Our Stakeholders

Objectives

Performance

Highlights

Overview

Regulation works best in a climate where all interested parties have a respect for the integrity of the processes and procedures involved in the decision making.   To an extent, all Australians and New Zealanders are stakeholders in the food regulatory system because we are all consumers.   We recognise, however, that certain groups within the community have a professional interest in the system over and above their concerns as citizens.  

We have tended to regard these people and their affiliated bodies as our stakeholders. They are the food industry, food regulators at all levels of government, public health professionals, consumer advocates and so on.   However, the Australian Public Service Commission (APSC), in its State of the Service Report 2005-06, has drawn attention to areas ‘where a more active engagement with the community can benefit the Government in achieving successful outcomes’.  

The APSC highlighted an OECD report, Citizens as Partners:  Information, Consultation and Public Participation in Policy Making [2001], which describes a range of concrete measures and principles for strengthening the relationship between governments and their citizens.   This report outlines three levels of citizen involvement:

Information:   a one-way relationship, where governments produce and disseminate information to citizens.

Consultation:   a two-way relationship where citizens provide feedback to government.

Active participation:   a relationship based on partnership with government, where citizens engage in defining policy content and process.

In an ideal world, of course, we would aspire to maximise citizen participation in all our processes.   However, the FSANZ Act charges us with the responsibility of being the final arbiter on food standards, subject to Ministerial Council endorsement.   Consensus, while desirable, is sometimes not achievable. Once we are satisfied that we are in possession of arguments from all relevant quarters, and an appropriate evidence base, we must determine a course of action in the interests of the wider community.

In reaching such decisions, we will always err on the side of caution on food safety matters.  Our conservative approach has served us, and the community, well since 1991.  Australia and New Zealand have one of the safest food supplies in the world.

Nevertheless, mindful of the APSC’s encouragement for agencies and departments to reconsider their relationships with the community, particularly the role of direct citizen involvement in aspects of regulatory decision making, we have begun an evaluation of our consultation processes.   This year, we took the first step:   a benchmark survey of our external committee members to identify their level of satisfaction with our performance and to explore issue about FSANZ’s wider consultation processes.

Survey of external FSANZ committee members

We commissioned the consultants Colmar Brunton Social Research to carry out two surveys of FSANZ committee members.   The first was a qualitative survey, by telephone, of 25 committee members, selected from a pool of about 210 people serving on committees.   This survey explored people’s views about our consultation processes, including the number of committees they may be working with, and the time and expense that they devote to helping us with our work.

The second survey was a quantitative on-line questionnaire sent to all 210 committee members, from 15 committees.   The committees were a mix of advisory groups and expert scientific panels.   We wanted to obtain a measure of the overall satisfaction levels of the volunteers in terms of their committee experience and our performance in providing them with that experience.

As shown in Figure 5, 74% of members were satisfied with their FSANZ committee experience during 2006-07, while 11% were dissatisfied.    They expressed about the same levels of satisfaction and dissatisfaction with the level of support offered by FSANZ.   This translates into a Satisfaction Index of 6.8 (out of 10) – a key performance indicator for our future committee work, which we will convey to the FSANZ Board.

According to the consultants, satisfaction appears to correlate inversely with length of time spent on a committee, especially for people who have been members for more than two years.   There is a suggestion that those committee members who represent private consumers have a higher level of satisfaction than those who represent other groups.  

Figure 6 provides a breakdown of satisfaction against various aspects of committee life.   Respondents were most satisfied with the expertise of the committee chair and other committee members, and information provided by FSANZ.   Least favoured aspects included the timeliness of information provided by FSANZ and our responsiveness to committee advice.   We will analyse this, and other, feedback more closely over the next few months.

AR_07_figure5

AR_07_figure6

We were also able to obtain information on the time spent by members on committee work (average 5 days a year) and the financial cost of representation, either personal or to organisations (average $1,776 a year).   Some 3% of members spent more than 20 days on committee activities and 9% put the cost of their participation at $5,000 - $20,000.

Community involvement

As described in the previous section of this report, from 1 October 2007 FSANZ will be implementing a changed process for amending the Food Standards Code.   A key feature of the new arrangements is that most Applications will be finalised within 9 months instead of the current 12 months.  This truncated procedure will be achieved by requiring one period of public consultation in place of the present two.  

This change, at first glance, may give an impression that community involvement in food standards setting is being reduced.   This is not so.   In fact, for some of the more contentious changes to the Code, FSANZ may hold two or more rounds of consultation.  It will depend on the availability of the scientific and other evidence, agreement on the implications of that evidence, the complexity of the project and the degree and strength of conflicting views among stakeholders.

