RUPERT Murdoch's two sons, James and Lachlan, should be voted off the News Corp board along with four others, according to the superannuation industry's advisory body dismayed at the phone hacking scandal and dominance of the mogul's family to the detriment of other shareholders.
The Australian Council of Superannuation Investors, a organisation of 42 super funds managing $250 billion in assets, yesterday asked its members with News Corp shares to recommend opposing the re-election of the Murdoch brothers at next month's annual meeting.
It wants the pair to go, along with three directors who have served for two decades each and Natalie Bancroft, the opera singer member of the family that sold Dow Jones and The Wall Street Journal to News Corp.
The call comes after a British advisory firm, PIRC, told pension funds there to oppose James Murdoch's re-election and suitability to succeed his father.
ACSI chief executive Ann Byrne said investors around the world had previously called for an independent director to be chairman, rather than Rupert Murdoch continue as both chairman and chief executive, contrary to Australian Stock Exchange guidelines.
They want family and long-serving directors replaced with a majority of "credible, skilled" independents, and the AGM was an opportunity to "convey their clear view" for reform. "Investors need to send a message," she said.
The council concedes it will likely amount to a message only, as it knows that the Murdoch family's control of 40 per cent of voting shares while owning only 12 per cent of the total shareholding makes the call unlikely to succeed in any casualties among the six nominees it opposes.
The phone hacking scandal in Britain and the purchase of a television production company, Shine, from Mr Murdoch's daughter Elisabeth, were both contributing factors to their decision.
The move was not a comment on individual directors, but on News Corp corporate governance as a whole.
The responsibility for "setting the ethical tone" rested with the board, she said.
"When we do have such a prominent shareholding, we rely much more on the independent directors," she said.
The council wanted News Corp to have a majority of independent directors, rather than its assessment of just five from 15 after the AGM.
Frequently Asked Questions about this Article…
What is the Australian Council of Superannuation Investors (ACSI) asking shareholders to do at the News Corp AGM?
ACSI has asked its members who hold News Corp shares to recommend opposing the re-election of James and Lachlan Murdoch and four other nominees at the upcoming annual meeting, as a way to signal concerns about the company's corporate governance.
Why are investors calling for Murdoch family members to be voted off the News Corp board?
Investors are concerned about family dominance of the board and recent controversies — notably the British phone hacking scandal and the purchase of Shine from Elisabeth Murdoch — which ACSI says reflect broader corporate governance and ethical tone issues.
Which other directors did ACSI want shareholders to oppose and why?
ACSI recommended opposing three long‑serving directors who have each served about two decades, plus Natalie Bancroft. The council argued these seats should be replaced by a majority of credible, skilled independent directors to improve oversight.
How does the Murdoch family’s voting power affect the likelihood of these board changes?
ACSI acknowledges the move is likely to be largely symbolic because the Murdoch family controls about 40% of voting shares — while owning roughly 12% of total shareholding — making it unlikely their nominees will be removed despite shareholder opposition.
What corporate governance changes are investors pushing for at News Corp?
Investors want News Corp to increase the number of independent directors, appoint an independent chair instead of the chairman also acting as CEO, and generally strengthen oversight so the board sets a stronger ethical tone.
What was the role of the UK advisory firm PIRC in this campaign?
PIRC, a British advisory firm, advised pension funds in the UK to oppose James Murdoch’s re‑election and questioned his suitability to succeed his father, a recommendation that helped influence ACSI’s call to members.
How should everyday investors interpret calls to oppose certain News Corp directors?
Everyday investors can see this as a coordinated push by major super funds to demand better governance and accountability. While the immediate impact may be limited by the family’s voting control, voting at the AGM is a way for shareholders to register their view and press for reform.
Are the concerns aimed at individual directors or the company’s broader governance?
ACSI says the action is not a personal attack on individual directors but a critique of News Corp’s corporate governance overall — highlighting the board’s responsibility for setting the company’s ethical tone.
Call 1300 880 160
Start a chat
Schedule a call
