Tài liệu Fs_audit_report_final edit0702

Food Safety: An audit system An information paper outlining an audit system developed for the purpose of auditing food safety programs Acknowledgments The Australia New Zealand Food Authority prepared this report with assistance from the audit system working group: Brigid Hardy (Chair) Dr Geoffrey Annison Mr Basil Czerwaniw Mr John Dean Mr Michael Di Giovanni Mr Ian Hendersen Mr Brett Hughes Mr David Larkings Mr David Matthews Ms Kylie Sheehan Mr Gary Smith Mr Steve Tidswell Ms Julie Woods Australia New Zealand Food Authority Australian Food and Grocery Council South Western Sydney Area Health Service Joint Accreditation System of Australia and New Zealand Tasmanian Department of Community and Health Services Australian Institute of Environmental Health representing the Australian Food and Grocery Council and the Quality Society of Australasia Queensland Health Consumer Food Network Australia New Zealand Food Authority and Joint Accreditation System of Australia and New Zealand Food Safety Victoria Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service Public Health Association The Australia New Zealand Food Authority expresses its appreciation of the assistance from these people throughout the development of the audit system and acknowledges that the views contained in the report do not necessarily represent the working group members’ views or views of their organisations. Copies of this document can be obtained from the Information Officer at: Australia New Zealand Food Authority PO Box 7186 Canberra Mail Centre ACT 2610 Australia Fax: +61 2 6271 2278 Telephone: +61 2 6271 2241 Email: [email protected] or Australia New Zealand Food Authority PO Box 10559 The Terrace Wellington 6036 New Zealand Fax: +63 4 473 9855 Telephone: +63 4 473 9942 Email: [email protected] AN AUDIT SYSTEM Contents Executive summary 3 Scope and objectives 4 1 Background to the audit system 1.1 The food safety reforms 1.2 Consultative processes undertaken during the development of the audit system 1.2.1 The audit system working group 1.2.2 Public comment 1.2.3 The implementation working group 5 5 6 6 7 7 2 The existing food regulatory system 8 3 Cost to government and business 8 4 Introduction to the audit system 4.1 First-, second- and third-party auditors 4.2 Responsibility for food safety and liability 9 9 9 5 Criteria and approval for food safety auditors 5.1 Auditor categories 5.1.1 Associate Food Safety Auditor 5.1.2 Food Safety Auditor 5.1.3 Senior Food Safety Auditor 5.1.4 Technical Specialist 5.2 The use of audit teams and competency requirements of teams 5.3 The approval criteria for food safety auditors 5.3.1 Technical/scientific knowledge 5.3.2 Food Safety Program knowledge 5.3.3 Auditing skills 5.3.4 Processing knowledge 5.3.5 Professional conduct 5.4 The use of competency standards in the approval criteria 5.5 Approval of food safety auditors 5.5.1 The assessment process 5.5.2 The advantages of using an international standard 5.5.3 Re-approval of auditors 11 11 12 12 12 12 12 13 13 14 14 14 15 15 16 16 16 17 6 Audit process 6.1 What and how auditors will assess 6.1.1 Powers and duties of auditors and authorised officers 6.1.2 The role of the auditor in regulation of food businesses 6.2 Issues relating to the auditing of food safety programs 6.2.1 Contracting with a food safety auditor 6.2.2 Approval of the food safety program 6.3 Preparing and planning for audits 6.3.1 Frequency of audits 6.3.2 Scope of audit 6.3.3 Movement of frequency within a classification 19 19 19 20 22 22 22 23 23 23 23 1 2 AN AUDIT SYSTEM 6.4 7 6.3.4 Nonconformance categories and recording 6.3.5 Audit duration 6.3.6 Auditing multi-sited food businesses 6.3.7 Unannounced audits Conducting the audit 6.4.1 Preparing for the audit 6.4.2 Opening meeting with the food business 6.4.3 Examination 6.4.4 Closing meeting with the food business 6.4.5 Reporting audit findings 6.4.6 Review of audit reports 24 25 26 26 26 27 27 27 27 27 28 Audit management system 7.1 Preventing conflict of interest 7.2 Maintaining impartiality 7.3 How the system will ensure confidentiality 7.4 Identifying changes in the food business or its food-handling operations and the implications for auditing 7.5 Auditing personnel 7.6 Procedures for auditors 7.7 Dealing with appeals, complaints and disputes 7.8 Regular reviews of the management system 7.9 Documentation 7.10 Records 7.11 Changes to legislative requirements 29 29 29 30 8 Implementation issues 8.1 Recognition of equivalence 8.1.1 Scope of recognition of equivalence 8.1.2 Recognition of equivalence process 33 33 33 34 9 Supporting documentation 9.1 Auditor Handbook 9.2 The Audit System-Advice for Food Businesses 34 34 35 30 30 31 31 32 32 32 32 10 Conclusion 35 Appendix A Appendix B Appendix C Appendix D Appendix E Food safety auditor approval criteria Industry categories Develop a food safety program guideline competency standard Audit a food safety program guideline competency standard Summary of submissions 36 38 42 47 52 Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 The three elements