Regulating Food Safety
Audit snapshot
What we examined
We looked at whether councils are complying with their legislative responsibilities for food safety to protect public health. The agencies we examined were the Department of Health, City of Casey, City of Greater Geelong, Hepburn Shire Council, City of Kingston and Manningham City Council.
Why this is important
Food safety is an important aspect of public health and wellbeing. Robust food safety regulation and enforcement is necessary to prevent illness, hospitalisation and death caused by foodborne illness.
What we concluded
Audited councils are not complying with all their legislative responsibilities for food safety to protect public health.
Not all audited councils are:
- assessing or inspecting all food premises
- systematically identifying unregistered food premises
- reinspecting 3 months before registration renewal for all noncompliant food premises or those with complaints
- meeting food sampling targets
- reporting data to the Department of Health.
What we recommended
We made 3 recommendations to the 5 councils we looked at to improve:
- compliance with their legislative responsibilities
- workforce planning.
We made 7 recommendations to the Department of Health to:
- address industry workforce shortages
- improve reporting of food safety performance
- improve guidance and training.
Video presentation
Key facts
Source: VAGO, based on the Food Act 1984 and Department of Health Food Act reports 2020 and 2021 (draft).
Our recommendations
We made 10 recommendations to address 3 issues. The relevant agencies have accepted or partially accepted these recommendations.
| Key issues and corresponding recommendations | Agency responses | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Issue: Audited councils are not meeting all their Food Act 1984 responsibilities | ||||||
| All audited councils |
1 |
Develop a workforce plan that:
|
Accepted |
|||
|
2 |
Develop or strengthen a plan for:
|
Accepted | ||||
|
3 |
Use results of assessments, inspections, food sampling and complaints to develop education programs for owners of food premises and their staff that address food safety risks (see Section 2). |
Accepted by Casey, Hepburn, Kingston and Manningham Partially accepted by Geelong |
||||
| Department of Health |
4 |
Reviews the regulatory arrangements and provides advice to the government to:
|
Accepted | |||
|
5 |
Improve consistency in councils' compliance ratings of food premises by annually:
|
Accepted |
||||
|
6 |
Complete and implement the Public Health Workforce Plan to address the statewide shortage of environmental health officers (see Section 2). |
Accepted |
||||
|
7 |
Address, in collaboration with councils, the need for its statewide risk based food sampling strategy to consider:
|
Accepted | ||||
| Issue: Food safety reporting is ineffective | ||||||
|
Department of Health |
8 |
Design and implement performance measures and targets that measure achievements against:
|
Accepted |
|||
|
9 |
Annually publish the Food Act report, including:
|
Accepted | ||||
| Issue: Department of Health’s food safety guidance and training has improved but is not always meeting council needs | ||||||
|
Department of Health |
10 |
Improve council guidance and training by:
|
Accepted |
|||
What we found
This section summarises our key findings for regulating food safety. Sections 2, 3 and 4 detail our complete findings, including supporting evidence.
The agencies we examined were the Department of Health (DH), City of Casey (Casey), City of Greater Geelong (Geelong), Hepburn Shire Council (Hepburn), City of Kingston (Kingston) and Manningham City Council (Manningham).
When reaching our conclusions, we consulted with the audited agencies and considered their views. The agencies’ full responses are in Appendix A.
Legislative requirements
The Food Act 1984 (Food Act) regulates the food industry in Victoria to ensure that food sold is safe, suitable and correctly labelled.
Responsible entities
Councils are primarily responsible for administering and enforcing the Food Act, supported by DH.
DH is responsible for promoting the objectives and consistent administration of the Food Act. It does this by providing information and guidance to local government environmental health officers (EHO) and publishing an annual report on food regulation.
Our key findings
Our findings fall into 3 key areas:
|
1 |
Audited councils' regulation of food premises does not fully meet the requirements of the Food Act. |
|
2 |
DH and audited councils' food safety reporting is ineffective. |
|
3 |
DH’s guidance and training has improved but is not always meeting council needs. |
Key finding 1: Audited councils’ regulation of food premises does not fully meet the requirements of the Food Act
Council legislative requirements
Under the Food Act councils are responsible for the day-to-day regulation of most food premises in Victoria.
Gaps in audited councils’ administration of their legislative requirements
|
For the requirement to … |
We found that … |
|---|---|
|
conduct annual assessments or inspection of food premises |
|
|
register food premises |
audited councils are not:
|
|
sample food |
Geelong, Hepburn and Manningham did not meet their food sampling obligations. Geelong fell short in 2020 to 2022, Hepburn in 2018, 2020 and 2021, and Manningham in 2019. DH does not:
|
|
investigate complaints |
audited councils are responsive to the community’s food complaints and inquiries. However, councils can improve their recording and reporting of complaints. |
Impact of not meeting requirements
If councils don’t identify and take action on noncompliant premises, it may lead to unsafe food practices going undetected or unaddressed.
Inconsistent assessment or inspection ratings between councils mean consumers are not getting the same level of protection against food safety risks across Victoria.
Workforce issues pose a risk to the effective administration of food safety regulation in Victoria.
Challenges from COVID-19 and resourcing
Hepburn’s and Geelong’s ability to effectively fulfil their food safety functions from 2020 to 2022 was constrained. This was due to difficulties in filling vacant staff positions, staff undertaking urgent non-food related activities and COVID-19 lockdowns making it hard to undertake inspections. Hepburn continues to face resourcing challenges.
Key finding 2: DH and audited councils' food safety reporting is ineffective
DH and council reporting requirements
Public reporting is important to show councils’ and DH’s performance against their respective responsibilities under the Food Act.
DH reports on its performance in promoting the objectives and the consistent administration of the Food Act through its annual report and Food Act report.
Councils’ performance is monitored through internal reporting, DH's Food Act report and the Local Government Performance Reporting Framework (LGPRF).
Under the Food Act, councils must report their activities to DH quarterly.
Gaps in DH and audited council performance reporting
DH and audited councils are not adequately reporting their respective performance against their obligations or their achievements under the food safety regulatory framework.
