Read how The Advertiser reported this story by clicking here.

I have been pursuing a policy of having restaurants named if they don’t meet health standards.

The public have a right to know.

On 12th August last year, I sought a Freedom of Information (FOI) request from the Adelaide City Council (ACC), but the council refused.

On 15th December, I appealed to the Ombudsman to overrule the ACC.

I have been pursuing this as a test case in relation to premises in the Adelaide city area.

On 26th May this year, the Ombudsman determined that “expiation notices and the prohibition orders issued in relation to seven premises and other information showing they were issued” should be released under FOI legislation.

Although the Ombudsman does not have judicial powers to force the ACC to reveal the details of restaurants that failed to meet the standards, it would be a very brave council which now refused to comply with the Ombudsman’s ruling.

They would no doubt be named in the Ombudsman’s report, named in Parliament and pursued in the media.

I have yet to receive the documents from the ACC, but I feel sure that they will comply after the Ombudsman’s ruling in this test case.

The case I presented to the Ombudsman relied on the public interest argument.

Consumers have a right to know which restaurants and cafes have failed to comply with initial improvement requests and gone on to breach health standards.

There are three levels of intervention which may be taken by Council health inspectors. First, they can issue an improvement notice. If restaurants comply, that is the end of the matter. If restaurants fail to improve as requested, or if there is a particularly serious breach of health standards, then a restaurant may be given an expiation notice. This is effectively a fine to punish them.

If breaches continue, then a prohibition order can be made. This effectively closes the restaurant down.

In this case the Ombudsman has ruled that expiation notices and prohibition orders must be disclosed.

The Ombudsman did not make the same ruling in relation to improvement notices so that Council inspectors can have frank discussions with restaurants about needed improvements. These issues would relate to problems at the lower end of the scale. It is considered more likely that restaurants will cooperate in this initial negotiation process if they can do so without fear of being publicly shamed.

The ACC may appeal against the Ombudsman’s ruling in the District Court by 25th June 09.