Join
Login

Complaints Update

Code of Ethics and Complaints Process Review

A review of AIG’s Code of Ethics, Complaints and Ethics and Standards processes is nearing completion.

The review of AIG’s Code of Ethics and complaints process was initiated in April 2018.  Several, valuable submissions were received from members and considered during review.

Interim results were presented to the AIG Council at it’s recent, annual face to face meeting in Sydney, where several additional questions were raised.  Legal advice on these issues is currently being sought.  The review will result in changes to the Code of Ethics that will be presented to members for consideration and review by members at an extraordinary general meeting of the Institute by the end of 2018.  The changes will be designed to ensure that the Code of Ethics remains a viable set of principles, to support AIG’s role of maintaining demonstrably high standards of professional practice by members.

The revised Complaints and Ethics and Standards processes include a timeline for notification and review of complaints relating to practices of members.

Complaints Lodgement

Complaints relating to the professional conduct of AIG members may be lodged by any member of the public.  Complaints must be lodged in writing, by email to aig@aig.org.au or using the on-line form provided on the AIG website.  A description of the complaints process is also available on the website.

Complaints and Ethics and Standards Committees

Procedural fairness for members subject to a complaint is ensured by a two tiered complaints handling process, involving receipt and initial review of each complaint by the Complaints Committee that refers complaints considered to warrant detailed consideration and action by the Ethics and Standards Committee.  Disciplinary action against members is recommended by the Ethics and Standards Committee to the Institute Council.  Members have the ability of appealing Ethics and Standards decisions to the Council.

The Chairpersons of the Complaints and Ethics and Standards Committees are currently Andrew Waltho FAIG RPGeo and Michael Edwards MAIG RPGeo respectively.  The current chairpersons of all Council committees and subcommittees are published in each issue of AIG News.

Advice to Members

Two complaints have been received since the AIG AGM in May.

One complaint is currently being considered by the Ethics and Standards Committee.  The second resulted in the member being confidentially advised of an adverse finding in relation to compliance with the JORC Code (2012).

The announcement in which the member was nominated as the Competent Person included the following shortcomings:

  1. failure to observe the JORC Code’s underlying principles of materiality and transparency by not meeting minimum standards of disclosure for public reporting of mineral resource estimates provided by Table 1 in JORC (2012), including disclosure of information on an “if not, why not” basis.
  2. Use of JORC as a brand by using “JORC compliant” to describe the mineral resource statement, which is a breach of Clause 6 of the code and highlighted in Clause 6 as being potentially misleading.  The words “JORC compliant” must be used to refer to the manner of reporting, not to the estimate.
  3. Use of inappropriate rounding of the Mineral Resources, in breach of JORC (2012) Clause 25.  Reporting of grade and tonnage estimates must not imply unsupported confidence in the estimates that is inconsistent with uncertainty inherent in the estimates, geological interpretation and data on which they are based.
  4. Use of a competent person statement should follow the form of a statement presented in Appendix 3 of JORC (2012).  Neither AIG or AusIMM register Competent Persons (JORC 2012 Clause 9).  Competent Persons are Members or Fellows of AIG or AusIMM, or a recognised overseas professional organisation with a minimum of five year’s experience in the activity, commodity and style of information covered by the announcement.
  5. Use of the term “ore” in describing Mineral Resources, which is a breach of JORC (2012) Clause 28.
  6. Metal equivalents must not be included in a Resource statement without addressing JORC (2012) Clause 50 which, for polymetallic deposits, requires disclosure of material factors contributing to the net value presented by the metal equivalent.

The issues addressed in the complaint decision refer to JORC (2012) clauses 6, 9, 25, 28 and 50, Appendix 3 and Table 1.  

The member was advised to carefully review the announcement in relation to the relevant sections of the JORC Code (2012) to prevent recurrence of the identified shortcomings in future work as a Competent Person and given 14 days to submit an appeal relating to the Ethics and Standards Committee decision.

Review of the nominated sections of the JORC Code by all members acting as Competent Persons is recommended.

Andrew Waltho
Chair, Complaints Committee