Queensland · Updated 19 August 2026
Queensland critical control requirements after 1 June 2026.
From 1 June 2026, critical control management became a mandatory and enforceable requirement for all mineral mines and quarries in Queensland. The practical challenge is to make each control observable, verifiable and actionable in the field.
What changed
Each critical control now needs a clear operating chain.
Resources Safety and Health Queensland says the changes are intended to identify the hazard and risk controls that matter most. Those controls must be implemented effectively and routinely verified as working as intended.
The guidance is directed at mineral mines and quarries. Coal mines operate under a related but distinct legislative and guidance context, so organisations should use the material that applies to their operation rather than treating all Queensland mining requirements as interchangeable.
For mineral mines and quarries, the regulator’s step-by-step guidance begins with the threshold for a Material Unwanted Event and follows the control through risk assessment, performance, verification, response and governance.
Steps 1 to 4
Define the event, assess the risk and identify the critical few.
The mine operator defines and documents the threshold for unwanted events that warrant the highest level of attention. The Site Senior Executive then identifies site-specific events that could reasonably reach that threshold, informed by hazards, incidents and foreseeable low-probability events.
A risk assessment for each identified event describes the hazard and unwanted event, credible causes and consequences, and the controls that prevent the event or mitigate its consequences.
The next task is selection. A control is critical when it prevents the event or reduces its consequence, and its failure or absence would materially increase risk. The guidance focuses attention on the critical few rather than the important many.
- Can the organisation explain why an event meets its MUE threshold?
- Does the assessment reflect the site rather than a copied corporate list?
- Can each selected control be traced to the cause or consequence it addresses?
- Would failure of the control materially change the risk?
Steps 5 to 8
Define performance, verify it and act on failure.
Each critical control needs a clear purpose and performance requirements that are specific, observable and measurable. People should be able to distinguish acceptable from unacceptable performance without relying on vague judgement after the fact.
The method, frequency and responsibility for verification must then be defined. Verification should confirm that the control performs as intended in the field. A completed form is not enough.
Critical controls are documented in the safety and health management system. The regulator’s guidance describes a central register containing the MUE, control, performance and verification requirements, responsible roles and current status. When monitoring or verification identifies a defective control, prompt action is required and work may need to be modified or stopped until the control is restored.
One line deserves particular attention: the absence of incidents is not evidence that controls are effective. Positive evidence of performance is the point of the system.
Steps 9 to 11
Report performance, resource the work and prepare workers to respond.
The Site Senior Executive should routinely report critical-control performance to the mine operator, including verification outcomes and actions taken to address deficiencies. That reporting gives the operator a basis for oversight rather than a summary of lag indicators.
The mine operator must also make adequate resources available. Competent people, safe plant and equipment, support and time are part of whether the system can operate as designed.
Workers must be informed about the relevant MUEs and critical controls, understand why the controls matter, and know what to do when a control is not working. They should be able to demonstrate the required response to warnings, alarms and ineffective controls.
Implementation view
A critical control system should make the next decision clear.
A practical implementation connects the register to roles, work, verification and response. It should be easy to see which verification is due, what evidence supports the conclusion, where a control is degraded and who is responsible for the next decision.
Technology may help with offline field activity, timestamps, structured observations, photos, escalation and assurance coverage. Software cannot carry this by itself. Supervisor practice and clear field guidance matter because workers still need to recognise the control and act when it is ineffective.
A useful design should answer four questions: what was required, what happened in the field, what did the verifier conclude and what happened next?
- Use the organisation’s risk and SHMS structure rather than creating a disconnected control universe.
- Keep performance requirements observable and testable at the point of verification.
- Design escalation around operational authority. Automated notifications are only one part.
- Report coverage and exceptions without burying repeated failure patterns.
- Review the workflow when conditions, guidance or control design change.
Primary material
Sources checked
- Resources Safety and Health Queensland: legislation changes and critical controls
- Queensland legislation: Mining and Quarrying Safety and Health Act 1999
This article provides general operational information, not legal advice. Confirm the legislation, regulator guidance and site-specific requirements that apply to your operation.
A first conversation
Start with the messy version.
You do not need a polished brief. Tell us where the work breaks down and who deals with the workaround. We will reply with the questions we need to understand the problem and suggest a focused first step.