What do boards really want from the Company Secretary?
What do boards really want from the Company Secretary?
David Cantrick-Brooks | 01/05/2025

We all know and recognise that the role of the company secretary has changed over time, and has moved from just being the keeper of corporate records and minute taker, to becoming the chief governance officer, with all of the additional responsibilities and intersections with other executives that entails (whilst still doing the basics, now in a highly digital environment, which requires a bunch of new skills in itself!).

In this modern era of changing roles and skillsets it would be very interesting to know … “what do boards really want from the company secretary?” [NB Just the CoSec role, not dual roles.]

It could be (for example*):

* These examples are neither exhaustive nor necessarily mutually exclusive. It should also be noted that these examples are not intended to suggest that the company secretary would not work co-operatively and collaboratively with management or create an adversarial situation – although recognising that robust conversations may take place from time to time. Prevailing circumstances will also clearly have an impact on what the board wants from the secretary.

There is also a view among many directors that part of the role of the company secretary is to help keep them ‘out of trouble’, including by assisting them in complying with their director’s duties (in various ways – e.g. providing reminders and regulatory updates).

Not surprisingly, the preferred model or standard of governance1 (plastic, bronze, silver, gold, platinum) chosen by the board will be a very significant factor in determining what the board wants from the company secretary.

In addition, it should be noted that reporting lines (e.g. to the chair and/or CEO, or to another senior executive) will often have a major bearing on what the company secretary does day-to-day, noting that some chairs are very active in relation to corporate governance – particularly where they want to adopt things successfully used in outside organisations. Personalities of individuals are another significant influence.

Side Note

In recent times, we have also witnessed the emergence of the additional requirement for the possession of a strong working knowledge and skills in the IT-based systems which facilitate company secretarial practice (such as entity management, document lodgement platforms, meeting management, board portals, online meeting platforms, and online surveys). Query what changes (in terms of expectations) will attend this seismic shift in capability / practice.

1 The desired model of governance drives the organisation’s choices of governance systems, policies and procedures, etc., and the workload and expectations of the company secretary. The terms ‘light touch’ and ‘gold standard’ are often used for the two ends of the governance continuum.

General Disclaimer:

The information contained in this website is provided for informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice on any matter.

No person(s) should act, or refrain from acting, solely on the basis of the material contained on this website. Your access of this website, and any use that you may make of the information on it, is not intended to create, and your use does not constitute, a contractual relationship of any kind.

All material published by Governance in Action Pty Ltd on its website remains its property, with copyright attached, and all rights are reserved.

PreviousNext

Related Articles

Governance Audits in Australia: What Boards Can Learn from the Public Sector

Governance frameworks can look impressive on paper. The more important question is whether they work in practice. This article examines governance audits as evidence-based assessments of the design, operation and outcomes of an organisation’s governance arrangements. It considers why governance assurance is more formalised and visible in the Australian public sector, why private-sector organisations often perform equivalent work under different labels, and what boards can learn from each approach. It also explores appropriate audit scope, culture and behavioural evidence, review frequency, the role of internal and external reviewers, and the opportunities and risks associated with using AI. The central message is simple: good governance assurance should go beyond confirming that policies, charters and controls exist. It should test whether they are understood, used, effective and capable of identifying and correcting governance weaknesses before they become larger problems.

08/18/2026

Lead and Lag Indicators in Corporate Governance: From Rear-View Reporting to Early Warning

Boards need more than a rear-view mirror. Lagging indicators such as breaches, losses, incidents and missed targets remain essential for accountability, but well-designed leading indicators can provide earlier warning of changing risk, culture, capability and control conditions. This article examines what lead and lag indicators actually mean in corporate governance, why the same measure can sometimes be both, and why “leading” should not automatically be equated with “predictive”. It proposes a practical indicator framework across strategy, risk and compliance, culture, WHS, board effectiveness, internal audit, technology, data, customers and third parties. It also considers how big data, analytics and AI can strengthen governance – provided boards first address data quality, privacy, context and assurance. The objective is not perfect prediction, but earlier recognition, better questions and better-informed board decisions.

08/13/2026