The Writing Is On the Wall

Thanks to those brave women and men who, with strength, courage and determination, challenged the status quo on sexual harassment in the mining industry. According to the Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC), sexual harassment is more common in mining than in most other sectors. Nevertheless, the sex discrimination commissioner, Kate Jenkins, said: "A broad shift in the culture of the mining industry is urgently needed."?In addition, she said, "an industry that required urgent collective action" in the Australian Human Rights Commission's 2020 Respect@Work report.

Reluctantly, several companies admitted they have a problem and have pledged to make changes as a result. However, no matter their admissions and pledges, "the writing is on the wall". In 2019 the International Labour Conference adopted the first-ever standard on eliminating violence and harassment in the world of work: the Violence and Harassment Convention, 2019 (No. 190), and the Violence and Harassment Recommendation, 2019 (No. 206). It defined the term "violence and harassment" in the world of work as a range of unacceptable behaviours and practices that could result in "physical, psychological, sexual or economic harm", specifying that it included gender-based violence and harassment.?

Regrettably, multinational mining behemoths such as BHP continue to consciously espouse capitalist patriarchal ideals, which support the environment that controls the activities of men who use violence in their employ and working footprint. From the patriarchal conclaves in residential mining towns such as sporting clubs, pubs, and backyard barbecues to the gender-dominated active spheres of men, the nature of workplace culture is toxic and intrinsically linked to archaic and obnoxious behaviours in the family home and causative to domestic abuse of women and children in their working footprint.

In addition, Owen and Carrington (2014) indicate that the higher rates of family violence are in regional or rural communities that support the environment that controls the activities of men who use violence in employee areas. Gender-biased stereotypes and the sex-based divisions of work still respond to traditional patriarchal patterns, even though there have been changes. The ability to determine the precise levels of family violence in any environment is fraught with many challenges, as many women do not report it to the authorities (Phillips & Vandenbroek, 2014).?

The single features and communal assemblies of life in non-urban communities and the social norms and values of regional communities are central to understanding the specific experience of family violence in these communities (George & Harris, 2015; Loddon Campaspe Community Legal Centre, 2015; Owen & Carrington, 2014; Wendt, 2009a, 2009b; Wendt et al., 2015). However, these standards and ideals can silence and minimise the experience of family violence and deter women from disclosing family violence and seeking support. They may also affect the adequacy and fairness of justice-based responses (George & Harris, 2015; Loddon Campaspe Community Legal Centre, 2015).?

These values also promote a lack of perpetrator accountability, community protection of perpetrators and the shaming of family violence victims (George & Harris, 2015: Owen & Carrington, 2014). Mining corporates such as BHP have an ethical and social responsibility to stop the ongoing cyclic abuse of the victims of violence within their working footprint, wherever that may be. Furthermore, it is an insult to the abuse victims for employers to retain violent offenders.?

According to Carrington, McIntosh, Hogg, and Scott's (2013) and Carrington and Scott's (2008) research into Australian regional communities, they suggested that violent expressions of "hypermasculinity" in those communities may be a response to the destabilisation of traditional forms of rural manhood (Carrington & Scott, 2008, p: 641–666). Their study found that in regional communities, one of the primary hidden forms of violence, including suicide, bullying, homophobia and sexual assault, which the authors described as internalised male violence (Carrington et al., 2013).?

Wendt et al. (2015) argued that Carrington and colleagues' research into regional masculinity offered "insights into how geography and place construct masculinities potentially impact men's perpetration of violence against women and other men" (n.p.). More so, AMHC infers that not offering male employees who use violence locally delivered men's behaviour change programs as a mandatory condition of their ongoing employment perpetuates the cycle of recidivism, contributing to the predictable chaos, and exuberates the costs of the quality of family lives. Therefore, BHP's social license to operate compels them to act lawfully, ethically, and socially responsibly.?

Regrettably, there is not only a shocking sex abuse cover-up culture in the mining industry but an appalling and abysmal failure to prevent homelessness for victims of family violence. Homelessness and hopelessness caused by family violence are directly linked to a victim's financial independence. Women are usually economically worse off than men employed by BHP: they are more likely to take time out of the workforce to take on caring roles, work part-time, and are paid less than their male counterparts for the same work.?

Groups who are at a higher risk of family violence include women with disabilities, pregnant women, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women, women experiencing financial hardship, and women who experienced abuse or witnessed family violence as children. In many cases, economic and social disadvantage also threaten their access to housing. When a victim decides to leave a violent relationship, it often means leaving the family home. Their options are usually limited: an abusive partner may control finances, and the abuse may have diminished their capacity to work.?

If they leave with children, they must also find a safe place to stay. Rachel Hogg, a Doctor of Psychology at Charles Sturt University in Wagga Wagga, said a "significant portion of women report inadequate housing as the reason they return or stay in a domestic violence situation." In addition, Indigenous people were subjected to general and pervasive racism throughout their lifetime, recommending a multifaceted, whole-of-system approach to address racism and improve Indigenous social and emotional well-being.'

