Yet, Mr Kennedy said it wasn't difficult to stay on top of compliance rules.
"The majority of venues do," he said.
Education not enforcement
ACT Australian Hotels Association general manager Chris Gatfield said a name-and-shame list would not prevent food safety breaches from happening in the first place, which should be the focus of the government.
Chris Gatfield says a name-and-shame list doesn't actually achieve better food safety. (Supplied: Chris Gatfield)
"We support an approach that focuses on education, rather than immediate enforcement action," he said.
Mr Gatfield said the rise in closures was likely due to increased activity from the regulator.
"Food safety is critical for both public health and business reputation, and the vast majority of food businesses in Canberra do the right thing," he said.
Regulations are good for the industry
Hackett restaurant and cafe owner Alex Nocera has been working in hospitality on-and-off for 25 years and said food safety was essential for running a successful business.
Restaurant owner Alex Nocera has never had any compliance issues and says the regulations help give customers peace of mind. (ABC News: Callum Flinn)
"You'd be mad not to [have good food standards]. It's a part of what you do for the community and what you serve," he said.
"Being clean is of the utmost importance."
Mr Nocera said the rules were not too hard to comply with and gave the public peace of mind.
"They are there for a reason," he said.
"We do have to protect the people eating in our restaurant. You have to keep your restaurant clean for your customers.
"It's not hard to comply as long as there's that due process and you're given the necessary information."
Written by Emily Anderson and James Tugwell, ABC News.