of the audit system The approval process Food safety audit and review process 11 18 21 Table 1 Table 2 Frequency ranges Guidance on movement of food businesses within audit frequency ranges 23 24 AN AUDIT SYSTEM Executive summary At the request of State and Territory Health Ministers, the Australia New Zealand Food Authority (ANZFA) developed a package of food safety reforms to update existing regulatory requirements and to ensure a nationally consistent approach to food safety. As part of these reforms, ANZFA proposed that food businesses should be required, over time, to implement a food safety program based on Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP) to control potential food safety hazards. ANZFA has developed a draft food safety program standard for this purpose. To help businesses meet such a requirement, a process for recognising the equivalence of existing food safety, quality and regulatory systems is being developed. Jurisdictions that implement a food safety program requirement will need to develop an audit system infrastructure in order to assess compliance. ANZFA has developed an audit system for the purposes of auditing food safety programs. The audit system comprises three major elements. These are: 1. the food safety auditor approval process; 2. the audit process; and 3. the audit management system. The roles and responsibilities of State and Territory Governments in ensuring the integrity of the audit system have been outlined throughout this paper. Food safety auditor approval The audit system outlines three food safety auditor levels and appropriate criteria against which applicants should be assessed. The system ensures that auditors have the appropriate competencies required to audit food safety programs. A rigorous approval process by an approval body accredited to an internationally recognised standard has been recommended for approving food safety auditors. A process for re-assessing auditors is also recommended, to maintain confidence in the competency of food safety auditors. Audit process The audit process outlines the role and responsibilities of food safety auditors and describes an audit methodology based on an international standard. Models have been developed for determining appropriate audit frequencies, for reporting nonconformances and for moving within audit frequency ranges. Audit management The management system is based on an international standard and involves the development of policies and procedures to ensure the integrity of the audit system. It covers areas relating to auditing personnel, conflict of interest and commercial confidentiality. 3 4 AN AUDIT SYSTEM The management system includes internal audits and review of the management system and associated documentation by State and Territory Governments. Scope and objectives This paper describes an audit system that has been developed by the Australia New Zealand Food Authority (ANZFA) in consultation with its stakeholders. The policy relating to the audit system is clearly defined in this paper. There may, however, be implementation issues that require further consultation with State and Territory Governments. ANZFA will continue to play a role in identifying these issues and will strive for a consistent approach to implementation where appropriate. This document has outlined issues regarding implementation and the role of State and Territory Governments in the process. AN AUDIT SYSTEM 1 Background to the audit system 1.1 The food safety reforms The audit system has been developed for the purposes of auditing food safety programs. A food safety program is based on the Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) principles and is a documented program that systematically identifies critical points in food handling operations that, if not controlled, may lead to preparation of unsafe food. ANZFA recognises that food safety programs are in line with international best practice and has recommended that food safety programs become mandatory for all food businesses in Australia1. ANZFA’s proposed Food Safety Standards include a food safety program requirement. ANZFA has proposed that four new standards be adopted nationally for inclusion in the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code. These standards are: Standard 3.1.1 Interpretation and Application Standard 3.2.1 Food Safety Programs Standard 3.2.2 Food Safety Practices and General Requirements Standard 3.2.3 Food Premises and Equipment Standard 3.2.1 Food Safety Programs is a standard that sets out the requirements of a food safety program. The standard requires businesses to document and implement a food safety program based on the HACCP principles. With the shift to requiring food businesses to document their food safety practices and record how they control food safety in their processes, there will be a move from inspection to audit to assess compliance. Through audit, regulators can look at records of what has been happening within the food business, a day-to-day history of compliance, and not just the ‘snapshot in time’ of current