HOME   Council Performance  NEWS & VIEWS    PRESIDENT'S REPORT     PROFILES     LINKS     MEMBERSHIP     CURRENT ISSUES     SUBMISSIONS     LETTERS TO THE EDITOR     LETTERS TO COUNCIL     VIEWS ABROAD    SITE MAP

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

If you have any topics that you would like considered by the Monash Ratepayers Association or published in this website please write to us indicating whether you wish your letter to be treated confidentially (send the letter marked “not for publication without the written consent of the writer”) or published.

 The MRA reserves the right to determine what is published on its website. We may decline to publish material for legal reasons or if it is not relevant to local Government.

 The MRA is a non-political organization and will normally only publish material about other levels of Government if the material relates to actions or impending actions of other levels of Government that impact on Local Government.

 In the interests of providing an avenue for the community to be heard, we will publish as many letters as we can.

What on earth have you been eating?

 

The Age Article on which I agree with Glen Eira’s Council viewpoint 100 per cent:  That is should even be a matter for discussion and debate is totally incomprehensible.  What of the diners rights to expect sanitation laws to be in place even as they eat their food!  As a person who eats out on a regular basis it is enough to make one stay home and allow businesses to go broke regardless because we have no way of knowing what’s going on behind the wall.
 Michael Bachelard and Richard Baker
June 23, 2007
VICTORIA’S food regulation is a shambles, with councils unable to warn the public about restaurants and takeaway outlets that fail health inspections, and reluctant to prosecute unhygienic premises.

One Glen Huntly restaurant, now closed, filthy and mouse-infested, continued serving food to customers for five months last year, despite failing seven council inspections. The Glen Eira council was powerless to shut it down or inform the public until after it was prosecuted in court in August.

An Age investigation has found that there are no standard rules for prosecutions, with each council operating its own policy.

Only about four councils regularly take food outlets to court over unsafe practices, while a number of metropolitan councils, including Yarra, Whitehorse and Brimbank, have not launched a single prosecution since January 2003.

The City of Dandenong, in contrast, has prosecuted 117.

A Health Department spokesman has told The Age the department is “concerned that some councils are not adequately meeting their responsibilities” to police the Food Act.

The potential for unhealthy venues to remain open unbeknown to the public is leading to growing pressure for the State Government to introduce “name and shame” powers so councils can identify outlets that regularly breach safety standards. NSW is to introduce similar laws. The investigation also found that:

■The Health Minister has no power to issue directions to councils over food safety and councils are under no obligation to pass on information to the Government about what their inspectors find.

■The Government plans to downgrade the qualifications for health inspectors from a science degree to a two-year technical qualification to solve the critical shortage of council environmental health officers.

■The state’s Competition and Efficiency Commission is pushing to ease the regulation of some food premises, adopting a “risk management” approach to save $38 million per year.

■Some councils refuse to name the restaurants they have prosecuted, citing privacy reasons.

In Victoria, councils are responsible for inspecting the state’s 33,000 food outlets. Each must be inspected annually and registered, making sure they comply with cleanliness, temperature, food handling, labelling and other rules.

The Victorian president of the Institute of Environmental Health, Geoff Fraser, said the result was that Victoria’s 79 councils had 79 ways of approaching food safety. Many councils opted for a policy of educating wrongdoers rather than prosecuting them.

But, as the chief Environmental Health Officer at the City of Dandenong, Mr Fraser uses prosecution as a key deterrent.

“Dandenong has its issues, but don’t tell me that the other 78 municipalities don’t have similar issues. Some of them really have to look closely at some of the risks they are taking.”

Where public safety was endangered, Mr Fraser said he had been able to get the Department of Human Services to close a premises within 24 hours.

He said some councils refused to take food outlets to court because they feared alienating their rate base, and also feared that exposing dodgy operators would give their area a bad name.

But Glen Eira spokesman Paul Burke blamed the department, saying the food laws prevented councils from acting in the best interests of the public. “Councils can seize food … but cannot seize accumulations of dirt, rodent faeces, pests, grease or cigarette butts,” he said. And, even if food was taken away, “other food can be brought into the unsanitary environment immediately“.

Serious breaches of food laws occurred in all kinds of food businesses, from big-brand takeaway franchises, restaurants, nursing homes, child-care centres and food manufacturers. Department figures show the most dangerous venues are restaurants, commercial caterers and Asian bakeries. Because councils are not required to report on their findings, reliable figures are unavailable.

Among the councils surveyed by The Age, Yarra, Hobsons Bay, Brimbank and Whitehorse have had no prosecutions of Food Act breaches since January, 2003.

In the Magistrates Court, this week, the City of Dandenong demonstrated the educative power of prosecution, the council reaping a $30,000 fine, plus costs, for taking on tofu manufacturer Kang Kang Food Company, which supplies to Asian grocery stores.

