HOSPITALITY ASSOCIATION OF NEW ZEALAND

Submission by

Hospitality Association of New Zealand

to the

New Zealand Food Safety Authority

on the

Domestic Food Review
Transition Policy and Related Implementation

9 February 2007

Hospitality Association of New Zealand
Level 2, Radio Network House, Corner Abel Smith and Taranaki Streets
PO Box 503, Wellington
Phone: 04 385 1369
Fax: 04 384 8044
www.hanz.org.nz

Contact Details:
Name: Raewyn Bleakley, National Operations Manager
Telephone: 04 385 1369
Organisation: (if applicable) Hospitality Association of New Zealand
Email: raewyn.bleakley@hanz.org.nz
Address: PO Box 503
Wellington

The Hospitality Association of New Zealand (HANZ) is a voluntary trade association with over 2,250 members nationally. Members come from across the hospitality industry including:

· Hotels/Motels/Major Accommodation Providers/Lodges

· Taverns/Pubs/Bars/Night Clubs

· Restaurants/Cafes

· Off-Licences

A significant proportion of our members’ businesses have a considerable focus on food. The Sale of Liquor Act 1989 requires that all premises licensed to sell liquor for consumption on the premises have available a range of food items at all times they are open for the sale of liquor. This requirement means that virtually all of our members (excluding off-licences) have a food component to their business. Food safety is therefore of great importance to our members.

Compliance with food safety legislation is only one of many compliance requirements facing hospitality businesses. The majority of our members employ less than 10 employees and are often “owner operators”. Compliance costs are a major concern to our members.

The Hospitality Association has previously submitted its position on the eight previous papers put forward for consultation. This final discussion document outlines in reasonably broad terms the approach that will be taken to transition and implementation. The Association generally supports the approach outlined however it is difficult to comment definitively on how the new regime and its proposed implementation will impact on members, and consequently the Association’s position, without further detail. At this stage there are several areas of concern to the Association that are outlined in the following comments.

Food service sector and off-the-peg food control plans
Members of the Association fall into the food service general and food service-off-site catering sector, which under the proposed regime, will be required to use an off-the-peg food control plan (FCP). The Association wishes to repeat its strong support for FCPs to be simple and succinct and avoid unnecessary documentation and paperwork. The Association believes that with a concerted effort from industry and NZFSA to work together to develop robust and comprehensive FCP templates a significant proportion of the food industry will be able to adopt off-the-peg FCPs or at least adopt these with reasonably small additions of custom made sections. It is the Association’s view that it is imperative to the success of the proposed regime that small to medium-sized businesses must be able to adopt FCPs with ease and confidence. Availability of comprehensive templates and resources will best facilitate this.

Evaluation Process
The proposed regime will require no evaluation of FCPs so long as no changes are made to the off-the-peg version of the FCP. The Association supports this, as it reduces the compliance cost and simplifies the process for small to medium food businesses.

Registration Process
There appears to be some duplication between the evaluation process and the registration process, which compromises the benefit of not requiring off-the-peg FCPs to be evaluated. Three months is allowed for the regulator to register the FCPs submitted by businesses however it is unclear what happens at the conclusion of this period if the FCP is found to be sub standard. The registration process requires the person who is the holder of the FCP to be a fit and proper person. There is no definition of a fit and proper person so it is difficult to comment on whether this is appropriate or not. It is questionable why this check is required however the Association cannot make further comment until clarification is provided on the basis and process for this check.

External verification
Territorial Authorities will primarily perform verification of registered off-the-peg FCPs and during the transition period they will have this role exclusively. It will therefore be essential that there is national consistency on how this role is carried out by the 73 different Territorial Authorities. Members of the Association encounter a degree of inconsistency between Territorial Authorities in other regulatory areas and this is inequitable, confusing and frustrating. It will therefore be of considerable importance to ensure measures are in place to overcome this in the area of food safety.

Furthermore it will be of paramount importance that the Territorial Authorities have the capacity to undertake this work. The Association is extremely concerned that the expected commencement date for the 12 month transition period for the food service sector of 1 July 2008 is too early to provide for the required capacity to be developed in the Territorial Authorities. Furthermore the Association questions whether the thousands of food service businesses can be registered by the Territorial Authorities in a 12 month period and therefore submits that this sector is not dealt with in year one and that the 12 month period is extended to 36 months.

