Submission on the New Zealand Government’s proposed changes to
the Health & Safety in New Zealand Mining Industry
From
Ravensdown Fertiliser Ltd
Contact Details
Name:
Craig Hendry
Address:
PO Box 499 Dunedin 9022
Email:
crh@ravensdown.co.nz
Organisation: Ravensdown Fertiliser Ltd
Position:
Lime Operations Manager
Situation:
I am making this submission on behalf
Ravensdown wish to make a submission on the NZ Governments proposed to the Health and Safety
Regulations in New Zealand Mining Industry. This is made in three parts:
1. Introduction / summary of Ravensdown
2. Executive Summary highlighting the key points of the submission
3. Full submission detail based on prompt questions in the Safe Mines: Safe Workers Discussion
Document.
Introduction
Ravensdown Fertiliser is a 100% co-operative owned by New Zealand and Australian farmers.
Ravensdown exists to optimise soil fertility and farm profitability in a sustainable way for farmers
who need to improve their productivity and lower environmental footprint. Beyond fertiliser
production, we provide a comprehensive range of key farming inputs, technical advice and
technologies at lowest sustainable cost delivered how, where and when they’re needed.
Ravensdown own and operate 10 Lime quarries throughout New Zealand operating under the brand
‘Ravensdown Lime’ supplying agriculture lime to farmers. Lime is a key element of soil fertility, used
in similar volumes to solid fertiliser throughout New Zealand. Lime is required to neutralise soil pH
which acidifies through the organic processes of growing dry matter and the application of nitrogen
based fertilisers. Maintaining optimum soil pH through the application of lime enhances the
production potential of the soil and is critical to the productivity of New Zealand farming.
Ravensdown Lime is currently a reasonably low cost product providing an effective solution to
support farming sustainability and productivity.
Ravensdown has been developing a lime supply chain throughout New Zealand since 1998, when the
first quarry was purchased. Throughout this period dedicated lime storage facilities have been built
at a number of our stores, to enable the increased distribution opportunities that this offers.
In the 2012 year, Ravensdown sold nearly 400,000 tonnes of lime products nationally. Ravensdown
is one of the single largest suppliers of agricultural lime in New Zealand.
Executive Summary
The Royal Commission on the Pike River Coal Mine Tragedy has recommended significant changes to
the health and safety regulations for mining. The New Zealand Government is committed to
implementing these recommendations by the end of this year (2013).
The Safe Mines: Safe Worker discussion documents that outline the regulatory proposals were
released for consultation in late May 2013 by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment
(The Ministry) - this submission is in reply to the consultation documents provided.
The Ministry states that the proposals are aimed at bringing health & safety in the NZ Mining
Industry in line with International best practice and that they will help create a viable mining sector
in NZ that the public can have confidence in, and which will enhance safety for workers and improve
performance in the sector.
Generally, Ravensdown support underground mining legislation reform to provide and promote a
safer mining industry in New Zealand and overall improvements in the safety for all mining,
quarrying and the extractives industry.
In essence, Ravensdown is concerned that the regulatory changes proposed by the Royal
Commission Inquiry were based on underground coal mining and mitigating recurrence of the
unfortunate events that occurred at the Pike River Tragedy. The Royal Commission had not
considered that the government would then propose the recommendations would be used to cover
all extractive industry – a number of these regulatory changes do not suit the quarries and will lead
to a large number of unintended consequences for the Quarry Industry
Key Points

The Royal Commission had not contemplated that the New Zealand Government would
introduce their recommendation to cover all extractive industries, both underground and
surface, when the report was released. The Royal Commission made its recommendations
based on underground coal mining.
= This may result in significant changes to regulations covering the quarry industry.
Many of the changes we believe are inappropriate for our industry and if
implemented, will result in substantial cost increases, particularly with additional
staff with H&S roles with little or no practical gain in terms of safety improvement.

The timeframe from releasing the recommended regulatory changes / consultation
documents through to final submission has been very tight. Although we understand many
smaller quarry operations have not had reasonable opportunity to review and consider the
implications on their own operation, Ravensdown have in the time available, considered the
proposals in the discussion documents as they affect our industry and have detailed our
responses in this submission.

Ravensdown support the improvement of safety in the quarry industry, however our
industry does not contain the same risks associated – particularly with underground mining
and certain other sectors of above ground extractive industry.
=
Accordingly we do not believe all of the new and revised safety critical roles are
appropriate or justified for quarries. The proposed new and revised safety critical
roles outlined in the table on page 29 (vol.1) clearly shows that an Electrical
Engineering Manager, Mechanical Engineering Manager & Mine Surveyor are all
required for Quarries. Ravensdown supports these positions for underground
mining, but questions their need in a Quarry. Any electrical and mechanical work
required in a quarry can be carried out by suitably qualified industrial trained
electrical and mechanical tradesmen, who operate on a contractual “as required”
hourly basis as reflects the scale of the Quarry Industry.

