Evaluating the Performance of Your Company Secretary - Part 1
Evaluating the Performance of Your Company Secretary - Part 1
David Cantrick-Brooks | 19/07/2025

The company secretary plays a critical role in ensuring that the organisation complies with its various legal and other regulatory obligations, the board and management is well advised and properly supported in corporate governance processes, etc. (including decision-making), and the organisation is generally well governed (in terms of policies, procedures, etc.).

A company secretary’s performance can be evaluated by reference to a wide range of aspects and contributions.

For example, is your company secretary:

1 Familiarity with the organisation’s corporate structure and principal activities are essential in being effective.

2 If and when required.

3 Being a company secretary can be a very tough gig, often sandwiched between the board and management, especially where reporting lines make it difficult to serve two masters.

Governance in Action Pty Ltd can assist with designing and (if requested) conducting balanced scorecard-based performance and/or efficiency reviews of company secretaries and company secretarial functions.

PreviousNext

Related Articles

Tranche 2 AML/CTF: An Early Temperature Check for Professional Service Providers

Australia’s Tranche 2 AML/CTF reforms moved into live operation on 1 July 2026. One month later, the evidence is not strong enough for a verdict - but it is sufficient to identify the questions that matter. This article explains why scope mapping remains the first control, clarifies the significance of the 29 July enrolment deadline, and examines the shift from having policies and templates to operating an effective AML/CTF framework. It also considers the position of governance and company secretarial providers, the need to integrate customer due diligence into ordinary workflows, the interaction between recordkeeping and privacy, and the responsibilities of governing bodies, senior managers and compliance officers. The central lesson is that commencement readiness is not completion: the next phase is to test, evidence and improve how the program works in live engagements.

08/02/2026

APRA’s proposed recast CPS 510: What changes, what matters and how boards should prepare

APRA’s proposed recast CPS 510 Governance is more than a technical consolidation. It would combine five prudential standards into one cross-industry framework and impose clearer, more evidence-based expectations for board accountability, delegation, management information, skills, performance, renewal, conflicts and fitness and propriety. The most consequential proposals include a mandatory measurable board skills matrix, an independent external board review every three years for significant financial institutions, and a 12-year maximum tenure for non-executive directors. The draft also creates sharper requirements for group-board independence and board information, while reducing routine fit-and-proper reporting through alignment with the Financial Accountability Regime. This article explains the key changes, contrasts them with the draft 5th edition of the ASX Corporate Governance Principles and Recommendations, and sets out a practical implementation agenda for boards, company secretaries and governance advisers. Although commencement is expected in early 2028, long-lead matters such as director succession, committee composition, constitutions, charters and systems should be identified well before the final standard takes effect.

08/01/2026

Forty Years of Director and Officer Penalties in Australia: What the Evidence Really Shows

Australia’s corporate-enforcement system has changed substantially over the four financial decades to 30 June 2026. Civil-enforcement activity and statutory penalty ceilings have increased, and recent cases demonstrate that directors and senior officers can face substantial personal penalties, lengthy disqualification and costs exposure. Yet the available public data does not prove that the underlying rate of serious misconduct has risen—or that higher financial penalties alone deter it. Headline ASIC totals are dominated by penalties imposed on companies, while director-specific research shows that disqualification and imprisonment have historically been central to individual accountability. This article separates what the evidence establishes from what remains uncertain, examines the impact of the 2019 penalty reforms, and identifies the practical lessons for boards, governance professionals and regulators.

07/29/2026