The administrative, reporting, and enforcement controls of the major legislative provisions in this State regarding the matter of food for consumption by members of the community, should, in my opinion, for the reasons stated in this section, be reviewed as a matter of priority. Under the existing arrangements there is, an exposure of financial risk to the Crown. The warnings by the Coroner arising out of incidents in this State for the need of closer and more effective coordination of regulatory arrangements in this matter should, in my opinion, be revisited⁴⁴.

An important component of the public sector audit mandate involves the review of systems and practices adopted by public sector agencies in the conduct of their operations. Those operations may be directed to meet specific statutory obligations or the achievement of various operating performance objectives of a commercial or community service nature.

With particular reference to statutory obligations, certain Ministers and public sector agencies exercise responsibilities for the administration of various Acts designed to ensure the health and well being of the public.

During 1997-98, Audit reviewed certain matters associated with the current administration and enforcement of the statutory provisions of two such acts, ie the Food Act 1985 and Meat Hygiene Act 1994. Although the administration of each of these Acts is committed to a separate Minister and public sector agency, both Acts are concerned with the administration and enforcement of legislation directed at maintaining appropriate food standards and reducing the likelihood of adverse public health events.

This section of the Report comments on certain legislative requirements of the two Acts including the respective schemes of administration and enforcement.

A failure to ensure reasonable care in the discharge of the administrative and enforcement arrangements of the two abovementioned Acts can result, not only in serious consequences for the health of some members of the community but also exposes the Crown to financial risk. The management of this risk is an important 'control element' in the administrative arrangements of those public authorities with a responsibility in these matters. As discussed in several other parts of this Report, the matter of adequacy of controls where financial implications arise is a mandated audit responsibility.

In Australia each State and Territory is responsible for developing and enforcing its own food legislation. A Model Food Act was agreed to by Ministers for Health in 1980 as the basis of State and Territory food law.

The Food Act 1985 and associated regulations, which were based on the Model Act, are aimed at ensuring a safe and wholesome food supply is available to South Australians. The Act placed responsibility for enforcement of food standards with the South Australian Health Commission (SAHC) to achieve consistency, coordination, and rationality in food sampling activities on a state wide basis. The governmental administrative responsibility for ensuring observance of proper standards of hygiene in food premises and that food sold is fit for human consumption was placed with local government councils. The administrative responsibility of councils is limited to matters within their respective geographical jurisdictions.

In recognition of major changes that have occurred to the Australian food regulatory system since 1986 (including the establishment of the National Food Authority in 1991), the SAHC undertook in 1995-96, a comprehensive review of this State's food legislation. That review took into account ten years of operation of the Food Act 1985 and associated regulations and culminated in the release of a public discussion paper in August 1996.

The discussion paper had as a primary focus, the reform of the Food Act regulatory system. This involved, inter alia, the introduction of accreditation of food businesses/premises based on the implementation of quality assurance systems and audits of those systems. This approach would reflect common core characteristics of the regulatory framework applying to meat processing businesses/premises which was brought into effect with the passing of the Meat Hygiene Act 1994.

A summary report of submissions received in respect of that discussion paper was released in June 1997. Since release of the discussion paper in South Australia, the Australian New Zealand Food Authority (formerly the National Food Authority) has initiated a process for the introduction of national uniform hygiene regulations and has also commenced a review of food acts in all states and territories. The South Australian review is forming the basis for SAHC input to these two reviews and implementation of outcomes.

The SAHC, subject to the control and direction of the Minister for Human Services, is responsible for the administration and enforcement of the Food Act1985 throughout the State. As mentioned earlier, the administration encompasses a two tier system of responsibilities involving the SAHC and local government councils.

The Food Act 1985 provides for the SAHC and local councils to appoint 'authorised officers' for the proper administration and enforcement of the Act. The key responsibilities of SAHC authorised officers include legislation review, sampling of foods for compliance with the Food Standards Code, investigation of food poisoning outbreaks and liaising with local councils with respect to food hygiene matters. The main responsibilities of authorised officers employed by local councils include inspection of food premises for compliance with hygiene requirements and investigation of complaints regarding suitability of food and food poisoning incidents.

The Act requires the SAHC to submit an annual Report to the Minister on the administration of the Act and for that Report to be presented to Parliament. It should be mentioned that the Act does not include a specific requirement for local government councils to provide the SAHC with information on their responsibilities and activities under the Act. For the purpose of compilation of the Report the SAHC annually circulates a request for information to all councils.

