Nearly 30% of high and medium risk food business inspections were overdue 

The 2 LG entities had not completed many required inspections. We found 214 of 741 high and medium risk food business inspections were overdue as at November 2019. When inspections are not completed according to risk, the LG entities are not checking that businesses comply with the Standards.

As LG entities did not have their own documented policy or approach to inspection frequency, we assessed inspections against the ANZFA starting point, the inspection frequency after a business is classified. Our analysis of high and medium risk business inspections (Figure 2) found:

• LG entity 1 had 48% of high and 33% of medium risk businesses overdue for inspection. On average, they were overdue by around 270 days
• LG entity 2 had 44% of high and 21% of medium risk businesses overdue for inspection. On average, they were overdue by more than 400 days.

Source: OAG, using information from the LG entities
Figure 2: Overdue high and medium risk business inspections by LG entity 

LG entities have deviated from the better practice inspection frequencies and have not documented why. Therefore, they have less information about whether businesses are meeting food safety standards, increasing the risk that inadequate food practices are undetected. Additionally, businesses are paying annual fees for inspections not performed and they may miss out on receiving information and advice on their food safety practices.

Since being made aware of the findings, the LG entities advised that they were completing the overdue inspections. Both LG entities told us recently that some inspections could not be completed because businesses had cancelled their registration or were closed. One LG entity found some incorrect business risk classifications, which meant that an inspection was not due.

Record management shortcomings have reduced LG entities’ ability to effectively regulate food businesses

Inspection and enforcement data was not well documented in the records systems at the 2 LG entities. We found instances where both LG entities had incomplete records of inspections and inaccurate business register data. We also found limited system functionality and compliance reporting. Quality records and reporting support good decision-making and help LG entities effectively and efficiently allocate limited resources.

In our sample of 35 Australian Food Safety Assessment (AFSA) paper inspection forms, we found examples where forms were difficult to read, missing details or an assessment against each standard was not recorded (Figure 3). EHOs need to complete these forms so non-compliance and inspection outcomes are clear to businesses and LG entities have correct records. Both LG entities acknowledged that there were issues with recording information and scanning the form. They advised us that they are developing an electronic form to improve the quality and completeness of inspection information. We note that there is an electronic version of the AFSA inspection form available.

Source: OAG, using information from the LG entities
Figure 3: Example of an inspection form record 

We found that business information stored in registers was not always accurate or complete. In particular:

• 47 of 1,204 businesses across both LG entities had no record of inspection in the registers
• 1 LG entity had 15 businesses in which the next inspection pre-dates the last inspection
• through a limited internet search by the OAG of 20 local businesses, 1 business was found to be operating but not known or registered by the LG entity. After we made the entity aware of this finding, they requested and received a registration application.

Incomplete or inaccurate information can result in missed inspections, and businesses not being inspected according to an appropriate risk classification.

Both LG entities had weaknesses in their risk assessment processes. One LG entity did not have supporting documentation for their business risk assessments, and advised that there were 24 high and medium risk businesses which had incorrect risk classifications. At the other entity, we found an instance where risk was not reassessed for a business after multiple items of serious non-compliance were identified. One of which was feeding cats in the kitchen. Inaccurate risk assessments can lead to businesses not being inspected appropriately or paying for more inspections than required.

The LG entities can also improve the way they manage and track inspections. Due to a system error at 1 LG entity, EHOs have to rely on setting reminders for follow-up inspections in their calendars to check non-compliance was resolved. We note 1 LG entity reports quarterly on inspections completed, while the other stopped similar reporting in November 2018, while they wait for a new system. Neither LG entity reported on inspections that were due or overdue. Compliance reporting provides management with oversight of inspections required and completed, and EHO workload.

Compliance information and data can also help identify systemic food safety issues, make decisions on education and support services, and determine appropriate enforcement options. Both LG entities have advised they are either conducting a review of their registers to identify other shortcomings or improving the accuracy and effectiveness of their register and compliance reporting.

LG entities did not always follow-up food safety issues consistently and enforce compliance

We found that the LG entities did not have adequate procedures to help EHOs determine which types of non-compliance require enforcement and follow-up, and when this should occur. While some compliance decisions may require the professional judgement and discretion of individual EHOs, it is important to have documented guidance to support consistent, risk based compliance actions.

Both LG entities were not following up instances of identified non-compliance in a consistent way, to ensure food safety issues were fixed. In our review of 41 inspections across both LG entities, there were 30 inspections that identified non-compliance in areas such as food skills and knowledge, cleanliness, maintenance, handwashing facilities and protecting food from contamination. We found:

• EHOs only recommended an improvement notice for 2 businesses, but these were never issued. One business had a follow-up inspection, while the other was later fined $250 for hazardous foods that were being thawed with no temperature control.
• Five inspections completed by 1 LG entity identified between 11 and 20 separate items of non-compliance at each business but were enforced differently. Three of the inspections required no further action, 1 resulted in a follow-up inspection, and the other was marked as requiring an improvement notice, but only had a follow-up inspection.
• Six businesses had follow-up inspections, but it was unclear if all items of non-compliance were fixed. One LG entity advised that non-compliance with a lower risk are often rectified at the time of inspection, but this wasn’t always documented.

It is important for LG entities and other regulators to take consistent compliance actions for similar non-compliance. Clear and consistent enforcement processes and actions are equitable and make it easier for businesses to understand how LG entities assess and enforce compliance with the Standards.

We expected to see more formal enforcement processes used, based on the types of non-compliance found, but these were rarely used. According to Department records, in 2018-19, only 2.6% of 734 inspections across both LG entities resulted in formal enforcement. Less than 1% of all inspections resulted in an improvement notice, the first enforcement option for non-compliance. Under appropriate circumstances, formal enforcement actions send a clear and important message to businesses that their food safety practices need to be strengthened and is consistent with the Department’s compliance and enforcement guidelines.