The key performance indicators and targets in DH’s annual report do not address the regulatory framework in terms of the objectives of the Food Act. For example, DH’s performance indicators do not measure the extent to which food for sale is safe and fit for human consumption or whether food safety is improving.
DH’s Food Act report focuses on council activity levels (e.g. on numbers of registrations, samples and enforcement actions) and is not timely. The 2020 and 2021 annual reports are not yet published and the 2018 and 2019 reports were published together in 2020.
Additionally, DH undertakes little if any meaningful analysis of the data it receives from councils.
Audited councils’ internal reporting provides no insights into food safety risks. It does not fully address performance against key regulatory responsibilities.
The LGPRF provides some insight into the efficiency and effectiveness of food safety management. However, councils do not always interpret rules consistently. The absence of targets means it is difficult to assess their performance.
Impact of ineffective reporting
DH’s and audited councils’ reported information is insufficient to assess their performance in terms of food safety, including:
- consistency and quality of regulatory activities
- compliance ratings of food premises
- reductions in foodborne illness across the state
- trends over time.
Key finding 3: DH’s guidance and training has improved but is not always meeting council needs
Guidance and training requirements
The Food Act requires DH to promote its objectives and ensure it is consistently administered. Therefore, DH has an important role in:
- developing a set of guidance materials to ensure all EHOs work from the same set of instructions with the same risk appetite
- promoting a consistent application of food legislation across the 79 councils
- supporting EHOs in dealing with new or ambiguous situations.
Quality of DH information is improving
DH shares information and delivers training to councils on the interpretation and implementation of legislation and other specific issues concerning food safety.
Councils told us that the quality of information recently provided by DH through its online portal, the Public Health Hub (PHHub), has improved.
Gaps in training and guidance
EHOs told us that DH needs to provide clearer and more contemporary advice. They also want further education.
Impact of guidance and training gaps
Unless DH addresses these gaps in guidance and training, councils will continue to apply the Food Act inconsistently.
1. Audit context
Food safety is a critical aspect of public health and wellbeing. Worldwide, an estimated 600 million people fall ill each year after consuming contaminated food. An estimated 420,000 of those die. In Australia, approximately 4.7 million cases of foodborne illness cost the community $2.4 billion a year.
Number of registered food premises in Victoria
Registered food premises
Figure 1 shows that from 2018 to 2021 the number of registered food premises in Victoria decreased. The reduction in 2020 and 2021 was mainly due to food premises closing during COVID-19 lockdowns.
Figure 1: Number of registered food premises in Victoria
Note: The information for 2021 represents data from 70 of 79 Victorian councils.
Source: VAGO, based on DH Food Act reports 2018, 2019, 2020 (draft) and 2021 (draft).
Managing food safety
Significant responsibilities
The management of food safety in Victoria is complex and imposes significant responsibilities on the DH and councils.
DH’s responsibilities
DH administers the Food Act. Appendix D outlines DH’s food safety roles and responsibilities.
DH is also responsible for implementing the Food Safety Reform Program. This aims to support:
- food businesses in better understanding their food safety obligations under the Food Act
- councils in applying food safety regulation more consistently across the state.
DH administers the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008 (PHWA). This aims to:
- protect public health and prevent disease, illness, injury, disability or premature death
- promote conditions in which people can be healthy
- reduce public health and wellbeing inequalities in Victoria.
Councils’ responsibilities
Councils regulate most food premises in the state. Appendix D outlines councils’ responsibilities under the Food Act.
Councils must do annual assessments and inspections of food premises. Inspections are less detailed than assessments. However, their purpose is the same, to:
- monitor food premises’ compliance with the Food Act and the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code
- identify any corrective actions required to minimise risk to the public
- ensure that food sold in Victoria is safe and suitable to eat.
The PHWA requires councils to protect, improve and promote public health and wellbeing in their area.
Food premises classes
Classes are based on risk level
Councils classify food premises into classes based on the level of risk associated with food handling. Where a food premises owner carries out a range of food-handling activities at different levels of risk, the activity with the highest risk level is used.
Classes and examples
Figure 2: Classes of food premises
Note: Class 3A introduced 1 July 2022.
Source: VAGO, based on DH information.
Monitoring and reporting
Statewide food safety reporting
Councils report food safety data on registration, sampling and enforcement action numbers to DH every quarter.
Councils also report performance information by calendar year to Local Government Victoria (LGV) through the LGPRF. LGV is part of the Department of Government Services (DGS).
Further information
For more in-depth background information on DH and LGV reporting, see Appendix D
Challenges to regulating food safety
COVID-19
During 2020 and 2021, COVID-19 affected councils’ ability to meet their food safety obligations. The pandemic resulted in restrictions and closures of food businesses. This made it hard for councils to inspect food premises. Some councils had to redeploy public health resources in response to the pandemic.
Workforce shortages
Council EHOs handle a diverse range of public health duties, including food safety. They register food premises and inspect them to ensure that food for sale in Victoria is safe and suitable to eat.
However, workforce shortages are affecting councils’ ability to source appropriately qualified EHOs, especially in rural areas. For the audited councils, this particularly affected Geelong and Hepburn.
The shortage of EHOs is a national issue and not a new problem in the industry. Due to the amount of work from the COVID-19 pandemic and the loss of qualified overseas resources, this problem is getting worse. In Victoria there is no university that provides an undergraduate degree for EHOs.
Other events
Between 2019 and 2022, Hepburn was also impacted by multiple storm and flood emergency events. This necessitated moving key members of the environmental health team from food safety activities to deal with these events. The council made multiple attempts to backfill these positions but was unsuccessful due to the statewide shortage of EHOs.
2. Monitoring compliance
Not all the audited councils are meeting all their obligations under the Food Act.
None of the audited councils consistently use active surveillance to find unregistered food premises. They are also not assessing or inspecting all food premises.
The councils are responsive to community complaints and provide procedural fairness. However, they could improve their recording and reporting of food safety complaints.
Food safety activities
Legislative requirement
Key council activities involved in managing food safety include:
- registering food premises
- conducting annual assessments and inspections
- sampling food
- investigating food safety-related complaints or potential foodborne illness outbreaks
- taking enforcement action for noncompliance.
