Annual report for local government activities under the Food Act 2006

There are 32,126 licensed food businesses throughout Queensland.

Food business numbers by region

Compliance

The Food Safety Program reached 99% compliance.

The Food Safety Supervisor reached 96% compliance.

Full-time equivalent (FTE) employees and inspection rate

A total of 23,937 routine inspections were conducted in the 2021-22 reporting period.

A total of 3796 complaints were received by local governments regarding licensed food businesses, representing a 13% increase from 2020-21 (3346).

Statewide, there were approximately 177 employees committed to food regulation for the reporting period, which is approximately 0.6 employees per 100 licensed food businesses. 30 out of 70 local governments with licensed food businesses reported that they use contractors.

Enforcement activity

In Queensland, there are 77 local governments and one Town Authority (Weipa), which is administered by the mining company, Rio Tinto. The Weipa Town Authority acts in the role of a Local Authority, with staff that would normally be associated with a local government. Therefore, for the purposes of this report, Weipa Town Authority is considered as a local government.

Download a map of local government areas (PDF 2.6MB).

The local government data is presented by nine geographical regions defined by the Australian Bureau of Statistics to reflect the location of people and communities.

Certain food businesses are required to be licensed by local governments under the Food Act, including:

• food manufacturers (e.g. manufacturers of bakery products)
• food businesses selling unpackaged food by retail (e.g. restaurants or catering businesses)
• non-profit organisations that sell meals on at least twelve occasions in a year (e.g. Meals on Wheels).

Licensing exemptions

Some licensing exemptions apply under the Food Act to food businesses in these general categories, including (but not limited to):

• the sale of pre-packaged food only
• the sale of whole fruit and vegetables or drinks such as tea, coffee, soft drink and alcoholic beverages
• primary producers of eggs, dairy, meat and seafood that are accredited by Safe Food Production Queensland under the Food Production (Safety) Act 2000.

License locations around Queensland

The number of licensed food businesses in Queensland was 32,126, similar to 2020-21 (32,427 businesses).

Approximately two thirds (67%) of all licensed food businesses (21,656) were from the Brisbane and Moreton region, consistent with 2020–21 (68%).

Of the 78 local governments, the following seven local governments reported more than 1,000 licensed food business, representing 65% (21,001) of licensed food businesses statewide:

• Brisbane City Council - 7662
• Cairns Regional Council - 1164
• Gold Coast City Council - 5619
• Logan City Council - 1304
• Moreton Bay Regional Council - 2002
• Sunshine Coast Regional Council - 2219
• Townsville City Council - 1031.

A total of 8 local governments reported having no licensed food businesses, compared to 10 in 2020-21. A total of 11 local governments reported having less than 10 licensed food businesses, compared to 10 local governments in 2020-21.

Food business categorisation

Local governments were asked to specify their primary method of categorising of licensed food businesses from a set list and reported:

• business type (restaurant, childcare, etc.) - 20 (26%)
• simple risk-based (high, medium, low) - 19 (24%)
• business function (temporary, mobile, fixed etc.) - 10 (13%)
• business size (floor size etc.) - 2 (2%)
• other - 13 (17%)
• no category used - 14 (16%).

The reporting identifies the two most common methods as business type and simple risk based, consistent with the previous reporting period.

Food safety compliance rate

The food safety supervisor compliance rate has been steadily increasing, reaching 96% compliance in 2021-22.

The introduction of food safety programs (FSPs) for certain sectors of the food industry was part of a national review and assessment which aimed to reduce the incidence of foodborne illness, reduce regulatory burden on the food industry and provide consistent food regulation and standards across Australia.

Under the Food Act, certain high-risk licensed food businesses are required to have a FSP accredited by their local government if:

1. the food business involves off-site catering
2. the primary activity of the food business is on-site catering
3. the food business is undertaken as part of the operations of a private hospital
4. a facility that processes or serves potentially hazardous food to six or more vulnerable persons (e.g. childcare and aged care centres)
5. a facility whose principal activity is processing ready-for-consumption food that includes potentially hazardous food, for delivery by a delivered meals organisation to six or more persons at a time.

The compliance rate for relevant food businesses to have a food safety program has been steadily increasing since 2012 and during this reporting period there was a 99% compliance rate.

Local governments inspect licensed food businesses to assess compliance with the Food Act, the Food Safety Standards (Chapter 3 of the Food Standards Code) and the licence conditions of the food businesses. The Food Act does not specify the frequency of inspections.