inspection methods. This method gives regulators and the community increased confidence that food safety is being maintained by food businesses on a continuing basis. Standard 3.2.1 was put on hold by ANZFSC in October 1999 after recommending that a two-year study be undertaken by the Commonwealth Department of Health and Aged Care (DHAC) to assess the cost and feasibility of a mandatory food safety program requirement. While the Territories were generally supportive of a delay in introducing a mandatory requirement for food safety programs, some States indicated their wish to implement an earlier requirement for food safety programs in their jurisdictions. To minimise the potential for the fragmentation of food safety program requirements between jurisdictions, ANZFSC adopted Standard 3.2.1, in the form of a standard with voluntary implementation at their last next meeting in November 2000. 1 In July 1996 an Agreement between Australia and New Zealand came into effect which established the Australia New Zealand Food Authority. ANZFA is developing joint food standards for both countries to be contained in an Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code. Although the Food Safety Standards will be contained within the Code, they will fall outside the scope of the Agreement and therefore will only apply in Australia. 5 6 AN AUDIT SYSTEM ANZFA recommends that implementation of Standard 3.2.1 Food Safety Programs should be risk-based and has developed a priority classification system which can be used to classify food businesses based on their inherent food safety risk. Standard 3.2.2 Food Safety Practices and General Requirements and Standard 3.2.3 Food Premises and Equipment will require food businesses to: ◗ comply with the requirements for food safety practices and food premises and equipment; ◗ ensure that staff have skills and knowledge in food hygiene and safety matters commensurate with their work activities; ◗ have in place a system for food recall; and ◗ notify the relevant authority about the business. Nationally consistent implementation of the standards will overcome existing regulatory duplication and overlap between the States and Territories and achieve greater national consistency. The standards were gazetted in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette (No. S464) on Thursday 24th August 2000 and will be legally enforceable six months from this date. Underpinning the introduction of the Food Safety Standards is a draft Model Food Act that will allow for the consistent adoption, interpretation and enforcement of the Food Safety Standards. Aspects of the Act will be adopted uniformly by State and Territory Governments. The Food Safety Standards will not apply in New Zealand as the treaty establishing ANZFA does not include food hygiene standards. New Zealand currently has a voluntary system that allows food businesses to implement food safety programs and have these audited, as opposed to being inspected by local authorities. 1.2 Consultative processes undertaken during the development of the audit system 1.2.1 The audit system working group To ensure that key issues were addressed in the development of the audit system, ANZFA established a working group with membership drawn from government, industry and consumer groups. The purpose of the working group was to develop an audit system infrastructure suitable for auditing food safety programs. The recommendations of the working group were made available for public comment and consultations were also undertaken with State and Territory Health Departments. 1.2.2 Public comment The working group developed and distributed four discussion papers for public comment. AN AUDIT SYSTEM These discussion papers were titled: 1. Food Safety Auditor Approval Criteria (distributed December 1998); 2. Guidelines for the frequency and duration of food safety program audits (distributed February 1999); 3. Recognition of equivalence of food safety and HACCP-based audit systems (distributed February 1999); and 4. Infrastructure for the auditing of food safety programs and the management of the audit process (distributed March 1999). The discussion papers proposed recommendations on which submitters were asked to comment. A summary of submissions, which outlines the responses received and how the submissions and concerns were addressed, is at Appendix E. 1.2.3 The implementation working group The responsibility for food regulation and enforcement is held by individual State and Territory Governments. Senior Food Officers (SFOs) from each State and Territory Health Department and an Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service (AQIS) representative have formed an implementation working group (IWG) to consider the issues surrounding implementation of the Food Safety Standards. This forum often has representation from the Australia New Zealand Food Authority Advisory Council. The IWG is chaired by ANZFA and provides the opportunity for SFOs to identify and discuss common issues and concerns and to develop strategies for progressing such matters. The IWG has considered the proposals of the audit system working group and supports the audit system outlined in this paper. ANZFA will continue to work with the IWG to promote a consistent approach to implementing the audit system. 