Ensuring all food premises are registered
Legislative
requirement
Councils register food premises under the Food Act. Owners of food premises must ensure all their premises are registered, including temporary food premises such as street parties, festivals and markets. This gives councils a complete and up-to-date basis for their compliance actions.
Equally important is the need for councils to use appropriate and effective monitoring that ensures all food premises are registered.
Procedures for registering food premises
Casey, Geelong, Kingston and Manningham have documented registration procedures to guide staff. Hepburn does not, which creates a risk of inconsistent interpretation by council staff when registering businesses.
Identifying unregistered premises
All 5 councils provided examples of approaches used to identify unregistered food premises, including:
- cross-checking with payment records and sharing information with other council departments such as planning, economic development, building and tourism
- routine geographical surveillance by EHOs who are allocated areas within the municipality to build local knowledge
- investigating complaints
- ad hoc review of newspapers and social media
- attending festivals and markets
- desktop audits.
Example of monitoring for unregistered food premises
Case study: Casey conducted a desktop audit to identify unregistered food premises
In 2018, Casey introduced a project to search for businesses that were operating without a current registration under the Food Act or PHWA. This included food premises and health businesses such as beauty, skin penetration and tattooists.
The desktop review found 10 unregistered food premises. Of these:
- 4 became registered after engagement from the EHO
- 5 were no longer trading or did not require a permit
- one decided not to go ahead with registering and ceased activity.
Casey restarted the project in 2019 on a limited basis and it produced no formal reports. It intended to continue in 2020, but COVID-19’s impact on resourcing forced it to focus on inspections of existing registered businesses. Casey intends to restart the project in 2023.
Source: VAGO, based on information provided by Casey.
Frequency of monitoring activities
The audited councils’ monitoring activities should be – but are not – based on risk-based surveillance strategies that:
- set out actions to mitigate the risk of unregistered food premises operating
- address risks identified through an assessment of the local environment. This may include new food premises not located in traditional locations such as in food precincts where EHOs regularly visit
- prioritise actions and allocation of EHOs based on the severity of the risks identified.
Proof of registration
Many food premises are located outside traditional food precincts. For example, home kitchens' primary presence is on online platforms. The audited councils are not consistently looking for these businesses.
With the growth of home-based food businesses using online platforms, there is an increased risk of unregistered businesses going undetected. In 2020, the Food Safety Information Council, a health promotion charity that educates consumers in food safety, found unregistered home-based food businesses selling high-risk foods online through one of these platforms.
We undertook a similar exercise and found 19 unregistered home-based food businesses using online food delivery platforms in 4 of the audited councils. We did not find any unregistered businesses at Hepburn.
Councils have trouble engaging with these food premises because they have limited information about them.
Gaps in the Food Act
Under the Food Act owners of food premises must ensure that their name is prominently displayed. There is no requirement to display their registration certification, although this must be available to EHOs on request. They can display their registration certificate inside the shop or on the door. For food premises using online platforms it is difficult for EHOs to check their registration.
Public information about registrations and inspections
In Victoria there is limited publicly available information for consumers to check on food premises’ registration or their food hygiene performance. Privacy requirements of the Food Act currently restrict publication of some of this information. Other jurisdictions have developed websites for the public to see this information.
In the United Kingdom the public can check whether a food business is registered and see its inspection rating on the Food Standards Agency’s food hygiene ratings website. As Figure 3 shows, in New York, ABCEats allows the public to look up a restaurant’s registration details and inspection results.
Figure 3: Example of information available for New York on the ABCEats website
Source: Redacted from City of New York Department of Health and Mental Hygiene’s ABCEats website.
Impact of not knowing registration status
Councils failing to systematically identify and register all food premises undermines a fundamental component of the regulatory framework to monitor whether food meets safety standards.
Unregistered food premises may not be regularly assessed or inspected by councils.
Annual assessment and inspection of registered food premises
Requirement for food safety assessments or inspections
The Food Act sets out the requirements for councils to assess class 1 and 2 premises and inspect class 3 food premises each year. For more information about these requirements see Appendix E.
These requirements are important for ensuring food safety compliance. They allow councils to identify corrective actions that minimise the risk to public health.
Councils report the percentage of registered class 1 and 2 food premises they assess annually to LGV, as part of the LGPRF. They do not have to publicly report the percentage of registered class 3 food premises they inspect each year.
Assessment performance of all Victorian councils
Figure 4 shows that only 24 and 23 per cent of all 79 Victorian councils reported that they had assessed all their registered class 1 and 2 food premises in 2020 and 2021 respectively. This compared to between 46 and 49 per cent from 2018 to 2019. Councils noted in their annual reports that the drop in annual food safety assessment was mainly due to the COVID-19 lockdowns.
Over the 4 years, Victorian councils assessed less than half of class 1 and 2 food premises.
Figure 4: Percentage of Victorian councils that assessed all class 1 and 2 food premises from 2018 to 2021
Source: VAGO analysis, based on DGS LGPRF data from 2018 to 2021.
There is a wide variation in the percentage of annual assessments by councils. Figure 5 shows that in 2021 the maximum a council achieved is 119.1 per cent, the minimum is 9.7 per cent and the 2021 average is 81 per cent.
Results above 100 per cent are most likely due to councils including assessments of food premises that closed during the reporting period, along with repeat inspections. Of the audited councils, only Casey reports results more than 100 per cent.
Figure 5: Percentage of class 1 and 2 food premises assessed by Victorian councils
Source: VAGO analysis, based on DGS LGPRF data from 2018 to 2021.
Audited councils’ assessment performance
Based on the LGPRF data, Casey is the only audited council that reported having assessed all its class 1 and 2 food premises from 2018 to 2020, as shown in Figure 6. However, this is because Casey’s reporting includes assessments of food premises that subsequently closed. Adjusting for the closed premises changes the results to 95.6 per cent in 2020.
Figure 6: Percentage of class 1 and 2 food premises assessed by audited councils
Source: DGS LGPRF data from 2018 to 2021 and audited councils’ data for 2022.
