GROSVENOR MINE INQUIRY SUBMISSION RECOMMENDATION. MINING WARDEN INQUIRY RETURN TO COAL MINING SAFETY and HEALTH ACT 1999

Grosvenor Inquiry Submission. Mining Warden Inquiry Return

GROSVENOR MINE INQUIRY RECOMMENDATION

MINING WARDEN INQUIRY RETURN TO COAL MINING SAFETY and HEALTH ACT 1999

The Mining Warden was also a duly appointed Coroner and prepared a Report under both the Mining Act and the Coroners Act.

Then Mines Minister Tom McGrady made the decision (unilaterally) to remove the provisions for Mining Warden Inquiries from the Coal Mining Safety and Health Act.

This was in despite of.

1. It was the Findings and Recommendations of the Mining Warden Moura No 2 Inquiry that drove the philosophy and structure of the CMSHA 1999 and the CMSHR 2001 and the equivalent Legislation in the Mining and Quarrying Act and Regulations.
2. Written formal objections from at least the CFMEU, that asked for the Mining Warden to be retained in both the Coal and Non-Coal Mining Sectors

One of the assurances given was for Coronial Inquests to be held for each Mining Fatality.

Also assurances were made that  provisions allowing the formation of a Ministerial Board Board of Inquiry would be used whenever necessary.

The loss of the Mining Warden/Coroner Inquiry, has led to a large number of Unintended Consequences, some quite obvious at the time, others have only surfaced over time.

There has also been a cascade of other negative consequences that have flowed from this decision.

1. Coronial Inquests are only held infrequently in both Coal and Non-Coal Mining Fatalities.
2. Since the last Mining Warden Inquiry in the Coal Industry, as far as I am aware there have only been Three (3) Mines Department Investigations into fatalities made public.
3. As per comments in the Coronial Findings for Daniel Springer, the Mines Inspectorate has now taken a position that there is no need for a Coronial Inquest unless the Mines Department decides not to prosecute, but still sees merit in the “public interest” in a Coronial Inquest for that particular fatality.
4. Mines Department routinely refuses Right to Information requests for the Mines Inspectors Fatality reports going back as far as between 2000 and 2010.
5. Mine Department does not indicate whether the fatality recommended to the Inquiry has been subject to a Review Panel as per Compliance Policies that up to 2009 at least were signed by the Mines Minister at the time
6. By mutual agreement of the parties Sections of the Mines Inspectors Fatality Investigation Report can be subject to redaction.
7. Daniel Springer Coronial findings appears to redact the findings the Site Senior Executive was not the Senior Person Appointed at the Mine by the Operator.
8. The decision of the Inspectors about addressing this gross breach of the Act is not mentioned in any Mine Record Entry I am aware of.
9. The decision process of the Department about not taking the decision to prosecute is secret and never subject to scrutiny.
10. Coronial Inquests do not normally make the transcript of proceedings available to the General Public.
11. Coronial Inquests held for Mining Fatalities in the past do not normally make public any of the material entered into evidence.
12. Despite the quite clear time periods to commence prosecution, the Mines Department now uses the excuse of the possibility of prosecution for not releasing any Investigations such as the North Goonyella case.
13. The Mines Department (RSHQ) Safety and Health Information pages are quite easily argued contain far less information on events in the State compared to the other major mining States of NSW and Qld.
14. The Queensland Mines Department possibly is among the worst in the English Speaking major mining Countries/States, with the current information made available for High Potential Incidents, accidents resulting in permanent disabilities and mining fatalities.

 

 MINISTERIAL BOARDS OF INQUIRY

There has only been One Ministerial Board of Inquiry in just over 20 years since the CMSHA 1999 came into force.

The Ministerial Boards of Inquiry has terms of reference set by the Minister of the Day who calls the Inquiry.

Therefore, the matters they can legally examine are much more limited than the Mining Warden Inquiries.

The Ministerial Board of Inquiries appear to be much more limited in their ability to call witnesses than a Coronial Inquiry.

For instance, compare the Dreamworld Coronial Inquest to the Grosvenor Ministerial Board of Inquiry.

All Anglo Coal Grosvenor Management including Statutory Officials including the Site Senior Executive, Underground Mine Manager and Ventilation Officer and other Anglo Management have declined to testify.

This on the grounds I believe of possibility of the Mines Department (RSHQ) commencing prosecutions.

Lastly the Wardens Court of Inquiry comprised the Warden/Coroner was comprised of the Warden and a panel of Four.

The Grosvenor Mining Inquiry has a panel of Two

 

DANIEL SPRINGER CORONERS COURT

 

DNRM decision not to prosecute.      

84. DNRME advised at the conclusion of the investigation they would not proceed with a Prosecution in relation to the incident and requested an Inquest be conducted in the public interest. Page 19 Daniel D Springer Coroners Findings

The Coroners Findings published on the 23rd of February 2021 make no mention or findings in relation to the SSE at all.

 

In fact the term Senior Site Executive or SSE is not mentioned anywhere in the 32 page Coroners Report

 

 

There is however a comment about negotiated redactions of the DNRME Investigation Report and the Redacted Report that was formally presented to the Coroner and preserved as the Official Investigation Report.

 

I have gone through both documents a number of times.

 

The only Element that I can see raised in the DNRME Report that is not captured in the Coroners Court is the SSE.

 

Towards the conclusion of the Coroners Findings the Coroner makes the following comment in Relation to the decision of the Mines Department not to Initiate a prosecution against anyone at all.

 

https://www.qldminingcrisis.com.au/2021/02/28/daniel-springer-coroners-findings-why-did-the-findings-not-include-any-reference-to-the-sse-not-being-the-sse-as-the-mine-inspectors-investigation-did-why-did-the-mines-department-decide-it-wa/