The silencing and invisibility of family violence result in perpetrators not being held accountable for their actions (Loddon Campaspe Community Legal Centre, 2015; Wendt, 2009a). Furthermore, the community acts to protect perpetrators, mainly if they are up-standing individuals or have visible jobs in the community. (George & Harris, 2015; Owen & Carrington, 2014). Studies found that women felt their community rarely challenged perpetrator behaviour and was complicit in continuing family violence. There was an overall indifference to family violence (Loddon Campaspe Community Legal Centre, 2015).

Disappointingly, for victims-survivors of family violence and their families living and working in regional Australia who experience the insidious social ill of violence, these small communities' necessary and critical social actions are painstakingly nonchalant and biased. As a result, the victim-survivor encounters more ambiguity and victimisation, placing them in more danger by forcing them to return to the perpetrator.

In Australia, 62 per cent of women who have experienced or are currently experiencing family violence are in the paid workforce. And while men can also be victims of domestic violence, it is mainly a crime perpetrated by men against women. The statistics show the problem is endemic; one woman is killed by her current or former partner every nine days. On average, 13 women per day are admitted to the hospital for assault injuries due to family violence.

According to The Male Champions of Change Collaboration?report in 2015, ?"economic factors are the most significant predictor of whether a woman experiencing domestic violence remains, escapes or returns to an abusive relationship." Furthermore, "perpetrators often use work resources (such as email and phone) to carry out their abuse. Workplaces can ensure that this is not tolerated." Given the corporate's ability to make a difference, it should not be prepared to dismiss family violence as a personal matter outside the company's interest. In addition, they deduce that organisations can play a significant role when they have a robust response – thought through, leader-led, implemented vigorously and not left to chance.

Meanwhile, the violent offender is in damage control, ergo the need to minimise the threat of losing his power and authority and will present himself as the victim by broadcasting his innocence to the local man brigade while tailoring his coercive control approach based on what they think will work best to deceive their superiors regarding time off work because his partner left with the children. Remember, being violent carries risks for the perpetrator: It is an undeniable act of abuse that they might be punished for, so they will minimise their involvement.?

Therefore, if the abuser can accomplish their objective of treating inferiorly and subduing the victim-survivor without using much physical violence, that is often what they will do. Some abusers are more adept than others at planning and carrying out their aims. Occasionally the least violent ones are the most successful at meeting their abhorrent goal of subduing the victim-survivor. If they begin to speak out about what is happening and start to seek support, abusers will respond with the DARVO tactic:?

• Deny or minimise the abuse,?
• Attack the credibility and character of the victim, and?
• Reverse the narrative about the safe and abusive parent to any children in the relationship.
• Victim and Offender, so the perpetrator assumes the victim role, and the victim becomes the alleged offender.

Therefore, It is incumbent upon significant employers such as BHP, who benefit from the natural resources, to 'minimise adverse social and human rights impacts from their activities' and counter this appalling and illegal behaviour, particularly with their staff, by investing and providing an effective response to family violence per their 'community requirements strategy.'

In addition, a crucial strategy included in the Aboriginal Males Healing Centre's Strategic Plan for Family Violence 2022–2023 is to 'develop and provide an obligatory purpose-built 28-bed residential facility, Puntu Yirna Maparnjula Japiya (Aboriginal Men's Healing Sacred-Place), centred on Justice Reinvestment on a 13.2ha site 10 kilometres south-east of Newman.?

Additionally, we will provide an obligatory 24-month program emphasising the recidivist aggressor, trailed by a further 4-year aftercare plan. The participants will be fitted with an ankle monitoring device, as ordered by the judiciary. Longevity is the key to sustainable behaviour change. This strategy provides an integrated response to those men who use violence. Subsequently reiterated in Western Australia's Family and Domestic Violence Prevention Strategy to 2022 and the National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children 2010–2022.?

'Integrated response' in this context refers to government agencies and community sector services working in a coordinated and collaborative manner to provide holistic, safe, and accountable responses to victims and perpetrators of family violence; streamlined pathways through the service system and seamless service delivery between service providers.

Thankfully, BHP and others support essential services, such as women’s shelters, in their operational footprint, and we celebrate this notion. However, women’s shelters alone should not absolve them from their responsibilities concerning their male employees who use violence, nor should it discount their social licence to operate and contribute to major social issues and development priorities using data from the social baseline studies and the social impact, of men who use violence, within their operational footprint.?

For example, the AMHC is a critical stakeholder open to consultations. Still, we must work on enticing or encouraging corporate investors such as BHP, which can provide the necessary social impact investment. However, AMHC is continually neglected by BHP as a local Aboriginal Community Controlled Organisation (ACCO) based within the confines of their working footprint and whose sole aim is to reduce the trajectory of family violence in the region of the Shire of East Pilbara (SoEP).

Unfortunatly, we are that organisation that necessitates the apparent need to work with men who use violence. If not us, then who scenario? We do not condone violence in any format nor claim to have all the answers for 'stopping the violence'. Nevertheless, the ‘writing is on the wall’ for all of us, including BHP and all corporate entities, regarding the social licence to be more accountable and responsive to ‘stopping the violence’.