HOSPITALITY ASSOCIATION OF NEW ZEALAND

Submission by

Hospitality Association of New Zealand

to the

New Zealand Food Safety Authority

on the

Domestic Food Review

28 April 2006

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

Appendix 1: Submission Response Sheet

Contact Details:

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

 The Hospitality Association of New Zealand (HANZ) is a voluntary trade association with over 2,200 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 portion of our members’ businesses have a primarily 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 significant 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 the majority of our members.

The Hospitality Association has previously submitted its position on the seven papers put forward for consultation.

Regulatory Roles, Responsibilities and Structures
Can you suggest any enhancements to the proposed allocation of roles and responsibilities that could better ensure that:

• Food safety and suitability outcomes across New Zealand are facilitated and promoted?
• The regulatory structure is as cost effective as possible while improving efficiency?
• Businesses and consumers have, as far as possible while improving efficiency?
• Rules are applied impartially and consistently across industries as well as geographically?
• The regulator can implement a seamless and coherent programme?
• There are clear and explicit areas of regulatory responsibility?
• There is local access to registration and information services?
• There is local access to regulator-based verification and third-party verification?
• There is sufficient capability and capacity for delivery over time?

The Association has no specific suggestions regarding enhancements to the proposed allocation of roles and responsibilities to better meet the principles adopted.

The Association wishes to comment that the regulatory framework and its involvement of three Government agencies (New Zealand Food Safety Authority (NZFSA), Public Health Units (PHUs) and Territorial Authorities (TAs)) plus 3^rd party contractors is still complicated and bureaucratic. There is still potential for confusion, duplication and inconsistency in the proposed framework. However, it is acknowledged that the proposed arrangement goes a long way to overcome the issues identified with the current structure and that there are limitations associated with cost, ensuring geographical access, maintaining an appropriate level of skill and knowledge and so on which preclude a blank slate approach. The Association supports the proposed overarching framework including competency standards, benchmarking processes and efforts to establish effective liaison and communication arrangements. This will be of key importance to ensuring confusion, duplication and inconsistency and consequently the cost to industry are minimised.

Are there ways that the proposed arrangements could better support small and medium-sized businesses and small local authorities?
The provision of clear, straightforward and succinct information to small and medium-sized businesses about the regulatory framework and how they negotiate their way through it will be important. Providing this type of information and working in partnership with industry representative organisations is another way NZFSA can support small and medium sized businesses. Industry associations are often the key point of contact for these types of businesses when they are unsure of regulatory requirements so by making the most of the relationships already established between industry associations and their members, NZFSA will be further assisting small and medium-sized businesses.

It is the Association’s view that small local authorities will perform best where clear guidelines and standards are provided for them along with practical resources such as tool kits and manuals to assist them perform their delegated roles.

Additional Comments relating to Food Control Plans and Food Handler Guidance
The Position Paper clearly explains the concepts of ‘off the peg’ and ‘custom made’ Food Control Plans (FCPs) and how Good Operating Practice and Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) interrelate with these concepts. 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 proposal of FCPs that small to medium-sized businesses must be able to adopt FCPs with ease and confidence. This will best be facilitated by comprehensive templates and Codes of Practice being available. The five year implementation period should allow for this to occur.

The Association supports the concept of Food Handler Guidance (FHG). The criteria proposed for determining which food businesses can use FHGs in place of FCPs is supported with the exception of “that they are involved with community and/or fundraising activities (eg, charitable organisations)”. The Association would be very concerned if organisations such as Clubs who often have quite elaborate food operations were able to avoid adopting FCPs because they were legally defined as “charitable organisations”. It is acknowledged that the other three criteria would overcome this issue but the Association would be concerned if the other criteria changed or could be worked around by Clubs or other charitable organisations. The most important criteria is the potential to cause food borne illness and the charitable or commercial nature of the organisation has no bearing on this at all.

The Association has no further issues to raise at this time.

· Where there is a need for training to be mandated, should this be mandated nationally (unlike the current situation, where some Territorial Authorities mandate specific training and others do not)?
Yes. The Association strongly supports the need for consistent requirements throughout New Zealand and can see no logical reason why it should be left to TAs to determine what is required or why regional inconsistencies should be tolerated any longer.