7 8 AN AUDIT SYSTEM 2 The existing food regulatory system Although food standards for such matters as the labelling and composition of food are nationally uniform, there were no nationally uniform food hygiene regulations in Australia until ANZFSC agreed to the adoption of Standards 3.1.1, 3.2.2 and 3.2.3 in July 2000. Each State and Territory currently has its own hygiene regulations leading to national inconsistency. In some jurisdictions existing regulations are out-dated and inappropriate for modern practices. Local government councils are also able to make by-laws or ordinances to regulate food businesses, which compounds the lack of consistency between jurisdictions. In the current regulatory environment, authorised officers inspect food businesses for compliance against the appropriate State and Territory regulations. ANZFA’s proposed changes to the current regulatory environment aim to create a preventive culture to food safety. If Standard 3.2.1 Food Safety Programs is approved by ANZFSC as a mandatory standard after considering the outcomes of the DHAC study , businesses will be legally required to take preventive steps to control food safety hazards through the development and maintenance of a food safety program based on HACCP principles. This approach requires the business to take responsibility for the preparation of safe food, as opposed to relying on authorised officers to identify problems within the food business. 3 Cost to government and business Those jurisdictions that implement a food safety program requirement will need to implement an audit system to assess compliance. State and Territory Governments will have to identify the role of authorised officers in the new system. For authorised officers to have a role in auditing food safety programs, appropriate training and experience will need to be provided. This may require additional resources. The Regulatory Impact Statement Food Safety Standards Costs and Benefits developed by ANZFA discusses the impact on government and industry of the cost of reforms. AN AUDIT SYSTEM 4 Introduction to the audit system A food safety audit focuses on gathering information about a food business to identify any areas of potential improvement in the business’s food safety processes and systems. It also identifies areas of the business that have deficiencies and the appropriate action to correct any deficiencies. The audit system comprises three inter-related elements, as represented in Figure 1. Each element is essential to the integrity of the system. These three elements are: 1. an approval criteria and assessment process for food safety auditors; 2. an audit methodology/process that allows for variations in the size and complexity of food businesses; and 3. a management system to respond to audit findings and monitor the efficacy of audits and approved food safety auditors. The audit system provides an infrastructure within which State and Territory Health Departments can implement a food safety program. It is imperative that certain aspects of the audit system are implemented consistently between jurisdictions. Other aspects of the system are more flexible and implementation procedures and policies will need to be developed by States and Territories. It is anticipated that these policies and procedures will depend on existing operational structures and availability of resources. The role of State and Territory Governments in maintaining the integrity of the audit system has been highlighted in this paper where appropriate. 4.1 First-, second- and third-party auditors There is scope within the audit system for auditors to be either second-party or third-party to the food business. Second-party auditors are auditors employed by the government and third-party auditors are private and independent of the government. All auditors must meet the approval criteria and be approved by a State or Territory Health Department. First-party audits involve internal auditing of the food business by the business itself. Internal audits can be useful for the business to assess whether or not it is meeting regulatory requirements. However, there will be no requirements for first-party audits and the outcomes of the audit will not be recognised by the enforcement agency. 