This year has brought an unusual number of leadership changes at the top of Australian business and regulation. Taken together, they say something encouraging about how this country’s largest institutions plan for the future, and something about what still needs to improve.
A year of handovers
Consider the list. BHP’s Brandon Craig succeeded Mike Henry as chief executive on 1 July, after what the board described as a formal CEO succession process. Macquarie Group announced in July that Shemara Wikramanayake would retire on 6 November after eight years as chief executive, to be succeeded by Greg Ward, head of its Banking and Financial Services division and a Macquarie veteran of 30 years. Sarah Court, ASIC’s deputy chair since 2021, became its chair on 1 June. And on 23 September, the federal government nominated Gina Cass-Gottlieb for a second five-year term as chair of the ACCC.
At Atlassian, the change came earlier: Scott Farquhar stepped down as co-chief executive in 2024, leaving Mike Cannon-Brookes to run the company alone.
What went right
The common feature of most of these transitions is that they were planned. Craig, Ward and Court were all internal candidates, with long records inside the organisations they now lead. Announcements were made months before the handovers, giving investors, staff and markets time to adjust. At BHP, the outgoing chief executive stayed on to support the handover.
That is what good succession looks like, and it should not be taken for granted. Boards that are forced to replace a chief executive suddenly, after a scandal, a health crisis or a shareholder revolt, often pay for it in lost momentum and a scramble for outside talent. A succession that seems uneventful is usually the result of years of quiet work by a board.
The case for continuity, and its limits
In our view, the preference for internal successors has served these institutions well. An insider knows the culture, the risks and the people, and the organisation knows them. In regulators, continuity matters even more: businesses need to know that the rules will be enforced consistently, not reinvented with each new chair. The Treasurer explicitly cited “certainty” when nominating Cass-Gottlieb for reappointment.
But continuity has limits. Internal succession can entrench blind spots, particularly where an organisation’s problems are cultural. The banking royal commission showed that long-serving leaders can come to see poor practices as normal. Boards choosing an insider should be able to explain clearly why that person is the best candidate, not just the safest.
Diversity at the top
There is also an awkward fact to confront. Wikramanayake’s departure removes one of the very few women to lead an ASX 20 company. Her successor, like BHP’s new chief executive, is a man. Court’s appointment as the first woman to chair ASIC is a genuine milestone, and Cass-Gottlieb’s reappointment keeps a woman at the head of the competition regulator. In the corporate sector, though, the pipeline of women ready for the largest chief executive roles remains thin, and boards should be measured on whether they are building it.
What shareholders should expect
Shareholders are entitled to more information about how boards manage succession. That does not mean naming candidates. It does mean explaining, in annual reports and at AGMs, that a process exists, how often it is reviewed and how the board develops internal talent. Some companies already do this well; many do not.
Leadership change is one of the most important decisions a board makes. This year, most of Australia’s biggest institutions made it well. The challenge now is to make sure that the next round, in five or ten years’ time, draws on a wider pool of talent while keeping the same discipline.