Local governments conduct routine inspections based on factors such as the risk category of the food business (e.g. high, medium or low) and the compliance history of the business. The frequency of inspections may also provide an indication of a local government’s capacity to assess compliance of a food business with their legislative requirements in relation to food safety.

A total of 28,850 routine inspections and re-inspections were conducted in the 2021-22 reporting period for licensed food businesses. The figure below provides a representation of the type and number of inspections undertaken annually.

Food business inspection rate over time

Investigating food safety complaints

Local government receive a variety of complaints from the public regarding unsafe practices at food businesses or regarding food purchased. Some examples of complaints include dirty or unhygienic food premises, undercooked food, poor food handling practices, vermin or animals in a food premises and alleged foodborne illness. The number and type of complaints received can vary greatly.

Local governments were requested to provide the total number of complaints about food businesses that they received during the reporting period. They were not asked to categorise these complaints due to the complexities associated with varying data collection methodologies within individual local governments.

Since 2012-13, more than 3,000 complaints are received annually about food businesses in Queensland. During this reporting period, 3,796 complaints were received, which is an increase of 13% from 2020–21 (3,346).

The number of complaint-related inspections undertaken compared with the number of complaints received provides an indication of whether complaints are being investigated via food business inspections.

For this reporting period, inspections were undertaken for 78% (2,948) of food complaints, compared with 64% (2,050) for 2020–21. This is a significant increase in food complaint-related inspections since the last reporting period, however it is similar to the inspection rates in 2019-20 (82%) and 2018-19 (79%).

The reduction in food complaint-related inspections in 2020-21 may be due to the re-allocation of investigative resources to COVID-related complaints, as this was the period in which COVID-related restrictions were in place for food businesses.

The number of complaints per 100 food businesses and the inspection rate for complaints over time is shown in the figure below, noting that complaint-related inspection data for the reporting periods prior to 2014-15 was unavailable.

Number of food complaints and complaint-related inspections over time

The Food Act provides a suite of enforcement options. The enforcement action taken by a local government should be graduated and proportionate to the severity of the non-compliance observed and any history of non-compliance. When considering enforcement data, it is important to note that in addition to enforcement actions, local governments use non-punitive actions such as education to assist food businesses achieve or maintain compliance with the Food Act. This report does not capture information from local governments in relation to other strategies used.

Read a summary of the enforcement activities undertaken by Queensland local governments by region. Consistent with previous years, the main type of enforcement activity undertaken by local government was the issuing of improvement notices, followed by PINs as the second most common enforcement tool.

Seizures

An authorised person has the power to seize a thing under the Food Act in certain circumstances, for example as evidence of an offence under the Food Act. A total of three seizures were undertaken in 2021–22, which was the same number as occurred in 2020–21.

Moreton Bay Regional Council undertook a seizure of contaminated food preparation equipment and Torres Shire Council undertook seizures of unsuitable food items.

Improvement notices

Improvement notices are utilised by local governments to address a variety of non-compliances within a food business. This may include issues such as the need to remedy cleaning, maintenance or structural contraventions or unsafe food handling practices. Improvement notices must provide food businesses with a reasonable timeframe to remedy any stated non-compliance.

Improvement notices remain as the most utilised enforcement action. The number of improvement notices issued in this reporting period (3115) is an increase of 36% from 2020-21 (2284), as shown in the figure below. Brisbane and Moreton issued 85% (2633) of the total number issued (3115).

Prescribed infringement notices

Prescribed Infringement Notices (PINs) may only be issued for offences that fall within the guidelines for eligible offences that have been acknowledged as PIN offences under the State Penalties Enforcement Regulation 2014. Only certain offences under the Food Act have been prescribed as PIN offences.

PINs can be issued when offences pose a moderate threat to human health and safety, or where there are indications of previous, current and ongoing non-compliance, such as failure to comply with a licence condition (section 51(1)) or failure to comply with the Food Standards Code (section 39(1)). The penalty unit values for PINs are relative to the severity of the offence.

While the issuing of PINs remains the second most frequently used type of enforcement activity, the number of PINs issued within the 2021–22 reporting period (298) also remained relatively the same as in 2020–21 (295), as shown in the figure below.

