Mining contractor Macmahon Holdings has conceded its approach to tackling sexual misconduct had been reactive before the inquiry into sexual harassment in the industry.
Mining contractor Macmahon Holdings has conceded its approach to tackling sexual misconduct had been reactive and its policies ineffective while recalling the 'confronting' testimonies before the parliamentary inquiry into sexual harassment in the industry.
The contractor’s chief executive and managing director, Michael Finnegan, fronted the committee spearheading the inquiry this morning, opening his testimony by acknowledging the prevalence of sexual misconduct in the industry and the need for systemic change.
He told the committee he believed the inquiry to be a significant opportunity to unearth issues and improve safety measures to eradicate sexual harassment.
“Regrettably, sexual harassment does occur in the FIFO mining industry, despite it being contrary to our values,” Mr Finnegan told the inquiry.
“Many incidents have gone unreported, and this needs to change.
“Ulimately, sexual harassment is unlawful and it is not tolerated at Macmahon.
“As an industry, as a company, we should not rest until zero tolerance becomes zero incidents.”
When quizzed by committee chair Libby Mettam about the breadth of the issue, Mr Finnegan revealed the company had recorded 11 cases of sexual harassment in the past 12 months, five of which resulted in perpetrators being sacked.
At least one incident was reported to WA Police and forwarded to the Chamber of Minerals and Energy.
Mr Finnegan told the inquiry the company planned to conduct an anonymous survey of its 4,000 staff to gauge the scale of the issue and how it could be better dealt with, with talks already underway regarding the implementation of a new online reporting system.
He also addressed the publication of a testimony from a former employee of the company detailing situations in which she was harassed and bullied by her male supervisors for declining sexual advances.
At the time, Mr Finnegan revealed the company responded to the confronting testimony by sending an email to all staff reaffirming its commitment to change, which prompted another employee to come forward with her experience.
“One of the testimonies went out in the press recently and it was very confronting, it was confronting for our whole team,” he said.
“Clearly, people were uncomfortable.
“We sent email correspondence to all staff outlining our commitment to change and reiterating that our plans weren't just lip service, which prompted an employee to come forward.
“She is a very strong lady, but she told us she was apprehensive [about reporting the incident] because everyone in the environment was so close.
“She was concerned about how it could impact her career, her livelihood.”
Mr Finnegan said the company had several controls in place for the recruitment process, including police clearance and reference checks, and had implemented limits on alcohol consumption on site and training material specific to sexual harassment in the wake of the inquiry.
Macmahon has numerous reporting avenues for victims of sexual harassment, but Mr Finnegan admitted it was yet to finalise a standalone policy around sexual harassment.
When asked why the company’s health and safety policy didn’t account for psychosocial hazards, the company’s chief development officer Greg Gettingby conceded that sexual harassment had historically been seen as a human resources issue.
When pressed by the committee, Mr Finnegan admitted the company’s approach to the issue had been reactive, rather than proactive, with harassment only included as a standalone agenda item at the company’s board meetings as of last month.
He accepted the company’s policies to date had not worked, acknowledging that even one case of sexual harassment was evidence of that.
Industry register for offenders
Like several of his counterparts at other companies, Mr Finnegan supported the introduction of a register for problematic employees, but pushed for it to be managed by an industry body.
Anecdotally, Mr Finnegan said he believed a register would assist mining companies and act as a deterrent for perpetrators, but acknowledged it was a legally complex area that would require a legislative framework to be progressed.
The register concept has regularly surfaced throughout the duration of the inquiry, with industry body CME backing its introduction.
Association of Mining and Exploration Companies chief executive Warren Pearce also supported its introduction, but warned of the complexities around its implementation.
“We have concerns about how it would work and who would manage it,” he said.
“Does that mean a perpetrator could be on the registry for life? Why should that only apply to our industry?
“We’d be looking for advice from the committee with regards to who should manage or operate that.”
When quizzed about how the mid-tier mining companies the association represented were grappling with the issue, he told the inquiry 30 companies had attended a briefing from Crime Stoppers ‘Safe to Say’ anonymous platform.
He said many of its members had indicated they were likely to implement the system themselves, a helpful addition given the financial costs associated with the implementation of comprehensive reporting systems.
Mr Pearce stressed that many companies and their workers were doing the right thing and were committed to driving cultural change.
“I don't want my comments to demonise the workforce,” he said.
“They’re hard working people doing a good job.”