Photographs presented to magistrate Barry Docking show that, in the four months after council inspectors said they intended to prosecute, the proprietor spent $10,000 to fix up his premises. The black slime next to the sink was gone, the mouse and rat infestation eradicated, the mildew, residue, cobwebs, rust, milk crates, mattress and foul odour cleaned up, and the lighting improved.

The Efficiency Commission is contemplating major changes in the regulation of food safety, including giving the health minister power, for the first time, to tell councils how to operate under the Food Act.

But the Municipal Association of Victoria opposes this “on the grounds that local government is a tier of government in its own right”. The commission is also considering on-the-spot fines for breaches, a tactic strongly supported by some councils.

But its main recommendation is to focus more on the high-risk food outlets, and less on others. Such a change could save $38 million of the total $138 million in regulatory costs.

The MAV is sceptical of this figure, and Mr Fraser said many councils were not up to the job of identifying which food outlets in their areas were high risk.

He argued the law changes should go further, and that councils should be able to publish the results of health inspections so diners could check out the restaurant they were contemplating eating in. “The ‘name and shame’ approach works in reverse: the companies that understand food safety can communicate it to their customers, and then self-regulation really works,” he said.

The state Health Department is suggesting a more limited approach: giving councils the power to name premises that have been successfully prosecuted.

Overseas studies have demonstrated the health benefits of naming foul premises. After Los Angeles introduced a public grading system for restaurants in 1998, the number of food-borne hospitalisations

and

Richard Baker
June 23, 2007

Latest related coverage

A DEAD mouse in a home-made trap, rodent droppings, cigarette butts and uncovered food in a filthy refrigerator were just some of the things City of Glen Eira cadet environmental health officer Lachlan Northey found when he inspected Glen Huntly’s Gourmet Inn last year.

Following up on two complaints from the public about the state of the Chinese restaurant in March last year, Mr Northey wrote a report that also noted broken wall tiles, an abundance of grease and dirt in the kitchen, a microwave covered in food scraps and a hand basin without liquid soap or paper towels.

He issued Gourmet Inn’s proprietor, Chang Rong Wang, with an order to clean up. Two days later, Mr Northey returned with senior council health officer Tammy Goodwin to check Mr Wang’s progress. They were not impressed, finding the kitchen and store room full of dirt, grease, mould, food scraps and home-made rodent bait.

The health officers also discovered an old dog chained up at the rear of a shed at the back of the Gourmet Inn. It did not have food or water and was surrounded by its own faeces. A formal complaint was lodged with the RSPCA.

Ms Goodwin and Mr Northey then told Mr Wang it would be a good idea for him to close for the weekend and thoroughly clean his restaurant. He agreed. But follow-up inspections on March 31 and April 7 found rodent droppings, another dead mouse and fresh meats stored above ready-to-eat vegetables and fruit.

It was clear the Gourmet Inn should not be selling food to the public, but for various reasons the restaurant remained open until September last year — more than five months after the first council inspection uncovered a litany of filth.

Victoria’s food laws also meant the council was unable to warn the public about the condition of the restaurant due to privacy restrictions preventing local government publishing the results of food-safety inspections.

Glen Eira council decided against asking the Department of Human Services to use its power under the Food Act to close the Gourmet Inn on the basis that the department had recently rejected its request to shut down another restaurant its health officers had deemed unsafe.

“The only absolute way to stop unsafe food handling is to close the business,” Glen Eira spokesman Paul Burke told The Age. “Only DHS has the power to do that. DHS’ practice has been not to consider closure before council undertakes a prosecution.”

So with that in mind, Glen Eira set about trying to achieve a successful prosecution of Mr Wang. It is a process, according to Mr Burke, that can take more than three months.

Human Service’s spokesman Bram Alexander disputed the claim that the department required councils to prosecute before it would shut food businesses. Just this week, he said, the department had forced a Chinese restaurant in Moe to close without a prosecution.

But Mr Alexander said not every breach of the Food Act justified closure and the department encouraged councils to seek prosecution for multiple food safety offences.

“But if we know of illness associated with a premises, we will move to make sure no one else gets ill,” he said. “We are unaware of any cases where problems serious enough to justify closure of a food premises have been allowed to persist for such a long time.”

In the case of Glen Huntly’s Gourmet Inn, it was not until August 31 last year that Mr Wang appeared before Dandenong Magistrates Court, where he was fined $56,000.

Just three days earlier, the Gourmet Inn faced its seventh and final inspection. Court documents show the council officers judged the state of the premises to be “marginally worse” than when they first inspected it back in March.

On September 1, the Department of Human Services issued an order to close the Gourmet Inn. It has yet to reopen.

PLEASE TAKE ACTION ASAP

First    contact

            Richard Willis
            Secretary, Legislation and Select Committees
            Department of the Legislative Council
            Parliament House
            East Melbourne   3002
            Phone  9651 8696
            Fax       9651 6799

Ask to be put on their mailing list and they will be calling for written
submissions within weeks.   Put in a written statement re your public
land losses and request to make an oral submission at the Public Hearing
which will be called.
Have your members do the same as well as your Council and Councilors.
The main thing is to get onto their mailing list ASAP.   the committee
has already started meeting.
Remember, areas affected by sale of parkland, schools, hospitals,
reserves and other areas of public open space.

