Ombudsman Complaint. Queensland Mines Department Inspectorate (RSHQ). Request for Ombudsman Inquiry
To the Queensland Ombudsman;
I am writing to you to firstly lodge a formal complaint about the Mines Inspectorate now known as RSHQ, on a number of grounds.
I am also requesting that the Ombudsman conduct an Inquiry as a follow up to
Report of the Queensland Ombudsman June 2008
The Regulation of Mine Safety in Queensland
A review of the Queensland Mines Inspectorate.
Complaints include.
1 Whether there was “ultra vires” (acting or done beyond one’s legal power or authority) in the appointment of Current RSHQ CEO Mark Stone to the Coal Mining Safety and Health Advisory Council. (See Grosvenor Inquiry Submission attachment)
2. Mines Department/RSHQ have not fulfilled commitment to implement all 44 Recommendations of the 2008 Ombudsman Report.
3. Many of findings in 2008 Ombudsman still exist and have arguably got worse.
4. Drastically shortened and gutted compliance policy introduced by the Mines Department since the 2008 Ombudsman Report
5. The non-use and non-publication of relevant documents submitted to the Grosvenor Inquiry including Responding Inspectors Statements to the methane explosion and burns to 5 mineworkers on the 6th of May 2020.
6. None of the Inspectors who regularly Inspected the Grosvenor Mine provided verbal evidence even though at least 1 had prepared a statement. The Deputy Chief Inspector appears not to have prepared a statement even though dealing with Grosvenor Mine since 2016.
7. Non-use/tendering of Anglo LFI from 8th June 2020 at the Grosvenor.
8. Findings of “Addressing mine dust lung disease Report 9: 2019–20 (Queensland Audit Office)”
https://www.qao.qld.gov.au/sites/default/files/2019-12/Addressing%20mine%20dust%20lung%20disease%20(Report%209%E2%80%942019%E2%80%9320)_0.pdf
9. Recommendation 67 of the Report No. 2, 55th Parliament Coal Workers’ Pneumoconiosis Select Committee May 2017 does not appear to have been dealt with by the PSC, Queensland Audit Office or Parliamentary Ethics Committee, or the Committee of the Legislative Committee.
Recommendation 67
The committee recommends that the Public Service Commissioner review the transcripts of public and private hearings of the committee involving Queensland public servants and consider the extent to which those officers cooperated with and assisted the committee, including whether or not any public servant misled the committee or otherwise breached the Code of Practice for Public Service Employees Assisting or Appearing Before Parliamentary Committees.
10. Ministers Statement to Parliament on 17th September and the Queensland Government response to Coal Workers’ Pneumoconiosis Select Committee report no. 2—Inquiry into the re-identification of coal workers’ pneumoconiosis in Queensland states Recommendation 67 had been Actioned.
https://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/documents/tableOffice/TabledPapers/2017/5517T815.pdf
11. A month earlier on 21 August 2017, the PSC issued a formal response to the Committee, advising that the Committee is best placed to identify and assess whether there are sufficient grounds to recommend that matters be referred to the Assembly’s Ethics Committee as a possible contempt of the Parliament.
12. Appears from the information the Minister has misled Parliament about the status of the Recommendation.
13. Information suggests that Recommendation 67 has not been investigated by any body including the Committee of Legislative Assembly.
ADDITIONAL ISSUES
- COMPLAINTS MADE TO CHIEF INSPECTOR OF COAL MINES
Since November 1999 I have laid a number of formal complaints to the Current Chief Inspector of Coal Mines
In my belief his ranges of responses go to some of the major issues about how the Mines Inspectorate and Department are negatively impacting Safety and Health.
These issues include but not limited to
North Goonyella Investigation
Methane Regulations
Reasonably Foreseeable as defined in the Grasstree Decision
Coroners Court Processes.
Peak Downs Dozer Inundation Complaint.
The Peak Downs Dozer Incident, subsequent Investigation and subsequent actions by the SSE, Operator and DNRME Inspectorate in my belief have direct consequences on the subsequent death of Mr. Allan Houston at Saraji.