Audited councils’ inspection performance
Figure 7 shows that only Casey met the Food Act requirement to annually inspect all registered class 3 food premises for all 5 years. Geelong did so for 2018 and 2019.
Figure 7: Percentage of class 3 food premises assessed by audited councils
Note: Casey’s and Geelong’s percentages are greater than 100 due to the councils including inspections of closed premises.
Source: Audited councils.
While the Food Act requires councils to inspect all class 3 food premises annually, the broad range of EHO responsibilities means they prioritise class 1 and 2 food premises assessments using a risk-based approach.
Challenges facing EHOs
In addition to delivering and managing Food Act requirements, EHOs have other responsibilities under:
- the PHWA and Public Health and Wellbeing Regulations 2019 (including managing nuisances)
- the Residential Tenancies Act 1997 and Residential Tenancies (Caravan Parks and Moveable Dwellings Registration and Standards) Regulations 2020 (such as rooming house regulation)
- the Environment Protection Act 2017 and Environmental Protection Regulations 2021 (such as septic tank inspections)
- specific local laws of each local government area (for example, smoking on council land)
- Emergency Management Act 2013 (such as responding to the COVID-19 pandemic, and storm, flood and fire events)
- Tobacco Act 1987 (including education and enforcement).
Any increase in work in these areas takes EHOs away from Food Act compliance activities, which affects service delivery levels. For example, the 2021 COVID-19 lockdowns made it hard for some councils to complete assessments and inspections.
At Geelong and Hepburn, vacant EHO positions (which both councils have had difficulty filling with appropriately qualified staff) made the situation worse. Geelong has had 7 vacant EHO positions out of 12 and Hepburn one out of 2. Both councils cited the inability to fill these positions for over a year as the key reason for not meeting their Food Act responsibilities to assess all class 1, 2 and 3 food premises.
Hepburn advised us that it has not filled its position. However, it states that in January 2023 it secured a contractor to help the council manage its Food Act responsibilities while it continues to recruit for a permanent EHO position that has been vacant for 18 months. Geelong filled 6 of these positions between December 2022 and March 2023 after they had been vacant for between 6 to 12 months.
Since 2019 Hepburn EHOs have also had to deal with the following emergency management events:
- fires in 2019
- storms in June and October 2021
- floods in January and October 2022.
Statewide workforce shortages
In 2018, DH began work to address the EHO workforce shortages by developing an internal Public Health Workforce Plan. However, this work stalled in early 2020 due to COVID-19.
DH restarted work on the Public Health Workforce Plan in late 2021 to identify and prioritise immediate and long-term solutions to address the worsening EHO workforce shortage. DH is developing a Victorian Health Workforce Strategy, which it intends to complete in July 2023. The department advised us it also plans to deliver a Public Health Workforce Plan in 2023–24.
The workforce shortage is a national issue and not a new problem in the industry. DH’s 2022 environmental health officer workforce survey found that, due to a turnover of staff since the COVID-19 pandemic and EHOs leaving the industry, the problem is worsening, especially for councils. In addition, our report Results of 2021–22 Audits: Local Government shows average staff turnover for the sector was 20 per cent in 2021–22, up from 14 per cent the previous year.
Figure 8 shows the extent of the problem in Victoria.
Figure 8: Environmental health officer workforce survey results
Source: 2022 environmental health officer workforce survey.
DH is considering initiatives to attract and recruit, train, upskill, support and retain EHOs. However, DH told us it has been challenging getting councils to work with it to address EHO workforce challenges. This is because councils are experiencing staff shortages in multiple occupations and competing priorities. The situation is worsened by the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, meaning councils have to prioritise their areas of focus.
Council feedback on EHO shortages
The case study shows feedback from Victorian councils on the Public Health Workforce Plan during consultation suggests that there has been a lack of involvement, support and direction from DH on this issue.
Case study: Council staff feedback about staff shortages
Comments on problems staff face
‘… lack of staff, lack of support from workplace and state government bodies (… DH in particular).’
‘Lack of recognition of the value and importance of EHO work and capabilities by state and federal government.’
How problems could be addressed
‘I would like to see more involvement by state government on staffing levels.’
‘Greater promotion of the role from a state perspective.’
‘Additional learning and upskilling opportunities provided by state government.’
Source: VAGO, from DH’s 2022 environmental health officer workforce survey.
Impact of not assessing or inspecting all food premises
DH and councils need to respond quickly to the shortage of skilled staff, which compromises the effectiveness of the food safety regulatory system.
The failure of all audited councils to conduct proactive monitoring of all class 1, 2 and 3 food premises each year increases the risk that unsafe food practices in food premises may continue undetected, posing a risk to public health.
Consistency of council assessment and inspection rating of food premises
Legislative requirement
Victorian councils are required to consistently administer the Food Act, including assessing and inspecting food premises.
Food safety reforms
Councils face challenges consistently rating assessments and inspections because of the variation in EHOs' interpretation of food safety requirements.
DH recognises this and its 2018–21 Food Safety Reform Program aims to harmonise the approaches, policies and systems of councils. This should promote a more consistent and accurate application of food safety regulation.
A key initiative is the rollout of an assessment methodology that uses a consistent, risk-based approach to food premise assessments. Instead of EHOs focusing on basic cleaning (such as dirty floors and surfaces), they now focus on evaluating processes and controls for high-risk foods such as poultry, seafood, coleslaw, pasta and rice salads.
Inconsistent assessment and inspection ratings
Through a series of workshops in May 2020, DH identified inconsistencies in councils’ compliance ratings. It asked EHOs to assess 6 different scenarios and arrive at an overall compliance rating of ‘compliant’, ‘major noncompliance’ or ‘critical noncompliance’.
Major noncompliance means a deficiency or breach that does not pose an immediate, serious threat to public health but that may pose such a threat if no remedial action is taken. If there are several major noncompliances that, taken together, pose a serious threat to public health, the compliance check outcome may be categorised as critical.
Critical noncompliance means a deficiency or breach that poses a serious threat to public health. This includes situations where there is a serious risk of food being sold or prepared that is unsafe to eat.
