Hybrid, virtual or in-person: What Australia’s new AGM guidance means for your company

The updated guidance brings together insights from Governance Institute, AICD, AIRA and the Law Council, summarising what companies have learned since virtual and hybrid meetings became a permanent option under corporate law. 

“AGMs are a cornerstone of corporate accountability,” observes ASIC Chair Joe Longo in his Foreword to the document.  

“It is critical that the use of technology enhances, rather than diminishes, the rights of members to participate meaningfully in these meetings.” 

No one size fits all 

The guidance doesn’t prescribe a preferred format, whether hybrid, virtual or in person.  

Instead, it encourages boards to choose based on their company’s context, including size, shareholder base, and whether contentious issues are likely to draw a crowd. 

But no matter the format, there is one clear legal obligation when using technology to hold an AGM: companies must provide members with a reasonable opportunity to participate, not just an ability to log in and observe.  

That includes the ability to vote in real time and to ask questions, both orally and in writing, whether online or in the room. 

Where companies offer a webcast of the AGM they need to clearly communicate participation rights to avoid confusion with a hybrid meeting.   

What does ‘reasonable’ look like?  

The guide outlines practical examples such as: 

• Clear wording in meeting notices, avoiding vague terms like ‘online meeting’  

• Accessible login instructions and backup options in case technology fails  

• A structured and well-communicated process for managing questions and debate

ASIC’s March 2025 FAQs reinforce that companies are not expected to fix a shareholder’s Wi-Fi, but they must use reasonable and widely available technology. 

For smaller companies and not-for-profits, platforms like Zoom or Teams are acceptable, provided they enable two-way interaction and voting by poll where required. 

The role of AI, cybersecurity, and tech contingency plans 

The guide calls attention to the growing risks linked to technology-driven meetings, including cybersecurity and the use of AI. 

Companies are advised to secure their virtual platforms against interference, including potential access by bots or AI tools.  

It also warns that it is now possible for AI software to join meetings, record or transcribe proceedings, and compromise the integrity of confidential discussions. 

This makes access controls, identity verification and clear participation protocols more important than ever. 

Companies are also urged to plan for disruptions. If connectivity fails mid-meeting, especially in a hybrid setting, the chair may need to pause or adjourn.  

In some cases, the meeting might continue with those physically present, provided a quorum is maintained and legal advice confirms it is appropriate. 

“The default position for substantive failures would normally be that the meeting should be adjourned,” the guide notes, particularly if online participants cannot vote or ask questions. 

Pre-recorded speeches and backup platforms are recommended as practical contingency measures. 

Managing member questions 

One of the most detailed sections of the guide focuses on how to handle questions.  

Companies are encouraged to group repetitive queries where appropriate, but to avoid excessive filtering or moderation. 

The guide encourages boards to allow extra time for questions when meetings are held during or after a period of reputational risk, controversy or member dissatisfaction. 

The role of the chair  

With online meetings offering fewer visual cues and less spontaneity, the chair’s role is more complex than ever.  

“Be continually conscious of the passage of time, and the degree of progress through the agenda items as compared with the time at the disposal of the meeting. Endeavour to guide and regulate debate with a view to the completion of all business within, at the most, a reasonable extension of the available time, while having regard to the desirability of securing an adequate range of opinion and discussion on each item,” an excerpt from the Horsley & Lang’s Meetings Procedure and Practice said.  

New guidance recommends that chairs not only have access to a script but there this is also a clear plan for alternating between in-room and online questions, addressing disruptions, and managing tone throughout the meeting. 

Reading out the names of shareholders when responding to their questions.  

This small act can increase transparency and make contributors feel acknowledged. 

A chance to lead, not just comply 

While some companies still view AGMs as a compliance task, this new guidance invites a more strategic approach. 

When used thoughtfully, technology can make meetings more inclusive and transparent. The guide positions this as a chance for boards to lead with transparency, not just meet legal requirements. 

The Guide is an invaluable resource for companies planning their 2025 AGM. Find out more on our website.