Australia: Results Of 2006 AGM Survey

Last Updated: 28 June 2007
Article by Elspeth Arnold and Lisa d'Oliveyra

Blake Dawson Waldron has conducted a survey of 76 annual general meetings (AGMs) held since October 2006. The purpose of the review was to identify the practices and procedures employed at AGMs in 2006 and determine whether any trends have emerged since BDW’s 2005 AGM review.

The final report 2006 AGMs: Review and Results (available on our website under Publications), was published on 14 May 2007 in conjunction with the Business Council of Australia (BCA) and Chartered Secretaries Australia (CSA).

A brief outline of this project and the key findings are set out below.

Background to survey

In March 2006, Blake Dawson Waldron published a report entitled Review and Results of 2005 AGMs in conjunction with the BCA. The report highlighted the different practices and procedures employed at 61 AGMs held in 2005, with a particular focus on shareholder engagement and the impact of the Corporate Law Economic Law Reform Program (Audit Reform and Corporate Disclosure) Act 2004 (otherwise known as CLERP 9).

Since October 2006, lawyers from BDW have attended 76 AGMs, primarily to identify the practices and procedures used at AGMs in 2006 and whether any trends have emerged since 2005. The results are published in 2006 AGMs: Review and Results.

Survey methodology

The companies surveyed during 2006 included 42 S&P/ASX 100 companies, 17 S&P/ASX 100-200 companies and a further 17 listed companies outside the S&P/ASX 200. The companies surveyed included most of the companies surveyed in 2005, plus an additional 17 companies.

The 2006 AGM survey gathered data on a number of areas, including calls for questions by companies before the AGM, remuneration – related resolutions, director participation, the involvement of the auditor and special interest groups, voting, other procedural matters and constitutional amendments.

In March and April 2007, a series of discussion forums were held in Melbourne, Sydney and Perth. These sessions were attended by more than 100 people, including listed company representatives, representatives from share registries and a proxy advisory firm. The purpose of these sessions was to:

  • discuss the quantitative data, with a particular focus on trends emerging between 2005 and 2006; and
  • obtain feedback on the possible reasons for these emerging trends.

The 2006 AGM report includes the detailed survey results and possible reasons for any emerging trends, as canvassed during these AGM sessions (all feedback received has been incorporated on a "no-names" basis).

On the whole, the practice of AGMs did not change dramatically from 2005 to 2006. The survey does indicate, however, some developments which are interesting, especially in light of research conducted by CSA which indicates that there continues to be a declining number of attendees at AGMs.

Outlined below are some of the key survey findings.

Call for issues before the AGM

  • Call for business management questions

In 2006, a similar number of the companies surveyed called for questions (concerning business related issues) to be submitted to the company before the meeting.

Participants in the AGM sessions agreed that it assists the company to prepare for its AGM if it receives advance notice of common questions. In particular, it helps the company to structure its response to common shareholder concerns and, in the case of a company in the retail sector, sift out customer complaints. However, the company must weigh up the desirability of spending a large amount of management time collating and analysing questions before the AGM with the possibility of more agitated debate at the AGM itself (if questions are not called for before the meeting).

During the AGM sessions, it was postulated that top 200 companies are more likely to call for questions to be submitted before the AGM, as smaller companies may not have the resources to trawl through potentially thousands of questions.

This observation is supported by the results of the 2006 AGM survey.

  • Response by shareholders

If companies invited questions in advance, they generally received a response. In 2006, however, the shareholder response rate was lower, indicating that, on this measure alone, shareholder engagement is not improving.

During the AGM sessions, participants speculated that the lack of shareholder engagement may be due to the current buoyancy of the market. Shareholders are more likely to pepper the company with questions if it reports poor financial results or announces a dividend which is lower than expected.

Remuneration report Resolution

  • Presentation on remuneration report

In 2006, separate presentations on the remuneration report were less common.

In the vast majority of cases, the remuneration report presentation was given by the Chairman (the remaining presentations were made by the Chairman of the Remuneration Committee).

Participants at the AGM sessions offered the following reasons for the decline in the number of separate remuneration report presentations:

  • the remuneration report is so detailed that there is no need to give a separate presentation;

  • the remuneration reporting requirement was new in 2005 and so there is less uncertainty on how best to deal with it; and

  • the remuneration report is just another compliance requirement (among many).

