Key Takeaways
- Rising abuse and harassment of elected officials have prompted new safety measures, including public funding for home security and the option to omit residential addresses from campaign materials.
- A forthcoming amendment to the Companies Act 1993 (the Companies (Address Information) Amendment Act 2025) will allow directors to replace their home address on the public register with an approved alternative address only if they can demonstrate a credible risk of physical or mental harm.
- Tauranga Mayor Mahé Drysdale recently listed his council office address (90 Devonport Rd) as the director address for four personal companies, which currently breaches the Companies Act because a commercial address is not permitted.
- The Companies Office has confirmed it will work with Drysdale to achieve compliance but stressed that false statements about address information can lead to fines up to $200,000 or imprisonment.
- Legal experts note the new legislation sets a high threshold—requiring a sworn statutory declaration of likely harm—so it will primarily protect those facing genuine threats, not those seeking privacy for convenience.
- Local Government New Zealand reports that roughly two‑thirds of mayors have faced online abuse and nearly three‑quarters have experienced aggression in‑person meetings, underscoring the perceived need for stronger protections.
Background on Growing Safety Concerns for Elected Members
In recent years, elected council members across New Zealand have reported increasing incidents of abuse, harassment, unannounced home visits, and even violent threats. Local Government New Zealand (LGNZ) chief executive Scott Necklen cited an LGNZ poll showing that nearly two‑thirds of council mayors, chairs and chief executives had faced aggressive online behaviour, while almost three‑quarters had endured similar conduct during public, in‑person meetings. These trends have prompted authorities to consider legislative and administrative changes aimed at safeguarding those who serve in public office.
Recent Legal Protections Introduced
To address safety risks, the government has already rolled out several measures. Candidates are no longer required to publish their residential address on electoral campaign advertisements, reducing the ease with which personal details can be harvested online. Additionally, the Remuneration Authority introduced an annual allowance of up to $4,500 for elected members to install and monitor home security systems (the same amount allocated to Members of Parliament), plus a $1,000 yearly maintenance stipend. LGNZ encourages elected officials who are also company directors to consider using an alternative address on public registers when safety concerns exist.
Mayor Drysdale’s Address Change and the Compliance Issue
On 30 March, Tauranga Mayor Mahé Drysdale updated the director address for four of his personal companies to 90 Devonport Rd—the location of the Tauranga City Council administration building where he holds a top‑floor office. This change was made as part of the annual return process for his directorships and shareholdings, which he stressed were separate from his mayoral duties and involved no council resources. However, the Companies Act 1993 currently requires directors to provide their residential address on the public register; using a commercial or office address is not permissible under the existing law.
Response from the Companies Office
When a reader flagged the discrepancy, Local Democracy Reporting sought comment from both Drysdale and the Companies Office. Bolen Ng, national manager of registries at the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, clarified that a director’s use of a commercial address is non‑compliant with the Act in its current form. Ng stated that the Companies Office investigations and compliance team would contact Drysdale to inform him of his obligations and noted that they are already working with him to achieve compliance. While the Office prefers an education‑first approach, it warned that false or deliberately misleading statements about director information can attract serious penalties—fines up to $200,000 or imprisonment—though prosecution is reserved for cases of intentional or ongoing non‑compliance.
Impending Legislative Change
Ng highlighted that imminent legislation could alter the landscape. The Companies (Address Information) Amendment Act 2025, expected to take effect by 18 November at the latest, will permit directors to apply to the Companies Registrar for an alternative address on the public register when they can demonstrate that disclosure of their residential address would likely result in physical or mental harm to themselves or a household member. The alternative address must be an approved location (e.g., a lawyer’s or accountant’s office), and directors may use only one such address across all their companies. Applicants must submit a sworn statutory declaration; making a false declaration carries a maximum penalty of three years’ imprisonment.
Perspectives on the Sufficiency of the New Rules
Corporate partner Anastasiya Gamble of Simpson Grierson acknowledged that many directors already avoid listing their home addresses due to safety worries, but she cautioned that the forthcoming amendment sets a high bar. The law will not allow address concealment merely for privacy reasons; applicants must prove a credible threat of harm. Gamble argued that this threshold may exclude many individuals with legitimate privacy concerns but who cannot substantiate a risk of physical or mental harm. She questioned whether the rationale for publishing directors’ home addresses—originally rooted in transparency and accountability in a pre‑internet era—still holds today, given how easily such data can be accessed online. While she acknowledged the amendment’s intent to protect those at genuine risk, she suggested it might not go far enough to balance privacy and transparency in the digital age.
Broader Context: Abuse of Elected Officials Nationwide
The article notes that the issue extends beyond Tauranga. Reports from around the country describe elected members enduring “horrific abuse,” unannounced home visits, and, in one alarming case, an intruder wielding a nail gun. LGNZ’s advocacy for safety measures—including the 2022 change to campaign‑advertisement rules and the home‑security allowance—reflects a growing recognition that public service should not come at the expense of personal security. Mayor Drysdale, a former world and Olympic champion rower who entered office in 2024 with a high public profile, echoed this sentiment, emphasizing that safety concerns should not deter individuals from seeking elected office.
Conclusion: Balancing Transparency, Accountability, and Safety
The evolving legal framework illustrates a tension between maintaining transparent corporate governance and protecting individuals who face genuine threats because of their public roles. While current law mandates the disclosure of residential addresses, the imminent amendment offers a narrow safety valve for those who can substantiate a risk of harm. Mayor Drysdale’s case highlights the practical challenges of navigating these rules today, as well as the impending shift that may allow public officials to better shield their personal details—provided they meet the stringent evidentiary requirements set by the legislature. As abuse of elected officials continues to rise, ongoing dialogue among regulators, legal experts, and public‑service representatives will be essential to calibrate the right balance between openness and protection.