The regulations rely on several defined terms that are critical to understanding their scope. A child care centre means a facility at which child care is provided and which is a facility in relation to which a food business is required to comply with Standard 3.3.1. This definition links to the Food Standards Code standard for food service to vulnerable persons. However, regulation 4(3) expressly disapplies Standard 3.3.1 to relevant food businesses, so the definition of child care centre here is narrower than it might appear. The term relevant food business is defined as a food business that sells potentially hazardous food for human consumption at the child care centre on the same day as the day on which the food is prepared. This is the key trigger for the obligations in regulation 5. The business must be selling (i.e., providing in exchange for payment) potentially hazardous food that is prepared and consumed on the same day. This would cover a child care centre kitchen that cooks lunch on site and charges fees that include the meal cost, but would not cover a centre that uses an external caterer or only provides pre packaged snacks.

The 2024 amendment introduced two new definitions. Education and care service has the same meaning as in the Education and Care Services National Law (Tasmania). This is broader than child care centre and includes long day care, family day care, outside school hours care, and preschools. The concept is used in regulation 4(4) to create exemptions from Standard 3.2.2A. Standard 3.2.2A means the Food Safety Management Tools standard in the Code. This standard requires certain food businesses to have a food safety supervisor, to demonstrate certain knowledge and skills, and to keep records. The regulations carve out education and care services that do not regularly provide main meals (so snack only services are exempt entirely), and delay application for other services until 1 March 2025. Food businesses not classified under the Act's risk classification system are also exempt.

The concept of incorporation of the Food Standards Code is important. Regulation 4(1) incorporates the Code as amended from time to time. This means that when the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code is amended by Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ), those amendments automatically become part of Tasmanian law without any further regulation. This creates a dynamic incorporation. The only explicit exceptions are those listed in regulations 4(2), 4(3), and 4(4). This approach reduces the need for frequent amending regulations but imposes a burden on regulated entities to monitor changes to the federal Code. A proprietor who relies on an outdated version of the Code could be in breach even if they had no actual knowledge of the amendment.

Food safety program is defined for the purposes of the Act by regulation 7. Two alternative compliance paths are allowed: either the program meets Standard 3.2.1 (which sets out specific elements including hazard analysis, monitoring, corrective actions, verification, and records), or it meets the HACCP principles established by the Codex Alimentarius Commission. The HACCP approach is internationally recognised and often used by larger food manufacturers, while Standard 3.2.1 is more prescriptive and commonly used by smaller businesses. Both require the program to be documented in writing.

Relevant food business as defined is confined to child care centres where the business sells potentially hazardous food prepared on the same day. The definition does not cover businesses that provide pre packed food or food prepared more than 24 hours earlier. The obligations in regulation 5 apply only to the proprietor of such a business, not to the child care centre operator if that operator is a separate entity.

The regulations primarily affect the proprietors of relevant food businesses operating in relation to child care centres. These are typically small to medium enterprises. A proprietor might be an individual child care centre owner, a corporate child care chain, or a franchisee. The proprietor bears the full compliance burden under regulation 5: must prepare cleaning and sanitising plans, keep them on site, record temperatures daily, and maintain supplier and corrective action records for two years. For a small centre with a single kitchen, this is a relatively modest paperwork requirement. For a large chain with dozens of centres, it creates a uniform administrative system that must be implemented at each site. The proprietor must ensure that the food handling occurs only after plans are prepared, which requires careful timing before commencing operations.

The regulations also affect education and care services that are not child care centres but fall under the broader Education and Care Services National Law. These services are affected by the 2024 amendment regarding Standard 3.2.2A. Services that provide a main meal for breakfast, lunch, or dinner regularly must comply with that standard by 1 March 2025. Services that only provide snacks (e.g., fruit plates, biscuits, and drinks without a full meal) are permanently exempt. This distinction will require each service to assess whether it provides regular provision of a main meal. A centre that provides a cooked lunch every day clearly does. One that only provides morning tea and afternoon tea likely does not. The line may be ambiguous for services that provide a hot meal once a week or only on special occasions.