Suspension and cancellation of a licence

Section 78 of the Food Act allows local governments to suspend or cancel a licence when the licensee:

• is not, or is no longer, a suitable person to hold a licence
• has not complied with the accredited food safety program and the non-compliance is likely to result in a high risk to public health or safety
• has a licence issued under false or misleading representation.

Licences can be suspended or cancelled following a show cause notice. Local governments can use the show cause notice provisions prior to taking proposed action such as suspending or cancelling the licence.

Licences may be immediately suspended if a ground exists to suspend or cancel the licence and it is necessary to suspend the licence immediately because there is an immediate and serious risk to public health or safety.

During this reporting period, there was a total of 58 immediate licence suspensions and 5 licence suspensions after a show cause process. One licence was cancelled after a show cause process.

The number of food businesses that surrendered their licence was 494 compared to 813 in 2020-21. It is possible, that this may be related to COVID-related restrictions that were in force for food businesses in 2020–21.

Prosecutions

Prosecutions are usually initiated if there is a high threat to human health and safety, or if there is a known or expected ongoing non-compliance. Consequently, prosecutions are the least common, most resource-intensive enforcement tool utilised by Local Government.

For this reporting period, a total of 45 prosecutions were undertaken, all of which were within the Brisbane and Moreton region.

Annual trend in enforcement activities

Most local government employees working in food regulation are environmental health officers (EHOs). It is important to note that EHOs are responsible for many areas in addition to food regulation, particularly those in rural and remote locations.

In some rural and remote areas, food regulation is carried out by contract EHOs employed on an as-needs basis. In some of the Indigenous communities, environmental health workers may fulfil this function as part of their duties. To support Aboriginal Shire Councils and to build the skills of environmental health workers, EHOs from local Public Health Units often provide advice on food safety issues and inspecting food businesses operating within the area.

Statewide, there were approximately 177 employees committed to food regulation for the 2021–22 reporting period, a 2% decrease from 2020–21.

30 out of 70 local governments with licensed food businesses (43%) reported that they use contractors. This is an increase from 2020–21, where 40%, or 27 out of 68 local governments with licensed food businesses used contractors to perform some food regulation tasks.

Employees committed to food regulation

You can view this graph with context on page 18 of the full report.

Results presented in this report demonstrate that licensed food businesses have high rates of compliance with legislated requirements.

A realistic aspiration of a food regulatory system is to ensure that a food business is subject to the same amount of regulatory scrutiny and enforcement, whether in a major city or a remote area. The key to ensuring consistency is inspection frequency. It is reasonable to anticipate that inspection frequency should be based on risk, including compliance history, with high-risk businesses inspected more regularly than lower risk businesses.

However, inspection data captured in this report does not provide the discrimination necessary to compare regulatory oversight between local governments. To do so requires inspection numbers to be provided for non-licensed food businesses and to be based on a universal definition for risk and a specified frequency for each risk level. This will require a change in how local governments categorise food businesses.

Caution should also be applied when comparing local government food regulatory activities. As local governments do not have unlimited time and personnel, it is reasonable that resources are directed to activities that are anticipated to deliver high quality food safety outcomes e.g. providing information to businesses in a language other than English. This may influence the number of inspections that a local government needs to undertake.

Resources allocated to COVID-19 specific compliance activities over the past three reporting periods may have impacted the number of food business inspections undertaken in some areas, particularly complaint-related inspections.

Despite these constraints, this report allows local governments to broadly compare their results with those of other local governments with similar remoteness, numbers of licensed food businesses and numbers of persons committed to food regulation.

Full report

Download the full 2021-22 Annual report for local government activities under the Food Act 2006 .

Local government responses for 2021-22

Download the Local government responses for 2021-22 (XLSX, 19.1 KB) . This table contains data provided by local governments for the 2021-22 financial year and has been used, in addition to previous years' data, to generate the Annual report on local government activities under the Food Act 2006.

You can use the table to filter and search on criteria specific to your local government (e.g. by sorting population data, information from similar sized local governments may be compared). Local Government Area population figures were sourced from the Australian Bureau of Statistics 2021 Census data.

Related resources

• Local government reporting guidelines
• Food safety documentation for local government officers (including previous annual reports)
• Mobile food vehicle register
• Queensland portal for food safety and regulation for food businesses

For further information in relation to the content of this report, please contact Food Safety Standards and Regulation via email at foodsafety@health.qld.gov.au or phone (07) 3328 9310.