Queensland's Mine Safety Framework Consultation Regulator Impact Statement submission form

i

Introduction

The questions in this submission form cover the main proposals and are prompts to assist you with your response. You do not have to answer every question and additional comments are welcomed.

We ask you for a few contact details, to assist us with our analysis, but you do not have to provide any contact or background details you do not want to provide.

Please see the last page of this submission form for ways to send your submission to the Department of Natural Resources and Mines (DNRM).

Consultation closes at 5pm 11 November 2013.

DNRM will post the names of organisations and individuals and their written submissions on the DNRM and/or Consult Queensland websites. However, individuals may indicate below whether confidentiality of name or submission or both is requested.

(Yes) I do not give permission for my name to be published but my submission may be published.

( ) I do not give permission for my submission to be published but my name may be published among the list of those making submissions.

( ) I do not give permission for either my name or submission to be published.

Your name and/or submission may be requested under the Right to Information Act 2009 but any request for confidentiality above will be taken into account when DNRM respond to any requests for information under that Act.

Contact details

Name:

Address:

Email:

Organisation:

Position:

- 1 -

Questions

I am making this submission:

( Yes ) as an individual

( ) on behalf of a group or organisation (please specify) _____________________________

( ) other (please specify) ___________________________

Are you one of the following?

( ) Mining company officer or chief executive officer

( ) Coal operator

( ) Site Senior Executive - coal

( ) Underground Mine Manager - coal

( ) Site Senior Executive - metalliferous

( ) Underground Mine Manager - metalliferous

( ) Mine manager or operator – metalliferous

( ) Quarry manager or operator

(Yes) Mine worker directly employed – coal

( ) Industry safety and health representative

(Yes) Site safety and health representative

( ) District worker representative

( ) Mine worker contractor - coal

( ) Mine worker directly employed - metalliferous

( ) Mine worker contractor metalliferous

( ) Mine worker directly employed - quarry

( ) Mine worker contractor - quarry

( ) Mining industry association

( ) Union employee

( ) Union representative

( ) Member of mining community

( ) University representative

( ) Industry training organisation

( ) Government employee

( Yes ) Other: Open Cut Examiner

Background

The following lists the main proposals covered in the Queensland's Mine Safety Framework (QMSF) Consultation RIS. The proposals are covered briefly in the executive summary and in further detail in Appendix E on the QMSF Consultation RIS.

Key initiatives from the non-core options include:

1. improved contractor management 2. existing critical safety positions becoming statutory positions 3. improved risk management planning for high risk activities 4. safety and health management systems for opal or gem mines 5. improved stonedusting and use of explosion barriers.

Proposed provisions from the Model WHS Act that would add additional rigour and consistency include:

6. changes applying to executive officers 7. penalties and offences and imprisonment provisions 8. rights to appeal through the court system (identified options are subject to further

consultation) 9. additional possible court orders following a prosecution 10. longer limitation period for prosecutions 11. obligations of designers, constructors, erectors and demolishers 12. protection from reprisal provisions (identified options are subject to further consultation) 13. entry to any workplace for inspectors.

Other proposals identified by Queensland based stakeholders as local issues through the June 2012 consultation process or they were identified by DNRM through other consultation processes include:

14. clarifying the directive given by safety representatives and inspectors about an unacceptable level of risk or the alternative proposal that safety representatives will have a role in the notification of potential risks but will not be able to issue a directive to suspend operations

15. election process for site safety and health representatives 16. fitness for work (coal mines) 17. issues related to mine plans for abandoned mines 18. removing the requirement for coal mines to submit mine plans at the end of each

calendar year 19. refocusing the Coal Mine Workers’ Health Scheme 20. increasing the number of industry safety and health representatives 21. manufacturers and suppliers to inform the Mines Inspectorate in the event of a

hazardous aspect or defect in equipment supplied 22. implementing Ombudsman recommendations about a confidential complaints system.

Instructions

Please provide examples or data to support your responses where possible. Please also refer to the page numbers within the QMSF Consultation RIS you are commenting on, if you are not directly responding to the questions below.

Non-core NMSF initiatives:

1. improved contractor management

Do you agree with the proposed approach? If not, what changes do you suggest and why?

Yes, referring to p85 Appendix E. – How is it intended to allow SSHR inspections to

cover contractor work areas? Will SSHR’s be excluded from inspecting these areas?

For non-mining contract work i.e. constructing a new building, is it intended to

incorporate these works into the proposed contractor Health and Safety Work Plan? If

not what controls or legislation will cover hazards associated with these works?

2. existing critical safety positions becoming statutory positions

Do you agree with the proposals? If not, what changes do you suggest and why?