Ravensdown does not believe that the Queensland Coal Mining Regulations are an
“international best practice’ option for the New Zealand Surface Extractive Industry, more
especially the Quarry Industry.

Ravensdown proposes that ALL quarries (no exceptions) and not just those identified as
being “In Scope” be included in any new legislation and that the definition from the Quarry
and Tunnels Act (1982) is a much more exact definition. This would raise the H & S standard
for all quarries, not only the sites that are “in scope”.
Ravensdown believe point 11 “Quarries and tunnels out of scope” in the ‘Safe mines: Safe workers –
volume 1’ is not correct. The statement proposes that quarries out the scope i.e. not a large quarry
“are not considered hazardous enough to justify the new and more stringent requirements”. The
same hazards exist through the majority of quarries.

Ravensdown supports all quarry workers that work in a quarry or process operation
(excluding Admin staff, and customers) hold a minimum qualification. We believe that an
introductory Level 2 qualification is adequate.

Ravensdown understands the appointment of the Site Senior Executive SSE) for a site with
high employee numbers, such as an underground coal mine. However, the employee
numbers in a quarry are not sufficient for the appointment of a separate SSE and we would
propose that the site certified manager be given the training to allow the obligations of a SSE
to be met.

Ravensdown would propose that all the transition periods be changed to five years as is the
current time frame for the renewal of a Certificate of Competencies with the ITO.

Ravensdown propose that a formal registration system for quarries be implemented. This
would hold basic information on the location, type, quarry set up, employee numbers,
tonnage etc. It would be a legal requirement to start up and operate a quarry.

