3 News reporter Rachel Morton is at the inquiry and wraps up the day's proceedings - watch the video
The second week of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Pike River mine tragedy is underway.
LIVE STREAM: Pike River Royal Commission of Inquiry*
3news.co.nz reporter Angela Beswick is following the inquiry and will provide detailed updates throughout the day
---
5:11pm – Lawyer for the Pike River families Nicholas Davidson QC has sought leave to cross-examine Mr Murphy in the morning. Inquiry is adjourned and will resume tomorrow.
---
5:02pm – Mr Hampton has finished cross-examining Mr Murphy.
---
4:58pm – Mr Hampton is reading a new report from Professor Gunningham and Dr Neil, which expresses concern with the quality of employees participation in health and safety in mines, and on the lack of procedural guidance on employee participation. It also pointed to a tight labour market that resulted in fewer employees experienced in hazard management being available. Inspectors also expressed doubts about the value of their interactions with safety representatives. One told researchers that he did make efforts to contact health and safety representatives, but that he rarely learned anything of value from such interactions.
Asked whether this concerns him, Mr Murphy says: “Absolutely. I think if Health and Safety representatives are not being supported in their workplace and they’re not contributing to the health and safety environment then I think that is a real concern”.
---
4:57pm – A ministerial release in November 2009 rejected a proposal to regulate small mines. A letter was also sent to submitters, by Mr Murphy, saying that the Minister Kate Wilkinson did not agree with check inspections. It also says further strategic work will be undertaken to develop an approach to improving employee participation, which could involve formal or informal guidance with practical information on how the Health and Safety in Employment Act applies.
Asked what has been done to develop the strategic approach, Mr Murphy says that is still in development and a discussion document will be discussed with the sector and union representatives in the next month.
In November last year, at the time of the explosion, the development had not been started, Mr Murphy says.
“A year on from this note and you hadn’t started on it?” Mr Hampton asks.
“That’s what I’m saying sir, yes.”
---
4:51pm – The report says the Queensland and NSW regimes are best practice, both of which include check inspectors, Mr Hampton says. Mr Murphy agrees.
---
4:48pm – Check inspectors were discounted for a number of reasons, including that the literature did not show this to be best practice for mining, according to a report written by Professor Gunningham.
Mr Hampton asks Mr Murphy to say where in the reporting this conclusion is arrived at and Mr Murphy says he doesn’t know, as he doesn’t have the document in front of him. Mr Hampton refers to the report where it says there is little literature on check inspectors, Mr Murphy acknowledges that is a fair point. Mr Hampton asks again how the DoL conclusion was arrived at, as that literature did not confirm check inspectors were best practice, literature was silent on the matter.
---
4:40pm – Asked when the DoL will release guidance over technical issues Mr Murphy says a year form now.
Mr Hampton questions whether this is satisfactory – releasing guidelines three years after a report. But Mr Murphy says he is not in a position to decide this.
---
4:35pm – Mr Hampton is questioning Mr Murphy over the 2006-2008 review. It is noted that at the time, the DoL consulted its technical expert in mining. Mr Murphy is unsure whether a report was produced by its expert at the time.
---
4:33pm – Asked if he is aware of the union position put to the DoL on a number of occasions regarding the need for codes of practice be put in writing, Mr Murphy agrees.
Mr Hampton says no draft code has ever been presented to the EPMU. He adds that the EPMU did not support the Minex code, which they felt lacked detail and employee participation.
Mr Hampton asks who Mr Murphy – as stated in his evidence - he feels the code is “generally recognised” by; Mr Murphy says “the industry and the inspectorate”.
Asked whether any employees support it, Mr Murphy says he doesn’t know.
---
4:29pm – Mr Murphy disagrees that a widely accepted code of practice for underground mining does not exist.
“I think the Minex code is recognised generally as being the code of practice for the industry,” he says.
---
4:27pm – Discussing codes of practice, Mr Murphy repeats there are no approved codes of practice for underground mining. There haven’t been since the change of the regulatory regime.
---
4:26pm – Asked whether the DoL gets the same mine plans that DOC get, Mr Murphy says that is not part of his role so he doesn’t know.
---
4:25pm – Mr Murphy clarifies there is currently only one inspector on the DoL. There is currently a vacancy for a second inspector after a resignation.
---
4:23pm – EPMU were supportive of the idea of safety case regime. In fact, they were strongly advocating it come in, says counsel Nigel Hampton QC. Mr Murphy acknowledges this.