Food businesses that are not classified under the approved risk classification system in section 86(1A) of the Act are entirely exempt from Standard 3.2.2A. This classification system is used by councils to determine inspection frequency and regulatory oversight. If a food business has not been assigned a risk rating (e.g., a new business or one operating in a category not yet classified), it falls outside the scope of the standard until classified. This creates an incentive for some businesses to delay classification or to argue they are unclassified, though the practical effect may be limited because most operating food businesses will be classified.

Food safety auditors are affected by regulation 8, which sets a fee of 116 fee units for approval applications. This is a direct cost on individuals or firms seeking to provide auditing services. It may deter some potential auditors from entering the market, potentially reducing competition and increasing costs for food businesses that require audits.

Enforcement agencies are affected by regulation 6, which designates both the Director of Public Health and each council as appropriate enforcement agencies for the Food Standards Code. This creates concurrent jurisdiction. A food business could be inspected by either a state health officer or a council environmental health officer. This duplication may increase inspection frequency and compliance costs, as different agencies may have different expectations or interpretations of the Code.

The infringement notice scheme in regulation 9 and Schedule 1 affects anyone who commits an offence under the listed sections of the Act or the regulations. That covers food business proprietors and individuals who handle food. The infringement penalty is a lower, fixed amount that avoids the need for court appearance and the risk of a criminal conviction for a regulatory offence. For natural persons, the infringement penalty for failing to prepare plans under regulation 5(1) is 2 penalty units (currently approximately $200, depending on the current penalty unit value). For a body corporate, the infringement penalty for the same offence is not listed in Part 2 (only natural person penalties appear in Part 2; Act offences differentiate by entity). This asymmetry may be a drafting oversight or may reflect that only natural persons can commit the regulation offences.

The central duties are imposed by regulation 5 on the proprietor of a relevant food business in relation to a child care centre. Duty one (regulation 5(1)(a)): before any person handles food at the centre, the proprietor must ensure that a cleaning plan and an equipment sanitising plan are prepared. The cleaning plan must set out steps to comply with clause 19 of Standard 3.2.2 (which requires the food premises, fixtures, fittings, and equipment to be cleaned to a standard that does not cause food contamination). The sanitising plan must set out steps to comply with clause 20 of Standard 3.2.2 (which requires sanitising of equipment that comes into contact with food). The plans must be kept on site (regulation 5(1)(b)). There is no requirement for these plans to be approved by an enforcement agency, nor any requirement for them to be updated within a specific timeframe, but they must be current. A plan that is outdated or no longer reflects actual cleaning practices would likely breach the requirement to have a plan that sets out the steps to comply.

Duty two (regulation 5(2)): at least once each day, the proprietor must ensure that the temperature of food stored in accordance with clause 6(2)(a) of Standard 3.2.2 is measured and recorded. Clause 6(2)(a) requires potentially hazardous food to be stored at temperatures that prevent the growth of pathogenic microorganisms. The standard does not prescribe a specific numeric temperature, only that it must be such as to prevent growth. The regulation requires measurement and recording daily. The duty applies to food that is stored not to food that is held for immediate sale, so a centre that stores perishable ingredients must monitor those temperatures.

Duty three (regulation 5(3)): at least once each day, the proprietor must ensure that the temperature of food processed in accordance with clause 7(1)(b)(ii) of Standard 3.2.2 is measured and recorded. Clause 7(1)(b)(ii) requires that food processing (including cooking, cooling, reheating) be done in a way that ensures the food is safe and suitable. The temperature measurement must be taken during or immediately after processing. This duty is separate from storage temperature.

Duty four (regulation 5(4)): the proprietor must ensure that a record is made of the name and contact details of each supplier of food sold by the business at the child care centre, and each action taken to remedy a failure to comply with the Act or the Code. This creates a traceability and corrective action log. Unlike the temperature records which must be made daily, this duty does not specify a frequency; the record must be made as and when supplier details change or a remedy is implemented.