Education and competency requirements
The paper lacks clarity and detail on what precisely is required in the area of education and competency requirements, which makes it difficult to foresee the impact of these measures on industry, particularly in the absence of detail regarding the exact make up of an off-the-peg FCP.

The Association strongly supports the proposal to develop competency requirements in conjunction with training providers and the food industry (which we assume includes trade associations representing the food industry).

The Association wishes to reiterate that it is imperative that the Industry Training Organisation for the hospitality industry, the Hospitality Standards Institute, is involved in this process also and that unit standards are used to describe competencies required by the food industry.

Timeframes for this collective approach to the development of competency requirements and the resulting training programmes and resources are of concern as these must be available well in advance of the implementation dates of FCPs and the mandated registration date.

Roles and responsibilities
The proposals appear to clarify the currently confused roles of the NZFSA, PHUs and TAs which will be beneficial to businesses both in terms of greater ease of understanding how each regulatory agency affects business and also in improved efficiency resulting from less duplication and overlap.

Transition period
The Association is extremely concerned that the proposed transition period of 12 months for the food service sector is ambitious and unrealistic given the extent of change required by food businesses and the large number of small and medium businesses affected. The Association has to date understood the five year transition period would allow all sectors a manageable transition to the new regime.

It has only been recently made clear that the five-year transition period would actually translate into a 12-month period for each sector, and that the food service sector would be the first to embark on this challenging endeavour. Had the Association understood the intention to allow such a short time frame for this sector earlier this concern would have been raised from the outset. The Association suggests most strongly that the food service sector should not be the first group dealt with and that the transition period should be extended to 36 months.

Existing food safety programmes
The Association supports the approach to existing food safety programmes as outlined in the discussion paper.

Food handler guidance
The Association supports the concept of food handler guidance as a pragmatic approach so long as it is restricted tightly and consistently to the types of activities defined in the proposals. The Association would be concerned if large scale not for profit activities involving the sale or supply of food, including club operations, were to be included in the coverage of food handler guidance. It is imperative that the primary guiding principle in determining whether a food activity is appropriately covered by food handler guidance is the level of risk rather than whether the activity is community or not for profit based.

Interim measures for evaluation, verification, education and training
The discussion paper stipulates that all provisions will be scheduled to be in place in time to meet the sector registration dates. The Association has already raised concern that the timeframes allowed for this are feasible.

The proposed transition sequence of the food sectors is reasonable
The Association questions why food service businesses have been included in the first year of transition when they are arguably less risky than many of the sectors dealt with in year two who provide food to vulnerable groups. Furthermore these types of institutional food service operations tend to be larger businesses and have greater structure compared to the food service sector, which is made up of many small and medium businesses.

They also tend to be more homogeneous in nature. Therefore there is a compelling argument that the sectors specified in year two would be more appropriate to be dealt with in year one as it will be easier for them to implement the new system due to their structured nature, there are less of them, they are more similar and can be dealt with more easily by the regulatory agencies.

There is sufficient capability and capacity for implementation (regulators, recognised persons and industry)
As previously stated the Association does question whether sufficient time has been allowed to do this particularly with the food service sector as the first sector to attempt to implement the new regime.

The new regulatory regime is likely to be as cost effective as possible, while improving efficiency and effectiveness, and ensuring the safety and suitability of food

Once again this area is difficult to comment on definitively due to the detail of many key areas not being explicit in the discussion paper. The Association looks forward to commenting further at the appropriate time.

Food safety and suitability outcomes across New Zealand are facilitated in a timely manner
The Association appreciates and supports the objective of NZFSA and the Government to improve the current food safety regulatory aim so long as the hospitality sector is not put under unreasonable and unnecessary pressure to adapt to the new regime in unrealistic timeframes. The Association also believes that genuinely high-risk food sectors should be dealt with first and as previously mentioned questions the basis of the sequence of the transition.

Raewyn Bleakley
National Operations Manager
Hospitality Association of New Zealand