---
4:22pm - The possibility of a separate regime regarding underground coal mining has not been considered.
---
4:17pm – Mr Murphy is questioned on information sharing between state agencies and whether his department has ever looked at whether legislation allows for the sharing of info between other agencies regarding health and safety.
“There’d be no barriers as far as I’m aware,” Mr Murphy says.
---
4:14pm - Some submitters felt there should be more visits of an advisory nature with regards to workplace safety, others thought more enforcement visits would be valuable. Mr Murphy says after the change in legislation, the role of inspectors changed significantly, so the responsibility for the inspectors to supply advice is not now recognised as a primary role of inspectors - employers are to seek their own advice.
---
4:07pm – Mr Wilding produces a 2008 DoL document which discusses concerns about the lack of guidelines in part due to a lack of resources, financial and technical.
Mr Murphy says changes were made in 2007, but none since there. In fact, no new approved codes have been released by the DoL since the late nineties.
---
4:00pm – DoL evaluates which industries need codes of practice through a triage system; identifying which are the priority industries as well as looking at how old and relevant the industry is and what the need is for refreshing, renewing or deleting standards and guidance material.
Mr Murphy says the current underground coal mining guidelines are being reviewed.
Current guidelines are Minex industry guidelines.
---
3:58pm – Asked whether it is in his knowledge that, as a result of the report, the DoL reassessed the administrative and technical resources it had for the development of codes, Mr Murphy says he is “not aware of what was happening at the time”.
However, in 2007, “there was some additional resource put into that for the development of standards and guidance material”.
---
3:56pm – Mr Murphy is asked to read a paragraph of the Inquiry into the administration of occupational health and safety policy 1996 – a report of the Labour Committee - which reads:
“Codes were universally seen as valuable in providing key details of how to deliver health and safety in specific places of work or process circumstances but there was a divergence on whether these should be mandatory, purely voluntary or have, at present, an immediate approach of “approved” status.”
“My understanding is that the response to this was the establishment of Minex,” says Mr Murphy. “… to develop the codes and the guidance that would support them.”
---
3:53pm - Mines inspectors have never expressed the need for an approved code of practice, Mr Murphy says.
The development of such codes of practice has not been considered since the Pike River tragedy. However, in light of events at the mine, the department will consider all aspects, with the findings of the commission likely to impact on the approach.
---
3:53pm - The DoL must identify whether there is a need for a particular code of practice. There is currently no approved code of practice for underground coal mining.
Whether or not a code of practice should be developed for underground coal mining has never been discussed with the minister, says Mr Murphy.
---
3:44pm Mr Murphy says lack of accord between DoL and the mining industry was, in part, responsible for delays in regulation in mining.
---
3:23pm – Two primary recommendations following that review were regulation of small mines and fewer than 15 workers underground at any one time.
There were recommendations that encapsulated larger mines, but they weren’t regulatory change. They were general guidelines.
---
3:21pm - Mr Murphy says it is his understanding that the issues relating to hazards and safety management were primarily in small mines.
---
3:19pm – Mr Murphy is asked whether the DoL do anything to assure itself the responses are properly representative of the group being focussed on.
“In general terms, yes… The EPMU was the recognised miners’ union and would be speaking for the miners.”
---
3:17pm – The inquiry has resumed. Mr Murphy will continue giving evidence. He is answering questions on the hazard safety management in the underground mining industry, from the 2006-2009 review.
The worker representation on the review was four, Mr Murphy acknowledges.
Mr Murphy says DoL didn’t do any work to ascertain what percentage of workers were represented by those four, or which were members of the EPMU.
“It was a public consultation process that was open to anyone who wanted to submit,” he says.
---
3:00pm – The inquiry has adjourned for 15 minutes.
---
2:52pm – Mr Murphy is asked, whether in terms of assessing the priority of the report, the department had any reason to believe that rate of harm notifications from the mining industry would not continue to increase. He says the department did not. Mr Murphy says the review had significant resource - a senior advisor working full time, and input from management and staff.
---
2:48pm – There were two mining deaths around 2006, as the result of two separate tragedies. This led to a review 2006-2009, with the single regulatory change as a result which occurred in 2010.
Mr Murphy says the review concluded in 2008, with the first report sent to a minister. The election and change of Government mean the findings were then reconsidered in 2009.
---
2:45pm – Mr Murphy is being questioned around approved industry codes of practices. He says approved codes of practice have a particular definition and require ministerial approval. They are part of the framework that is not widely used.