As Figure 9 shows, there was variance in how councils and DH assessed different inspection scenarios. This highlights the differences in EHO approaches to food safety regulation. Councils rely on the experience and professional judgement of EHOs to arrive at a rating for an assessment or inspection and determine enforcement action.
Figure 9: DH compliance rating workshop assessments for different inspection scenarios
| Council assessments | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Inspection scenario | DH assessment | Compliant (%) | Major noncompliance (%) | Critical noncompliance (%) |
| 1 | Compliant | 95 | 5 | 0 |
| 2 | Critical noncompliance | 26 | 63 | 11 |
| 3 | Compliant | 77 | 23 | 0 |
| 4 | Critical noncompliance | 4 | 37 | 59 |
| 5 | Compliant | 89 | 7 | 4 |
| 6 | Major noncompliance | 93 | 7 | 0 |
Source: VAGO, from DH Compliance outcomes report, May 2020.
Statewide compliance ratings
Data collected by DH in 2018 similarly highlights significant variation in ratings between Victoria’s 79 councils. The variances could be due to several reasons, including the spread and number of businesses in a municipality. However, since all councils are enforcing the same legislation, there should be fewer extremes.
Figure 10 shows compliance rates for assessments councils conducted in 2018. The results are de-identified except for the audited councils, which are shown in red. The state average, indicated by the green line, shows that 80 per cent of food premises inspected by councils were compliant.
Figure 10: Compliance rates for class 1 and 2 food premises of all Victorian councils, 2018
Note: Data for one council that was not audited is unavailable. The graph does not include the results of audits of class 1 and 2 food premises completed by third party auditors or inspections of class 3 food premises completed by councils. The data may include multiple assessments of the same premises.
Source VAGO, based on DH data.
Councils use different proformas
In 2022, DH commissioned an evaluation of food safety risk assessment across councils. It found a lack of consistency in councils’ assessment proformas. Our review of proformas used by the audited councils shows that the assessment template varies, increasing the risk of inconsistency between councils.
Variation in assessment records
The 2022 evaluation of food safety risk assessment also found a lack of consistency in how EHOs within councils completed assessment proformas. Some EHOs supported their evaluations with significant notations describing observations and interview responses. Others used the proforma as a ’tick and flick’ exercise, with few notations recorded.
Impact of inconsistent ratings
The lack of uniformity in ratings across different councils can lead to:
- poorer health outcomes in areas where assessment or inspections are less robust
- higher costs for food premises needing to rectify noncompliant issues due to the council being tougher in their assessment or inspection ratings.
Follow-up of noncompliant assessments and inspections
Requirements to follow-up noncompliant food premises
Under the Food Act councils must:
- take timely action to ensure that any critical or major noncompliance identified in an assessment or inspection is rectified, and that the owner is made fully aware of proper food handling practices
- inspect food premises within a 3 month period before the business renews their registration if they have reason to believe the food premises or proprietor have not complied with the Food Act.
Victorian council performance following up noncompliance
Information reported through the LGPRF, in Figure 11, shows that over the period from 2018 to 2021, between 52 and 61 per cent of Victorian councils followed up all their major and critical noncompliant food premises.
Figure 11: Percentage of Victorian councils that followed up 100 per cent of their critical and major noncompliance outcome notifications
Source: DGS LGPRF from 2018 to 2021.
Audited councils’ performance following up noncompliance
We reviewed the records of 30 poorly performing food premises at the audited councils and interviewed council staff about food safety decision-making. These food premises consistently rated as noncompliant on third-party audits, assessments and inspections from 2018 to 2021. Council records showed that they followed up noncompliance issues and resolved these within reasonable timeframes.
EHOs give food premises owners set periods to address each noncompliant item. These range from one to 90 days, depending on the risk. The EHO rates the premises noncompliant until the owner addresses all items or enough high-risk items.
During follow-up inspections, EHOs focus on the noncompliant items. They give owners fair opportunity to address them and can follow-up several times. Councils followed up some poor performers up to 9 times in one year to rectify noncompliance issues.
Kingston could not demonstrate that it had taken action to follow-up some food premises with noncompliant outcomes during 2020. This was because it maintained paper records during the COVID-19 pandemic but had not added all these records into the system, due to a lack of resources.
Reinspecting noncompliant premises before renewing registrations
Audited councils are not reinspecting all food premises with noncompliance during the year in the last 3 months before registration renewal, which is a legislative requirement. This is because councils do not have processes in place or the resources to reinspect food premises. For example, in 2022 Kingston had 256 major and critical noncompliant food premises, which the council would have needed to reinspect in the 3 months before registration renewal. This is in addition to any previous inspections that year to address the noncompliance issues and is irrespective of whether the council now views the business as compliant.
Impact of Food Act requirement on councils
The requirement to reinspect premises in the 3 months prior to registration renewal significantly increases the number of council inspections required each year. It is also not a good use of their limited resources given councils have processes to follow-up and address noncompliance when it occurs.
Food sampling
Councils must take food samples
Food surveillance plays a significant role in ensuring that food sold in Victoria is both safe and suitable for public consumption. Section 32 of the Food Act requires councils to collect and analyse a minimum number of food surveillance samples annually. Councils can also collect food samples to investigate complaints.
Council selection of food for sampling should be based on risk, with higher-risk foods sampled and analysed more frequently. Councils send samples to a laboratory to analyse whether the food is safe and suitable. The laboratories report their results to the council and DH. Councils should also notify food premises of the outcome.
Each year, DH publishes the total number of food samples Victorian councils need to collect each year in the Victoria Government Gazette to meet their Food Act requirement.
Statewide food samples
Victorian councils collect around 10,000 food samples from food premises every year. Figure 12 shows, that in 2018 and 2019, Victorian councils collected more than the minimum required number of food samples.
DH did not provide the number of food samples collected in 2020, 2021 and 2022 because its statewide database cannot collate data from the food laboratories and there are errors in the data. It has had limited success in fixing the problem. This means DH is unable to collate or analyse the results of statewide sampling to identify problem or risk areas.
DH is transitioning to a new statewide database that will allow the collection of food sampling data and greater analysis. However, implementation of the new database has been significantly delayed.