There are I am informed at least one issue with the recovery operation and the immediate hours afterwards that I believe the Inquiry should be aware of
I have attached copies of email correspondence with CIOCM Peter Newman
2) DNRME COMPLIANCE POLICY CHANGES
In 2001 then Minister Steven Robertson signed off on a comprehensive Compliance Policy of some 20 pages. It provided a logical and detailed process to deal with identified non compliance. A copy is attached.
Further updated versions including by Minister Wilson which totaled 26 pages.
The 2017 Compliance Policy is 10 pages in total including Title pages and Forewords etc. This was signed off by Deputy DG Stone. A copy of this Policy is attached. I have seen but am unable to locate a version DG Stone signed off on from some years previously.
I do not understand how a vital element such as the Compliance Policy that has been signed off on by Two Ministers of the Crown can be changed and “gutted” by a Public Servant
I further believe that the process involved that has resulted in the Current Compliance Policy has to be measured against Comments and Commitments made by the DME on relevant findings of the Ombudsman in 2008.
3) STATUTORY TICKET SHOW CAUSES AND SURRENDER
No Mine Manager or Ventilation Officer or SSE has ever been issued a “show cause notice” that I am aware of. The have been issued on a number of occasions to Mine Deputies (ERZC’s) even when the power to issues these show causes in fact did not exist at the time.
No holder of a First Class Ticket, Ventilation Officers Competency or Site Senior Executive has ever been issued a “Show Cause” in my knowledge.
Point in case being North Goonyella Mine Fire and the Manager and Ventilation Officer at the time
4) TIME LIMITATIONS ON PROSECUTIONS
Mines Department Investigation processes and time limitations appear to now be operating outside of the stated time frame.
According to the CIOCM this is being justified on “Confidential” legal advice available to the CIOCM.
This “Legal Advice” should made public immediately.
5) MINE SITE COMPLIANCE POLICIES
In my experience there are differences in how breaches of Mine Site Procedures and potentially of the Act and Regulations are treated by Mine Site Management, depending on who they are.
The biggest contrast is between how breaches are treated is not starkly, visibly different between Direct employees of the Operator and Non-Direct.
It is only the processes and length of process that differs.
Production and employees are either routinely threatened by Management with Disciplinary Action including Dismissal and reporting to the Inspectorate for prosecution or removal of Statutory Certificates.
SSE’s have made written requests to the Mines Inspectorate and/or Board of Examiners for their tickets to be removed.
A number of ERZC have been issued “show” cause notices and voluntarily surrendered their tickets. Those I am aware of occurred during a period where the there was no Legislative ability for the Statutory Tickets to be removed.
I am not aware of any SSE ever making recommendations to the Inspectorate and/or Board of Examiners for an Underground Mine Manager or Ventilation Officer to be issued a show cause
I am not aware of any Mine Manager or Ventilation Officer being made to respond to a show cause letter.
I have attached a DNRME MRE from 2003 at the Newlands Mine
I do not have access to any of records the CFMEU still retains in regard to this matter.
The biggest difference is between Management and Production and Engineering workers.
Where Production and Engineering Workers are almost universally stood aside while what Management determines are serious breaches.
The biggest driver in my view is how Management view the worker.
“Are they a blue-eyed or brown eyed?”
However, Incidents Involving Staff are treated far differently.
6) PEAK DOWNS MINE
I am aware of a case involving an OCE at Peak Downs Mine currently under Investigation by the Mines Department
I have attached a grouped email with relevant documentation.
It in my view is directly related to the OCE exercising his Duties, and Responsibilities and Powers and also availing himself to the Safety Complaint process with the Mines Inspectorate.
The OCE made detailed submission to the Parliamentary Committee over the Industrial Manslaughter and Statutory Officials amendments.
His submission was released with “Name Withheld”.
My understanding is that it was a decision of the Committee to withhold OCE’s name on the basis they were concerned about BMA taking action against the OCE.
It appears their fears were in fact correct
7) PEAK DOWNS ROM INCIDENT
I am aware of an incident at the Peak Downs Rom
A piece of metal was identified on grizzly on ROM. A Workpac Supervisor and BMA Superintendent for Coal Mining went up to ROM.