Duty five (regulation 5(5)): all records under regulations 5(2), 5(3), and 5(4) must be kept at the child care centre for two years from the day the record is made. Off site storage is not permitted. The two year retention period aligns with common food safety audit requirements.

Regulation 7 imposes a duty to have a documented food safety program that complies with Standard 3.2.1 or the Codex HACCP principles. This duty applies to food businesses required to have a food safety program under the Act, not solely to relevant food businesses. The Act defines when a food safety program is required (typically for food service to vulnerable persons or when the enforcement agency directs). The regulation merely prescribes the content and documentation requirements for such programs.

Rights under the regulations are limited. Regulation 8 creates a right for a person to apply for approval as a food safety auditor under section 83A of the Act, subject to paying the prescribed fee of 116 fee units. This is a right to apply, not a right to be approved; eligibility criteria are in the Act. Regulation 9 and Schedule 1 create a right for a person who has committed an infringement offence to pay the prescribed penalty and avoid prosecution, provided the infringement notice is validly issued and payment is made within the required period. This is a qualified right that depends on enforcement agency discretion.

The regulations create a tiered penalty structure. Regulation 5 specifies maximum penalties for each duty: regulation 5(1) (preparation of plans) carries a maximum fine of 30 penalty units; regulations 5(2) through 5(5) each carry a maximum fine of 20 penalty units. These are court imposed penalties after conviction. The actual dollar value depends on the current value of a penalty unit under the Tasmanian Penalty Units and Other Penalties Act 1987 (currently $200 per unit, though subject to indexation). Thus 30 penalty units equals approximately $6,000, and 20 units equals approximately $4,000. For a body corporate, the maximum fine may be higher if the Act provides for multiplier (the Act does not appear to, but the regulations themselves do not specify differential maximums for natural persons and bodies corporate for regulation 5 offences; the infringement notice schedule does differentiate for Act offences but not for regulation offences).

The infringement notice scheme provides lower, fixed penalties that can be paid to avoid court. Schedule 1 Part 2 lists: for regulation 5(1) - 2 penalty units; for regulations 5(2), (3), (4), (5) - 1 penalty unit each. That is $400 for the plans offence and $200 for each of the other offences. These are substantially lower than the maximum court penalties, reflecting a discount to encourage payment without contest. The scheme applies only to natural persons for regulation offences (column 3 is the penalty; there is no separate column for body corporate in Part 2). This suggests that bodies corporate cannot receive infringement notices for regulation 5 offences and must be prosecuted in court. For Act offences listed in Part 1, both natural person and body corporate penalties are specified (e.g., section 13(1): 3 units for natural person, 10 for body corporate).

Enforcement agencies are designated in regulation 6: the Director of Public Health and any council. This means both state health department officers and council environmental health officers can issue infringement notices, inspect premises, and prosecute offences. The concurrent jurisdiction may lead to inconsistency in enforcement priorities. A business could be issued an infringement notice by a council officer for a temperature record keeping failure and later be prosecuted by the state for the same incident if the council refers the matter. However, the infringement notice, if paid, operates as a discharge of liability for that offence.

The regulations do not specify a strict liability standard, but the Food Act 2003 generally imposes strict liability for food safety offences. The defences under that Act (e.g., reasonable precautions and due diligence) would likely apply to regulation 5 offences. The penalty unit values are not specified in the regulations themselves, so they must be looked up from the principal penalty units legislation. This creates a minor research burden.

The regulations are made under the Food Act 2003 and operate within its framework. They do not create any new substantive offences apart from the five in regulation 5; rather, they prescribe details that the Act leaves to regulation. For example, the Act defines food safety program but the regulations prescribe what such a program must contain. The Act provides for infringement offences, and the regulations prescribe which offences are infringement offences and the penalty amounts. The Act provides for food safety auditor approval fees, and the regulations set the fee.