Yes

Can you please suggest how long the transitional period should be for particular positions and why?

12 months – If a person in this position they will easily be able obtain the certification

for the job they are doing now within 12 months. They will already know the law and will

easily be able to do an exam on statutory position.

Do you agree with the recommendation of the Coal Mining Safety and Health Advisory Committee that statutory position holders be directly employed and not engaged as contractors, or alternatively that they generally work exclusively for a mine (for example, 85% of the time). Would this be practical if they also, at times work across the operator’s mines covering leave and absences as required?

Yes, I agree that they should be employed directly. I do not agree that at times they

work across the operator’s mines. Each mine should have suitable qualified people in

house to cover for leave after all its these statutory roles that are mentioned as being

a factor in reducing injuries now and proposed to reduce in the future. The big open cut

mines are too big to have someone coming in for covering leave and absences as required

it will create risk that is not as low as reasonably achievable as per the act and regs now

money to train these people should be freely available. If they are allowed to be vacant is

it then acceptable to increase the injury likelihood during these times? In any case the

risk assessment would require review due to the changes in controls.

Further information is in Appendix E of the QMSF Consultation RIS under Recent Queensland proposals in the Statutory Positions section. Please provide any information about practical considerations.

3. improved risk management planning for high risk activities

Do you agree with the proposed approach and list of high risk activities? If not, what changes do you suggest and why?

Yes

4. safety and health management systems for opal or gem mines

Do you agree with the proposed approach? If not, what changes do you suggest and why?

5. improved stonedusting and use of explosion barriers.

Do you agree with the proposed approach? If not, what changes do you suggest and why?

Proposals from the Model WHS Act that would add additional rigour and consistency:

6. changes applying to executive officers

Do you agree with the proposed approach? If not, what changes do you suggest and why?

7. penalties and offences and imprisonment provisions

Do you agree with the proposed approach? If not, what changes do you suggest and why?

8. rights to appeal through the court system (identified options are subject to further consultation)

Which option do you prefer? Please suggest why you prefer that option.

9. additional possible court orders following a prosecution

Do you agree with the proposals? If not, what changes do you suggest and why?

10. longer limitation period for prosecutions

Do you agree with the proposals? If not, what changes do you suggest and why?

11. obligations of designers, constructors, erectors and demolishers

Do you agree with the proposals? If not, what changes do you suggest and why?

12. protection from reprisal provisions (identified options are subject to further consultation)

Which option do you prefer? Please suggest why you prefer that option.

13. entry to any workplace for inspectors.

Do you agree with the proposal? If not, what changes do you suggest and why?

Local proposals

14. clarifying the directive given by safety representatives and inspectors about an unacceptable level of risk or the alternative proposal that safety representatives will have a role in the notification of potential risks but will not be able to issue a directive to suspend operations

Do you agree with either proposal? If not, what changes do you suggest and why?

No.

There will be more pressure put on the SSHR on site to enforce their powers under 99

(5) (6) and 101. The company already intimidates and undermines the efforts of the

SSHRs now.

Example: An SSHR issued a 101 to an SSE on a very serious, pressing issue. Without the 101 being resolved, potential for multiple fatalities was imminent. The SSE was

arrogant and self-righteous in his response towards the purpose of the 101. Instead of

being proactive in resolving a potential catastrophe which most certainly would have

ended in multiple deaths, injuries and the SSE finding himself behind bars for his lack

of duty of care, he asked the SSHR to make sure he had legal advice before the 101

was put in place. Ignoring the SSE’s attempt to threaten the lives of multiple coal mine

workers/innocent victims by not taking seriously the issue of the 101, the SSHR issued

the 101 in good faith and was acting inside the laws, powers and functions under QLD

Act99-101. The company then asked for the removal of this SSHR for exercising his

powers and functions outside of the law…….upon the investigation, the inspectorate

found that, the SSHR had done the right thing in issuing the 101 and issued a directive

to the company to train the SSHR’s to a higher level than S1, 2 & 3. A level no less than

their current supervisors.

Training to this level has still not occurred….2-3 years later. This shows that, the

companies have no interest in training the SSHR’s to a standard where they can

exercise their powers and functions and protect those that have the right to go home

safely at the end of every shift. If the ISHR’s current powers and functions are taken

away, it will only allow companies to place more stress and intimidation attacks on to the

SSHR’s on site as they are company employees. ISHR’s are an invaluable resource of

strength and reassurance that SSHR’s rely on as a neutral party that only deals in

safety matters, not industrial politics.

