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

Local AI Models: A Governance Opportunity, Not a Governance Shortcut

Local AI models may allow organisations to use generative AI with sensitive information that would be unsuitable for consumer tools and difficult to approve for some cloud-based services. For boards, executives and company secretaries, that could be a significant opportunity. But local AI is not a governance shortcut. It still requires clear rules for data classification, privacy, records retention, legal holds, model provenance, cyber security, human verification and board reporting. The question is no longer simply whether an organisation should use AI. It is which AI should be used, for which data, and under which controls.

06/21/2026

The Digital Director: Boardroom Copilot, Not Licensed Driver

AI-enabled boardroom assistants are moving quickly from novelty to practical governance infrastructure. These tools can summarise board packs, search historic minutes and resolutions, draft questions, prepare minutes, track actions and surface emerging risks. Some vendors now use bold language such as "AI Board Member". Yet, under Australian corporate law, AI is not a director. It cannot vote, owe fiduciary duties or replace independent human judgement. This article considers whether boards are ready to use AI in the boardroom, where the legal and practical boundaries lie, and what guardrails directors, company secretaries and general counsel should apply. The conclusion is deliberately balanced: boards should not ignore the opportunity, but nor should they let AI drive. Controlled pilots, approved tools, source verification, human review, data-handling controls, cyber due diligence and clear board policies are essential.

06/20/2026