Many participants felt, however, that it is useful to give a separate presentation on the remuneration report to focus the attention of shareholders on certain issues at the AGM. In particular, the way in which the remuneration report is presented can affect voting on the resolution.

  • Non-binding vote

As for the 2005 AGM survey, we analysed whether the companies expressly indicated to shareholders at AGMs that they would take account of non-binding votes on the remuneration report. A majority (but declining) number of companies continued to make a positive statement of this kind.

It should be noted, however, that whether the company makes a positive statement of this kind is not a clear indication, of itself, as to whether the company is taking the non-binding votes into account. For instance, there is no evidence to suggest that companies which don’t expressly indicate at the meetings that they will take account of non-binding votes, fail to take account of the vote. Importantly, it can be assumed that Chairmen generally do take account of shareholders’ views.

Participants at the AGM sessions indicated that companies were generally more comfortable with the voting procedure on the remuneration report in 2006. This may be attributable to the fact that the remuneration reporting requirement is no longer brand new.

Some participants at the AGM sessions suggested that a positive statement of this kind is unnecessary if there was sufficient proxy support for the resolution.

  • Vote order

Slightly more companies elected to place the remuneration report vote after director elections. In 2006, approximately 50% of companies surveyed placed the vote before director elections and the remaining companies placed the vote after director elections.

The 50/50 split in the 2006 AGM survey results was also reflected in the feedback received at the AGM sessions.

Some participants thought it best to hold the remuneration report vote before director elections. They noted that it makes sense to vote on the remuneration report vote straight after consideration of the accounts, as they both deal with historical matters. Director elections (which look to the future) should be placed last on the agenda.

Other participants thought it important to hold the remuneration report resolution last. They suggested that it is best to conduct the binding business first, while interest in the meeting is still fresh and attendance is assured.

  • Voting results

The remuneration report was adopted at each of the meetings surveyed.

Remuneration report is generally supported – At two-thirds of the meetings surveyed, the proxies cast against adoption of the remuneration report were less than 5% (this was similar to the 2005 survey result). Participants in the AGM sessions generally agreed that if the company is performing well and meeting its dividend expectations, shareholders are unlikely to vote against the remuneration report.

Negative proxies – In 2006, 6 companies had more than 25% of the proxy votes cast against adoption of the remuneration report, compared with only 1 company in 2005. In 2006, shareholders were more likely to object to the remuneration report than specific fee increases to non-executive directors (NEDs) or to equity awards to executive directors.

The majority of these 6 companies performed well during the year and so it is not possible to conclude that the negative proxy vote was attributable to poor financial results. Similarly, it did not appear that shareholders who cast negative votes were concerned about inadequate disclosure or specific aspects of the remuneration. Many of the affected companies reported that the negative proxy vote was, in part, attributable to a negative voting recommendation from proxy advisory firms.

NED remuneration

  • NED fee pool vote

One-quarter of the companies surveyed sought shareholder approval to increase the remuneration paid to NEDs. The vast majority of these companies sought a fee increase which was more than 20%, and most had last sought a fee increase between 2 and 4 years ago.

  • Voting results

All of the NED fee increases sought were approved by shareholders.

At slightly more than half of these meetings, the proxies cast against approving an increase in NED fees were less than 5%. In fact, negative proxies cast against adoption of this resolution were less than 10% at all meetings surveyed.

Some participants in the AGM sessions noted that shareholder approval for director fee increases is more likely to be obtained when the company is performing well.

  • Reason for increase

In most cases, one or more reasons were cited as justification for an increase in NED fees.

The most common reason was the company planning to increase the size of the board. Other reasons included the necessity for NED fees to be competitive with market rates, attracting and retaining persons with the necessary skills and competencies, and directors facing an increased workload.

Executive director Remuneration

  • Equity award resolutions

Approximately one-third of the companies surveyed sought shareholder approval to make specific equity awards to executive directors. Slightly more than onehalf of these resolutions concerned awards to the Managing Director. Most of the resolutions sought approval under ASX Listing Rule 10.15 for equity awards to be made within 12 months of the date of the meeting.

  • Voting results

All of the equity award resolutions surveyed were passed by shareholders.

For slightly more than one-half of these resolutions, the proxies cast against approving an equity award were less than 5%. In fact, only 4% of the total equity award resolutions produced negative proxies of 25% or more.

  • Nature of incentive award

The most common form of incentive for which approval was sought was shares awards, on terms which generally imposed restrictions or vesting periods as part of the award. Other award types included the grant of performance rights and options.

