The Companies (Address Information) Amendment Bill received Royal Assent on 18 November 2025, becoming the Companies (Address Information) Amendment Act 2025 (Act).
Once it comes into force, which will be no later than 18 November 2026, directors who believe that publication of their residential address is likely to result in physical or mental harm to them or to people living with them will be able to apply to have their residential address removed from the public Companies Register and replaced with an alternative address (which can be used for service).
The current requirement to display a residential address online was built for a time when accessing registry information required a physical request. The Act is an attempt to move with the times and respond to increasing concern about risks to the personal safety of directors and their families, and a developing reluctance of people wanting to become directors, because of the online availability of their residential address.
WHY THE LAW IS CHANGING
Over the last few years, Parliament has heard clear evidence of directors being located and approached at home by people who used the Companies Register to locate the directors’ residential addresses.
Submitters from across the governance and professional community raised many of the same issues:
- The Institute of Directors highlighted safety risks for directors across listed entities, private companies, charities and not-for-profit organisations, noting that younger women and those from diverse backgrounds have raised significant concerns.
- BusinessNZ supported tighter protection of residential details, noting that directors and business owners can face hostile or aggressive behaviour.
- Police representatives warned that publishing residential information can make it easier for offenders to target individuals.
- Clinical psychologists and others in the mental health sector noted that some directors work with vulnerable or unpredictable individuals who could use the Companies Register to find a practitioner’s residential address.
Parliament also heard examples of women directors being stalked or followed after their residential address was accessed through the Companies Register.
Some submitters also argued that residential addresses should never appear on the public register, regardless of whether a director can show a specific threat. That broader question remains unresolved.
WHAT THE AMENDMENT WILL DO
Once operational, the amendment will:
- Allow a director who believes publication of their residential address is likely to result in physical or mental harm to them or to people living with them to apply to have their residential address removed from the public register and replaced with an alternative address;
- If the director’s application to replace their residential address is accepted and that director is also a shareholder or resides with a shareholder, allow the same address change;
- Retain a publicly visible alternative address (that can be used for service), ensuring directors can still be contacted and served with legal documents;
- Allow the service of documents on directors at the alternative address; and
- Replace the need for a Family Court protection order and a written application to the Companies Office, with a simpler and lower threshold process.
HOW TO APPLY
The new process will require an application in the prescribed form, a statutory declaration and specification of an alternative address. A standard declaration template will be set in regulations to streamline the process. The declaration must verify that keeping or having the residential address public is likely to result in physical or mental harm to the director or someone they live with.
In practice:
- A proposed director will be able to make the application when they apply to be a director (whether of an existing company or a new company); and
- An existing director will be able to make the application at any time.
Any statutory declaration provided under the new process must be signed in person before an authorised witness (such as a Justice of the Peace or solicitor), and the declarant must declare the information is true and correct. Making a false declaration is an offence.
PART OF WIDER REFORM
The amendment is only one part of the reform picture. The Government’s broader Companies Act review includes proposals to introduce unique identification numbers for directors, aligned with the Australian Director Identification Number (DIN) regime. The supporting IT work for director identification numbers is still being developed as part of the wider Companies Act review.
The focus on director safety also aligns with separate Government work responding to increased protest activity outside private residences.
COMPARABLE APPROACHES
Other jurisdictions already limit the public disclosure of residential addresses. In Australia, a director’s residential address can be suppressed where the director believes their safety or their family’s safety is at risk, with an alternative contact address shown instead. Australia also operates the DIN regime referred to above, giving each director a lifelong unique identifier to track their involvement across companies and reduce risks such as identity manipulation and phoenix behaviour.
The United Kingdom takes a similar approach by requiring directors to provide both a service address and a usual residential address. The service address is public, while the residential address is kept on a restricted register accessible only to authorised bodies such as the police. Many companies use their registered office, or the address of their lawyer, accountant or other adviser, as the director’s public-facing service address.
FINAL COMMENTS
Despite being a positive step towards protecting the personal safety of directors, some argue that it does not go far enough. When compared to the approach in the United Kingdom, it is clear that a more stringent approach could have been adopted. There is also an outstanding question about whether shareholders generally should have similar protection, although it is possible that this issue may eventually be addressed in the wider Companies Act reform work.
