Submitter preferences

Problem clarification

Analysis of submitter feedback clarified that there were two problems where health and safety hazard management could be improved in the underground mining industry.

Smaller mines have variable safety practices

• A known problem of the performance-based model is that small businesses have a "structural vulnerability" from lack of resources and management expertise^[2]. The 2006 fatalities indicated that the mining industry faces these problems. The following causes were identified:
• there is little process-based prescription or guidance to support the general duties in the HSE Act or the more generic processes in the Mining Underground Regulations
• the managerial qualification for small mines (under eight workers) should be higher as the risk is the same, regardless of mine size
• there is a lack of supporting technical guidance, and
• a potential need for increased inspector visits.

Employee participation

• Mine workers and unions considered that existing employee participation arrangements did not sufficiently protect workers given the risks they take in working in underground mines.

Submitters' preferred options

The options preferred by submitters were:

• Both employer and employer/worker submitters overwhelmingly want to maintain the performance-based through the HSE Act, and do not want a return to prescription. Most submitters accepted the value of reviewing the underground mining regulatory framework, although one submitter (EMA Northern) did not see a case for separate treatment for underground mining.
• Most submitters support a "package" of approaches rather than a single solution.
• Submitters provided the following feedback for improving safety, especially to improve safety practice in smaller mines:
• there was good support for better documentation for health and safety management systems, especially so that smaller mines have clearer and more consistent practices, and there was a secondary preference for a mandatory element to this documentation
• there was good support for improving competency through:
  • amendment to the competency of small mine managers, by raising the competency required for managing small mines in the HSE (Mining Administration) Regulations 1996, and
  • exploring other ways to improve competency of those working in underground mining
• There was good support for improving management of high risk activities by providing increased supporting guidance or an ACOP for technical standards
• Several submitters supported increased inspectorate resourcing, but only one considered this should be regulated.
• Submitters sought coordination with mine reporting processes under the Crown Minerals Act.
• It was not possible to determine a preferred option on employee participation from submissions, as these were very polarised. However, in terms of the principles of good regulation, regulating for check inspectors would have to be weighed alongside the status quo (encouraging parties to use the flexible employee participation arrangements under the HSE Act in good faith), and a mining-specific employee participation ACOP.

Summary of submitter feedback

Options context

Options for health and safety systems

There are three different options for ensuring that mines have clear and consistent health and safety management systems. These three options are alternatives that would enhance the systematic identification and management of hazards already required by the general duty in the HSE Act. The three options range from a high level of regulatory requirement down to providing clearer process guidance, as follows:

• regulating for documentation and approval - a safety case regime requires operators to document their safety management systems and gain approval from the department before they operate
• regulating for documentation - requires a documented health and safety system and hazard management plans from the outset, or
• providing guidance - provides increased supporting guidance or an ACOP setting out the elements of a health and safety management system and hazard management plans. (This option can be an alternative to regulating, and can also provide additional and more detailed support for the contents of a regulated health and safety management system.)

Complementary options

The following options can be combined and coexist with any health and safety management system (the status quo or one of the three options above):

• regulating competency - amending the Mining Administration Regulations to raise the required competency for managing small mines/and considering other options for improving competency
• controlling high risk activities -
  • prescribing standards - extending the Mining Underground Regulations to include further technical standards
  • regulatory controls - requiring high risk activities to be licensed, supervised and/or notified (these options were all set out individually in the discussion paper)
  • providing practice guidance on technical standards - providing increased supporting guidance including an ACOP, which would cover technical standards
• improving inspection - regulating the frequency and nature of inspector visits, and
• improving employee participation - regulating for elected worker check inspectors, or a mining sector ACOP on employee participation.

Preferred health and safety management system options

• Nine submitters supported improved health and safety management systems (Solid Energy, Newmont Waihi Gold, MinEx, NZISM, EMA, ancillary service providers, individual submitter A).

Submitters preferred regulating for a documented health and safety management system, but also supported using guidance or an ACOP: