Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michelle Gander, Associate Professor, Business, Murdoch University
Mining is a critical industry for the Australian economy and has the potential to offer secure, well-paid and meaningful careers.
But the evidence from our review of the 29 studies of 40 years of research on women working in the Australian mining sector is clear: gender inequality is built into the structures, cultures and places that define the industry.
Until those are addressed, progress will remain partial and many women will continue to decide that entering or staying in the mining industry is not worth the cost.
This is not a pipeline problem
The latest data from Workplace Gender Equality Agency, released last month, shows mining remains one of the most unequal industries in Australia when it comes to gender and pay.
In addition, under new legislation in effect from April 1 this year, employers with more than 500 staff are now required to commit to action targets to improve the gender pay gap.Companies that are heavily involved with mining make up four of the top ten biggest companies listed on the ASX: BHP, Rio Tinto, Fortescue and Newmont. Although their gender pay gaps are smaller than those of the major banks, they remain substantial, ranging from 7.2% to 12.8%.
Across Australia’s mining sector, women remain significantly under-represented, making up only 23% of the total workforce according to the latest Workplace Gender Equality Agency data.
However, this hides the facts that the majority of women in mining work in the lower-paid and feminised clerical and service occupations (69% and 45%, respectively), rather than the higher-paid site-based technical or senior management roles (10% and 25%, respectively).
Gender equity in mining is often framed as a pipeline problem, meaning not enough women are entering the industry, particularly into technical and operational roles.
But this explanation is incomplete, and our review paints a different picture. The issue is not simply who enters mining; it is how mining work is organised, and who that organisation works for.
Who is the ideal mining worker?
Mining work is not neutral. Work is designed and structured around a particular model of the “ideal worker”. This is someone who is continuously available, geographically mobile and able to work long, uninterrupted shifts.
In practice, this means fly-in fly-out (FIFO) arrangements where staff fly from cities and stay on site, or drive-in drive-out (DIDO) where staff live in remote towns but still have to commute into the mine, often several hours each way.
On mine sites, operations run 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year. So work schedules are often based on people working 12-hour shifts for two weeks, before they can return home for a break.
These conditions are central to how mining operates. They disproportionately disadvantage those with caring responsibilities, or people who are not constantly available. This is one of the key reasons why women’s participation declines over time, even when recruitment improves.
Working in remote sites, living in camps, and being far from towns or cities can amplify both how work is organised (like job design and rosters) and the workplace culture (for example, more dominant or hyper-masculine behaviours).
Skewed gender ratios, limited access to external support networks, and the conditions of camp life can increase risks of exclusion and harassment.
These factors matter because they embed inequality into the everyday experience of work. They shape not only what work looks like, but how it feels to be there.
Hyper-masculine norms
Mining continues to be characterised by hyper-masculine norms that shape how competence, leadership and belonging are understood. These norms privilege traits such as endurance, toughness and emotional stoicism, qualities historically associated with masculine identities.
Women working in these environments frequently report exclusion, social isolation and exposure to sexist behaviour, hostility, harassment and assault. A parliamentary inquiry in 2022 was told, for example:
I had men come in to my camp room and push me on to my bed and kiss me, I was lucky that it stopped there, it didn’t for some girls and guys. I came home to my camp room on some occasions to find men passed out in my bed and others going through my underwear drawer.
These incidents, or everyday micro-aggressions such as “throwaway” comments, build over time. They are linked to lower job satisfaction, poorer mental health, and higher intentions to leave the mining industry.
Promising to make progress
Over the past decade, mining companies have made visible commitments to diversity and inclusion. Gender targets, leadership programs and reporting frameworks are now common across the sector.
Staying in mining requires both resilience and navigating environments that were not designed with women in mind.
This all helps explain why interventions that focus solely on policy or representation often fall short. They do not address the environments in which the work is actually carried out.
Key areas for reform include:
- changing work schedules, so people can keep doing the job in a healthy and manageable way
- allowing flexibility in operational roles, rather than treating it as an exception
- rethinking leadership models that continue to privilege narrow definitions of competence.
It also requires greater accountability for workplace culture, including how work is allocated, how behaviour is managed, and whose contributions are recognised.
– ref. How Australia’s mining sector locks women out of high-paying roles – https://theconversation.com/how-australias-mining-sector-locks-women-out-of-high-paying-roles-279760