4.2 Responsibility for food safety and liability Requiring food businesses to implement preventive food safety programs shares the responsibility for food safety between food businesses and government. The auditor’s role is to carry out audits of food safety programs and to assess the compliance of businesses with food safety program requirements and the requirements of the Food Safety Standards, and then to report the outcomes of the audits and assessments to the enforcement agency. It is then the responsibility of the enforcement agency to implement appropriate enforcement measures when a food business’s food safety program is not effective in producing safe food. 9 10 AN AUDIT SYSTEM Health Departments are responsible for food regulation and enforcement under existing State and Territory Food Acts. Under these Acts, and the draft Model Food Act, Health Departments may delegate some of these responsibilities to local government. However, delegation is likely to differ between jurisdictions. Where delegation is likely to occur, the term ‘enforcement agency’ has been used throughout this paper to represent State and Territory Health Departments or their delegates. There are specific requirements within the draft Model Food Act for auditors, regarding the reporting of nonconformances and audit findings. Where nonconformances indicate a risk to public health, the enforcement agency must be notified immediately. It is then the enforcement agency’s responsibility to appraise the situation and take the necessary action. Role of State or Territory Governments The intention to legislate for a food safety program requirement must be conveyed to food businesses by State and Territory Governments. If such a requirement is implemented, any role for second- and third-party auditors must be clearly defined within each jurisdiction. 5 Criteria and approval for food safety auditors 5.1 Auditor categories There are three levels of food safety auditors recommended in the audit system. The Associate Food Safety Auditor, the Food Safety Auditor and the Senior Food Safety Auditor. The basic difference between these levels is the amount of audit and industry experience required for each. All levels must be able to demonstrate appropriate competencies in auditing and food safety program development. The following paragraphs explain how auditor levels have been structured and the criteria for each level. The role of Technical Specialists is also outlined. 5.1.1 Associate Food Safety Auditor The Associate Food Safety Auditor level gives recognition to those auditors who have the relevant training and technical knowledge but who may not have the experience required to meet the requirements of the Food Safety Auditor level. There is no requirement for either auditing or industry experience if the auditor has an appropriate tertiary qualification. This auditor level will be restricted to low- and medium-priority classified businesses, within industry categories, or as part of an audit team. This allows the Associate Food Safety Auditors to use the training they have undertaken and gain experience to allow for progression to the Food Safety Auditor level. AN AUDIT SYSTEM Figure 1 The three elements of the audit system Food Safety Auditor Approval Audit Process Applicant applies for approval as a food safety auditor Applicants are assessed against the approval criteria and assigned industry categories for auditing Food business implements a food safety program Auditor reviews the food safety program (document review) Auditor Handook Approval criteria Industry categories Auditors are approved by State or Territory Health Departments Auditor is assigned or business contracts auditor The competency of auditors is monitored Food business has the food safety program audited by an approved auditor Auditor undertakes an initial audit to ensure that the food safety program has been implemented, is adequate and complies with the legislation Information for food businesse Ongoing assessment at determined frequency Audit Management System Audit reports Act on notifiable nonconformances Monitor audit outcomes 11 12 AN AUDIT SYSTEM 5.1.2 Food Safety Auditor A Food Safety Auditor is an experienced auditor who can work unassisted or in a team. There is no restriction on the priority classification of food businesses that the auditor is allowed to assess. The only restriction is that these be within the industry categories in which the auditor is recognised as competent. The Food Safety Auditor must have completed a minimum of two year’s full-time work experience with food/hygiene and food safety programs. They must also have conducted a minimum of four audits within a two-year period. 5.1.3 Senior Food Safety Auditor A Senior Food Safety Auditor is recognised as having audit team management experience and competence. These competencies may be necessary for audit teams for large complex food businesses. This third level gives the auditor some recognition for these additional competencies. The Senior Food Safety Auditor must have completed a minimum of two year’s full-time work experience with food/hygiene and food safety programs. They must also have conducted a minimum of five audits as team leader within a two-year period. 5.1.4 Technical Specialist The term Technical Specialist is used for a person who is a specialist in a given field or technology and who assists in the audit process. They do not necessarily need to have any audit experience or food safety program knowledge. Auditors and audit teams may seek assistance from a technical specialist where they do not have the necessary specific technical knowledge. It is not necessary for technical specialists to undergo a formal approval process. However, their ‘technical specialist’ status must be able to be justified by the responsible auditor. 