The regulations incorporate the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code by reference. This means the Code is not reproduced in the regulations but is legally enforceable as if it were. The Code itself is a legislative instrument made under the Food Standards Australia New Zealand Act 1991 (Cth) and incorporates both general food safety standards and product specific standards. The regulations carve out exceptions to the Code for home egg production, relevant food businesses (exempt from Standard 3.3.1), and certain education and care services (exempt from Standard 3.2.2A or with delayed application). The Code also includes Standard 3.2.2 (Food Safety Practices and General Requirements), which is referenced in regulation 5 in relation to cleaning, sanitising, and temperature control. A change to the Code automatically changes the regulatory obligations in Tasmania, unless the exemptions apply.

The regulations expressly exclude clause 4 of Standard 2.2.2 and Standard 4.2.5 from applying to home egg production and the sale of home produced eggs. Those matters are instead covered by the Primary Produce Safety (Egg) Regulations 2014. This avoids dual regulation for small scale egg producers. A person who produces eggs for home consumption or sells a few dozen eggs from backyard chickens is not subject to the commercial egg standards. The boundary may be unclear for a person who sells eggs from, say, 20 chickens: is that home egg production as defined in the 2014 regulations? That definition would need to be checked.

The 2024 amendment introduced a link to the Education and Care Services National Law (Tasmania). That law regulates education and care services including child care centres. The regulations use the same definition for education and care service to determine the scope of the Standard 3.2.2A exemption. This creates consistency but means any amendment to the National Law definition automatically affects the scope of the exemption. It also means a service that is not regulated under the National Law (e.g., an informal playgroup that provides snacks) may not be an education and care service and would need to comply with Standard 3.2.2A without the benefit of the exemption.

The Act's risk classification system under section 86(1A) is referenced in regulation 4(4)(c). Food businesses not classified under that system are exempt from Standard 3.2.2A. The classification system is developed by the Director of Public Health and may assign risk ratings based on the type of food handled and the nature of the business. If a business has not been assigned a risk classification (e.g., because it is new or because the system has not yet processed it), it is temporarily exempt. This could incentivise businesses to delay registration or classification to avoid the standard, though that delay may lead to enforcement under other provisions.

The regulations were made on 24 October 2022 and took effect on the same day. The only amendment noted in the source is S.R. 2024, No. 5, applied on 21 February 2024. That amendment made the following changes:

First, it inserted the definition of education and care service into regulation 3, adopting the definition from the Education and Care Services National Law (Tasmania). It also inserted the definition of Standard 3.2.2A into regulation 3, referencing chapter 3.2.2A of the Food Standards Code.

Second, it amended regulation 4(1) to include a reference to new subregulation (4) in the list of exceptions to incorporation of the Code. It then inserted new regulation 4(4), which provides exemptions from Standard 3.2.2A for: education and care services that provide food only for purposes other than the regular provision of a main meal (snack only services); other education and care services until 1 March 2025; and food businesses not classified under the risk classification system in section 86(1A) of the Act.

Third, it amended regulation 5(1), (3), (4), and (5) by adding cross references to the amendment regulation. The substantive text of those provisions appears unchanged, so the amendment may have been purely formal or may have updated penalty references. The source does not show tracked changes, so it is not possible to determine the exact textual alteration from the provided text. The amendment notes indicate the paragraphs were amended but the current text reads as though it might be the post amendment version.

No further amendments are noted. The regulations as displayed include a notation [Regulation 3 Amended by S.R. 2024, No. 5, Applied:21 Feb 2024] etc. This indicates the amendment was made by Statutory Rule 2024 No. 5. There is no mention of any earlier or later amendments. The regulations appear to be current as at 12 April 2026 (the date in the URL inforce/2026-04-12). This implies the amendment history is complete up to that date.

The absence of substantial amendment history suggests the original 2022 instrument was considered largely adequate, with only the addition of the Standard 3.2.2A transitional provisions being necessary. The 2024 amendment likely responds to the introduction of Standard 3.2.2A into the Food Standards Code by FSANZ, which occurred around 2023 2024. The transitional arrangements give education and care services additional time to comply, recognising the compliance burden of implementing the new tools standard.