There are under 20 approved codes of practice right across all industries at the moment. There hasn’t been one for the last 10 years, Mr Murphy says. The reason being they take a long time to develop and are very difficult to change – requiring ministerial decision making.
The practice has been to develop codes of practice which have the same effect as being recognised as industry codes, without the formality of ministerial approval.
---
2:40pm – Across 1998-2005, the number of serious harm incidents from the mining industry rose, counsel says.
Part of the Health and Safety Act, requires companies notify of any incidents resulting in serious harm.
In 1999, the Health and Safety in employment mining-underground regulations were issued. Regulation 10 of that set out a variety of accidents which had to be notified. Mr Wilding confirms that those accidents are included in the Serious Harm Notifications to which Mr Murphy has referred to in his evidence.
Mr Murphy confirms that it does.
---
2:30pm – Around seven mining inspectors moved with the transition to the DoL. Mr Murphy says there are now two, but there are other mining inspectors – such as open cast mining inspectors – in addition to this.
Asked whether any work has been done to ascertain whether the ratio of underground mine inspectors is the same as it used to be, , he says work in assessing the number of inspectors in underground mines has not been done and it was considered that they were adequate for this purpose.
---
2:25pm – Mr Murphy is discussing the transition from mining inspectorate to the DoL between 1992-1998. Mr Murphy says he estimates costs were $3.5 million in the previous regime (under the Mining Inspection Group or MIG), reduced to $2.5 million when it switched to the DoL.
Mr Murphy says the $3.5 million was funded by a levy specifically placed on mine operators. Now funding is from the general levy on all employers. He says that there have been cost savings because scale and scope of the MIG work had been significantly reduced.
Some of the work formerly undertaken by MIG is now undertaken by other departments.
---
2:17pm – Mr Murphy is discussing the roles of various groups within the DoL, as they relate to mining, both policy and operational matters.
---
2:07pm – The highest injury rates are in the mining, construction, agriculture, forestry and fishing sector, a report says.
“The issue there is one in terms of interpretation of the count,” Mr Murphy says.
“This figure relates to the ratio between the numbers of people working in the industry. The fact that mining only has around 1000 people working in the industry, and about 450 working in underground mining, would explain the difference in how the numbers are interpreted.”
---
2:05pm – Mr Murphy is being questioned on the Workplace Health and Safety strategy of 2005.
He is asked to describe the purpose of the strategy.
He says its focus is “.. prioritising and reducing the work toll in New Zealand”.
---
2:04pm – “When things go wrong in mining, they’re often catastrophic,” Mr Murphy says.
He says he does not know the accident rate within the mining industry.
---
2:02pm – Assisting counsel James Wilding is questioning Mr Murphy.
---
1:59pm – Giving evidence now is James Murphy, workplace health and safety policy manager for the Department of Labour – a position he has held for almost three years.
A report was commissioned by the Department of Labour shortly after the explosions, to look into the interactions between the DoL and PRC. It was completed by two Australian experts.
---
1:57pm – Mr Smith has finished giving evidence.
---
1:56pm – Commissioner Panckhurst is questioning Mr Smith about whether he liaised with the Dept of Labour mining inspector.
He says he does not know him.
---
1:55pm – Mr Smith did not raise any concerns with the company on behalf of DOC with regards to changes which mean the secondary egress would not be built.
Asked why, he says scheduling he was shown said these things would be built within the same year, but there was no detail on timing.
“I had no reason to be concerned; we are not underground miners. We had no knowledge or experience on which to base any concerns… so we didn’t raise any concerns.”
---
1:52pm – The second egress was planned to come out “near the bank of Pike Stream”, Mr Smith says. It would have been on a terrace in steep country.
“So it would have been limited ground.”
Asked for more detail, Mr Smith says they were waiting on a detailed plan at the time of the explosion.
“The only description we’ve got is it was to be a barred door to prevent access, with mesh on it as well so birds couldn’t go into it… other than that we have no detail, at all.”
---
1:50pm - The Inquiry has been shown a map for an alternative second exit, or egress, from the mine - other than one attached to the ventilation shaft.
Mr Smith cannot recall which year it was first shown on the annual plans, but he thinks it might have been 2009-2010.
---
1:45pm – Development of the mine was much slower than originally planned, Mr Smith says. Everything took a little longer than expected.
---
1:41pm – DOC helped develop a subsidence management plan with PRC.
