I responded to a question at a discussion panel recently (the Pitcher Partners Resources lunch) about diversity at board level in mining. The flavour was more about women on boards, but ensuing discussion was broader.

My gut feeling was "hot potato - shut up". However I ignored that, and as I gave my opinion, I had several sets of eyes burning holes in me. And I don't begrudge that, this is an emotive issue. In agreeing to join a panel, you risk saying something a person that doesn't have a microphone would like to respond on. My position is that I have a strong belief in merit-based appointment to any position, for anyone. I fully acknowledge that this is easy to say as a guy, the MC made that exact point to me (quoting Germaine Greer). Mining News ran some articles on this topic several months back, and appears to have had a complete lack of response. Deafening silence from those chairmen who preside over mining company boards that contain no women (of which, for the past two years, I have been amongst the ranks of), but equal lack of engagement from other positions in the debate. Would a chairman with a clear conscience take to print? I doubt it. I wrote and rewrote a page at the time, but never submitted it. The optical daggers prompted me to revisit it.

Best practice in corporate governance is promoted the world over through guidelines usually provided by the exchange for a listed company, or a corporate regulator. These set a bar at a level that is judged to be appropriate, generally speaking, for companies to strive towards. Movements to promote gender diversity are along the same lines. There have been proposals to elevate gender diversity to a level where companies would have to meet mandatory levels of gender diversity - a quota, if you like.

There are a range of arguments for promoting more women to board positions of mining companies. The one which is unfallibly reasonable is that everyone get the same opportunity - male or female - it should not matter. However because a considerable bias toward male directors of mining companies persists, it is possible to conclude this has not been universally adopted.

Investors own the company, and certainly don't provide investment purely in order to comply with social aspirations - the capitalist desire is to make money and have the best chance of doing so.

From an investors' point of view, there are a range of risks to look out for in board structure. 

- complementary skill sets, which are adequate for the stage and focus of the company. This is a dynamic situation as requisite skills vary over time.

- ability to adequately represent the interests of shareholders. I have chosen this phraseology deliberately - to an exchange this may well include discussion of director independence. I don't buy a lot of the guidelines on this as I just can't accept that a person who owns no equity, or an amount which is absolutely immaterial to them financially, could possibly fully appreciate the interests of shareholders - they are on a different page.

- board stability and ability to work together collaboratively. It's all too common for boards, especially of small companies, to be dominated by a single personality or a grouping of people who collaborate more toward their individual interests than those of the entire shareholder base. Sometimes, willingness just exceeds capability. It is very rare for a company that rapidly and continually changes board directors is successful.

A person's gender has no bearing on the risks above, until a person is mandatorily included into a board. If mining companies were collectively mandated to set out to address a gender imbalance, it is difficult to feel that all those new appointments would be of the best candidate - criteria would genuinely exclude the best candidate in some cases, if they were not a woman. Furthermore, there is a risk that the said appointments are stigmatised as being a token appointment. This may be deserved - I have seen loads of male directors appointed and shaken my head at the logic twists that must have taken place for them to be selected so there is no reason to think that because a person is not male that they are what they have represented themselves to be. However I feel strongly that by and large, this stigmatisation would be largely undeserved, and would undermine the effort to see the most capable women achieve their full potential as directors.

Let's not ignore the elephant in the room - historically mining has been extremely blokey. This is impossible to address, however it's important to recognise that it's an artefact of history - and the debate on gender diversity is about the future.

Miners, in fact many groupings of companies (say ASX 100 sized companies), can be clubby. There is a tendency to select board members from a small population who are already incumbents. This is not a gender issue - it's a gene pool that needs chlorine and then new blood.

To suddenly put a woman into a board that is one of the "man's world" situations that are the very artefact that is the focus for most urgent adjustment would achieve nothing. I wouldn't want to be parachuted in unless I had the support of shareholders and a mandate for a specific outcome. The boards that need fixing most do not need a woman - they need a competent, patient and persistent individual, which may well be a woman but not exclusively. The worst of these situations are hostile to outsiders no matter who you are.

Do women have a positive contribution to make to mining company boards? The answer is a resounding, unequivocal and resolute YES. Don't even dare interpret a silent "but" here. To be effective, they must be appointed on merit - not quota. 

Given the opportunity of a couple of long flights now to reflect carefully, the companies I respect most for the quality and professionalism of the individuals on their boards have not got the faintest sense of male centricity to their board nomination policies, and many have made appointments (with excellent reasons) of highly capable and impressive women to their boards. As much as these women are pioneers they will blaze the trail for others who come in the future, and success will break down barriers rapidly.

Please don't let's go anywhere near the concept of the balance a woman brings to a setting. All this says is that their quality is as a female and not their qualification or experience.

To highly motivated people of all genders - I don't believe you want to be on a board that doesn't want you. You will only achieve your full potential where your strengths are amplified by those around you, and if all your energy is sapped in politicking and sniping you are less than likely to make progress on what really counts. Ladies, there are plenty of boards that want your participation - so long as you are the person for the job. By exemplifying success under all the right conditions, the worst offenders will single themselves out - and as I've described, their issues are more than gender derived.

Go ahead - knock me down as imperviously chauvinistic and even ignorant. I won't get it because I'm a man? You are just as bad as the people you are trying to correct. The people I want to surround myself with are best for the job - and that's got bugger all to do with being a girl or a guy. To all my female heroes in mining - I think you know who you are (yep some of you were dagger chucking), and I doubt very much any of you consider our professional relationships to have anything to do with me striving for diversity.