How important is the federal harmonisation of safety laws for the mining industry?

I think it's more important to ensure the harmonisation process doesn't lead to a lessening of occupational health and safety laws and regulation standards. Particularly the bigger mining states, all of whom currently have industry-specific legislation dealing with the detail of hazards and the processes which exist within those mines. What I would like to think is that those jurisdictions which haven't had a history of mining disasters and therefore haven't had the capacity or the requirements to learn from those sorts of terrible incidences, that they could actually enhance safety standards for their mining operations.

Is it still viable to keep existing state legislations?

Absolutely, nothing hard or complex about it at all.

What are the critical issues that need to be addressed regarding mine safety across the country?

There is a requirement for there to be a standardisation and a harmonisation. That needs to occur because it's ludicrous that we've got fundamentally different standards and fundamentally different prescriptive regulations for processes applying in one mining operation in Victoria, as opposed to one mining operation in Queensland, and there's no justification for that. So, if we got the best, not necessarily good, but the best laws applying in a state, then they ought to be applied universally throughout the country, that gives you the best occupational health and safety regime at the end of the day, and secondly it makes it much easier both for workers and managers to as mobile as what the economy nowadays demands.

How can a National Mine Safety Framework best be achieved then?

It can best be achieved by what's happening at the present time through a consulted and tripartite process of pragmatically looking at the structures that are in place, the processes that are in place and indeed the fine details of the laws and regulations that are in place, and that's what's being done at the present time.

Will it be achieved by 2011?

Well we've been told it has to be, to fit in with the requirements of government and the current framework which is in place for the model of OH&S harmonisation as well. So you've got two slightly different processes taking place, and at the end of the day they need to mould together.

How has the CFMEU contributed to the NMSF?

Fortunately I've been on the steering group since it was established by [Minister for Resources, Energy and Tourism] Martin Ferguson a couple of years ago, and I'm on three of the individual working groups that have been established from that membership of the NMSF steering group and I think I can proudly say that I haven't missed a meeting! There have been a considerable number of meetings and its all being done at the expense of the individual stakeholders, so we get no assistance from the government for travel, the union makes all of those contributions, and it has been a substantial cost to the union, it has been not an insignificant burden on me I might add, but it has all been very worthwhile.

How receptive has industry been towards these developments?

It depends on which part of which section of industry you're talking to at any given point in time. Certainly the larger employer organisations would prefer to see a fairly simple national model, but as you get closer to the coalface, that ubiquitous place where I come from, there's more often an appreciation and an acceptance of the need for much greater detail in the legislation and much more prescription, and people are generally comfortable with what they've got. There is quite descriptive legislation covering the coal mining industry in Queensland and New South Wales, and frankly the people who day-to-day have to deal with that legislation aren't turning their head around about it. But there's no question there's a degree of philosophical objection to make public that legislation and indeed the contents of that legislation.

Can the objections raised be addressed?

They have been addressed, at the end of the day they won't be necessarily agreed by the steering group, they'll be a call for ministers on the ground at various levels. There has been a high degree of consensus to date, there are unquestionably some contentious issues and it's acknowledged that some of those contentious issues will not be able to be agreed at NMSF steering group level, and the decision will have to be called by the ministers.

How receptive have the states been towards these developments?

From my recollection, the states have not missed a meeting, there have been some changes, but that does occur. Secondly, there's quite a high-level of participation, they're not director generals but they are quite senior people within the various departments. There are some fundamental differences between the states as well, and there's consensus between the big mining states and there's consensus among the small mining states, and there's differences between those two groups.

The states who cover their mining industries under their generic OH&S act think that they're doing it well enough and good enough, and states who cover it with mining specific legislation, say "no, that's the only way to do it".

What are the most critical challenges within the mining industry that the CFMEU will face this year?

Unquestionably from my point of view it's getting this one right so that we don't end up with watered down OH&S legislation applying to our members, and that in the process of harmonisation, we don't get involved in or permit governments or anybody else to get involved in a race to the bottom. That's the biggest thing in this whole process for us.

How do we compare with other countries with regards to mine safety?

In terms of fatality rates and lost-time injury rates, we are doing extraordinarily well. We're doing something right and what we want to ensure is we don't get anything wrong in the process of harmonising those laws.

How important have technological developments in mine safety equipment been to reducing workplace fatalities and injuries on mine sites?

New technology, advanced technology and improved productivity are a mixed bag. When something new is introduced, or a bigger, faster piece of equipment is introduced, then in fact it can bring some unforeseen occupational health and safety issues with it. For example, one of the great sources of our injuries in underground coal mines is larger equipment and crushing injuries. So, the industry is now looking at proximity warning devices, so if that technology is introduced, it might stop people being pinned up against the wall in an underground coal mine, and we're getting more of those injuries than we are used to, but it's because the equipment's getting bigger and the equipment is getting bigger so more coal can be produced. The safety devices that ought to go hand in glove with this new equipment, are coming along secondary to the new equipment being introduced. That's been the standard in the industry in the 30 years I've been associated with it ñ putting new equipment in, then realising after you're lost a few lives or you've had a spate of injuries, that there's a problem with that new piece of equipment, or that we should have had a different form of access to that three-storey truck. So there are a lot of dump trucks around now that have got elevator platforms, so that people can get lifted up to their cabin instead of climbing on the ladder.

Thereís been some lobbying to entice government to reform workplace legislation, which will essentially limit industrial action and penalise employees, what's your take on this issue?

We actually think that there's a place for either actual or the threat of industrial action to keep employers honest, on their toes and attentive to the wants and needs of their employees. If what we end up with in this country is an exercise of absolute managerial prerogative, where you cannot be questioned or challenged by employees or their unions, or even arbitrated by an independent third body, then you've got the boss with absolute power. I don't accept that bosses can be trusted to utilise absolute power, because whenever they've had it before, they've had a whip in the other hand.

How do you rate current workplace legislation?

It's better than what it was a couple of years ago and it's worse than what it was 15 years ago, as far as this industry is concerned.