---
1:34pm – Drilling a bore hole would take between two and six weeks and cost about $100,000. There is no DOC restriction on the number of bore holes.
---
1:31pm - When PRC decided to complete further drilling, Mr Smith would be presented with options for the location of a drill hole.
“We would… fly to the site with a driller and a Pike geologist and see what the values were on site, what the issues were. Between all of us we might tweak the site slightly and shift it – depending on what suited – to come up with an acceptable solution for all of us.
That would then be written into an annual plan and be approved by DOC.
---
1:29pm – DOC would be involved in plans for a potential second egress, or a ventilation shaft - but only as far as environmental effects, Mr Smith says.
---
1:27pm – Questioned on variations in the Pike River annual work plan, Mr Smith says there were no detailed plans submitted to DOC.
“It was only on the annual plan as a ‘To Do’ item”.
---
1:26pm – Mr Smith was involved in initial discussions with PRC regarding an annual plan. A draft went to the mining officer at the time, Craig Jones, before it went to the conservator Mike Slater for approval.
Once approval is giving, “authority to enter and operate” is granted.
---
1:24pm – Health and Safety concerns were linked to environmental concerns and cost issues, Mr Smith says.
“It’s hard to separate those things completely, but certainly safety wasn’t our primary focus. We were there to look at environmental effects,” he says.
---
1:23pm – Mr Smith’s role was to assess or liaise between Doc and PRC of the above ground effects of the mining programme.
On issues set out in special conditions to the access arrangement regarding the emergency response plan, Mr Smith’s would look at the plan that the company produced.
“We would look at the things listed in the access arrangement that the company had to include,” he says.
But, Mr Smith adds that they “weren’t safety experts”.
---
1:22pm – Mr Smith has finished giving evidence and will now be cross-examined.
---
1:21pm – Mr Smith confirms that in March 2010 DOC was contracted by the Pike River receivers to establish a 6.5km all-weather foot access track to the vent shaft, which has now been completed.
The purpose of the track was to provide foot access to the vent shaft for gas monitoring after the explosion, Mr Smith says.
---
1:20pm – Mr Smith is answering questions on the drill sites and whether 10 metres by 10 metres is an accurate estimation for the size of a drill site.
“There is essentially three components to any drill site, and we would try and use existing cleared areas – like old existing drill sites or old existing helipads.
“It was a combination of things to minimise impact on vegetation.”
---
1:17pm – Plans for an emergency shelter on site - next to the vent shaft - to be used if a helicopter couldn’t access the site when food or first aid was required, was dependant on the facilities that Pike River Coal would have planned for a second emergency egress.
---
1:15pm – Asked if it was practical to build a road to vent shaft into the coal field, Mr Smith says “No, I don’t believe it was”.
“On a steep side slope the amount of earth works required to build a road in that vicinity increased significantly. The costs also would have been higher.”
Helicopter, rather than track, is the preferred access route, Mr Smith says.
---
1:10pm – Prior to a meeting on November 16 last year, Mr Smith joined others on a visit to the coal face. His last visit had been February 2009 and he says he was interested to see the development.
“My impression while underground was that there was a steady breeze in the tunnels due to ventilation,” he says.
---
1:09pm - There were some concerns around wildlife at the Pike River site. Road and seven bridges and other structures were built during Mr Smith’s time at the mine. He was on site 2-3 days a week up until 2006. He visited less often after that.
---
1:07pm – During the construction phase of Pike River, Mr Smith was on site two to three days a week up until 2006. As development continued, he had less input and his visits were reduced to two to three days a month.
---
1:06pm – Mr Smith worked as liaison officer for DOC and Pike River Coal. He is also the liaison officer for Oceana Gold’s mine at Reefton – a role he has held since 2005.
---
1:04pm – Mark Smith, an engineer with the Department of Conservation, has taken the stand.
---
1:03pm – Commissioner Panckhurst has apologised for the delay caused by localised fog. The inquiry will sit until 3pm today, take an afternoon break, then may continue a little later than the usual finish time of 5pm.
---
12:58pm – The inquiry will resume at 1pm.
---
10:00am – Christchurch Airport has been closed due to fog, meaning some of the legal team will have to drive to Greymouth.
The inquiry will resume this afternoon.
---
PIKE RIVER INQUIRY: Week one wrap
*There is a 10 minute delay on the live stream to meet the Inquiry’s broadcasting rules. The stream will be interrupted if the Inquiry goes into private session or if there is suppressed evidence.
Find all our 3 News Pike River coverage here
3 News