Underground Mining Consultation Submissions Report
Overview of Submissions
Overarching themes
Submitters overwhelmingly want to maintain the performance-based model, and do not want a return to prescription (including both employer and worker perspective submitters).
Most submitters accept the value of reviewing the underground mining regulatory framework. One submitter (EMA), however, did not see a case for separate treatment for underground mining.
Some submitters noted that the injury claims were not a good indicator of the need for change, as injury claims highlight common injuries rather than major hazard risks (which are low probability/high consequence).
Strengthening of the regulatory framework for a documented health and safety management system is the most supported type of change.
Most submitters support a "package" of approaches rather than a single solution.
Submitters were polarised on employee participation, and whether to regulate for check inspectors. Worker perspective submitters see check inspectors as a small change and the most effective solution for improving safety in underground mining, whereas employer perspective submitters see check inspectors as overly prescriptive and inconsistent with the performance-based approach.
Support for change/extent of change
Almost all the submitters accept the value of reviewing the underground mining regulatory framework. Only two submitters considered there was no real problem. Solid Energy did not consider a review was justified by the injury evidence. They were happy with the existing framework, but considered increased guidance could improve clarity for small operators. EMA Northern considered mining was no different from other industries, and did not need separate treatment.
All submitters support some degree of change. All employer, sector, ancillary and union submitters support the current performance-based framework under the HSE Act. The EPMU called for "greater prescription ... where this makes sense". One individual and one worker appeared to support returning to a more "prescriptive" framework (Mssrs B and C).
The general nature of the change most submitters prefer is strengthening of the regulatory framework, usually through requiring risk-based hazard management. Four submitters support non-regulatory change, through guidance or greater resourcing of inspections (though these submitters did support the proposed amendment to the competency requirements in the Mining Administration Regulations).
The following table shows submitter preference regarding overall framework and type of change:
| Type of framework | Type of change | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Submitter | Performance | Prescriptive | Guidance | Regulation |
| Large Employers | ||||
| Solid Energy Ltd | Y | Y | ||
| Pike River Coal Ltd | Y | Y | ||
| Newmont Waihi Gold | Y | Y | ||
| Small Employers | ||||
| Roa Mining | Y | Y | ||
| Sector Groups | ||||
| MinEx | Y | Y | ||
| NZISM | Y | Y | ||
| EMA | Y | Y | ||
| Ancillary | ||||
| McConnell Dowell Ltd | Y | Y | ||
| Mr King | Y | Y | ||
| Mr Stewart | Y | Y | ||
| Individuals | ||||
| Submitter A | Y | Y | ||
| Mr B | Y | Y | ||
| Unions | ||||
| EPMU | Y | Y | ||
| NZCTU | Y | Y | ||
| Workers | ||||
| Mr C | Y | Y | ||
| Mr D | Y | Y | ||
Mixed options
Most submitters indicated that a mix of options is needed. The following table summarises each submitter's preferred option, and the mix of options supported:
| Submitter | Preferred Option | Options Supported |
|---|---|---|
| Large employers | ||
| Solid Energy | Guidance | Increase guidance (hazard management plans already required under HSE Act) |
| Pike River Coal | Competency | Strengthen competency requirements; hazard management; supported by detailed codes |
| Newmont Waihi Gold | Hazard management | Strengthen hazard management; support with notification and competencies |
| Small employers | ||
| Roa Mining | Resource inspectorate | Resource inspection; amend Mining Administration Regulations re manager qualification for small mines |
| Sector organisations | ||
| MinEx | Guidance | More explicit standards in a documented safety system (by guidance or regulation); support with guidance |
| NZISM | Hazard management | Require safety systems; support with consulted codes of practice |
| EMA | ACOP | Provide ACOP; establish database of mine plans; no regulatory changes, except competency, as hazard management plans are already required |
| Ancillary service providers |
||
| McConnell Dowell |
Hazard management |
Require safety management systems supported by an ACOP and guidelines |
| Mr King |
Hazard management |
Require safety management systems; support with notifications and 3rd party monitoring; possibly require safety case; increased inspection |
| Mr Stewart |
Safety case |
Require hazard management plans that are site-specific; this could be by requiring a safety case |
| Interested individuals |
||
| Submitter A |
Hazard management or ACOP |
Require mining plans (use these as a way to link licensing, notification and hazard management plans), support with ACOP and 3rd party monitoring |
| Mr B |
Resource inspectorate |
Resource inspectorate, supported by check inspectors |
| Unions |
||
| EPMU |
Check inspectors |
Require check inspectors; safety case/hazard management plans and licenses if worker consultation is built in |
| NZCTU |
Check inspectors |
Require check inspectors; consulted hazard management plans, and safety case provided workers are fully involved |
| Workers |
||
| Mr C |
Check inspectors |
Require check inspectors |
| Mr D |
Check inspectors |
Require check inspectors |
| Government |
||
| Crown Minerals |
NA |
Neutral submission, highlighting role re mine plans and commencement of work with DoL |
Small mines
One of the broad themes in this review of underground mining and in the submissions was the issue of small mines. The objective of the review was to find solutions that were suitable for small as well as large operators.
Only one smaller operator made a submission, and there were no submissions from any one or two person operations. Most submitters noted that the hazards and risks are the same regardless of mine size, but there was recognition of the need for clear and simple systems for small operators to use.