5.2 The use of audit teams and competency requirements of teams There will be times where the size and complexity of a food business is such that a team of auditors is required, rather than a lone auditor. Where an audit team is required to assess a food business it is recognised that not all of the auditors need to have all of the necessary competencies to carry out the audit. Members of the team may have specific competencies required for different parts of the audit. Auditors must be able to justify the competencies of audit teams if requested to do so through the monitoring process. Monitoring of the audit system by the State and Territory Health Department is discussed in Section 7 of this paper. AN AUDIT SYSTEM 13 Audit team competencies A factory manufactures canned fish products. It employs 100 staff on the factory floor. It will require an audit team of two auditors for approximately one day to audit the food business. In order to carry out an effective audit the audit team must have the following competencies: ◗ audit skills etc., requirements to be an approved auditor; ◗ experience in the seafood processing industry; and ◗ experience in canning/retort operations. There is no requirement that both persons on the audit team have all of these competencies. However, the audit team collectively must have these competencies, and then the audit must be managed in such a way as to ensure that the auditors have the competencies for the parts of the systems that they are assessing. For instance, in the example given, it would be inappropriate for an auditor without the knowledge of canning/retort operations to be auditing that part of the system. 5.3 The approval criteria for food safety auditors The approval criteria cover five areas of competency. These are: 1. technical/scientific knowledge; 2. food safety program knowledge; 3. auditing skills; 4. processing knowledge; and 5. professional conduct. The criteria are considered the minimum competencies required by auditors who assess food safety programs. They are based on the requirements of the international standard ISO 1001–2 — Qualification Criteria for Auditors2 and the areas of competency are consistent with the food safety auditor criteria utilised by the Quality Society of Australasia3. A detailed outline of the food safety auditor approval criteria is attached at Appendix A. 5.3.1 Technical/scientific knowledge It is considered that each level of auditor must have a basic level of appropriate technical background and knowledge to be able to make judgments regarding the food safety program that has been implemented by the food business. 2 ISO 10011–2 — Qualification Criteria for Auditors. This is the internationally recognised standard for the qualification criteria for quality system auditors. There are two other standards in the series, these being ISO 10011–1, Auditing — Guidelines for Auditing Quality Systems and ISO 10011–3, Management of Audit Programmes. All three standards are currently being revised and merged into one document to cover the auditing of all types of management systems, including environmental management systems for which there are currently separate requirements. 3 The Quality Society of Australasia (QSA International) is a not-for-profit company, accredited by the JAZ-ANZ for personal certification 14 AN AUDIT SYSTEM An appropriate technical background should include grounding in food hygiene and safety matters, including food microbiology and food production and/or handling. Certain tertiary (or equivalent) qualifications would provide such grounding. Alternatively, a number of years working in industry could also provide sufficient knowledge. It is also important that food safety auditors have a well-developed ability to locate, interpret and apply legislation. During the audit, the auditor must determine whether the business is complying with the food safety program and whether the program meets the requirements of the Food Safety Standards. Therefore, detailed knowledge of these requirements is necessary to allow for effective assessment. 5.3.2 Food Safety Program knowledge Food safety programs are based on the principles of HACCP, therefore all food safety auditors will be required to have knowledge of food safety programs based on HACCP principles. Food safety auditors must be able to apply these principles in order to be able to effectively audit food safety programs. Successful completion of accredited training would be recognised as meeting the requirements for a food safety auditor. 5.3.3 Auditing skills For an audit to be undertaken effectively, the auditor/audit team must have appropriate knowledge of the audit process and have the appropriate skills and experience as an auditor. The assessment of a food safety auditor’s competence will need to take into account the training and experience of the auditor. Therefore, successful completion of accredited training would be recognised as meeting the requirements. To meet the relevant audit experience requirements, auditors will need to provide evidence of audits undertaken. This may include a log of audits, verified by food businesses, of audits undertaken. 