Figure 12: Expected and actual number of Victorian food samples from 2018 to 2022
Note: DH reduced the food sample numbers in 2021 to reflect the reduced number of food premises open during the state’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Source: VAGO analysis, based on DH’s Food Act reports for 2018, 2019, 2020 (draft) and 2021 (draft) and Victoria Government Gazette 16 December 2021.
Audited councils’ food sampling performance
The audited councils provided us the actual number of section 32 food samples they took from 2018 to 2022. The sample number for each council varies depending on the number of food premises each council has. Figure 13 shows that only 2 councils, Casey and Kingston, achieved their food sampling targets for the 5-year period between 2018 and 2022. Manningham was just short in 2019. Geelong and Hepburn did not meet their targets in some years due to staff shortages and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Figure 13: Percentage of food sampling target met from 2018 to 2022 by audited council
Note: This data excludes food samples taken to investigate complaints.
Source: VAGO analysis based on information provided by audited councils.
Impact of DH not monitoring councils' food sampling performance or assessing results
Food surveillance plays a key role in ensuring that food sold in Victoria is both safe and suitable for public consumption. Without monitoring councils’ food sampling performance, DH does not know which councils are not meeting their food sampling obligations.
In addition, it cannot analyse results to assess risks to public health, mitigate these risks or develop educational tools for councils and business owners.
Investigating complaints
Requirement to investigate and report on complaints
DH does not regulate food businesses. It refers complaints it receives about food premises to councils for investigation, response and reporting.
The public also report complaints directly to councils.
The Local Government Act 2020 requires councils to have a complaints policy and process.
In addition to its requirement to follow-up on noncompliant food premises, under the Food Act a council must inspect food premises within the 3-month period before the business renews its registration if it receives a complaint about the premises during the registration period.
Audited councils’ complaint management practices
We reviewed a selection of councils’ food complaints and investigations. We found that councils are responding to complaints in a timely manner and are fairly addressing food safety issues with owners of food premises.
Figure 14: Examples of councils’ good complaints management practices and areas for improvement
| Good practices | Practices that need improving |
|---|---|
|
All audited councils are:
Geelong and Manningham complete an assessment or inspection, if it is due, while investigating a complaint. Geelong and Manningham assign 2 EHOs to a complaint inspection, to support the workload if noncompliance is detected and enforcement tools are used. Kingston and Manningham add premises to their sampling program to recheck specific menu items. Geelong increases the frequency of assessments or inspections to 3 or 6-monthly for premises it assesses as high-risk. |
None of the audited councils are:
Geelong and Hepburn do not have documented procedures for investigating food complaints. While Geelong has limited work instructions and both use DH’s Enforcement guidelines: A guide for councils in selecting enforcement tools (enforcement guidelines), these are not a substitute for detailed operating procedures for all types of food complaints. |
Source: VAGO, based on council data.
LGPRF
complaint response times
Figure 15 shows that on average, except for Hepburn, the audited councils first respond to complaints within 2 days of receipt. Hepburn had one complaint in 2020, which it responded to in 5 days. Hepburn advised that this was due to demand on EHOs during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Without targets it is not clear if these results are in-line with the councils’ expectations.
Figure 15: Days taken for audited councils to action food complaints from 2018 to 2022
Note: Data for the 2022 state average is unavailable. DGS LGPRF release their data in June each year.
Source: DGS LGPRF data from 2018 to 2021 and audited councils’ data for 2022.
Challenges in investigating complaints
Councils experience difficulties in getting sufficient information and evidence from complainants. This can happen when:
- complaints are anonymous, the complainant is unwilling to further engage with council or the complaint is false
- evidence is limited
- councils need a 3-day food history and faecal and food sample results from complainants to link gastroenteritis to food premises.
Impact of gaps in councils’ management of complaints
|
The absence of ... |
Means ... |
|---|---|
|
documented procedures for investigating food complaints at Geelong and Hepburn |
there is a risk of inconsistent interpretation of requirements by EHOs in making food safety decisions on complaints. |
|
targets and monitoring of complaints by all audited councils |
they do not know whether:
|
|
regular analysis of complaint data |
councils are unable to identify and respond to trends over time and emerging food safety risks. |
Council enforcement action
Legislative requirement
The Food Act contains a range of enforcement tools that councils can use where there has been noncompliance.
Council EHOs must consider what would be a proportionate response to an alleged breach of the legislation. Councils can issue infringement notices for some food safety or hygiene offences. These include:
- failure to store, process, display and transport food safely
- lack of cleanliness and adequacy of food premises
- failure to clean and sanitise food equipment
- operating food premises without registration or notification
- failure to keep their food safety program (FSP) onsite.
DH guidelines
DH’s enforcement guidelines are intended to help councils choose appropriate enforcement action. This will be based on health and safety risks and the level of compliance required. DH’s regulatory tools pyramid, shown in Figure 16, summarises some of the compliance tools.
All audited councils use the enforcement guidelines to determine their approach to enforcement.
Figure 16: Regulatory tools pyramid
Source: DH enforcement guidelines under the Food Act.
Using education to improve outcomes
Audited councils indicated that they generally chose to educate and support businesses rather than using the enforcement powers available under the Food Act. They use inspections as an opportunity to educate food premises owners and staff. This was evident when we attended a selection of food inspections at each audited council. We observed EHOs giving owners advice and brochures about food processes, cleaning food processing machines and allergen management.
However, councils could not provide evidence of their education approach, policies and procedures beyond the inspection reports themselves. None of the 5 councils has developed a formal education strategy informed by:
- needs analysis of food premises (such as culturally and linguistically diverse owners, low literacy levels, or significant high-risk businesses and food products)
- issues or findings arising from assessment, inspections and sampling.
Enforcement action against poor performers
Audited councils use a range of graduated and proportionate sanctions to address poorly performing food premises.
When there is sufficient evidence of noncompliance during follow-up inspections of premises, councils take immediate enforcement action, when noncompliant items are:
- an offence under the Food Act
- high-risk and actions by owners continue to put the public at risk
or the premises:
- have exceeded the deadline to address noncompliant items
- are in a cycle of returning to noncompliance and the council has given them many opportunities to demonstrate compliance.
