I was horrified to learn of the sexual harassment allegations against one of the Murray Irrigation requisitioning directors, who was previously the company chair.
My reading of the reports from the Alternative Dispute Resolution process is that while they have not been fully investigated or finalised, the director has admitted to two incidents and ASIC has been notified.
I have been told this highly inappropriate behaviour has had, and is still having, an impact on female staff working at MIL and I believe some have said they will leave the organisation if there is a ‘yes’ vote at the upcoming general meeting, which effectively condones the behaviour.
I have also had a number of conversations with staff members who said female staff at MIL have spoken about what action could be taken if a director at the centre of sexual harassment allegations is returned as company chair.
MIL female staff are members of our community – our mothers, partners, daughters, sisters and friends.
What message would a ‘yes’ vote send to them and the community about what we are prepared to ignore and tolerate?
While my main concern is for the staff at Murray Irrigation impacted by this behaviour, it is important to note the risks to Murray Irrigation as a company and its shareholders.
A quick Google search provides links to numerous articles and research including a snippet from a report produced by the Australasian Centre for Corporate Responsibility published November 2021 which says, in part: “Sexual harassment in the workplace damages company reputation and social license. It affects operation and labour costs and presents a significant financial risk … New research has found that sexual harassment reveals significant future problems for companies in terms of profitability, labour costs and stock performance”.
Along with this key issue I am concerned that this push to have two non-shareholder directors removed from the board risks destabilising MIL at a critical time when MIL, the board and its shareholders should be focusing on strategies for the future, a business plan and showing a united front with new rounds of water buybacks to commence this year.
This is what I see as two possible outcomes of the vote:
Risks of a ‘yes’ vote - reputational damage, instability, loss of two and up to four board members and staff at a critical time. A company left with reduced resources and staff. Short and longer term service delivery impacts with the potential of MIL unable to deliver water on time and provide the high levels of customer service currently provided. The region becomes a target for water buybacks.
‘No’ vote is a vote for - stability, will ensure continuity of strategic and business planning and advocacy and engagement with key government and external stakeholders. Sends a strong message to MIL staff that they have our support. Will provide assurances to staff that the Board and Management are committed to a safe workplace.
Taking all the above into account, I would strongly encourage shareholders to vote ‘no’ at the general meeting.
Yours etc.
Leanne Small
Deniliquin
21°C