5.3.4 Processing knowledge It is well recognised that food safety auditors must have knowledge of the specific hazards in an industry sector or process and the applicable control measures in order to effectively audit a food business’s food safety program. Without appropriate knowledge it is not possible to competently assess the effectiveness of the food safety program. The industry categories for assessment of food safety auditors are attached at Appendix B. Experience may be gained through industry experience, training, formal university study, inspection experience and auditing experience (with industry experts). There is also recognition that persons that have qualifications and training to become auditors, but not the specific processing knowledge experience, could be utilised under expert supervision during auditing, in order to gain the experience required. The assessment of experience takes into consideration the knowledge that the applicant has attained during such experience, particularly with respect to specific processes and technical knowledge relating to potential problems. Where inspection and auditing experience is taken into account towards food industry experience, there will need to be some indication by applicants of the percentage of their workload that is food-based inspection. AN AUDIT SYSTEM It is recognised that many processes are not specific to individual industry sectors. For example, spray drying may be applied to dairy and non-dairy products and many different products may be pasteurised, including milk, liquid egg, fruit juice, alcoholic beverages, etc. 5.3.5 Professional conduct The purpose of a code of conduct or ethics is to ensure that an auditor acts in an ethical and professional manner, and does not compromise the integrity of the audit process. It also forms a basis by which approval of the auditor can be withdrawn. The draft Model Food Act will give State and Territory Health Departments the responsibility for approving food safety auditors, and the power to remove that approval. Professional requirements of the auditor in the draft Model Food Act include requirements to disclose conflict of interest and to maintain commercial confidentiality. The enforcement agency will also monitor these requirements through on-site assessment of auditors and complaints received. 5.4 The use of competency standards in the approval criteria There has been a suite of benchmark competency standards developed by the Australian National Training Authority in response to the development of the Food Safety Standards. These standards are not industry-specific, but will be recognised as guideline competency standards; that is, they indicate the minimum elements or requirements that must be addressed in food safety competency standards developed by industry training advisory boards. Two of these guideline competency standards have been incorporated into the auditor approval criteria to ensure that auditors have the appropriate competencies. The standards that are particularly relevant to the approval process are: 1. Develop food safety programs; and 2. Conduct food safety audits. The Develop food safety programs standard outlines the competencies required relating to food safety programs based on the HACCP principles. The Conduct food safety audits standard identifies the minimum or baseline competencies required by auditors undertaking audits of food safety programs. These guideline competency standards are attached at Appendixes C and D. The competency standards will give direction to trainers on the competencies that training must deliver. The auditor approval process will recognise successful completion of accredited training courses (that are based on these guideline competency standards) as meeting approval criteria for food safety program knowledge and audit skills. Where an applicant is unable to give assessors objective evidence of training, assessment against the competency standard could be used as an alternative assessment method for approval. For example, an applicant (that has not completed accredited training) may be able demonstrate experience or knowledge against all of the competencies outlined in the standard through work or experience. Competency-based assessment could also be used to demonstrate compliance with the processing knowledge. 15 16 AN AUDIT SYSTEM Once auditors are approved, the State and Territory Health Departments will be responsible for monitoring the performance of the auditor in the workplace. The competency standard can be used for this purpose. State and Territory Health Departments will need to outline this process in their audit management system, which is discussed in Section 7 of this paper. Role of State or Territory Governments State and Territory Governments should consistently adopt the auditor approval criteria outlined in this paper. 