Ravensdown support the idea of compulsory membership to the AQA and quarries are levied
accordingly so the AQA can be adequately resourced to support and promote improved
safety within the quarry industry.
Submission Detail
(Please note that the question numbering don’t match exactly to that is the discussion document
submission template)
Broadening the Royal Commission’s recommendations: What We Propose
1. Do you agree with the proposed coverage of the mining industry? What changes would you
suggest, and why?
Ravensdown does not agree with the proposed changes to the mining industry.
The proposals contained in “Safe mines: safe workers” Volumes 1 & 2 do not, we believe, meet the
concept of best international practice for the above ground mining operations and more particularly,
in relation to the Quarry industry in New Zealand.
Quarry operations in NZ range from “hard rock” extraction through to river sand and gravel
extraction and recycling operations, through to small scale on site extractions such as forestry and
farm quarries.
As such the quarry industry in NZ is very diverse, with a large number of sites (at least several
hundred) with the numbers employed ranging in size from 2-3, through to perhaps a maximum of 30
per site, with an average of around 8.
These numbers of employees per site are considerably lower than those employed in large scale coal
mining operations in Queensland for example, on which it appears many of these proposals are
based.
The proposal to cover the mining industry as a whole in the discussion documents therefore, is
problematic and has caused some unforeseen circumstances, given the breadth, scale and variety of
activities that comprise our industry.
The risk of multiple fatalities such as those present in underground coal mining including fire and
explosions, gas out bursts, spontaneous combustion, winding operations etc. are not present in
quarrying operations therefore, should not be subjected to the same level of prescriptive regulatory
control.
In the discussion documents the definition of a “Principal Hazard” is one where there is the potential
for “multiple fatalities”. It is the understanding of the Quarry Industry that there has never been a
“multiple fatality” in any quarry for at least the past 30 years - if not longer.
We also note that the Queensland regulations recognise the difference between coal mining -The
Coal Mining Safety and Health Act 1999 (Aust.) and the Coal Mining and Safety and Health
Regulations 2001 (Aust.) and other forms of mining relevant to our industry, with the Mining and
Quarrying Health and Safety act 1999(Aust.) and the Mining and Quarrying Safety and Health
Regulations 2001 (Aust.)
Similarly, previous NZ regulations such as the “Tunnels and Quarries” Act 1982 and the “Quarries
Regulations” (1983) recognised the differences between coal mining and quarrying, as do the long
standing UK Mines and Quarries Act.
We note the definitions for mining, quarrying and tunnels have now been carried over into the draft
Act which our industry supports.
While this may lead to some duplication, it will enable legislators to make it clear as to what the
rules are for each sector.
2.
In particular, do you agree with the proposed features for tunnels and quarries that would be
covered by the new regulatory framework? What changes would you suggest, and why?
No.
While there are some similarities across the greater extractive industry, particularly those above
ground, in practice there are distinct differences in each sector, recognised by long standing
precedent, both in NZ and internationally, in both regulations and in industry practice, as noted in
(1) above.
There are no tunnels in the quarrying industry.
The Table on page 29, Vol. 1 of the discussion document, does not distinguish such factors that are
required in each. However, we subsequently note that the draft Bill has since recognised the
distinctions (sections 19N and 19O respectively), which we support.
Similarly, there are distinct differences from a risk factor between Open Cast mines – particularly
coal mines – and the quarrying industry, including but not exclusively:
 The presence of old or previous underground workings1
 Spontaneous combustion
 Hazardous discharges
 Hazardous gases
 Site specific movements by rail tracked installations
 Larger numbers of workers on average per site
3.
In making your submission on the proposals in this chapter you may wish to refer to the
proposed definitions for mining operation, tunnel, quarry, and mine worker, which are set out in
technical appendix four (located in volume 2).
Answers are generally covered in our responses to Questions 1 & 2 above. However it is worth
repeating that there was much good work was done in previous legislation some of which has been
picked up in the draft Bill.
With regard to the definition of “Quarry” on page 94, Appendix 4, of the Technical Appendices, we
believe that all those extracting aggregates or other minerals for commercial gain should be covered
by the new regulations.
It is currently proposed that quarries not having the “certain features” continue to be covered by the
current Health and Safety Employment regulations. However in practice it is our observation is that
it is often the smaller operators who are the most at risk, many anecdotally, without any mining or
quarry qualifications, employing 4 or more itinerant workers and with little or no H&S procedures.
A new regulatory approach: what we propose
4.
Do you support the proposals to require principal hazard management plans and principal
control plans?
Yes. The Quarry Industry certainly has “Principal Hazards” that need to be identified and have
appropriate principal control plans for these them. However, they need to be constructed so that
they reflect the hazards applicable to the individual operations.
5.
Are the requirements for the preparation of principal hazard management plans and
principal control plans clear enough to enable mine operators to prepare these plans? What changes
would you suggest?
No. We believe that the Queensland Coal Mining Regulations overlaid on NZ Quarry Industry do no
match the requirements properly to reflect the our industry. In practice much could be achieved
alternatively by the requisite Codes of Practice.
6.
Have we focussed on the right hazards? What changes would you make to the list of
principal hazards?
Yes, but there are some site specific differentials between underground and above ground activities
and tunnels.
7.
Have we focussed on the right controls to be subject to principal control plans?
Yes, Mostly. However there is a requirement to differentiate between underground and surface
operations, as well as recognizing the size of operations and key areas of risk.
8.
Do you agree with the proposed processes for managing principal hazards (set out in
technical appendices two and three)? What change would you suggest?