The Meat Hygiene Act 1994 replaced the Meat Hygiene Act 1980 and the Poultry Meat Hygiene Act 1986 and provides a framework for the hygienic processing of livestock, poultry and game meat in South Australia.

The introduction of the Act followed consultation with industry and government at the Federal, State and Local levels and reflected the need to bring the regulation of meat processing into harmony with national and trans-Tasman reforms and developments in food standards.

The Act is designed to allow all major sections of the domestic meat industry to operate within a framework of quality assurance with levels of control directly related to product safety standards and company run quality assurance systems.

In effect, the Act requires meat processors to be accredited before they can engage in meat processing activities. Accredited operators may either implement a quality assurance system which is then subject to audit or pass regular external inspections.

The Act is also designed to complement the provisions of the Food Act 1985 by taking up control of all meat processing occurring before retail sale and excluding processing operations directly associated with retail operations. Retail operations come under the regulatory controls enforced by the South Australian Health Commission and local government councils.

The Meat Hygiene Act 1994 is committed to the Minister for Primary Industries, Natural Resources and Regional Development. It establishes a regulatory and administrative structure comprising:

• the South Australian Meat Hygiene Advisory Council which advises and reports to the Minister directly on meat hygiene matters;
• a core management group within the Department for Primary Industries and Resources.

The employees of the Department are appointed as 'Meat Hygiene Officers' and their key responsibilities are to administer and enforce the Meat Hygiene Act 1994 with assistance from an external third party audit/inspection service provider contracted to the Minister.

CORONER'S FINDING OF INQUEST

The Coroner, in his Finding of Inquest of September 1995 into the death of Nikki Dearne Robinson, made a number of comments concerning the system of enforcement of the Food and Meat Hygiene Acts.

With particular reference to the Food Act, he indicated that the system of enforcement was a complicated one involving both Local and State Government and that it owed more to history and politics than it did to efficiency and clarity. He concluded by indicating that the recent amendments to the Food Standards Code and the introduction of the Meat Hygiene Act represented positive developments to the issues which had arisen from the inquest. However, he also stated that all these developments would be useless unless they were thoroughly and rigorously enforced⁴⁵.

To this end, one of the key recommendations made by the Coroner was:

It is noted that in February 1996, the then Minister for Health, in response to a question on notice, advised Parliament that in respect to the above mentioned Coroner's recommendation, there were a:

The Meat Hygiene Act 1994 recognises some inter-relationship of the roles of the various regulatory bodies in relation to meat hygiene. The Act established the South Australian Meat Hygiene Advisory Council to advise and report to the Minister directly on meat hygiene matters. The Council's membership includes representation from the SAHC and local government.

The outbreak of Haemolytic Uraemic Syndrome in Adelaide in January 1995 evidenced the need for more formal links and mechanisms to be established between the food and meat regulatory bodies for effective investigation of food poisoning incidents traced to meat processing. Indeed the Coroner's Finding of Inquest into the death of Nikki Dearne Robinson recommended consultation between the various regulatory bodies.

The document clearly states its importance and intent as providing 'guidelines on which strong co-operative and synergistic regulation can be implemented for the mutual benefit of the industry and the State'⁴⁹.

The memorandum of understanding has remained in the draft mode, initially because of the release of the discussion paper 'Protecting the Safety of the Food Supply in South Australia' relating to the review and administration of food legislation in South Australia and more recently the development and pending implementation of national food hygiene standards.

Both the SAHC and local government councils appoint 'authorised officers' to undertake, amongst other duties, surveillance activities associated with food premises/businesses.

Audit made enquiry of the SAHC regarding the number of authorised officers employed by the SAHC and each local government council over the three financial years ending 30June1995, 1996 and 1997. The SAHC provided details with respect to their employee numbers for the three year period, but was only able to provide authorised officers' details for councils as at April1998.

• Number of authorised officers under the Food Act 1985;
• Percentage of authorised officers' time spent on food surveillance activity;
• Type of food surveillance system in operation;
• Type of reporting system operating within the council;
• Number of food premises and premises inspected.

The significant restructuring of local councils during the last two years has, in Audit's opinion, heightened the need for information concerning the level of resources committed by local councils to the administration of their respective responsibilities under the Food Act 1985 to be obtained and analysed.