· Do you agree that ‘persons’ should be assessed as to their demonstrated competencies, or should a formal course of training be mandated and/or qualification be held, or both?
The current approach to training adopted by the Government body responsible for training and qualifications in New Zealand, the New Zealand Qualifications Authority (NZQA), involves competency based training. If a formal course of training were mandated prescribing particular Unit Standards (the units of learning NZQA have adopted) there would not be a need to duplicate a competency based assessment. The most straightforward approach would be to mandate training specifying specific Unit Standards and rely on NZQA requirements for accreditation and moderation of training providers, materials and assessment. Any other approach would be problematical as it would introduce a new system of training and assessment which industry and training providers would not be familiar with or organised for leading to unnecessary duplication and confusion. It will be essential to work with the relevant Industry Training Organisations (ITOs), particularly the Hospitality Standards Institute, to formulate the appropriate training requirements and any new Unit Standards required. The ITOs would, as part of their usual processes, establish a steering group of all stakeholders to determine the appropriate requirements for training. ITOs have already been doing this in the area of food safety training which has resulted in the current range of Unit Standards available to industry.

A similar process was undertaken in the area of training requirements for General Managers for licensed premises. A prescribed qualification was included in the Sale of Liquor Amendment Act 1999 with support from both industry and the regulatory agencies. To determine what the qualification should be the Hospitality Standards Institute brought together representatives from the relevant Government agencies including Ministry of Justice, Police, ALAC, District Licensing Agencies and PHUs, the training provider sector and industry (including representatives from the various commercial sectors and charitable sectors) to form a steering group. This process worked extremely effectively ensuring outcomes that all parties were satisfied with and that industry supported which ensured industry buy in when the prescribed qualification became mandatory after a transition period.

The Association would strongly recommend a process be adopted based on this successful model and that the Hospitality Standards Institute be the lead ITO in this process.

· Should all in the food industry be required to undergo a minimum of training (for example, on food hygiene including food preparation, handling and use of Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point principles) with additional requirements determined by risk?
It is the Association’s view that it is unfeasible, unnecessary and unreasonable to have a blanket requirement for “all in the food industry to undergo a minimum training” particularly to the level of including HACCP principles. It is important to acknowledge the high churn rate and seasonality of the workforce in the hospitality industry and the difficulty this poses for training staff. The Association suggests some form of resource could be made available similar to the FHG approach for low risk food operations, to all staff which must be read and discussed with a supervisor. For staff involved in more substantive food preparation and service additional training requirements should be determined by risk using the ITO led consultative approach outlined above.

· What is the best way to train or otherwise ensure required outcomes of those in small businesses, and of those operators for whom English is not their first language?
For those in small business adopting a FHG approach and Unit Standards is the best approach. There is encouraging movement towards on-the-job training and work place assessment involving employers and managers taking on the role as trainer and/or assessor through a structured and moderated approach overseen and supported by the Hospitality Standards Institute. There is also the option of external providers where appropriate. The biggest challenges for small businesses are likely to be around the cost of training and the disruption to their business of releasing staff to attend training.

Training may need to be made available in languages other than English to accommodate the workers in the industry for whom English is a second language. This is already occurring with training in hospitality and it is acknowledged this will have to continue to address the shortage of skilled workers currently facing the industry.

· Should the government regulate independent private consultants in the food industry with regard to their competency?
Given this question is in the education and training section it is assumed that it relates to private consultants providing training. The Association strongly believes private consultants should be regulated to ensure training they provide is appropriate. As previously outlined adopting Unit Standards as the mandated training will ensure private consultants or training providers are accredited and moderated in line NZQA requirements.

· How can consistent food safety education and training, that is appropriate to the risk, be delivered to the voluntary sector in a way that meets public expectations of food safety?
The voluntary sector poses no less risk to food safety than the commercial sector so need to be trained to the same standards.

· What government interventions should the public expect if the risk is not being appropriately managed?
Government interventions should be consistent, expedient, timely and effective at addressing the risk to the public and carried out in the most efficient way possible.

· How can training be made accessible and affordable for community or voluntary organisations?
In the same way as outlined for small businesses.

· How can consistency in delivery in education and training be ensured nationally?
Consistency in delivery in education and training will be ensured nationally it a Unit Standard approach is adopted as previously outlined.

Can you identify any other compliance costs?
No. However, the Association would like to repeat its concern made in previous submissions that keeping compliance costs as low as possible and ensuring all requirements imposed on industry are absolutely necessary and will reduce foodborne illness is of the utmost importance.