Key points
- In a time of technological change and disruption, annual general meetings (AGMs) remain a key accountability mechanism for corporate Australia.
- The ability of investors to engage with directors and management and hold companies to account is a fundamental driver of good corporate governance.
- “óĻóŹÓʵhas released updated guidance on virtual meetings for companies and registered schemes to clarify expectations and support shareholder participation.
Check against delivery
I would like to begin by acknowledging the traditional owners of the lands on which weāre meeting, the Gadigal people of the Eora nation.
I would also like to congratulate AIRA for hosting this inaugural conference. As Ian [Matheson, AIRA] mentioned, Iāve been involved in other conferences that have been put on and Iāve always found it really interesting and topical and on the pulse of whatās happening in corporate Australia and investors and consumers, which is where “óĻóŹÓʵfocuses our attention.
I also wanted to say AIRA is good at writing very well-written, brief, and to the point submissions, so when I think about the Statutory Review and the communication of key issues, I think you do a great job, whether it be bringing it to Treasury and othersā attention issues that arenāt always front of mind for people who are working in the policy and regulatory space. The corporate perspective, particularly your perspective, is always really welcome and well expressed, so thank you.
I will be responding to some of the issues that were raised through the Statutory Review and I think as the punchline, youāre going to have mixed views about where weāve landed, but hopefully some of it is welcome. I am also keen to leave time for questions because itās great to hear peopleās views on things.
AGM best practice is a fantastic thing to focus on. Technology is entirely reshaping industries, businesses, and daily life ā particularly in your profession. Today really is a great opportunity to reflect on the technology changes that affect AGMs more broadly and embrace them.Ģż
To frame my discussion, I want to remind you of the phrase āthe medium is the messageā, which was coined by a Canadian communication theorist, Marshall McLuhan. At the time, the idea of āthe medium is the messageā was revolutionary because it recognises how and where something is said shapes what is said ā and often speaks volumes more.Ģż
Where and how in our context for today is the AGM and that context really does affect what your CEOs, chairs, and other leaders in your organisations are conveying and also what theyāre hearing from your shareholders at the AGM.
Through that lens of the medium being the message, we can really see how important AGMs are as a powerful mechanism for facilitating good governance, even as technology disrupts and redefines how we communicate.Ģż
Where else other than the AGM are leaders of businesses required to meet stakeholders ā in this case, investors ā to look them in the eye, and explain what they are doing? So that medium being the message is really important.
From ASICās perspective, this ability of investors to engage with directors and management effectively, exercise their rights, and hold companies to account is a really fundamental driver of good corporate governance ā and obviously good corporate governance is essential for the effective operation and performance of both companies, our market, and our economy. So that form ā the AGM ā really enables the function of governance.Ģż
There really are a lot of governance challenges in Australia at the moment. I donāt want to get drawn on them particularly but that heightens the focus of AIRA today on AGMs and more generally on getting the fundamentals of governance right.ĢżĀ
Weāve framed todayās discussion as āmeeting expectationsā ā both the verb and the noun ā specifically how you as trusted advisers can support compliance with the regulatory requirements that apply in relation to AGMs in circumstances of technological change.
The price of flexibilityĀ
But first, a moment to step back in time. Last Thursday (20 March) was somewhat of an unsung anniversary.ĢżĀ
It marked five years since “óĻóŹÓʵfirst took steps to facilitate companies and registered schemes to hold virtual-only member meetings, in the beginning days of the COVID-19 pandemic. This was done by way of a no-action position if these entities could not otherwise comply with the Corporations Act requirements to hold virtual AGMs.
It was clear this flexibility was needed. We can all remember the challenges of that time, particularly in February, March, April. The dizzying series of āunprecedented measuresā, borders being closed, the quick maths to determine how many people you could have in a room, including one supposed to be hosting an AGM.ĢżĀ It was pretty mind blowing at the time.
So that decision was pretty straightforward but it also proved to be a sensible first step into the 21st century for company meetings, and we were really pleased at “óĻóŹÓʵto see it later become a permanent feature of the Act in 2022.Ģż
Like many other pandemic-era developments, the expansion of virtual and hybrid AGMs has presented both benefits and challenges.ĢżIām sure you could talk to me about those in detail, we recognise thatās been so. And like other reforms of this period, sometimes itās a little hard to tell at this point if itās a permanent shift or a pendulum swing.ĢżĀ
On the one hand, the ability to hold hybrid and virtual meetings has really democratised and improved access to meetings and facilitated greater shareholder participation.ĢżĀ
This is an outcome we support, given one of our objectives as a regulator is to promote the confident and informed participation of investors in the financial system. Supporting shareholders to exercise their rights is entirely consistent with that objective.Ģż
On the other hand, we are mindful that flexibility comes at a cost and can impose a burden. I note the representations from AIRA on this topic to the Statutory Review[1] consultation last year.Ģż
Just as an aside, I would like to mention to you that “óĻóŹÓʵhas recently convened a Simplification Consultative Group[2]. Our Chair Joe Longo spoke about it at our Annual Forum last year in which he stepped back as the regulator and looked at the regulatory framework ā statutory instruments, guidance, info sheets, all these different elements ā and reflected on the cost associated with very high levels of complexity in the frameworks we administer and that your companies are complying with.