We regard community involvement as an integral part of the standard-setting process, not an optional extra.   It is the means by which we remain grounded in the aspirations of industry and consumers.   It is the means by which we, as public servants, can translate government policy into a tangible contribution to people’s lives.

Moreover, it is the process that enables us to view a problem – a regulatory issue – through the eyes of someone who is not a government official.   This is important for any regulator who wishes to be not only relevant in the ‘real world’, but also aware of changing external environments.   The food regulatory system does not and cannot act in a vacuum.

Advisory committees

The development of primary production standards and regulatory measures that have public health consequences for the population at large, or significant sub groups, require an input from many sources.   Advice from these sources improves the evidence base that we draw upon when making regulatory decisions.   We therefore maintain a number of advisory groups and expert scientific panels to augment the knowledge of our in-house teams.  

These advisory committees may meet only infrequently.   However, they provide technical advice when asked and scrutinise strategies and key reports at various stages of the standard development process:

AR_07_advisorycommittee

Consumer Liaison Committee

The Consumer Liaison Committee met four times in 2006-07. It currently comprises fourteen members, including representatives from the Australian Consumers Association and the New Zealand Consumer Association, a representative of the National Council of Women for both Australia and New Zealand (commencing in 2007-08), and ten ‘grassroots’ consumers.

Members raised a number of consumer issues with FSANZ, including issues they have become aware of through their local communities, networks and other consultative mechanisms.   Members were actively involved in discussions on the latest food trends and consumer concerns, by teleconferences and email. Among the issues discussed were mandatory fortification of folic acid and iodine, traffic light labelling, ‘use by’ and ‘best before’ date marking and the use of social and consumer research in the standard setting process.

We expanded the committee during the year to ensure inclusion of key consumer communities from Australia and New Zealand. We have successfully invited representatives from the National Council of Women of Australia and the National Council of Women of New Zealand and we are in the process of engaging an Indigenous Australian and a Maori/Pacific Islander from New Zealand.  

Kahui Kounga Kai (Maori reference group)

The Kahui Kounga Kai is the Maori reference group for FSANZ.  Its role is to provide input and expert advice from a Maori perspective on food standards matters.  The group consists of Maori prominent in public health, nutrition and the food industry in New Zealand.  In August 2006, we recruited a new staff member (‘Kaitautoko’ or administration support person) to liaise between the Kahui Kounga Kai and the Maori community and to progress the work of the group.

The Kahui Kounga Kai has identified standards issues of importance to Maori and made a submission on the mandatory fortification of food with iodine.  It has also expanded and refined the Maori Network Database, established in 2003, to enable more effective consultation with the Maori community.  

In February, the reference group undertook strategic planning for 2007– 09.  Planning outcomes that are currently being progressed include the development of an operations guide, procedural documents and a communication plan for the Kahui, the latter to be used to communicate key messages about food-related issues to Maori stakeholders via print media, radio, website, and newsletters.

Food Additives Seminar Series

During the year, we experimented with a new approach to sharing information on food additives used in food with interested parties, especially with community and consumer organisations, industry bodies and interested academics.

We organised a pilot ‘Food Additives Forum’ in December in the form of a teleconference and web-based seminar focusing on benzoates and sulphites. Twelve external participants joined us from Australia and New Zealand. They represented the Dietitians’ Association of Australia, Food Intolerance Network, Sanitarium, Additive Alert, New Zealand Food Safety Authority, Australian Food and Grocery Council, as well as members of the FSANZ Consumer Liaison Committee and Kahui Kounga Kai.

We recorded the seminar and transformed the content, including the discussions, into an audio-visual presentation accessible through our website.  Feedback from participants was positive, so we organised a second seminar in May, using the same technology, on intense sweeteners.

Public register

Applications, assessment reports, submissions and other information relating to an Application or Proposal to vary the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code are placed on our Public Register, unless we have agreed they are commercial-in-confidence.  

In the past year, 26 formal requests to examine public register files were made, dealing with 19 Applications and Proposals.  The requests were made by:  industry ( 8 ); government agencies ( 5 ); private individuals (1); educational institutions ( 0 ); community, consumer or non-profit organisations (2); consultants and legal ( 10 ); and media ( 0 ).

Community Forums

We held a Community Forum for stakeholders associated with a meeting of the FSANZ Board in Adelaide in July 2006.   It was not well attended and so the Board has decided to explore other means of engaging with industry and other sectors interested in the work of FSANZ.

back | next  | Annual Report home