Yes in principle but again as proposed, there is a heavy a reliance on underground mining specifics
verses above ground operations. The difference between underground mining and above ground
extractive operations, and in our case quarries, needs to be clearly differentiated.
9.
Do you agree with the new enforcement powers for mines inspectors?
Yes but again the risk based approach should apply to all above ground extraction activities. The
current ACC Workplace Safety Management Practices Audit Standards program by way of example
provides an excellent audit format for both auditor and those being audited.
10.
Do you agree with the proposed transitional arrangements?
No. The number of “Life Time License Holders” is currently unknown, although the Quarry Industry
believes that there may be up to 500 in the wider industry alone.
11.
Are there any transition issues that we have missed?
The three year time frame indicated for the transition could lead to an overload of the industry
training providers, and the Board of Examiners Panel trying to meet the three year time frame
proposed. The Quarry Industry would propose that the transition period be changed to five years
for as per current Certificate of Competence holders.
12.
In making your submission you may wish to comment on the technical appendices for this
chapter.
We refer back to our answers in Questions 1 and 2 of our submission. We strongly believe that
quarries need to be distinguished as a significant industry sector.
Safety critical roles for mining operations
13.
Do you agree with the proposed functions and duties of the new and expanded safety critical
roles? Why, why not? What would you change?
Yes - only for underground mining.
The competency requirements detailed on page 39, Volume 1 of the discussion Document, are
inappropriate for the scale of operations in our Industry.
13.
Is the role of a site senior executive (SSE) relative to that of mine manager clear and, if not
how could we clarify this?
This depends on the scale of operations – 100’s of employees verses relatively few. Again we make
the point that most quarry sites in NZ do not employ large numbers of people (see question 1) which
is perhaps unique to NZ and in particular compared to above and below ground extraction
operations in Australia.
We recommend that the current A & B quarry manger certificates with the addition of the
appropriate H&S unit standards which include the appropriate unit standards are a sufficient model
for individual site SSE for all quarry operations. This is an established system within the Quarry
industry and it works very well.
14.
Should an SSE be able to be responsible for more than one mine site?
No – only applicable to large underground mining. We support the view that individual sites be
governed by a Manger who holds either an A or B Certificate depending on the scale of operation as
is currently the practice.
The recommendation that one person can be a SSE for an adjacent site does not show what
“adjacent” means. Some larger quarry businesses have multiple sites, which can be 20, 50 or even
100kms apart.
In this regard the definition of “adjacent” need to be re-examined as it is our interpretation is, that it
currently means “adjacent to or backing onto” another site.
15.
Do you agree with the proposal that, in certain circumstances, a person can hold more than
one safety critical role? In particular, do you think it is appropriate that a mine manager also hold
the role of SSE?
Yes. Addressed in (13) above.
Establishing a mining sector group
16.
Do you support the establishment of a mining sector advisory group?
Yes, providing that the quarry industry via the AQA and IOQ are directly represented. There should
be an underground mining sector advisory group and a surface mining sector advisory group. The
surface advisory group would be used to maintain and advise on the revamped Quarries Regulations
17.
Do you agree with the proposed functions of the group? What changes do you suggest?
As per 16 above
18.
Do you agree with the proposed membership of the group? What changes do you suggest?
Yes, but clarification is required on the role of MINEX – on which there must be AQA/IOQ
representatives in the surface mining advisory group.
Training and qualifications: what we propose
19.
Do you agree with the proposed competencies for safety critical roles in the mining industry?
If not, why not? What changes do you suggest?
No. They are not applicable to the above ground extractive industry for reasons outlined above,
namely the ventilation officer, electrical engineer and mechanical engineer.
20.
What level of qualification should an SSE have and should this differ depending on the type of
mining operation?
It depends on the size and scale of the operations. The majority of the quarry sites can be covered by
A or B grade qualifications, upgraded with additional requirements not already included for the
above ground extractive industry.
21.
What should be the minimum training or competency requirement for mine workers?
A Level 2 comprehensive introduction should be the minimum via MITO with 12 months to complete
for new employees. This should only apply to operational staff, with employees such as admin and
weighbridge personnel being excluded, providing that they do not operate any equipment on site at
any time. The minimum training should be a qualification (Level 2) and not a CoC, which requires a
five year renewal for CPD.
22.
How do you think the competence of existing workers should be assessed to ensure that they
meet the new minimum requirements? What transitional arrangements should apply?
Recognition should be given to the existing qualifications issued by EXITO/MITO, as well as
recognition of prior learning via length of service in the industry.
Every new operational person needs to achieve a Level 2 qualification within 12 months of
commencing employment. This is subject to MITO being able to provide all the required training and
notification of new staff must be made to MITO by the employer.
23.
Should we introduce “human factors” into the competency requirements for safety critical
and general management/supervisory roles in mining operations? If so, for which roles should this
requirement be introduced?
Yes in principle. There is a place for this particularly for constant reoffending and the reasons driving
it. But also just as importantly, with regard to complacency on safety issues for longer term
operational employees, who from studies made, can tend to become blaze and start “cutting
corners”.
Further thought therefore needs to be given on how such an initiative should be introduced and
what structure and content is required.
24.
We currently have separate certificates of competency for underground and opencast mines,
tunnels and quarries, although some of these have the same or similar unit standards. Do you favour