The audited councils take enforcement that includes one or more of the following:
- orders to business owners to rectify the issue and close the premises
- issues infringement notices
- changes to business owners' registration conditions.
In 3 instances across 9 cases at Kingston that we reviewed, staff reflected that their enforcement action could have been timelier and stronger. EHOs used warnings – a lower level intervention – when an infringement notice was justified.
3. Reporting performance
DH’s statewide food safety reporting does not include useful or timely information about how effectively councils are managing food safety. DH and councils need better performance data to measure food safety outcomes.
The LGPRF provides some insight into the efficiency and effectiveness of food safety management. However, councils do not always calculate results consistently and it is difficult to assess their performance without targets.
The audited councils report internally on food safety but provide no insights on food safety risks. Better use of data and quality reporting would support good decision-making.
Statewide food safety reporting
Requirements to report on food safety
The Food Act requires councils to report their food safety activities to DH every quarter. The department must publish an annual Food Act report that provides food businesses, food regulators and the Victorian community an account of councils’ and the DH’s activities.
DH must also report its food safety output performance set out in Budget Paper No. 3 – Service Delivery in its annual report.
Focus of DH's reporting
DH’s Food Act report focuses on councils’ activity levels, such as the number of registrations, food samples and enforcement action. DH undertakes little meaningful analysis of this data. It also does not measure performance against the objectives of the Food Act, which are to:
- ensure food for sale is safe and suitable for human consumption
- prevent misleading conduct relating to the sale of food
- allow for the application of the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code in Victoria.
To measure performance against the objectives of the Food Act, DH needs to consider a broader range of metrics to address the complexity involved in measuring food safety outcomes.
One measure of regulatory effectiveness in ensuring that food for sale is safe and suitable for human consumption is trends in foodborne illnesses. For example, the Food Standard Agency, which is responsible for food safety and food hygiene in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, reports on trends on the number of cases, confirmed by laboratory tests, of 4 of the main sources of foodborne illness – E. coli, Salmonella, Campylobacter and Listeria.
DH does not publicly report foodborne illness trends or use the sampling information to assess risks to public health. However, it does report on infectious diseases that may be foodborne. This reporting has limitations as an indicator of food safety because:
- the data includes diseases from non-food pathogens, such as water or pets
- some foods are manufactured in other Australian states or imported from overseas.
DH’s annual report only reports on ‘calls to food safety hotlines that are answered’ and the ‘percentage of food recalls acted upon within 24 hours of notification’.
Timeliness of DH’s annual Food Act report
DH’s annual Food Act report is not timely.
Since 2018, the department has issued it every 2 years. In May 2021, DH issued the 2018 and 2019 data in one report. It has yet to publish the results for 2020 and 2021 due to the impacts of COVID-19 on resourcing and due to data management challenges experienced by both councils and the department.
This is inconsistent with the Food Act requirement for DH to publish an annual report on food regulation.
Timeliness of council reporting
Councils must report their food safety activities to DH within 7 days of the end of each quarter. We found that Hepburn has not reported to DH since the first quarter of 2020 and Kingston did not report information between the last quarter of 2021 and May 2022.
Hepburn advised that staff shortages and technical issues with submitting data resulted in the council being unable to comply with its Food Act obligations. DH has made several attempts to follow-up with the council. Hepburn has attempted to re-upload the information, but it has been rejected again due to validation issues. The council cannot validate the data, as the reporting portal has been temporarily removed since July 2022.
Completeness of council reporting
DH advised that some councils choose not to report all required data because it is too time-consuming and they capture data in different systems that are not linked.
The DH Food Act report includes data on enforcement actions taken by councils for breaches of the Food Act by fixed premises. It does not report data for mobile and temporary premises as required by the Food Act. The department is working with councils to ensure they report this data.
Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, some councils experienced difficulties submitting data for 2020 and 2021 because of lack of staff and food premise closures.
Data quality
According to DH’s Food Safety Reporting Guide, councils are responsible for ensuring the quality of their data. DH does not independently audit the quality of councils’ data.
We found instances in DH Food Act reports where it is unclear whether a ‘0’ means there was no result for the period or that the council had not provided the data.
Impact of limited annual reporting
The information in DH’s Food Act report does not:
- fully measure DH’s performance against its key regulatory responsibilities
- show the efficiency and effectiveness of the regulatory framework at a council or state level
- show whether the objectives of the Food Act are being achieved.
Impact of insufficient reporting on statewide activities
DH’s Food Act report and annual report do not enable users to assess councils or DH’s performance in relation to:
- consistency and quality of regulatory activities
- compliance outcomes of food premises
- reductions in foodborne illness across the state
- trends over time.
Public reporting of council performance
Requirement to report on food safety
The Local Government Act 2020 requires all councils to publicly report their performance against the LGPRF indicators in their annual reports. This is separate to the reporting by DH.
To support consistent reporting, LGV’s Performance Reporting Indicator Guide provides instructions on how councils must calculate indicator results.
LGPRF reporting
The LGPRF indicators provide some insight into the efficiency and effectiveness of council food safety management. For more in-depth background information on LGPRF reporting, please see Appendix D.
Interpreting guidance
We found that some councils do not interpret the Performance Reporting Indicator Guide correctly or consistently, and there are inherent issues with the rules.
Calculating the percentage of food safety assessments
As highlighted in Section 2, Casey reported undertaking more than 100 per cent of its food safety assessments in the years 2018 to 2020 and in 2022. This is because it counts assessments of closed premises in the number of assessments but not in the number of premises.
The other audited councils advised that they do not include closed businesses in their reporting. It is unclear in the guide whether an inspection of a closed business should count.
In 2021, 7 councils reported inspecting over 100 per cent of their food premises, highlighting that this is not an isolated issue. LGV acknowledges this issue and has updated the guide for 2023 to cap the result at 100 per cent. The calculation now omits food premises that close during the year and counts only one assessment per premises.
Casey is also calculating the result on financial year, instead of calendar year as required by the LGPRF. Our Results of 2018‒19 Audits: Local Government previously found critical and major non‐compliance outcome notifications, where council calculations were based on the financial year, rather than the calendar year per the LGPRF.
