Mining operations are increasingly adopting Critical Control Management (CCM) - it's a strong model, but it largely assumes that managers and superintendents are competent to design and sustain these systems - and importantly, this is rarely examined or assured. By reframing human capability and competence as a core element of CCM, distinct from and complementary to, performance standards and verification activities, this approach would address a common blind spot in critical control programs. Integrating capability with verification closes the human‑performance gap, enhances the reliability of critical controls, and improves operational risk.

In summary, competence can be thought of as the reliability multiplier that determines whether controls are designed and function as needed. Is competence governance the next evolution of CCM?

Resources Safety and Health Queensland has released its Regulatory Priorities and Outcomes for 2026–27 — and it's a clear signal of where targeted inspectorate campaigns, audits and compliance activity are heading over the coming months.

If you operate a coal mine, mineral mine or quarry, or hold explosives authorities, this is worth a close read.

Whatever the specific topic, a common thread runs through nearly every one of these priorities: the inspectorate will be testing whether your Material Unwanted Events (MUEs) are properly identified, whether your Critical Controls are documented and verifiably effective, and whether your Management Structure — Risk Owners, Control Implementers and Control Monitors — is properly established, delegated, and staffed by demonstrably competent people.