Lake Bennett restaurant to remain closed after appeal bid fails

The decision details the ‘lengthy’ history of compliance issues at the resort dating back to 2016, including bacteria being found on kitchen taps and human and animal food being stored together.

One time CLP candidate Carolyn Reynolds says a court battle over her Lake Bennett Resort stems from her “persecution by the Labor Party”.

THE restaurant at the Lake Bennett Resort will remain closed after resort owner Carolyn Reynolds’ bid to overturn its deregistration was knocked back in the Darwin Local Court on Monday.

• Carolyn’s kitchen nightmares
• Couple’s wedding from hell at Lake Bennett
• Probe into Lake Bennett resort restaurant over food claims

In December last year, NT chief health officer Hugh Heggie disallowed the Eagle’s Nest Restaurant’s registration as a food business due to concerns about the use of lake water in its kitchen.

Ms Reynolds previously told the court the water used in food preparation was boiled and had been through the resort’s “treble filtration system” and that “people’s safety is absolutely of paramount importance”.

She said the water was “perfectly okay” and had been tested.

In handing down her “lengthy” reasons for dismissing the appeal, Judge Tanya Fong Lim gave the parties liberty to apply for further orders after they’d had a chance to read the document.

But Ms Reynolds – a one time Country Liberal Party candidate for the seat of Goyder – said she hadn’t read it and didn’t need to.

“I don’t need to read the decision because this is not about me, this is about Lake Bennett,” she said.

“(But) this whole court process has been about Carolyn Reynolds and my persecution by the Labor Party.”

• Reynolds offers to bring ‘10,000 witnesses in fight to keep Darwin rock centre open
• Reynolds vows to keep up fight for Rock Centre ‘if it kills me’

The decision details the “lengthy” history of compliance issues at the resort dating back to October 2016, including bacteria being found on kitchen taps and human and animal food being stored together.

• 5/10/17: First public health notice issued – “The septic tank was not functioning due to an electrical fault with the pump resulting in effluent discharging directly onto the surface and pooling around the tanks. There was no signage on plumbing fixtures which advised users of non-potable water.”
• 11/5/17: “Test results of water samples taken on 09.5.2017 from kitchen tap, outside tap and spa tap showed presence of coliforms and E. coli.”
• 21/7/2017: Second public health notice issued – “The existing wastewater treatment system failed again causing raw effluent to pool down road verge, treatment system has not been repaired to full functionality. Samples of drinking water taken on 9 May, 2017 indicated presence of coliform/organisms. Untreated spa and pool water being flushed directly into lake.”
• 21/7/2017: Food improvement notice issued regarding “cleanliness of kitchen and storage of food”.
• 18/10/2017: Public health order issued for failure to comply with second public health notice.
• 19/12/2017: Ms Reynolds applies for the public health notice/order to be revoked “setting out further detail of actions taken to rectify concerns about kitchen regarding the cleaning of the area, reorganisation of food storage, particularly separating the animal food from the food for human consumption”.
• 18/1/2018: Site visit and inspection by four health officers.
• 20/3/2018: Mr Heggie writes to Ms Reynolds confirming that his concerns had not been addressed, including the lack of a “clear confirmation that an ongoing serious public health risk has been removed”.
• 04/4/2018: Complaint received from a nearby resident regarding continued use of the resort facilities contrary to the public health notice.

In reaching her decision, Ms Fong Lim found while some of the issues raised by the Chief Health officer had since been addressed, concerns about the management of water and wastewater and its effect on the running of the business remained.

Ms Fong Lim said Ms Reynolds’ continued refusal to provide information to the Chief Health Officer or accept his authority and her views on ‘best before’ dates “places doubts on her bona fides to implement the water management plan and therefore whether she would operate the food business in a ‘proper manner’”.

“The appellant accepted in cross examination that she believes ‘best before’ dates on food packaging are not necessary and part of a plan by big supermarkets to encourage food waste and make people buy more food and stated she knew when food was still alright to consume without the need for ‘best before’ dates,” she said.

“She did not say how she could ensure the safety of food for consumption without references to food standards.”