Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 412

Worries over the planned proxy rule changes in Australia

The Australian Treasury recently issued a consultation paper on changes to proxy advice that mirror some of the proposals issued under the US Trump administration. To us, the new rules are founded on a misguided notion that the proxy voting sector lacks transparency.

We believe that the rule changes would, if anything, undermine the rights of asset owners to vote as they wish and give companies undue influence on proxy recommendations and outcomes.  

We recently made a submission to the Treasury consultation outlining our concerns as to why this is not in the best interests of our clients or the market more broadly. We outline the key points of our submission below.

Proxy voting is a core element of our active ownership approach

We have long believed that it is our job as fiduciaries to make a stand where we see an issue which could detract from good governance, sustainability, and investor outcomes. Annual General Meeting (AGM) season (typically October to December in Australia) is a critical time to re-emphasise our stance regarding a board’s progress on ESG matters through engagement and the voting of proxies.

In order to vote proxies for our clients, we do our own internal assessments of boards and management with a comprehensive investment process which includes our actions taken in relation to voting for AGMs and shareholder resolutions. We supplement this with the input of external providers to provide additional insight to company financial accounts, AGM resolutions and assessment of directors who are up for re-election.

Unlike what is being suggested by the Treasury rules, we do not agree with the premise that institutional investors that use proxy advisors are overly influenced by the research provided by them.

The reality is that we frequently disagree with the views of our proxy advisors. In 2020, we voted differently to the proxy advice provided in 12% of resolutions. And where we did agree, it was often for different reasons than those stated in the proxy advisor report. Ultimately, our voting is undertaken based on an assessment in the best interests of our clients.

Sharing recommendations with companies in advance may compromise independence 

The Treasury has suggested a number of changes, one is that proxy advisors should provide their report containing the research and voting recommendations to the relevant company before investors.

We do not agree with this approach.

Directing the distribution of independent research recommendations to issuers in advance of its release compromises the expectation that this research will be independent of the issuer. 

We also do not want to see undue costs and time delays added to the process of proxy advisors. Independent researchers should be able to rely on a company’s public documents and meetings with company executives, without any requirement to provide them with draft research in advance. 

Increased costs from additional regulation will impact returns for investors. Given the Government and regulator focus on affordable, low-cost superannuation, we are concerned about the increased costs of proxy regulation.

The ASX is already established as a forum to enable issuers to provide continuous disclosure to an informed equity market. A company can make an announcement on its website or via the ASX and does not require the proxy adviser to do so.

Proxy advisors are already well regulated

Proxy advisors are in a competitive industry. Our preferred advisors engage regularly with ASX-listed companies and include the issuer’s views on AGM proposals. We also value the fact that our Australian proxy advisor has an Australian Financial Services licence (AFSL) as it relates to providing credible insights regarding the company’s financial accounts and AGM resolutions.

What we expect is for ASIC to continue to regulate the proxy advisors such that if a proxy advisor is found to not show professional conduct or independent research, then in a manner similar to other regulated entities, the license to operate is reviewed and remediation actions are taken.

To require additional licensing would be regulatory overkill. The best analysis is driven by excellent financial research and each analysis of resolutions at AGMs or EGMs always contains opinion about the company’s historical or forward-looking financials.

We also note that the ASIC review of proxy adviser engagement practices in June 2018 was extensive, and concluded that:

“voting allows shareholders to express their views on important issues as well as hold the Board to account for the company’s performance”.

This is central to why we have our own investment team and access to multiple proxy advisors who can add valuable and independent insight.

Inertia and increased influence of company directors on proxy recommendations

Finally, one of our key issues with this consultation paper is that it is focussed on the wrong issues.

The extremely low 4-7% ‘Vote Against Management’ average by shareholders for ASX company resolutions[1] highlights that inertia, exacerbated by the shift to passive investment management, is a bigger issue than a so-called lack of transparency from proxy advisors.

Our challenge as an institutional investor is to hold boards and management to account. This can only be done via independent research and good financial accounting insight. In 2020, we voted against management in 12% of resolutions[2], well above the ASX historical average. Our team also conducts over 1,000 meetings with company management each year, and our long history of constructive engagement between our investors and management teams places us in a strong position to be proactive and effect change.

Our biggest concern is that the implementation of the Australian Treasury’s change could instead exacerbate influence of company directors on proxy recommendations, the reverse of the consultation paper’s objectives.

We do not want to see any change that increases the ability of company directors to prevent independent scrutiny of their governance practices and behaviours.

 

Will Baylis is a Portfolio Manager at Martin Currie Australia. Martin Currie is the manager for the Legg Mason Martin Equity Income Fund, also available as an Active ETF (Managed Fund) ASX:EINC. Martin Currie is a Franklin Templeton specialist investment manager, and Franklin Templeton is a sponsor of Firstlinks. This article is general information and does not consider the circumstances of any individual. Past performance is not a guide to future returns.

