INTRODUCTION

Purpose

This paper summarises the public feedback on the discussion paper: Improving health and safety hazard management in the underground mining industry, and identifies submitters' preferred options for improvement.

The Government will use the feedback gained from this consultation to develop further measures to improve health and safety hazard management systems in the underground mining industry.

Background

Review of the underground mining health and safety framework

The public consultation process followed the Department of Labour's review of the legislative and regulatory framework for underground mining. The review's context is the inherently hazardous nature of underground mining and its potential for catastrophic events, and public concern arising from two fatalities in 2006.

The review identified that the performance-based approach under the Health and Safety in Employment (HSE) Act 1992 is essentially sound, but there is an opportunity to improve the regulatory framework.

The framework includes the HSE Act and the two mining-specific regulations (a full outline of the framework is set out in Appendix 1):

• the HSE (Mining Administration) Regulations 1996, which require certificates of competence for managing and supervising underground mining operations, and
• the HSE (Mining - Underground) Regulations 1999, which describe processes for managing hazards and require certain records and notifications

The department's review of the current framework identified several problems:

• the way hazards are managed varies across workplaces, and the HSE Act and regulations do not provide systems/process support on how to comply
• the Mining Underground Regulations are performance-based, and some underground mines - particularly smaller mines - may have trouble deciding how best to comply
• a lack of procedural guidance on employee participation leaves underground mining potentially open to commercial pressures and day-to-day worksite management decisions
• managers in charge of smaller mines can be less qualified than managers in charge of larger mines even though the mining hazards are the same, and
• the tight labour market means fewer workers experienced in hazard management are available.

Underground mining is a very small sector, with only a few operators and around 300-350 total employees (a summary of the industry profile is set out in Appendix 2).

Public discussion paper on underground mining

To address the problems, a discussion paper for public consultation was put out in March 2008, to gather mining industry feedback on problems and solutions. The discussion paper contained a number of options, some of which can be achieved under the current regulatory framework and others that would require amendment to primary legislation, or the passing of specialised legislation. The paper anticipated that there may need to be a combination of preferred options.

To encourage comprehensive industry involvement, the discussion paper contained enough detail and practical examples to inform stakeholders and gather feedback, yet was broad so as not to stifle stakeholders' ideas. The following options were not formed proposals with costings, and further consultation would be needed should any regulatory change be proposed:

• safety case regime - regulates to require operators to document their safety management systems and gain approval from the department before they operate. The systems would include such things as: safety policy, processes for assessing risks, performance standards to measure the effectiveness of the system, and major hazard management plans
• controls on high risk activities - regulates for one or more of:
  • licensing - to require a license before carrying out high risk activities, and/or
  • third-party monitoring/supervision - regulating third-party monitoring/supervision by requiring supervision of high risk activities by an appropriately qualified person, and/or
  • notification- expanding the current notification requirements in the Mining Underground Regulations (i.e. notification of commencement and cessation of operations, and installation of shafts and windings), by requiring notification to the department before carrying out high risk activities, allowing the department to conduct checks
• health and safety management systems and major hazard management plans - regulates to require a documented health and safety system and hazard management plans from the outset. The systems would include the same things as the safety case option
• increased supporting guidance/ACOP - increased supporting guidance including an ACOP, which would cover technical standards, and could also set out the elements of a health and safety management system and hazard management plans
• extending coverage of the Mining Underground Regulations - extends the Mining Underground Regulations to include further technical standards, covering any gaps in the existing provisions.
• amending the Mining Administration Regulations - amends the Mining Administration Regulations to raise the required competency for managing small mines.
• employee participation requirements - regulating for elected worker check inspectors^[1], or a mining sector ACOP on employee participation, and
• health and safety inspector visits - regulating the frequency and nature of inspector visits.

Overview of Submitters

Submitter categories and perspectives

The department received 17 submissions on the underground mining discussion paper. The following table shows the submitters by category (see Appendix 3 for more submitter details (note that the report identifies individual, non-business submitters by letter):

Category	Submitter	No
Large employers	Solid Energy	10
	Pike River Coal	15
	Newmont Waihi Gold	14
Medium/small employers	Roa Mining	17
Sector groups	MinEx	9
	NZISM	12
	EMA	11
Ancillary service providers	McConnell Dowell	7
	Mr King	2
	Mr Stewart	3
Interested individuals	Submitter A	1
	Mr B	4
Unions	EPMU	6
	NZCTU	13
Workers	Mr C	8
	Mr D	16
Crown	Crown Minerals	5

The submissions provide a range of views, with different perspectives and levels of knowledge. The categories of submitter indicate their broad perspective, i.e. whether from an employer/business (operator) perspective, or a worker perspective:

• the majority of submissions, 10 out of 17, have more of a business/operator perspective (comprising employers, sector groups (including MinEx) and ancillary service providers), and
• four have a worker perspective (unions and the two workers)

Another perspective issue is that a number of submitters were connected in some way with the two fatalities in 2006. This was almost inevitable given the small size of the sector, and the department has been sensitive to this dimension in the analysis.

---