Mine Safety, Inspection—High Hazards Unit

What advice has the Minister of Labour received about why her department did not attempt to replace the mines inspector who retired in 2009—noting that that left just two mines inspectors, currently down to one?

I can advise that the Department of Labour has recruited an inspector to fill a recent vacancy, and it will begin immediately to recruit all the other inspectors required for the High Hazards Unit.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The question related to the 2009 action of the department, not to attempts to recruit for that position at that time. The vacancy that the Minister’s answer relates to—

So that we make more rapid progress, I will invite the member to repeat his question. One of the reasons why I am inviting him to repeat his question is that the primary question was on notice and asked when certain things were going to happen. “As soon as possible.” is not actually a very satisfactory answer. So because I was not very impressed by that answer, I will let the member repeat his supplementary question.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. What advice has she received about why her department did not attempt to replace the mines inspector who retired in 2009?

I am not aware of what advice the Minister received about how long it took to replace an inspector, but I am advised that the Department of Labour has recruited an inspector to fill a vacancy. The other inspectors will be recruited as quickly as possible. It is important that we have inspectors with the necessary experience and skill, and that requires these people being sought both locally and internationally. It is therefore not possible to put a date on when that recruitment process will be completed.

Is she concerned that some members of the Department of Labour’s Mining Steering Group argued against increasing the number of mines inspectors prior to the Pike River disaster?

As I am answering this on behalf of the Minister of Labour, I am not aware that any officials criticised the intention to increase the inspectorate.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am not sure that I understood the Minister’s response: as he was answering on behalf of the Minister of Labour, he would not be able to answer the question.

The Minister is answering on behalf of another Minister, and I think his answer was a perfectly fair answer on this occasion. He was not aware of that matter, because he was answering on behalf of another Minister; he was unaware whether there had been any pressure from any officials not to make such appointments. I think he was being very honest with the House. He was saying he did not have absolute information, but was unaware of any such pressure.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I fully accept that. Given that situation, I seek your guidance as to whether it would be reasonable to seek an assurance from the Minister that an answer to that question is given, in fact.

The member has further supplementary questions, I think, to pursue the matter, and can ask exactly that kind of thing—whether the matter can be checked out further and an answer provided to the member in writing. I mean, that is a perfectly fair supplementary question.

What powers will the new chief mines inspector have?

In principle, the chief mines inspector, like the other inspectors, will have the right and the powers to make sure that all our mines operate as safely as possible.

Power Hon Simon Power Link to this

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The answer that has just been given describes the function of the new position but not the powers, at all.

I know that the member’s intentions on this subject matter are genuine, as everybody’s are, but using the point of order system to simply relitigate every answer given by the Minister cannot be what the Standing Orders were designed for.

The member makes a perfectly fair point. When Ministers who are being questioned keep evading answers, I will certainly pull them up. The member cannot use a point of order to question every answer, unless the Minister is clearly trying to avoid answering. If that was happening, I would have no problem, but I think the Minister is doing his best, answering on behalf of another Minister, to give the House reasonable answers. That is why I think the point made by the Hon Simon Power is reasonable on this occasion—and often are reasonable, I should say.

Has she sought any advice from the Department of Labour regarding mining companies currently refusing to put in extra exits from their underground mines, as described in the evidence from the Department of Labour’s Michael Firman during the royal commission hearings?

As I am answering this question on behalf of the Minister of Labour, I cannot advise the House today whether the Minister has sought further advice on the matter of exits from mines.

Will she consider amending the law so that situations do not arise whereby mining companies can refuse safety recommendations from the Department of Labour?

Mallard Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this

I am answering the question on behalf of the Minister; that is certainly something she needs to answer, and the member is welcome to put it down as a question. If the Minister of Labour asked for my advice, it would be that she should wait until the royal commission of inquiry has completed its findings before making that decision.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I apologise to the member, but I think we are now getting into a difficult position whereby a Minister has not been briefed, but, worse than that, he is now saying what he, as a Cabinet colleague, would brief the Minister to do. There is no way he can do that. He might want to say: “My colleague the Minister of Agriculture has been briefing me.” I think the problem we have, and it is relatively unusual, is that the Minister does not appear to have the normal briefing notes that go with supplementary questions. All of these questions are ones that any Minister taking this question would have expected today.

I appreciate the member’s point of order but, in fact, I do not think there is anything in the Standing Orders that prevents a Minister from including in his answer what the Minister did then. The primary question asked: “When will the new chief inspector for mining and additional inspectors in the planned High Hazards Unit become operational?”. The supplementary questions have moved a fair way from that primary question. I am not surprised that a Minister answering on behalf of another Minister would not have all the specific information. I accept that the member is asking in absolute good faith, but I think one has to accept that on a day like this when the Minister could not be present we cannot expect the Minister answering on her behalf to have all that material.

Why, given that it is possible, after all, to take action to improve mine safety before the royal commission reports, is the Government not also taking other actions that we know would improve underground mine safety, like reinstating check inspectors, a return to mandatory standards for underground mining, and implementation of the other recommendations from the Department of Labour’s review?

In calling the Minister to answer that supplementary question I have to acknowledge that it is a fair way from the primary question. The Minister is welcome to do his best with it.

O'Connor Hon Damien O’Connor Link to this

Following the tragedy, the Government instituted an independent operational review, and the recommendation from that review was an increase in the number of inspectors. The Government has acted accordingly.

Will the High Hazards Unit now be able to offer advice to miners and mine companies, or does her department, the Department of Labour, still consider that that exposes it to issues of legal liability?

O'Connor Hon Damien O’Connor Link to this

It would be my expectation that, indeed, the inspectors could give advice to mining companies.

Will the new High Hazards Unit be resourced to visit and inspect underground mines every month, or does she consider this level of monitoring too high, and appropriate only for Chinese underground mines, where this standard applies?