The reduction in powers of an ISHR to suspend operations and also only allow directives

when onsite is not acceptable. The ISHRs provide a valuable support role to SSHRs who

at times struggle to improve safety when consulting with senior management teams. It

would also impose an extra cost and burden on the union to have ISHRs visit site for

every directive. These proposed changes reduce the ability of ISHRs and SSHRs to

effectively support all coal mine workers. This proposal is in contrast to the general

theme provided in the RIS for Queensland not to reduce safety and standards.

15. election process for site safety and health representatives

Do you agree with the proposed change to the election process? If not, what changes do you suggest and why?

No, leave as is – With little information provided about what the changes are in this

RIS, I cannot support changes. The RIS mentions on page xiii that the changes are

proposed to the regulation so that an SSE can run the election. I assume the proposal is

to remove the chief inspector and replace with SSE and remove the involved union in

Part 2B s12L of the CMSHR2001. This may then end in an objection by a coal mine

worker and thus cause the election to be run by the Australian Electoral Commission. If

mines go down this path the mines should picks up the cost. The Unions have the people

trained by the Australian Electoral Commission now and are happy to run the elections

in accordance with the commission. The company’s just don’t want to use them!

16. fitness for work (coal mines)

Do you agree with the proposed approach for fitness for work? If not, what changes do you suggest and why?

No – The changes proposed do not match the theme of being proactive that the state

has adopted as mentioned in this RIS. Allowing a SSE to finalise fitness provisions

without agreement opens the door for SSE’s to remove unfit employees by using

doctors that are on the company pay roll. The doctors should be independent. Where

there is a dispute. The government should have panel of doctors who are independent of

all mining companies for anonymity to resolve the dispute. From employment as a

control to a hazard which is a post problem solution. Yet it’s the lack of control or

proactive approach that has allowed an employee who was once fit for work to then be

unfit for work. I feel the current provisions are adequate and it is the mine operators

that need to bite the bullet and put resources into maintaining employee’s fitness e.g.

By training CMWs in Whole of Body Vibration.

17. issues related to mine plans for abandoned mines

Do you agree with the proposed approach? If not, what changes do you suggest and why?

18. removing the requirement for coal mines to submit mine plans at the end of each calendar year

Do you support removing this requirement? If not, what changes do you suggest and why?

19. refocusing the Coal Mine Workers’ Health Scheme

Do you support the refocusing of the Coal Mine Workers’ Health Scheme? If not, what changes do you suggest and why?

20. increasing the number of industry safety and health representatives

Do you agree with the proposal under consideration to increase the number to four? If not, what changes do you suggest and why?

21. manufacturers and suppliers to inform the Mines Inspectorate in the event of a hazardous aspect or defect in equipment supplied

Do you agree with the proposals? If not, what changes do you suggest and why?

22. implementing Ombudsman recommendations about a confidential complaints system.

Do you agree with the proposal to develop a confidential complaint system similar to that in the aviation industry?

Yes

In appendix E pages 54 -57 the authors of the RIS have referred to Professor James

Reason and put forward support for increasing the number of qualified statutory

positions, this is to be commended. Mining statutes recognize caliber and status of the statutory position holder and create

the platform for safety measures to be watched, worried about, tuned and adjusted. At the coal face it’s the safety and health departments that are tasked with managing

the systems. I feel to promote the next stage of reducing the injury rate legislation

needs to require an increase in lower level data collection that will try and predict

problem areas to be addressed. Analysis of root causes and the requirement to focus on

the most problematic areas could show trends for individual sites then collectively show

trends for all sites. For example looking at ICAM recommendations and counting the

number that refer to changes required to maintenance systems if this is high compared

to changes required to management systems then the focus should be bias towards

maintenance.

Do you have any other suggestions regarding existing legislation that if amended or deleted would improve the safety and health of mineworkers?

General comments

To assist us in processing you general comments, could you please reference the page number of the QMSF Consultation RIS document you wish to refer too and insert your comments adjacent to the page number.

You can submit this form

Online

You can submit your feedback online using the online version of this form located on the Get

involved website <https://www.getinvolved.qld.gov.au>.

By mail

Mine Safety Consultation RIS Safety and Health Department of Natural Resources and Mines PO Box 15126 City East Queensland 4002

By Fax

(07) 3237 1242

By E-mail

Where possible, submissions should be lodged in Microsoft Word or other text based formats.

nmsf@dnrm.qld.gov.au

E-mailed responses should include the words “Mine Safety RIS” in the subject line.

Feedback on the Mine Safety National Framework Regulatory Impact Statement document

should be provided online, by mail, fax or e-mail to be received by the Department by no later

than 5 pm 11 November 2013.