The following Members have been appointed to the Committee.  

David Davis             Liberal     Chair
Brian Tee                ALP         Deputy Chair
Peter Hall                Nationals
Peter Kavanagh        DLP
Edward O'Donohue   Liberal
Sue Pennicuik          Greens
Matt Viney               ALP

For more information  access  Select Committee on Public Land
Development   www.parliament.vic.gov.au/council/publicland/default.htm

or Kew Cottages Coalition      www.kew.org.au

plan a large Public Meeting ‘To Make Monash More Liveable’.

The Editor – Waverley Leader April 4^th 2005

If Monash Halls Committee tries not to overcharge, and only break-even, then how can it earn a profit of $44,000 last year and $18,600 the year before, as reported by the Leader? (Hall charges under fire page 5)

 Do they know what they are doing?

 Mutual support groups are the bedrock of democracy. They should not be overcharged for using a community resource .  

Monash Council needs to balance financial discipline and support for the community at the same time. Profits in a not-for-profit enterprise show that Monash Council was not doing that for two years in a row.  

John Schofield

To top of page

Re:     Waverley Leader ‘Nod for ward changes’ (8.03.05)  

I can understand Councillor Dimopoulos’ concerns about the Victorian Electoral Commission’s determination to increase the councillor representation on Monash Council from eight councillors to 11. It is an extraordinary jump but the redistribution process is not a concern of the Council. It is decided by an independent body which by law has to consider all submissions submitted to it by residents and this includes Councillors.  

I wonder if Councillor Dimopoulos was aware of this. After all, the Commission in its discussion paper released last year, did make a call for submissions from any interested party. I am also aware, that certain interested parties did make submissions and the Commission did take note of what was said. Why did Councillor Dimopoulos not make his feelings known to the Commission?

 Nevertheless, eleven councillors is a big jump and it will cost our community more but do Councillors Dimopoulos and Smith have a better alternative to democracy?   

Councillors, we have to live with the quantity, the umpire has decided, but the community will have to match it with quality! 

Yours Faithfully,

Peter D. Vlahos 

Former Mayor & Councillor of the City of Monash

Monash Journal

Letter to the Editor

CONCERN WITH LOCAL GOVERNMENT BURDEN ON RATEPAYERS

Monash Journal

Naomi Kollmorgan

Emailed on 8/2/05 

Ratepayers as property owners within the wider community and must carry the financial base of local government and are already stressed by growing rate burdens.

Rising administration costs as well as imposed requirements from other levels of government are resulting in local government rates rising way beyond the CPI.

Costs are being incurred by a proliferation of mandated requirements from higher levels of legislation, there is increasing use of consultants as well as duplication of staff involvement on committees - all impacting on financial pressure to ratepayers. Legislation affecting waste management, storm water, roadside management as well as road feasance requirements are just some of the requirements costing Councils a huge amount from their overall budgets.

And while maintenance of infrastructure is a genuine aspect of Council budgets, the rate hikes are supporting as well as core business of infrastructure maintenance and planning, a voluntary proliferation of Council activities into health, welfare, recreation, culture, 'capacity building,' tourism, economic development , and even overseas involvements.

From what began in England hundreds of years ago as a wealth tax, and then in the early days of Australia was a levy to service properties- mainly their access roads, rates now support a whole range of activities. Some of these are mandated by legislation but others are willingly taken up by Councils on staff advice. .

Cost shifting by State and Federal governments has been evident for many years . It typically encompasses funding a new program for a limited period, then reducing or withdrawing funding and leaving local government to maintain.

Unless Councils are prepared to represent the long term interests of their ratepayers, by saying NO to new activities, the financial burden will increase until it is eventually unsustainable

Cost shifting and duplication by authorities is costing the nation in the range of $20 billion per year. At the State level, local government grants are steadily decreasing. In 2002/03 Local Government received $548 million, this was reduced to $509 last year and further declined to $493 this year.

Meanwhile local government is being encouraged to develop Municipal Health Plans to move into partnerships for a whole range of areas under the generic definition of "wellbeing".

Monash Ratepayers Association recommends that Monash Council submit a request for more funding direct from Federal Government.

I do believe that unless clear boundaries are set around the responsibilities of local government, there will never be enough funding to sustain the expansion of activities and their bureaucracies.

Our Recommendation is a first step to signal financial concerns but the answer lies not simply with the level of State or Federal funding but with our willingness of Councils to begin curtailment rather than expansion into new areas of local government activity.

Jack Davis J.P Past President

Monash Ratepayers Association

To top of page          Disclaimer            Archives    Site Map

mailto:mail@monshratepayers.com.au