BMA Superintendent and the Workpac Superintendent obviously identified that there was a risk of falling from height (into the working ROM) and the control was for BMA Superintendent to hold the supervisor by the belt while he leaned out to try and reach the metal.
No formal investigation was carried out for this blatant breach of a number of procedures, It was rated as a Level 1 Incident
When CMW’s raised complaints, OCE’s raised that the Level was too low and should be HPI
An SSHR becomes involved and the Incident gets raised to Level 2 and then later to an HPI. Then went to Level 2 then to Level 4 and an HPI.
Complaints made to Inspectorate by CMW’s.
The Inspectorate agreed about height but didn’t agree that about breach of isolation procedure.
ROM was working at the time.
Without having access to any of the actual documentation associated with the Incident there seems no doubt at least the “Working at Heights and the Isolation Procedures” Breaches have occurred; and in my belief flagrantly and knowingly.
I attended an HPI at the Saraji Washplant in 2005 where a contract worker fell into a ROM bin.
An extensive joint Investigation with the DNRME Inspectors occurred. The Investigation was not formally completed for several months due to the extensive injuries suffered by the CMW and the associated delay in obtaining a Statement from the CMW
I do not have in my possession the associated MRE’s or Investigation Report, but would be in the records of the relevant parties.
I do believe there was a prosecution over this matter but am not in possession of any documentation.
8) MINES INSPECTORATE
It is my firm belief that the Mines Inspectorate and Department is in a worse State than it has been since 1982 when I started in the Industry.
It is also my firm belief that the actions and inactions of the Mines Inspectorate over the last 5 to 10 years has been one of the leading drivers to the current woeful state of Safety and Health in the Queensland Coal Mines.
The 2008 Ombudsman Report identified a large number of issues that I believe have not been adequately addressed and still are problems
9) INTERPRETATIONS of COAL MINING ACT and REGULATIONS
Mines Inspectors including the current Chief Mines Inspectors of Coal Mines should not be giving written Interpretations or change Inspectorate processes on their own views.
There used to be process involving Interpretations and Applications of the Coal Mining Act and Regulations
Current Chief Inspector does not display or hold competencies to give any Interpretations on the Qld 1999 Coal Mining Act and 2001 Regulations
It is my belief that he clearly does not understand Legislation
Peak Downs Dozer Incident and Correspondence Attached
10) HPI INVESTIGATION
I have attached a series of emails and documents in relation to the Dozer Inundation at Peak Downs.
It is as good an example of the utter failures in the oversight of HPI’s.
This was listed as an injury to a finger, where in fact the operator has never returned to work
11) MINES DEPARTMENT VEIL OF SECRECY
Qld Department Mines Safety Information available to their website is in my view worst in English Speaking World.
Never timely, never meaningful information
No Safety Alerts for 18 months.
No monthly publication on line Feb 2018 for over 18 months
No fatality reports published
12) NORTH GOONYELLA
It is impossible to understand the current dire status of the Coal Industry and Inspectorate oversight without examining the circumstances surrounding the Mine Fire from Spontaneous Combustion.
North Goonyella is by far the most serious spontaneous combustion event since Moura No 2.
The same Inspectors and Interpretations of Legislation had oversight at North Goonyella as Moranbah North, Carborough Downs, Broadmeadow, Grosvenor and Grasstree Mines
I was informed 20 days before black smoke was visible at the main fan that there was an extremely spontaneous combustion event occurring at North Goonyella and in the words of one of the people who contacted me “We have about 3 weeks”
I contacted a journalist at the Financial Review, Matthew Stevens, who I have communicated with several times over the years regarding safety matters at Qld Coal Mines.
He published the following article
https://www.afr.com/companies/cycle-surfing-peabody-stalled-by-queensland-gas-20180919-h15lp9
He wrote a series of articles
https://www.afr.com/companies/peabody-admits-smoke-really-did-mean-fire-20181001-h163ha
https://www.afr.com/companies/energy/regulator-fiddles-after-peabody-burned-20190815-p52hk3
https://www.afr.com/companies/peabody-pondering-life-after-its-north-goonyella-mine-20181016-h16pr8
https://www.afr.com/companies/mining/peabodys-mine-rehab-bonds-an-australian-first-20180213-h0w0tp
I have emailed the Chief Inspector about the lack of Investigation Report, Time Periods for Prosecution expiring.
