PRC Pike River Coal

**Balance** · 01-06-2015, 10:17 PM

Originally Posted by Lola

And what about the Ministry who forever disallowed multiple times requests for more Inspectors.?
Come on people drop this and move on.

Charge the ministry with negligence to conduct proper safety inspections if that is the case. Heads must roll.

Not good enough - 2 wrongs do not cancel out the need to bring to account the greater wrong.

**Lola** · 02-06-2015, 06:37 AM

Originally Posted by Balance

Charge the ministry with negligence to conduct proper safety inspections if that is the case. Heads must roll.

Not good enough - 2 wrongs do not cancel out the need to bring to account the greater wrong.

Waste of money.
Open the road to the mine and get DOC to finish the job by giving the Public another hiking highway over to Reefton.
Something Helen may have had in mind and would be a wonderful memorial to those men.
The families would feel better if they pushed for that rather than exhaust themselves with grudge.
Gerry could open it like he did the mine.

**minimoke** · 02-06-2015, 07:43 AM

Originally Posted by Lola

----
The families would feel better if they pushed for that rather than exhaust themselves with grudge.

Who are we to speak for the families - if they want a hiking highway let them champion that cause.

If anyone has a right to bear a grudge it is these families. And I dont think they have a grudge, I think they just want to see someone be accountable, not an unreasonable emotion to have given the circumstances.

And we should never forget Pike River - for a whole pile of reasons listed exhaustively in this thread,

AS for Judith Collins leading the revolt against implementing a change in legislation. She should have made her feelings known at the drafting stage if she had taken just a wee bit of interest. She was Minister of Police at the time of the explosion and oversaw a department fail to bring charges early on. And a department of keystone cops who couldn't find enough evidence to bring a charge under the crimes Act. Then post election Minister of Justice - a government department that must be consulted when all Bills are drafted. All we got from her then was a great big silence.

As for WorkSafe - now busy issuing improvement notices left right and centre. Heres betting there will be a press release saying what a great job they are doing having visited x number of workplaces and issuing x number more notices. Then I'll wait for the inquiry into the quota system / bonus incentive scheme they have introduced to get such a result.

**Balance** · 02-06-2015, 09:09 AM

Originally Posted by Lola

Waste of money.

Close all jails and reduce police numbers then. Waste of money as crimes already committed?

There is a thing called deterrent - those who are in charge must be made to know that they must act responsibly at all times and not cause deaths.

**pietrade** · 02-06-2015, 04:26 PM

Originally Posted by Balance

......... - those who are in charge must be made to know that they must act responsibly at all times and not cause deaths.

Like the 'safety officer' at the mine, who was apparently incompetent/ineffective and lost a son in the explosion. The 'Boom' was the sound of chickens coming home to roost.......

**minimoke** · 02-06-2015, 05:13 PM

Originally Posted by pietrade

Like the 'safety officer' at the mine, who was apparently incompetent/ineffective and lost a son in the explosion. The 'Boom' was the sound of chickens coming home to roost.......

that is arguably defamatory, certainty insensitive and surely ill informed. All I can do is a suggest you read the royal commission of enquiry report which shows safety was the responsibly of the different departments and N. Rockhouses area was under resourced. He wasn't even informed of high methane readings among a whole pile of things that weren't taken seriously by others in more senior and responsible positions.

**pietrade** · 03-06-2015, 10:18 AM

It may well be an uncomfortable truth but who, other than the safety officer (literally at the 'coal face' of activity), would be PRIMARILY responsible for the safety of all the workers? Apart from the worker's own self-interest, surely that would be
the basic function of the safety officer's employment, and ideally expressed by an awareness of and monitoring of potential dangers? If the 'canary in the mine' fails to signal danger, who else to ring the bell?

**minimoke** · 03-06-2015, 11:40 AM

Originally Posted by pietrade

It may well be an uncomfortable truth but who, other than the safety officer (literally at the 'coal face' of activity), would be PRIMARILY responsible for the safety of all the workers?

no.

The fundamental responsibility is the managers of the workers. The person / people responsible are the ones who actually make the decisions.

Which is why you can track the path from nzog who kept deciding to throw money at prc. Then follow the money to the board of prc, then to the ceo of prc particularly when decisions are being made on / during mine development (eg "let's use a ventilation shaft that noone can climb as an escape route".).

Then down to the various engineering managers who have technical expertise on risk.

If you want to go down the track of making the safety manager responsible I think the first person immediately in front in that queue is the union. After all they are responsible for negotiating employee terms and conditions as well as protecting employee rights and being an advocate of employee interests. Once you are done with them is then the turn off the safety officer.

That of course will never happen. Firstly because the ninkompoops wouldn't be able to find any evidence. Secondly there would be little public interest in pursuing a man who lost one son and nearly lost another.