Australasian Mine Safety is the leading voice for all key decision makers within Mining company's and major contractors. Delivering the latest industry news as it breaks.
Issue link: http://ebook.aprs.com.au/i/44685
Industry Q & A Products and services banner On November 19 last year New Zealand's small west coast mining town of Greymouth was rocked by the sudden death of 29 men in the Pike River coal mine, caused by a massive underground explosion. The incident, which experienced around three times that of the usual amount of workplace deaths in New Zealand per year, shocked the nation and left many questions hanging about the safety process in place at mining operations through the country. As such, a Royal Commission of Inquiry (RCI) is currently underway in a hope to discover answers to the questions left hanging. Safety I n this issue we speak with New Zealand mine safety expert Dave Feickert about the RCI and his future outlook for the country's mine safety regulations and processes. As the Royal Commission of Inquiry (RCI) moves onto phase two, are you confi dent that it is achieving it stated goals? The commission did an excellent job in phase one and I expect it to do the same in phase two. Are you confi dent that the RCI will lead to suffi cient regulation around mine site safety in New Zealand? Yes, the commission will play its part but already the government has had to act. It has re-instated the mines inspectorate with a chief inspector and two more inspectors, taking it back to the numbers of inspectors when it was abolished in the 1990s. The mines inspectorate is part of a new High Hazards Unit in the Department of Labour which includes a new chief inspector for oil, gas and geothermal industries, with more inspectors, too. Some of us have been calling for this since November 19 and to its credit the government has acted. It has in effect recognised that self regulation does not work. Bringing in a new regulatory framework will be more complex and the new chief inspector and his team will have to work with the royal commission and the industry to achieve it. This should not be rushed. What has the public perception in New Zealand been towards these proceedings? The public have been following the proceedings which have been well reported. Phase two, which will hear evidence from the families will be very harrowing for them and also the whole country, and I guess it will not be overshadowed by the Rugby World Cup. In addition a lot of evidence about how poorly prepared Pike River mine was for this accident and other safety lapses will emerge more clearly in the next few weeks, even before phase three looks at the likely cause of the fi rst explosion. In what ways was the Pike River tragedy, as you put it, "come to be seen as another market failure"? The government, as I said earlier, has recognised that self regulation does not work. The old inspectorate and regulatory framework was abolished in the 1990s and the industry was told to self-regulate. This just did not happen. It was not capable of drawing up the codes of practice required to replace regulation and companies failed to support one another in any meaningful sense. In the end, Pike River managers and men were left on their own with minimal inspector input, little support from other companies and a situation where the miners' own safety reps, the check inspectors (like those in Australian mines) had also been abolished. What outcomes are to be expected from phase two of the RCI? The commission will draw lessons for emergency planning, rescue organisation and leadership and how families of miners caught up in such a disaster should be treated. It may make comments in its fi nal report on other aspects of safety management related to the gas explosion from these hearings, too. Australia and New Zealand have been seen as having comparatively strong OH&S records, but is there anything that could be learnt from the Chinese experience? Australia has a good record but in general OHS New Zealand does not. We are at the bottom of the 6 The Australasian Mine Safety Journal Spring 2011