I have attached a series of emails sent to the CIOCM in relation to this matter
This is the only information that I can find the Mines Department have released
Peabody Released its own findings on 27th May 2019
Peabody Releases Initial Learnings From North Goonyella Incident
https://www.peabodyenergy.com/Media-Center/Newsroom
The reason I have pursued the matter is that there is at least one common thread from the Spontaneous Combustion events at Cook Colliery in 2007, Carborough Downs in 2012, North Goonyella 2018.
That is that Mr. Romanski was the Underground Mine Manager on each occasion.
As well as the Nth Goonyella 2018 event Mr. Romanski was the UMM at North Goonyella when a previous Longwall was subject to emergency sealing underground due to Spontaneous Combustion
Mr. Romanski easily holds the Australian Record and likely World Record for Mines Evacuated and Emergency Sealing due to Spontaneous Combustion.
Despite this, Mr. Romanski who also has the VO qualification continues to hold such recognized “Competencies” and has never been subject to any “Show Cause Process”.
I believe that Mr. Romanski while at Cook Colliery may even have held the Statutory positions of UMM and VO at the same time.
I have been informed that MR Romanski is at Cook Colliery as the SSE and his appointment been duly notified to the CIOCM.
How is this possible?
Because the Nth Goonyella DNRME Investigation has not been completed within the time frame under the Act is a major contributing factor as well as an ineffective Compliance Policy.
As well a number of VO’s who were Appointed in the preceding months at North Goonyella, are still working in the Qld Coal Industry.
13) RIGHT TO INFORMATION
The RTI process is a tool deliberately used to hide the actions of the Department and Inspectorate to hide information from public view and scrutiny.
I am aware of the following RTI request about Safety Alerts. Attached and Identified as
File/Ref: 19-250
I have attached 2 emails in relation to the RTI request
14) BRADY REPORT
https://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/documents/tableOffice/TabledPapers/2020/5620T197.pdf
Should not be used as be all and end all.
In fact, it demonstrates the continued problem about the lack of scrutiny of Mine Department Information that should be freely available to Coal Mine Workers.
No person other than Mr. Brady has been afforded the courtesy of viewing the Fatality Investigation reports that Mr. Brady has.
My request to do so are met with denial and referral to the RTI process.
Given Mr. Brady has no identifiable experience in Coal Mining or Accident Investigation (ICAM) or Mining Legislation that I have been made aware of; I do not understand how his Report carries so much weight
I have attached a series of emails sent to CIOCM in relation to access
15) MISHC COAL MINING ACT REVIEW
https://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/documents/tableOffice/TabledPapers/2020/5620T198.pdf
The review commissioned by the Minister/Department is fundamentally flawed and most of its recommendations should be outright rejected.
I have reviewed the Document Published by MISHC.
It is still in a draft form as I have not had the opportunity to complete it.
It is Attached and identified as MISHC ACT REG REPORT
16) SARAJI MINE RECORD ENTRY 27th August 2019
The final outcomes of the MRE’s and challenge to the validity contain one completely illogical (and I would argue a legally incorrect), voluntary concession by CIOCM Newman and the Mines Inspectorate/Department.
This concession is that any Investigation conducted by the Mines Department is not subject to Display on the Safety Notice Board.
Given that this has been closed out by the DNRME Mines Inspectorate then all files related to this matter should be made available for scrutiny including and analysis including any legal advice relied upon
17) BOARD OF EXAMINERS DECISION TO DROP REQUIREMENT FOR MINING LAW EXAM MUTUAL RECOGNITION
QLD MINING LAW EXAMS being required under the Mutual Recognition has been a requirement for well over a decade by the Board of Examiners.
I am aware there have been threats of Legal Action by Statutory Ticket Holders from other States in Australia and from Overseas from both before and since the day of its formal introduction.
The “new” Board of Examiners has made a decision to change this.
