Directors seek home-address secrecy
Company directors are pushing to change laws that make their home addresses public, fearing they could be targeted by angry shareholders, disgruntled customers, or protest groups.
Just over threequarters of directors who responded to a survey by the Institute of Directors (IoD) felt it was unfair, and at odds with privacy laws, that directors’ home addresses were published on the online Companies Office register of companies, which anyone can search.
When asked if directors should be able to instead use a ‘‘service address’’ like Canadian or British directors, ‘‘an overwhelming 79 per cent responded ‘yes’, highlighting directors’ concerns about their addresses being publicly available,’’ said the IoD’s Felicity Caird.
‘‘Directors and their families can be put at risk from customers, staff, and other stakeholders approaching them at home.’’
The survey finding will bolster an IoD push to influence the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE).
Currently, MBIE does not appear to think the issue is one troubling many directors, though the call for home address secrecy is on its radar.
‘‘A relatively small number of directors have raised concerns about their residential address being publicly available,’’ it said in a paper released in May.
‘‘As the issues involved are complex and require careful balancing with the need to ensure transparency, we intend to undertake further work on this issue.’’
It plans to consult on the issue early next year.
The IoD also believes that once a plan to introduce director ‘‘unique identifier numbers’’ is completed there will be even less reason to have directors’ addresses in the public domain.
John Hawkins from the New Zealand Shareholders’ Association (NZSA) said unique identifier numbers would remove confusion around people with the same name, and searching for
"Anybody can engage a private investigator, and some of those guys are pretty sleazy." Darren Morton from Executive Security Group
directorships held by specific individuals would be easy.
‘‘For many investors, the people running the company and their track record is an important predictor of future performance,’’ Hawkins said.
‘‘Currently, as part of an identification process, residential addresses must be given, although we doubt these are kept up to date, which compounds the issue.’’
But Hawkins added: ‘‘We are anecdotally aware of issues where residential properties have been targeted by disaffected parties.’’
Darren Morton from Executive Security Group was not convinced keeping directors’ addresses secret would provide much protection against people determined to find them.
‘‘There’s 101 different ways of being able to track people down,’’ Morton said.
The options included following them home, looking them up on the electoral roll, or even paying a private detective.
‘‘Anybody can engage a private investigator, and some of those guys are pretty sleazy. They will find out anything if you pay them enough.’’