Does this mean that food-handling businesses outside Sydney are less likely to put the health of their customers at risk? Possibly, because as I point out in my column today almost 40 per cent of total penalties have been levied against food business with an Asian name or owners, and it is a fact that there is a concentration of such businesses in Sydney. It is a fair point because food-handling standards are much lower in many Asian countries than they are in Australia and many newcomers from these countries may not adapt readily to our food-handling requirements. Perhaps our standards are unnecessarily high or exacting, but that's another subject.

If the concentration of Asian businesses in Sydney and their proliferation on the register of penalties goes some way to explaining the difference between Sydney and regional NSW, it goes only some way. I noticed in talking to councils as I prepared today's column that they prefer to see themselves as having a conciliatory approach to breachers, as putting compliance before penalty.

This raises the question of our right to know which food businesses have been putting our health at risk. By a conciliatory, negotiated approach councils are effectively depriving us of that information in favour of the business owner's interests. Such a conciliatory or negotiated approach would require persistent follow-up to ensure the compliance continued, and we cannot be sure of that. Indeed, we cannot be sure that the number of regional penalties is not low because our councils are not carrying out prudent inspections.

The food authority's penalties register lists only breaches it assesses as very likely or likely to result in unsafe, unsuitable or inaccurately labelled food, and this brings conciliation into further question. Am I right in arguing that the efforts by regional councils to deprive us of this information are against the interests of their constituents?

You'll find the register at http://www.foodauthority.nsw.gov. au - click on the Name and Shame link.