Setting targets to assess performance
Our report 2016‒17 Results of Audits: Local Government recommended the need to set LGPRF targets that allow management and other report users to understand which areas need improvement.
LGV is reforming the LGPRF. Starting in 2023–24, councils will set targets for 8 key performance indicators. This will ensure that councils demonstrate their performance by linking their intentions to their outputs. However, there is no plan to set targets for food safety indicators.
Impact of inconsistently interpreting guidance
Councils interpret guidance inconsistently. This means the information they publish about food safety assessments in their annual reports and on LGV’s website is not comparable between councils.
Impact of no targets
The absence of targets also makes it difficult for users of the performance information to understand whether councils’ food safety performance meets expectations.
Audited councils’ internal food safety reporting
Audited councils’ reporting
All the audited councils report internally to management and/or executive management on their regulation of food safety. Reporting frequency ranges from monthly to quarterly.
The audited councils’ reporting focuses on food safety activity levels and LGPRF results. It does not provide any insights into food safety risks.
For example, all audited councils except Hepburn report on the number of food complaints. However, they do not provide information on the progress against timeframes set in their complaints procedures or on what they are finding in their investigations, to improve practice.
Using data to inform risk management
All the audited councils could make better use of data from inspections, food sampling and complaints to drive education.
Case study: Inspection and food sampling information used to develop targeted education for allergen management
Through food safety inspections, Casey identified allergen management as an area of concern. Casey targeted sampling of food allergens over a period. The sample results had a higher-than-expected unsatisfactory outcome.
As a result, Casey developed an allergen intervention program to promote education of EHOs and business operators in allergen management. Casey expects to evaluate the education program in early 2023. This will determine the program’s effectiveness and future needs for allergen management education.
Source: VAGO, based on information supplied by Casey.
Impact of ineffective internal reporting
Better reporting and information would help councils:
- identify systemic food safety issues
- make decisions on education and support services
- determine appropriate enforcement options.
4. Guiding and training
The quality of DH's guidance is improving and councils are accessing it more often. However, it does not always meet council needs.
DH’s training and workshops are effective, but EHOs need more regular sessions and refresher training throughout the year.
DH guidance and training
Requirement to guide councils
The Food Act requires DH to promote the objectives and the consistent administration of the Food Act through provision of information and guidance to councils.
Access to information
To meet its obligations, DH shares information with councils and EHOs about interpreting and implementing the legislation and other specific issues concerning food safety. It does this by:
- running information roadshows about legislative changes
- responding to requests for information and support
- attending Environmental Health Network meetings
- publishing material
- delivering training.
Information provided by DH is readily available on the online PHHub. DH launched the PHHub in March 2020 to provide council EHOs dedicated access to information, guidance and resources.
In 2022, DH commissioned an evaluation of its Food Safety Reform Program. This noted that the previous webpage was ‘clunky’ and challenging to navigate, and was underused by councils and EHOs.
Information quality
DH has improved the quality of information provided to councils with documents such as its Guide to the Food Act 1984 and enforcement guidelines. They are designed to be easier to understand and less legalistic than previous guidance.
The Guide to the Food Act 1984 is the cornerstone of DH’s Food Safety Reform Program, meeting the major objective of providing guidance on the correct interpretation of the Food Act.
Council use of information
EHO’s use of the PHHub has been growing since July 2020. Significant growth in access to the portal from late 2021 to February 2022 was mainly due to DH's release of the food safety assessment, enforcement and Food Act guidelines over this period.
DH’s commissioned evaluation also notes that:
- around half the EHOs surveyed found the PHHub was a useful and user-friendly resource to communicate critical information
- EHOs and councils provided consistent feedback that the initiative was a positive step forward, specifically referencing the design, navigation and resources such as animations, videos and templates.
Councils’ experience with DH support
The audited councils provided feedback on their satisfaction with the level of guidance and training provided by DH. EHOs consider that:
- the knowledge and level of advice provided by DH staff is sound
- some of the training and workshops over the years on specific topics such as the risk assessment, egg safety and fermentation have been excellent.
In 2022 DH commissioned an evaluation of its implementation of the Food Safety Risk Assessment Project. It found that 92.6 per cent of respondents agreed that the risk assessment training was ‘very effective or somewhat effective in explaining the risk-based approach to food safety assessment’.
However, there are gaps in guidance and training. Audited councils told us that:
|
DH needs to provide ... |
For example ... |
|---|---|
|
clear advice |
information on the transition from the Streatrader database for registering temporary or mobile food business to FoodTrader has created confusion. The FoodTrader system was due for release on 1 July 2022. However, this did not occur. DH advised councils on:
This matter is unresolved as FoodTrader is not yet in place. |
|
contemporary advice |
the growth of activity in the home-based food sector has created risks to food safety. DH is best placed to work with councils in understanding food trading trends and risks and to develop guidance. |
|
more timely guidance |
while DH communicated legislative amendments to food premises classifications prior to their implementation in July 2022, it did not provide practical guidance promptly to help EHOs understand and implement the changes. DH did not provide information sheets with practical guidance on the PHhub until August 2022. |
|
more regular training |
training and workshops tend to be one-off. This means they are not available for recent EHO graduates, anyone who may have missed out or EHOs needing a refresher. DH’s 2022 internal review of the Food Safety Reform Program also found ongoing training is required to ensure consistency of understanding and practice across the state. |
Impact of not meeting councils’ needs
Unless DH addresses these gaps, inconsistencies in applying the Food Act between different councils will continue – in particular, with assessment and inspection ratings.
Appendix A. Submissions and comments
Download a PDF copy of Appendix A: Submissions and comments.
Appendix B: Abbreviations, acronyms and glossary
Download a PDF copy of Appendix B: Abbreviations, acronyms and glossary.
Appendix C: Audit scope and method
Download a PDF copy of Appendix C: Audit scope and method.
Appendix D: In-depth background information
Download a PDF copy of Appendix D: In-depth background information.
Appendix E: Assessment and inspection of food premises
Download a PDF copy of Appendix E: Assessment and inspection of food premises.
Download Appendix E: Assessment and inspection of food premises