Presentation on the Mine Health and Safety Amendment Bill Chamber of Mines 14 August 2008

Safety performance must be improved Milestones set

Chamber of Mines’ initiatives Vision: Continual improvement towards zero harm Implementation of best practices: Team of 10 persons seconded to Chamber TOPICS: Leadership, falls of ground, noise, dust Seismicity and Rockburst study by independent experts CEO Round Table, with international facilitation Project on occupational diseases among ex-mineworkers

Critical success factors to improve health and safety MAIN PRINCIPLE: Prevent accidents before they happen Joint action between all parties: cooperation is critical Find REAL causes of accidents and incidents Move from blame culture to partnership culture Retain principle of discipline/sanction for serious or repeat transgressions Role of legislation thus critical: balance between preventative and punitive approach Well-resourced Inspectorate

Balance between preventative and punitive approach If too punitive: It will show results in short term, but not sustainable in long term Real cause of accidents are not determined: similar incidents therefore cannot be prevented Some mines will only concentrate on complying with minimum requirements, rather than BEST practice Examples of a more punitive approach in Amendments: Less protection of report of employer investigations, and of evidence at investigations and inquiries (Clauses 4, 14, 23, 24) Sharp increase in administrative fines (Table 2) Payment of fine while subject to appeal (Clause 22) Double jeopardy (Clauses 14 and 26)

Protection of evidence Important principle: Find the real cause of accident – persons must not feel constrained to tell the truth Proposal: Evidence can not be used in any civil or criminal proceedings, inquests, disciplinary enquiries, or admin proceedings To give protection will not take away any rights, but will ensure fairness to employees: It will not prevent same evidence being produced in legal proceedings, but then subject to proper evidentiary rules The same principle applies: Employer investigations (Clause 4) Representations about fines (Clause 14(d)) Evidence given at DME investigation and inquiries (Clauses 23 & 24)

Inspectorate becoming a juristic person (Clause 11) Supported in principle Proper corporate governance in the legislation: MHSC should be the oversight body Should not be able to direct or interfere with enforcement Chaired by independent Chair Retain principle of Tripartism – it has served us well Proper financial provision from the State

Functions of Inspectorate (Clause 12) Health and safety permits: It will take up most of the time of Inspectors, who should be at the mines No proper criteria or procedures for when required, suspended, revoked, etc Increased red tape will impact negatively on competitiveness of industry Substantive rights should be in the legislation, not in regulation

Functions of Inspectorate (cont’d) (Clause 12) Mandatory minimum competencies for Inspectors Mandatory issue of guidelines for the use of s54 powers (clause 18) (see current s55G)

Administrative fines (Clauses 14-17, 22) Time limits within which Inspector should make decisions Very sharp increase in fines, generally higher than fines imposed by Courts Act should contain basic procedures and considerations with regard to fines (compare s55G, Clause 18) In addition, make provision for guidelines to be issued (s55G, Clause 18) Suspend obligation to pay fine when subject to appeal (Clause 22)

Criminal liability (Clause 26) Employer could be prosecuted for more than one offence for same set of facts Protection against prosecution if mine did not comply with mine’s own code of practice, even though they met legal requirements Chapter 3 issues are LRA issues, and should not be dealt with as part of criminal liability

“New” MHSA Milestones set Don’t throw out the baby with the bathwater: current approach has already shown positive results