Labour’s Deborah Russell’s anti-stalker bill plucked from ballot

Monday, 19 February 2024

Labour’s Deborah Russell has taken over as sponsor of former MP Sarah Pallet’s private members’ bill.

Labour’s Deborah Russell has become the new champion in Parliament for directors calling for their home addresses to be kept private to protect them from stalkers.

When former Labour MP Sarah Pallet lost her seat in the October election, Russell took over as sponsor of her private members’ bill proposing a change in the law.

If passed, it would allow directors concerned about their safety to keep their home addresses off the Companies Office’s publicly searchable register.

The Companies (Address Information) Amendment Bill has now been drawn in the ballot, and will get a first reading in Parliament.

It has the qualified support of the Institute of Directors, whose members see no reason for their home addresses to be public, as long as they provide an address for service.

Institute chief executive Kirsten Patterson was pleased ACT had indicated there could be cross-party support for it.

Kristen Patterson, from the Institute of Directors, wants to see a blanket right for directors to keep their home addresses private, even if they are not in immediate fear for their safety.

Late last year, the Institute published survey data that showed keeping home addresses off the register topped the list of personal concerns for directors – supported by 44% of directors and 61% of directors on high-profile NZX-listed companies.

The bill Russell is now sponsoring is similar to one previously proposed by ACT, which was withdrawn to make way for Pallet’s bill.

Russell’s bill allowed directors to request non-disclosure of their residential addresses from the Companies Register, if they were concerned either physical or mental harm is likely if their address details are publicly available via the Register.

“It is vital that proposals to deal with the issues with disclosure of directors’ addresses are as easy as possible for directors and the Registrar of Companies to administer,” Patterson said.

While the Institute was pleased to see the bill drawn, it would have preferred directors were not required to be under immediate threat for them to be able to keep their home addresses private.

“It’s worth noting, of course, that the threats to directors from these disclosures cannot always be easily seen or anticipated, which is why [the Institute] supports a blanket removal of these personal details.

“It is not something required of other professionals such as doctors, teachers and Members of Parliament.”

Commerce and Consumer Affairs Minister Andrew Bayly wants to reform the Companies Act, which is now three decades old.

Patterson referred to stories The Post and Stuff about an Auckland company director who was stalked by a man with a history of violence towards her.

Commerce and Consumer Affairs Minister Andrew Bayly previously said he hoped to reform the Companies Act, which had not been reviewed in 30 years.

He did not set out his plans, promising to reveal details later this year, but possible reforms include the introduction of unique director identification numbers (DINs).

A director’s home address is currently one of the pieces of information the public, and regulators, can use to identify and track directors.

However, in other jurisdictions, including Australia, DINs ensured the public could discover which, and how many, boards a director served on without needing to cross-reference their home addresses, said Patterson.

The Australian Government identified in September 2017 that ID numbers were a way of preventing businesspeople, both local and foreign, from using tactics such as multiple aliases, or different spellings of their names, to obscure the full extent of their business dealings.

In 2016, the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment concluded director IDs were a good idea for similar reasons, but while Australia moved quickly to implement them, New Zealand has not.