5.5 Approval of food safety auditors Responsibility for approval of food safety auditors for regulatory purposes will sit with the State and Territory Health Departments; however, the assessment process can be delegated to another body. There are several provisions within the draft Model Food Act for the approval of auditors, including approval conditions and provision for appeals against approval decisions. ANZFA has been working closely with State and Territory Governments to develop a consistent approach to approval of existing authorised officers during the implementation period of the audit system. ANZFA has proposed that ‘grandfathering’ be used initially to utilise the expertise that already exists within local government. 5.5.1 The assessment process The importance of the assessment of food safety auditors must be recognised in ensuring the integrity of the audit system. To ensure that the auditor competency criteria are applied consistently and effectively across State and Territory boundaries it is important to have a national set of criteria for assessing and approving auditors, and to have a process and method of assessment that is rigorous and consistent. The best means of achieving a rigorous and consistent approach to approval is for State and Territory Health Departments to delegate the assessment of food safety auditors to an appropriately accredited personnel certification body. The approval body should be accredited against the requirements of EN 45013 — General criteria for certification bodies operating certification of personnel. 4 5.5.2 The advantages of using an international standard The use of the internationally recognised standard EN 45013 as the assessment body standard provides the following advantages: 1. being based on internationally accepted practice it is defensible to government, the public and the media in terms of rigour and effectiveness; 4 The use of this standard allows for any body that meets the standard to offer certification of auditors. There are currently two bodies accredited to the standard EN 45013 by JAS-ANZ. However, the Quality Society of Australasia is the only body currently assessing the competence of auditors. AN AUDIT SYSTEM 2. certified auditors have a qualification that is ‘transportable’, i.e. it will have credibility outside their current field of employment; 3. there is transparency of process; 4. there is scope for the assessment body to be government or non-government; 5. there is scope for different bodies to have different processes for the assessment of applicants, provided they can demonstrate effectiveness and equivalent outcomes; 6. there is scope for contestability, i.e. applicants can choose their certification body on the grounds of, for example, geography, fee structure or process; and 7. auditor certification under the auspices of accreditation by the Joint Accreditation System of Australia and New Zealand (JAS-ANZ)5 has the potential to lead to international recognition and improved employment prospects. EN 45013 includes requirements for the assessment body to ensure that there is impartiality and integrity in the assessment process. This is achieved through the involvement of all interested stakeholders in the management of the certification body, usually through membership of the governing board or a technical advisory committee. Figure 2 shows the steps involved in the approval process. 5.5.3 Re-approval of auditors A process for the ongoing re-assessment of auditors, based on the maintenance of competence, should be implemented by State and Territory authorities. It is recommended that re-approval is required once every two years. Role of State or Territory Governments State and Territory Governments should establish a rigorous, consistent and defensible auditor approval process. To achieve this, it is recommended that responsibility for the assessment process of food safety auditors be delegated to an appropriately accredited personnel certification body. The assessment process should be against the nationally consistent approval criteria adopted by all jurisdictions. A process for re-assessing auditors should also be implemented. 5 The Joint Accreditation System of Australia and New Zealand was established in 1991 by a Treaty between the Governments of Australia and New Zealand, to be the accreditation body, in both countries, for certifiers of management systems, personnel and products. It is a not-for-profit organisation that is funded from the fees that it charges for its services. 17 18 AN AUDIT SYSTEM Figure 2 The approval process JAS-ANZ ACCREDITS (examines competence, impartiality and integrity of process) AUDITOR CERTIFICATION BODIES Comply with EN 45013 plus JAS-ANZ and the regulator’s requirements MoU Assess, certify and make recommendations REGULATORS Responsible for final approval of auditors under the draft Model Food Act AUDITORS APPROVED (comply with auditor approval criteria) * MoU stands for memorandum of Understanding or agreement between the bodies (in some circumstances a contract may be more appropriate) MoU*