For more articles and papers from Franklin Templeton and specialist investment managers, please click here.

 

[1] Source: Martin Currie Australia, ASIC; as of 31 December 2020. Average against vote by resolution type by ASX 200 company shareholder, simple average of each type. 5% in 2016, 4% in 2017, 7% in 2018 (based on Figure 6 in ASIC REP 609 Annual general meeting season 2018.)

[2] Source: Martin Currie Australia. In 2020, for the 972 resolutions for stock holdings in portfolios managed by the Martin Currie Australia team, we voted against management in 116 resolutions.

 

RELATED ARTICLES

Why investment stewardship matters for long-term investors

Voting your shares: it’s worth the effort

The danger in Labor's new franking credit proposal

banner

Most viewed in recent weeks

Australian house prices close in on world record

Sydney is set to become the world’s most expensive city for housing over the next 12 months, a new report shows. Our other major cities aren’t far behind unless there are major changes to improve housing affordability.

The case for the $3 million super tax

The Government's proposed tax has copped a lot of flack though I think it's a reasonable approach to improve the long-term sustainability of superannuation and the retirement income system. Here’s why.

7 examples of how the new super tax will be calculated

You've no doubt heard about Division 296. These case studies show what people at various levels above the $3 million threshold might need to pay the ATO, with examples ranging from under $500 to more than $35,000.

The revolt against Baby Boomer wealth

The $3m super tax could be put down to the Government needing money and the wealthy being easy targets. It’s deeper than that though and this looks at the factors behind the policy and why more taxes on the wealthy are coming.

Meg on SMSFs: Withdrawing assets ahead of the $3m super tax

The super tax has caused an almighty scuffle, but for SMSFs impacted by the proposed tax, a big question remains: what should they do now? Here are ideas for those wanting to withdraw money from their SMSF.

The super tax and the defined benefits scandal

Australia's superannuation inequities date back to poor decisions made by Parliament two decades ago. If super for the wealthy needs resetting, so too does the defined benefits schemes for our public servants.

Latest Updates

Planning

Will young Australians be better off than their parents?

For much of Australia’s history, each new generation has been better off than the last: better jobs and incomes as well as improved living standards. A new report assesses whether this time may be different.

Superannuation

The rubbery numbers behind super tax concessions

In selling the super tax, Labor has repeated Treasury claims of there being $50 billion in super tax concessions annually, mostly flowing to high-income earners. This figure is vastly overstated.

Investment strategies

A steady road to getting rich

The latest lists of Australia’s wealthiest individuals show that while overall wealth has continued to rise, gains by individuals haven't been uniform. Many might have been better off adopting a simpler investment strategy.

Economy

Would a corporate tax cut boost productivity in Australia?

As inflation eases, the Albanese government is switching its focus to lifting Australia’s sluggish productivity. Can corporate tax cuts reboot growth - or are we chasing a theory that doesn’t quite work here?

Are V-shaped market recoveries becoming more frequent?

April’s sharp rebound may feel familiar, but are V-shaped recoveries really more common in the post-COVID world? A look at market history suggests otherwise and hints that a common bias might be skewing perceptions.

Investment strategies

Asset allocation in a world of riskier developed markets

Old distinctions between developed and emerging market bonds no longer hold true. At a time where true diversification matters more than ever, this has big ramifications for the way that portfolios should be constructed.

Investment strategies

Top 5 investment reads

As the July school holiday break nears, here are some investment classics to put onto your reading list. The books offer lessons in investment strategy, financial disasters, and mergers and acquisitions.

Sponsors

Alliances

© 2025 Morningstar, Inc. All rights reserved.

Disclaimer
The data, research and opinions provided here are for information purposes; are not an offer to buy or sell a security; and are not warranted to be correct, complete or accurate. Morningstar, its affiliates, and third-party content providers are not responsible for any investment decisions, damages or losses resulting from, or related to, the data and analyses or their use. To the extent any content is general advice, it has been prepared for clients of Morningstar Australasia Pty Ltd (ABN: 95 090 665 544, AFSL: 240892), without reference to your financial objectives, situation or needs. For more information refer to our Financial Services Guide. You should consider the advice in light of these matters and if applicable, the relevant Product Disclosure Statement before making any decision to invest. Past performance does not necessarily indicate a financial product’s future performance. To obtain advice tailored to your situation, contact a professional financial adviser. Articles are current as at date of publication.
This website contains information and opinions provided by third parties. Inclusion of this information does not necessarily represent Morningstar’s positions, strategies or opinions and should not be considered an endorsement by Morningstar.