  • Source of shares

Slightly less than half of the companies concerned indicated that they would satisfy the equity awards by issuing new shares. Some companies reserved the right, however, to choose whether the source of shares would be a fresh issue, or whether the shares would be acquired on-market for the benefit of the recipient.


  • Questions for the auditor

It was extremely uncommon for shareholders to question the auditor, either before the AGM (under section 250PA(1) of the Corporations Act 2001) or during the meeting itself.

Participants in the 2006 AGM sessions offered the following reasons for the lack of shareholder engagement on this measure:

  • AIFRS makes the accounts so complicated that shareholders (especially retail shareholders) find it difficult to ask questions; and

  • shareholders are more likely to engage with the company on auditing matters if the company is experiencing financial difficulties or if a qualified audit report is given.
  • Audit questions to company

Substantially fewer companies received questions about audit-related matters at the meeting itself.

Participation by directors

  • Directors seeking election or re-election

It was slightly more common in 2006 for a director seeking election or re-election to the board to give a presentation in support of the resolution.

Participants in the 2006 AGM sessions were generally split on the merits of candidates presenting to the meeting in support of their election or re-election.

Some argued that good directors are not necessarily good presenters and that it may detract from the collective responsibility of the board as a whole for company performance, policy and prospects.

Others argued that directors should be encouraged to give a presentation in this manner because it improves shareholder engagement at the meeting and it builds empathy between shareholders and directors by giving directors a human face.

  • Presentations by other board members

It was extremely uncommon for Committee Chairmen to present to the AGM on the area for which they are responsible. Participants at the AGM sessions, however, recommended that companies should adopt this practice as it improves shareholder communication and makes the AGM more interesting.

  • Other board participation

Directors other than the Chairman and the Managing Director responded to shareholder questions at only one-quarter of meetings surveyed. The finance director’s participation was the most common.

Special interest groups

Special interest groups were more active in 2006. In particular, these groups dominated question time (by asking more than 50% of the questions asked) at one-quarter of the meetings surveyed.

Participants in the 2006 AGM sessions noted that it is important for special interest groups to demonstrate to their members that they are actively seeking to further their interests (this may explain why some groups asked questions at the AGM which had apparently been previously discussed with the company before the meeting).

Others noted that it is important to engage with special interest groups before the meeting and that, provided the input is cordial and measured, the contribution of special interest groups can be productive.


  • Show of hands

Voting was generally conducted on a show of hands.

  • Polling

Companies elected to put one or more resolutions to a poll at less than one-third of meetings.

In some instances where polling was used as the method of voting, shareholders expressed concern that the "sense" of the meeting was not ascertained through a show of hands before the resolution was put to a poll.

There was limited up-take of electronic polling. At the 2006 AGM sessions, participants who used an electronic polling system reported positive shareholder feedback. The main reasons for the reasonably limited uptake of e-voting were:

  • cost concerns (the hardware is particularly expensive); and

  • to a lesser extent, concerns about reliability (participants at the AGM sessions noted that this issue appears to have been resolved between the 2005 and 2006 AGM seasons).
  • Display of proxy votes

Most companies continued to display proxy votes after discussion and before the voting took place.


  • Engagement of shareholders who are not able to attend AGM

A number of companies use varying means to communicate with shareholders who are unable to attend the AGM.

Half of the meetings surveyed were webcast (this was similar to the 2005 AGM survey result).

One company set up a videoconference facility which enabled shareholders located in a different State to participate in the meeting. These shareholders were permitted to ask questions but were not able to vote at the meeting itself.

Participants in the 2006 AGM sessions suggested that the following measures might also assist a company to engage with non-attending shareholders:

  • rotating the location of the AGM from year to year;

  • mailing a copy of the Chairman’s and Managing Director’s presentation to all shareholders; and

  • holding regular information sessions to which all shareholders are invited.
  • Podium

Slightly fewer companies chose to seat all of the directors on the podium. A number of other combinations were utilised, including:

  • the Chairman, Managing Director, CFO and company secretary;

  • the Chairman and Managing Director only; and

  • the Chairman, Managing Director and company secretary only.

The company secretary sat on the podium at one-quarter of the meetings surveyed.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Some comments from our readers…
“The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable”
“I often find critical information not available elsewhere”
“As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”

Mondaq Advice Centre (MACs)
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.