Key Takeaways
- Tauranga Mayor Mahé Drysdale used his office address (90 Devonport Rd) as the director address for personal companies to keep his home address private, which is currently non‑compliant with the Companies Act.
- The Companies Office (under MBIE) has contacted Drysdale to bring his filings into compliance and is working with him on the matter.
- New legislation – the Companies (Address Information) Amendment Act 2025 – will permit directors to use an approved alternative address when they can show that publishing their residential address would likely cause physical or mental harm.
- The amendment is expected to take effect by 18 November 2025 and requires a sworn statutory declaration; false statements carry penalties of up to three years’ imprisonment or a $200,000 fine.
- Critics argue the safety threshold is too high, limiting the usefulness of the change for many directors who have privacy concerns but cannot prove imminent harm.
- Local Government New Zealand notes rising abuse and harassment of elected officials, supporting measures such as security allowances and the option to list alternative addresses for safety reasons.
Mayor Drysdale’s Current Address Practice
Tauranga Mayor Mahé Drysdale disclosed that he lists his office address at 90 Devonport Rd as the director address for several personal directorships and shareholdings. He emphasized that this practice is unrelated to his mayoral role and that no council resources or processes were involved. Drysdale explained that, given recent incidents highlighting risks to public office holders, he wishes to protect his family home address in Tauranga from being made public. He said he is seeking advice from the Companies Office to ensure full compliance and will update the information if required after receiving that guidance.
Compliance Concerns Raised by the Companies Office
Bolen Ng, national manager of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) registries, stated that using a commercial address in place of a residential one is not compliant with the Companies Act in its current form. Ng noted that the Companies Office investigations and compliance team would contact Drysdale to inform him of his obligations as a company director. He later confirmed that the office is working with Drysdale to achieve compliance, taking an education‑first approach rather than immediate punitive action.
Impending Legislative Change
Ng highlighted that imminent legislation could alter the current requirement. The Companies (Address Information) Amendment Act 2025, expected to be in force by 18 November 2025, will amend the act to allow directors to use an alternative address when they apply for safety reasons. Under the new rules, a director may replace their residential address on the public register with an approved alternative—such as a lawyer’s or accountant’s office—provided they can demonstrate that public disclosure of their home address would likely result in physical or mental harm.
Drysdale’s Position on the New Law
While acknowledging that the new legislation is due to take effect, Drysdale did not explicitly state whether he intends to apply for an alternative address under the forthcoming safety provisions. He reiterated his commitment to ensuring his director details are fully compliant and updated as needed after receiving advice from the Companies Office. His refusal to confirm an application leaves open whether he will rely on the new allowance or continue using his office address pending formal approval.
Broader Context of Safety Risks for Elected Officials
The article notes that elected members across New Zealand have reported increasing incidents of abuse, harassment, unannounced home visits, and even threats involving weapons such as a nail gun. Scott Necklen, chief executive of Local Government New Zealand (LGNZ), 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 experienced similar conduct during in‑person meetings. LGNZ advocates for safety measures, including a 2022 law requiring candidates to publish their residential address on electoral campaign advertisements and a Remuneration Authority allowance of up to $4,500 for home security systems (mirroring the MPs’ allowance) plus $1,000 annually for maintenance.
Legal Consequences of Incorrect Director Addresses
The Companies Office treats address compliance seriously. Providing false or inaccurate director information can lead to significant penalties, including fines of up to $200,000 or imprisonment. Ng stressed that the accuracy of director data is fundamental to transparency, accountability, and the ability to contact directors when necessary. However, the office prefers an education‑first strategy, reserving prosecution for cases of intentional or ongoing non‑compliance, and does not currently track how frequently incorrect addresses are used.
Industry Perspective on Address Use
Anastasiya Gamble, a corporate partner at Simpson Grierson, observed that many directors avoid using their residential addresses due to safety concerns, even if they do not meet the strict threshold set by the forthcoming amendment. She noted that the original 1993 requirement aimed at transparency and accountability made sense before the internet made personal details easily accessible. Today, the same information is readily available online, increasing risks for directors. Gamble believes the amendment does not go far enough, as it only permits address withholding when a director can swear that disclosure would likely cause physical or mental harm—a high bar that many genuine privacy‑concerned individuals cannot satisfy.
Assessment of the Amendment’s Adequacy
Gamble argued that the legislation favours transparency over privacy, setting a stringent safety threshold that excludes most directors who merely feel uncomfortable about exposing their home address. She questioned whether maintaining residential addresses on a publicly accessible register still serves a meaningful purpose in the digital age. Gamble suggested that allowing the use of a professional adviser’s address (e.g., a lawyer’s or accountant’s office) as a default alternative might be a more balanced solution, protecting directors while still providing a point of contact for regulatory purposes.
Journalist Background and Publication Details
The piece was written by Ayla Yeoman, a Local Democracy Reporting journalist based in Tauranga, who holds a Bachelor of Arts in communications, politics, and international relations from the University of Auckland and has been reporting since 2022. The article is part of the Local Democracy Reporting initiative, co‑funded by RNZ and NZ On Air, and includes a photograph of Mayor Drysdale in his top‑floor office at 90 Devonport Rd, credited to Brydie Thompson.