Speak to our experts
Contents
Directors will be able to use an alternative to their residential address if they consider publication of their residence would be likely to result in physical or mental harm to the director, or to persons living with the director, following the passage of Deborah Russell’s Companies (Address Information) Amendment Bill through Parliament yesterday.
Chapman Tripp supported the Bill’s intent but considered the proposal was unnecessarily complicated – specifically that applications should be made in a simpler online form and that the trigger should be privacy rather than harm based. See here and here.
The committee wasn’t prepared to go that far but has loosened the requirements in subtle ways that will make a significant difference. While the committee has maintained the need for a statutory declaration it provided for a template to be specified in regulations, and has made it clear that the threshold for demonstration of harm will be low.
Hon Deborah Russell acknowledged yesterday that the impending rewrite of the Companies Act would provide a fuller solution and said she would have withdrawn her Bill had the Government been able to introduce its comprehensive amendment Bill into the House but, as it was the last private members’ day of the 2025 calendar year, she took her moment to pass her law.
The Government Bill will progress the introduction of the long-awaited director identification number initiative (to be called corporate-role holder identifiers), an idea that has been knocking around since 2017 and implementation of which is well overdue.
The corporate role-holder identifier will have the advantages of automatic access, simplicity and universality. But the supporting IT will take some time to perfect, meaning that it could be late 2026 or 2027 before it becomes available. The Amendment Act passed yesterday will provide stopgap relief in the interim. Directors will welcome it for that reason.
The sentiment behind the Bill also aligns with a Government Bill to make it an offence to participate in “a disruptive protest” outside an individual’s private residence, the Regulatory Impact Statement for which notes that police have observed “a marked increase in protests outside the homes of Members of Parliament” in recent years.