In the past the position of Chairperson position was held by the Current CIOCM, so I assume Mr. Newman is the Chairperson
Given that this has decided and enacted, then all files related to this matter should be made available for scrutiny including and analysis including any legal advice relied upon
18) NON-REPORTABLE INCIDENTS
I have been provided DNRME MRE’s that deal with “Non-Reportable Incidents” in relation to CH4 incidents and how it should be interpreted and applied by the Minesite.
I point out the following
There is no definition of Non-Reportable Incident in the Coal Mining Act and Regulations as it relates to methane or any other reportable matter that I am aware of.
Where did this concept and definition of Non-Reportable Incident come from?
Does the definition and application of Non-Reportable Incident apply to every reportable matter?
What effect has the introduction of “Non-Reportable Incident” had on the number of HPI’s being reported to the Mines Inspector.
I recommend to the Inquiry that it examine the effect of Non Reportable methane exceedances for the time frame and Mines named so as to gain a fuller picture of the situation with methane at the mines concerned
This Post Has 2 Comments
It is hard to believe that the industry has gone this far off track over the last 20 or so years. The good that was supposed to happen from the new legislation has not happened, and all the vast resources used putting together safety and health schemes at mines with training packages that end up meaningless is a tragic waste.
I deplore the current accent from those charged with our protection in the statutory government roles – they are in general lowly qualified or not at all qualified to hold those positions.
I fully support the Ombudsman as above.
The Inspectorate is in need of an independent investigation of its roles, personnel, capabilities and methods of work as suggested by the Ombudsman.
Ian;
The worst part is that the Ombudsman office is not the least interested and has said so in writing.
It is not only the Inspectors that need examination (I agree with your assessment of the current Inspectors).
The longer serving Public Servants now tied up with RSHQ are the major reason why the Inspectorate is such a weak, inactive spectator.
If the current Mine Management spent as much time and resources dealing with the hazards as they do of trying to risk assess around the Regulations we may not be in the situation the Industry is.
Under s 23(1)(c) of the Ombudsman Act 2001 (the Act), the Ombudsman may refuse to investigate a complaint where the Ombudsman considers that the complainant does not have a sufficient direct interest in the actions or decisions complained of.
For a person to have a direct interest, there must be an administrative action by an agency which directly affects the person’s interests, beyond a purely intellectual or emotional concern. It is not enough that a person might be able to demonstrate that they have a general interest in, or concern about, the administrative action.
While I appreciate that the issues you have raised are concerning to you, in my view, you do not have a direct interest in the action that you have complained about because:
you no longer work in the mining industry; and
you have not provided evidence that you have engaged the formal complaints management process of RSHQ in relation to the issues you have raised with this Office.
I note your submission that investigation of this complaint would be in the public interest, in accordance with s 3 of the Public Interest Disclosure Act 2010 and comments in this Office’s 2008 Report. However, it is a matter for the Ombudsman to decide whether to conduct an investigation on the Ombudsman’s own initiative under s 12(a)(iii) of the Ombudsman Act. Further, it is not the purpose of the Public Interest Disclosure Act to direct how the Ombudsman should deal with complaints under the Ombudsman Act. Should you wish to lodge a public interest disclosure, you may wish to liaise with RSHQ directly.
For the reasons outlined above, I have decided not to investigate your complaint under s 23(1)(c) of the Act.
As a result of my decision, this Office will not be taking any further action in response to your complaint and your case has been closed.
General information about human rights complaints
From 1 January 2020, under the Human Rights Act 2019, public entities are required to consider, act and make decisions in a way compatible with the human rights protected by that Act. If you believe one or more of the issues outlined above may involve a human rights complaint, it is open to you to lodge a complaint with the Queensland Human Rights Commission (QHRC).
The QHRC considers complaints about human rights under the Human Rights Act 2019 and may decide to resolve it by conciliation or other action. Conciliation is a discussion with the parties involved in a complaint which aims to reach an agreement about how to resolve it.
For more information about complaints that can be resolved through the QHRC please visit https://www.qhrc.qld.gov.au/complaints/making-a-complaint. Alternatively, call 1300 130 670 or email enquiries@qhrc.qld.gov.au.