Recognising that thereās been efforts before ā including by the Law Reform Commission and others ā to think about regulatory complexity, we are starting an additional push to see what we can do at “óĻóŹÓʵto achieve practical examples of simplification in relation to areas preferably within our gift. We create instruments, guidance, info sheets, surveillance data requests, so we are asking can we do them more simply or in a way that simplifies how they are felt by people who are receiving them?
But it will also generate some ideas about law reform as well and we canāt do that ā itās the parliament who does that. But we can act as a conduit between areas of the law and the legislative framework that are particularly complex and work up examples of why they are particularly problematic. Ā We can contribute to that wider debate as well. So if there are people interested in that, Iām happy to take that offline and take any questions on it, but I did want to let you know about that body of work in relation to simplification that “óĻóŹÓʵhas started.
Speaking of guidance though, I am pleased to announce today that in response to the recommendations of the Statutory Review of the Meetings and Documents Amendments and the Governmentās subsequent response[3], “óĻóŹÓʵhas released updated guidance on virtual meetings for companies and registered schemes[4].Ģż
Of that statutory review, there were a number of recommendations and one of them was directed to us ā and Iāll come back to it, itās āus plusā this idea of guidance being valuable in relation to AGMs.
The guidance further explains the amendments which permit hybrid and virtual only meetings and clarifies how “óĻóŹÓʵviews the law operating in certain areas. So, we did have some guidance but weāve enhanced it. Weāve gone into some more detail on issues and made some adjustments.Ģż
Specifically ā and I think this might be one of the areas thatās welcome ā one of our FAQ updates notes that we do not view the Corporations Act as always requiring a telephone line, so long as the virtual meeting format allows members to exercise any rights orally and in writing, and the virtual meeting technology meets the broader requirements of meetings.ĢżThatās something I think we heard from AIRA that was of particular concern, so weāve been pleased to clarify our thinking on that.Ģż
Youāll recall what I mentioned earlier regarding the medium and the message. Where weāve come from in relation to that is [from the perspective of] is there another way, or a way in which people can ensure members have the ability to have their voice heard. For us, this is a compromise which balances the burden of compliance with the expectations of shareholders.Ģż
We have also clarified that providing a webcast of a meeting at a physical venue does not meet the requirements of a hybrid meeting.ĢżOur view is if thatās the only piece of technology, thatās not allowing a member to participate by asking questions or indeed by voting. Thatās the second clarification I wanted to highlight but thereās others and I hope thatās helpful. There is more information available in the guidance, and thatās available on our website[5].ĢżĀ
So having covered the specific new information in relation to AGMs, I would like to spend the remaining time Iāve been given to speak with you outlining principles or goals that underlie a lot of the other requirements ā one being information about the meeting and the second being access. The third thing Iād like to finish on is how these things that already exist in the framework can be supplemented by best practice guidance, whether it be developed by industry or otherwise.
Clear information about the meeting āÆĀ
The first clear purpose that underlies a lot of the provisions is around investors getting information about the meeting.ĢżĀ Ā
As you know, listed entities in Australia are required to provide members with a minimum 28 days of notice prior to a meeting.Ģż These notices must include the date, time, and details of the meeting format, as well as any planned business, information about any proposed special resolutions and proxy votes, and an email contact.ĢżSo these are the core requirements and I think companies have an opportunity to think about how they provide and present information to assist investors make decisions. This will help meet the requirement for the notice to be clear, concise and effective.ĢżI mean, weāve all received unclear instructions on an important invitation to various things and [understand] the value of them being clarified or as clear as possible.Ģż
But it also comes back to that objective of confident and informed participation that I spoke of earlier and that fundamental right of the shareholder to be heard. If the medium is the message, logistics really matter.Ģż
Additionally, certain notices of meetings ā or NOMs ā are required to be lodged with “óĻóŹÓʵprior to dispatch to members.ĢżĀ
We recently examined a sample of the NOMs lodged with us, in addition to those publicly available on the ASX Market Announcements Platform.ĢżWe found that some of the entities that held virtual-only meetings during our review period may not have had constitutions that expressly permitted meetings to be held in that format.ĢżOr if they did, they didnāt notify us as required. So, weāve taken the steps of writing to those companies just to make sure that these rules that apply to when you can have a virtual-only meeting are complied with in our system.