The source text does not mention any litigation cases. As instructed, only cases named in the source can be included. The regulations themselves contain no references to case law, and the user provided only the regulation text. There is therefore no litigation history to report from this source. It is possible that cases have been decided under the Food Act 2003 or the Food Standards Code that relate to these regulations, but the regulations do not cite any such cases. The practitioner should note that the interpretation of key terms such as potentially hazardous food or same day as the day on which the food is prepared may ultimately be determined by courts, but no precedent is provided. The regulations also contain no reference to any judicial consideration in their drafting history.

Several provisions create traps for the unwary. First, the definition of relevant food business is narrower than it may appear. It requires that the food be sold at the child care centre on the same day it is prepared. If a child care centre prepares food one day and sells (serves) it the next day, the business is not a relevant food business and regulation 5 does not apply. However, the general provisions of the Act and the Food Standards Code still apply, including the requirement to have a food safety program if the centre falls within the vulnerable persons standard (Standard 3.3.1). But regulation 4(3) disapplies Standard 3.3.1 to relevant food businesses. So a centre that serves food the next day is not a relevant food business, meaning Standard 3.3.1 may apply to it. This creates an odd gap: a centre that serves food the same day is subject to the lighter regulation 5 duties, while a centre that serves food the next day is subject to the potentially more onerous Standard 3.3.1. The incentive effect is perverse: a centre could prepare food on day 1 and serve on day 2 to avoid the regulation 5 duties, but then be subject to a full food safety program requirement.

Second, regulation 5(1)(a) requires the cleaning and sanitising plans to be prepared before food is handled by any person at the child care centre. If a centre starts handling food without having these plans in place, even for a few hours, the offence is committed. A newly opened centre must have these plans ready before the first food preparation. A centre that changes cleaning procedures must update the plan before implementing the new procedure. There is no grace period.

Third, the temperature recording duties in regulations 5(2) and 5(3) require measurement and recording at least once each day. This does not specify a time of day or whether the measurement must be taken while the food is in the temperature danger zone. A single daily measurement at 9:00 am when the food is cold might be compliant even if the food enters the danger zone at lunchtime. A rigorous reading would require that the measurement be taken at a time that reasonably demonstrates compliance with the temperature control standards, but the regulation is silent. The proprietor must use judgment.

Fourth, the record keeping period of two years under regulation 5(5) applies to records made under regulations 5(2), (3), and (4). It does not require retention of the cleaning and sanitising plans themselves beyond the period they are current. However, regulation 5(1)(b) requires the current version of each plan to be kept on site. Previous versions can apparently be discarded once superseded, but there is no explicit provision for that. A prudent proprietor would keep all versions for the two year period to demonstrate compliance history.

Fifth, the application of Standard 3.2.2A to education and care services is complex. A service that provides a main meal (breakfast, lunch, or dinner) regularly must comply by 1 March 2025. But what constitutes regular provision? Daily? Weekly? The regulations do not define regular. A service that provides a cooked lunch only on Fridays might argue it is not regular. The risk classification system exemption in regulation 4(4)(c) is another trap: a business that is classified must comply, but the classification system may not have been fully implemented for all business types. A business should check with its council whether it has been classified.

Sixth, the infringement notice penalties for regulation 5 offences in Schedule 1 Part 2 are listed only with a single penalty column, unlike Part 1 which has separate columns for natural persons and bodies corporate. This suggests that bodies corporate cannot receive infringement notices for regulation 5 offences. If a corporation commits a regulation 5 offence, the only avenue is prosecution in court, which carries a higher maximum penalty (20 or 30 penalty units) and stigma. A natural person can pay the lower infringement penalty. This asymmetry may encourage prosecutors to target natural persons rather than corporations.

Seventh, the fee of 116 fee units for auditor approval (regulation 8) is not indexed in the regulation itself; it depends on the value of a fee unit under the Act. That value may change, so the actual dollar amount fluctuates. The practitioner must check the current fee unit value.

