Business Daily Media

AMP's Murray right to question the value of corporate governance rules

  • Written by Angelo Aspris, Senior Lecturer in Finance, University of Sydney

New AMP chair David Murray’s recent comments[1] were a welcome intervention in the public debate on corporate governance. This was not necessarily because of his strong rebuke of ASX corporate governance principles but rather because of his willingness to start a conversation about the real value of adhering to these principles and recommendations.

According to Murray, following these principles “contributed” to what has taken place within AMP and the financial sector in recent history. It’s hard to argue that he is wrong. While good governance and corporate performance go hand in hand (with plenty of evidence[2] to support this), we should never pretend, even for a moment, that adhering to best practice will prevent the next Big-Un[3], Blue Sky[4], RFG[5], Getswift[6] or Dick Smith[7].

It should be noted, however, that the development of ASX corporate governance principles has been effective in raising standards of corporate behaviour, disclosure and accountability on average. Credit is due here.

But this is where it ends. Murray’s main criticism is that there is now significant regulatory overreach. He argues that to achieve better governance we must be prepared to depart from the things that stand in the way of better outcomes.

This will undoubtedly meet with resistance[8] from the ASX Corporate Governance Council[9] and advocates in the form of proxy advisory firms. However, the rules and recommendations that are supposed to deliver better outcomes have produced woefully inadequate results.

Box-ticking consumes boards’ time

Principles and recommendations have become a significant distraction for boards. They have been forced to focus on compliance – and not of the type that is beneficial to shareholders (i.e. reviewing financial reports and ensuring they are meeting continuous disclosure obligations). This leaves little time to deal with strategic decisions associated with forward-looking factors.

A 2016 survey of directors by McKinsey and Company, The Board Perspective[10], revealed an important truth – there is a significant gap between days spent by board members on matters of strategy relative to what they would like to spend. Furthermore, 52% of the respondents wanted to increase the time spent on strategy based on its relative value to their companies.

With an already significant rise in time commitments[11] for directors of publicly listed firms over the last decade, it is hard to imagine how these respondents will be able to realise this goal.

Returning accountability to the board

Murray’s radical (or common-sense) plan for AMP[12] involves restoring accountability to the board[13].

Perhaps his most salient and contentious point relates to the committees – risk, audit, remuneration, nomination, and governance – that ASX rules require. Murray argues that charging these committees with assisting the board to fulfil its corporate governance responsibilities undermines the CEO and the board itself.

Boards should feature significantly in discussions of critical business risks. Yet matters that are imperative to shareholders are being delegated to subcommittees. This means we are getting more process than product from our directors.

Having an audit committee and risk committee and adhering to the standard principles are used by firms to signal to their shareholders that potential risks have been appropriately addressed. But the fact of the matter is that good and bad companies alike adopt these practices with the same level of vigour.

Corporate governance should not be proscriptive and firms should not be denounced for choosing to follow alternative and more effective paths. Murray’s statement that “we will not be guided by ASX corporate governance principles where they either weaken accountability or distract the company to less important issues” should be celebrated.

AMP shares were up over 3% following Murray’s comments. It is perhaps time that the institutions that design and oversee governance frameworks paid closer attention to the market and its needs.


  1. ^ recent comments (
  2. ^ evidence (
  3. ^ Big-Un (
  4. ^ Blue Sky (
  5. ^ RFG (
  6. ^ Getswift (
  7. ^ Dick Smith (
  8. ^ undoubtedly meet with resistance (
  9. ^ ASX Corporate Governance Council (
  10. ^ The Board Perspective (
  11. ^ time commitments (
  12. ^ radical (or common-sense) plan for AMP (
  13. ^ restoring accountability to the board (

Authors: Angelo Aspris, Senior Lecturer in Finance, University of Sydney

Read more

Business Reports

Why shortages remain common 2½ years into the pandemic

A frequent sight during the pandemic.Diana Haronis/MomentShortages of basic goods still plague the U.S. economy – 2½ years after the pandemic’s onset turned global supply chains upside down.Want a new car? You m...

Liked and shared: How social media can elevate your customer experience

Don’t neglect this golden opportunity to connect with customers and win mind and market share. Is social media central to your business development strategy, or something you squeeze into your schedule, as and when? For man...

Optus | Commentary on governance, policy and procedure - Rackspace Technology

“This incident is all about governance, policy and procedure. You can have the best security solutions in place, but you are vulnerable to breaches without the right policies and procedures overlaid with effective governance...

Jucy to take over Apollo Tourism and Leisure

Major Tourism Merger Accelerates Rental Firm’s Trans-Tasman Expansion by Four Year's A merger between two of Australasia’s largest rental vehicle firms is set to advance the trans-Tasman expansion plans of a third major...

Is taking parental leave career suicide?

Taking parental leave can be career suicide. But it doesn’t have to be. Many employees hesitate to take the parental leave they need because they’re worried it will hurt their career, that they’ll lose their position or g...

Employees in ANZ considering quitting because of mismatched values with their employer

Four in ten employees in Australia and New Zealand considering quitting because of mismatched values with their employer  54% of employees say it’s more important than ever for company leaders to speak up  As employees pla...

Web Busters - Break into local search