We have also received a small number of reports of misconduct from the public[6] relating to insufficient notice periods being provided to shareholders prior to meetings, or meetings being switched from hybrid to virtual-only at short notice, including in circumstances where it wasnāt provided for in the constitution.Ģż
While these reports are few in number and have not suggested widespread issues to date, I would like to remind you that “óĻóŹÓʵis monitoring these reports and NOMs and expects compliance, as a fundamental part of enabling shareholder participation.ĢżĀ
Meetings are accessibleĀ
The second key goal underlying a lot of these provisions is accessibility.ĢżThis should not be misinterpreted as meaning that meetings are required to be in a certain format.Ģż
ASICās approach here is technology-neutral, as it is with many areas that we regulate.ĢżWe donāt have a preference as to what format your meeting is in, as long as it meets three criteria: it is allowed by your constitution, it is properly disclosed, and it provides your shareholders with an opportunity to be heard and participate.ĢżAfter that, thereās flexibility there.
Because participation is the cornerstone of corporate accountability. It is what makes the AGM a key accountability mechanism.ĢżItās not just an obligation, the AGM. Itās an opportunity as well.ĢżShareholders are not just there to listen but to be listened to. Some of the questions can really assist from both a corporate governance and reputational standpoint.Ģż
Iām sure youāve all seen the recent ComputerShare and Georgeson AGM Intelligence report[7]. It was an interesting characterisation that the remuneration vote is no longer just about remuneration, it is an annual referendum on company sentiment. Thatās how they characterised it and thatās an interesting way of thinking about it.ĢżI think youāve got some discussions coming up about two strikes so I wonāt pre-empt those but I understand thatās an important part of the meeting as well.
Industry development of best practiceāÆguidelinesĀ
So we can look at the statutory provisions ā thatās what weāre really clearly focused on ā but the recommendation earlier from the Statutory Review did acknowledge that best practice guidelines can be developed by industry in a way that is really valuable and supplements anything done by the regulator or indeed in the statutory provisions themselves.
Today is a good example, talking about it and discussing options, ideas, and developments, in a way that is helpful for other colleagues in other companies. I wanted to also shout out that the idea of developing best practice guidelines was explicitly described in the Statutory Review as being really valuable.Ģż
The value of something in that format is that it is written, developed, and informed by the experts ā thatās you, in relation to what you see in practices with some of the more difficult issues.
Now I recognise that some parts of the Act are tricky ā like āreasonable participationā. What does that mean if the technology goes down and people get disconnected from your meeting? How long do you have to wait for them to come back in or if they canāt come back in? What do they do?
A statutory provision on reasonableness is never going to be able to give you all of the answers and I donāt think youād want it to. The idea of that level of granularity ends up in what I was talking about earlier ā incredibly complex legislative frameworks that get stale or otherwise. So I would encourage you to think through the benefits of that as supplements to what Iāve been talking about. Ā
°ä“DzԳ¦±ō³Ü²õ¾±“DzŌāÆĀ
So, to conclude I just wanted to finish on the concept of trust.ĢżĀ Many of the requirements weāve spoken about today are relatively new for you but theyāre also new for your shareholders. Engaging with some of the changes in technology and formats does require a certain leap of faith on their part.Ģż
I donāt need to tell you that many retail shareholders have been attending your meetings since everything was done by post, so a lot has changed in a short period of time.ĢżĀ
We saw concerns raised through the Statutory Review process that certain stakeholders distrusted virtual-only meetings if they felt it would be denying them their ability to fully exercise their rights and hold the board and management to account.ĢżĀ
My observation on that would be that best practice does breed confidence and breed trust.ĢżĀ
So, if the medium is the message, there is great value in showing, as well as telling, your shareholders that their rights will be upheld, or even enhanced, regardless of what that format is for your meetings. Because thatās what generates trust and thatās a price we think is worth paying when it comes to good corporate governance.ĢżĀ
Thank you again to AIRA and to everybody here. Iām ready to answer questions.
[2] “óĻóŹÓʵAnnual Forum 2024: Bridging generations ā regulating for all Australians | ASIC
[4] “óĻóŹÓʵprovides further guidance on virtual meetings for companies and registered schemes | ASIC
[5] FAQs: Virtual meetings for companies and registered schemes | ASIC