First, identify whether your business is a relevant food business in relation to a child care centre. Ask: Do you sell (including charging for) potentially hazardous food at a child care centre? Is the food prepared on the same day it is sold? If yes, proceed to the steps below. If no, you are not subject to regulation 5, but you may still need a food safety program under the Act.

Second, before any person handles food at the centre, prepare a cleaning plan and an equipment sanitising plan. The cleaning plan should list each area and item to be cleaned, the cleaning method, frequency, and who is responsible. The sanitising plan should list each food contact surface and equipment, the sanitising method (e.g., heat chemical), frequency, and who is responsible. Reference clause 19 and clause 20 of Standard 3.2.2 of the Code to ensure the plans align with those requirements. Keep the current version of each plan on site at all times. Review and update the plans whenever cleaning or sanitising procedures change, or at least annually.

Third, implement a daily temperature monitoring system. For stored potentially hazardous food (e.g., refrigerated milk, meat, prepared dishes), measure the temperature at least once each day and record the reading, date, time, and identity of the person taking the measurement. Use a calibrated thermometer. For processed food (e.g., cooking, cooling, reheating), measure the temperature during or immediately after processing at least once each day and record the same details. The recording can be on paper logs or an electronic system, but must be retained for two years.

Fourth, maintain a supplier register that records the name and contact details of every supplier of food sold at the centre. Update the register whenever a new supplier is used. Also maintain a corrective action log that records any failure to comply with the Act or the Code (e.g., a cooler temperature out of range, a cleaning lapse) and the steps taken to remedy it. The log should include the date, nature of the failure, root cause, corrective action taken, and person responsible.

Fifth, ensure all records (temperature logs, supplier register, corrective action log) are kept at the child care centre for two years from the date each record is made. Do not store them off site. If the centre closes, the records must still be retained for the remainder of the two year period.

Sixth, if the child care centre is classified as an education and care service under the National Law, assess whether you provide regular main meals. If you only provide snacks (no regular breakfast, lunch, or dinner), you are permanently exempt from Standard 3.2.2A. If you provide regular main meals, you must comply with Standard 3.2.2A by 1 March 2025 (or earlier if your council requires). That standard requires having a food safety supervisor who holds a recognised certification, and maintaining additional records. If you are not yet classified under the risk classification system, you are exempt, but you should seek classification to avoid confusion.

Seventh, ensure you have a documented food safety program that complies with either Standard 3.2.1 (the Australian specific standard) or the Codex HACCP principles. If you are a relevant food business, regulation 5 does not relieve you of this obligation; the Act still requires a food safety program for food service to vulnerable persons, and Standard 3.3.1 is disapplied, but the Act may still require a program in other circumstances. Consult the Food Act 2003 section 4(1) definition and any applicable ministerial directions.

Eighth, if you seek approval as a food safety auditor, submit an application to the Director of Public Health with the prescribed fee of 116 fee units. The fee amount should be confirmed against the current fee unit value.

Ninth, be aware of the infringement notice scheme. If you commit a regulation 5 offence, you may receive an infringement notice with a penalty of 2 or 1 penalty units. Pay it promptly to avoid court proceedings. If you are a body corporate, you cannot receive an infringement notice for regulation 5 offences and will face court prosecution.

Tenth, monitor changes to the Food Standards Code. Because the Code is incorporated as amended from time to time, any amendment automatically binds you. Subscribe to FSANZ updates and review changes to relevant standards (especially Standard 3.2.2, Standard 3.2.2A, and Standard 3.3.1 if it becomes applicable). Also monitor changes to the Education and Care Services National Law (Tasmania) as they affect definitions.

Finally, if you are a small child care centre operator with limited resources, consider whether the compliance costs (time for record keeping, training, plan preparation) exceed the risk of penalties. The maximum court penalty for the plans offence is 30 penalty units (approx $6,000), which may be less than the cost of implementing a full system. However, the reputational and business disruption risk from an enforcement action may be higher. A cost benefit analysis should be undertaken. The regulations do not provide any exemption or waiver for small businesses, unlike some provisions in the Act. The proprietor must bear the full compliance burden.