consolidating the certificates of competency where practicable?
No. We strongly believe there need to be a clear distinction between underground mining
operations and surface operations
25.
Are the transitional phase-in provisions for the new competencies reasonable? Are there any
transitional issues that we have missed?
As stated in (23 above), we believe 12 months is appropriate for new employees, with those holding
current CoC documents (“A” Grade etc.) renewed on a five year roster as is the current renewal
conditions with the ITO.
26.
In making a submission on this chapter we also welcome your feedback on the more detailed
proposals in technical appendix seven.
There are some tables which need further consideration e.g. they do not distinguish between
underground supervisor and surface supervisor - page 118 in Appendix 2.
A Board of Examiners providing Regulatory oversight
27.
Do you agree with the proposed functions for the board of examiners? Is there anything you
would suggest that we do differently?
Yes. However, this needs clarity with regards to the role of the Board of Examiners as compared to
an Examination Panel. Also, it must have quarry industry representation on the examination panel
appointed by the Board of Examiners. There could be a core membership of the board, with industry
experts called upon for examinations in particular industry.
28.
Should we work towards a joint New Zealand/Australia accreditation process, or have an
independent New Zealand board of examiners that maintains close links with Australian
counterparts?
No. An independent NZ Board of examiners is a better option. The Australian process is centered
round 7 states and appears to be fragmented. Each State in Australia does not necessarily recognize
the qualifications given by another state.
29.
Should the industry fund the board of examiners through the payment of a levy? If yes,
should the levy be based on output or the size of the workforce? If not, how should the board be
funded?
No. The Board of Examiners should be funded by the Government with Industry contributing to
cover the cost of the examination panel.
Worker participation: what we propose
30.
Do you support the proposed approach for applying worker participation to contractors?
Do any difficulties arise; for example, from the use of the “mine worker” concept?
Yes. It depends if the contractor is integral to the quarrying operation or itinerant.
In practice if they are on site longer than 12 months then they are a quarry worker. Also in practice,
contractors are obliged on their engagement to comply with individual site rules, commencing with
their induction. The same applies to non- operational staff.
Ad hoc contractors e.g. cartage operators, are increasingly required to have a purpose designed site
induction for the operational area and while this is currently not universal, it is gradually being
adopted.
In the NZ Quarry Industry, there are also drill and blast specialists, fitters, electricians, welders, auto
electricians etc. who work in a quarry on an as required basis. These contractors will have been
through the site induction program prior to being allowed to carry out any work. None of these
contractors could be considered a permanent employee, as they only work for a few hours to a few
days at a time during the month, and not necessarily every month.
31. Do you support the proposed mix of functions, powers and complementary provisions for site
specific and industry wide health and safety representatives? What would you suggest we do
differently?
This question needs clarification. However our view is that Management must have the opportunity
to respond and/or rectify H&S concerns expressed by employee reps, prior to the latter contacting
regulatory inspectors.
Ravensdown does not agree that an Industry Wide Health & Safety Representative is required for
quarries. The site H&S Rep has access to the regulatory inspector, who can be approached if there is
no satisfaction relating to an H&S issue on site. There are also many quarry operations which do not
have any union representation.
32.
Are the industry wide functions from the Queensland legislation appropriate? What other
industry wide functions could the proposed industry health and safety representatives undertake?
No. The Queensland Coal Mining Regulations are not suitable for above ground operations and our
understanding is that smaller mining or quarry operations in Queensland do not use the Queensland
Coal Mining Regulations - but instead fall under the Queensland Metaliferous Regulations.
33.
Do we need to provide immunity from liability for site and industry health and safety
representatives?
The question is unclear. Ravensdown’s approach is that every employee has a certain level of
responsibility on entering a site. If they observe a potential H&S issue and don’t report it are they
potentially liable.
34.
What level of training and qualifications do you think should be required for site Health and
Safety representatives?
Ravensdown contend that the site H&S rep should be trained to Unit 20198 (or equivalent) from the
NZQA documents 2007. This is already current practice for some of the larger quarry companies and
sites in NZ.
35.
What issues should be covered in a code of practice for worker participation? What sort of
guidance on the documentation of worker participation systems would be useful?
Ravensdown agree with Paragraphs 3 & 4 on page 50 of the discussion document and it will be
possible to adopt a quarry industry code of practice.
Emergency management: what we propose
36.
Do you agree with the proposed emergency management processes for mining operations?
What would you change?
As read these apply principally to underground mining activities and do not refer to surface
extractive. A number of Companies within the Quarry Industry already have detailed emergency
plans incorporated in their H&S manuals.
A less onerous model could be made available for smaller operations led by industry H&S
practitioners.
37.
Do you agree with the proposed minimum standards for the emergency equipment and
facilities that must be present at underground mines? What would you change?
They are not applicable to the Quarry Industry.
38. Do you agree with the proposed requirements for emergency management plans? What changes
do you suggest?
Yes, as long as they are site specific for the Quarry Industry.
39. Do you agree with the proposed changes to the MRT Act concerning functions, scope and levies
of the MRS? What would you change?
Not applicable to the surface extractive sector.
40. Do you have any suggestions on how the levy that funds the MRS should be structured?
As above
41. In making a submission you may wish to refer to the more detailed proposals concerning EMPs in
technical appendices three and eight (in volume two).
EMPs need to distinguish between underground and surface extraction activities.