As reported abuse and harassment of elected council members rises, more legal protections are being put in place. They can access public funding for home security and no longer have to put their home address on campaign materials. Soon, those who are company directors may also apply to hide their home address on the Companies’ Register – if they meet a "high bar" for risk.
By Ayla Yeoman of Local Democracy Reporting
On March 30, Tauranga Mayor Mahé Drysdale changed his address, as the director of four personal companies, to 90 Devonport Rd.
The problem is, he used the new Tauranga City Council administration building – where the mayor has a top-floor office – and not the home address the Companies Act 1993 requires from directors.
After a reader flagged the change, Local Democracy Reporting asked Drysdale and the Companies Office for comment on it.
Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment registries national manager Bolen Ng said a director using a commercial address was not compliant with the act in its current form.
Ng said the Companies Office investigations and compliance team would contact Drysdale to inform him of his obligations as a company director. He later confirmed it was working with him on becoming compliant.
Imminent new legislation, however, could change things. Ng said when the Companies (Address Information) Amendment Act 2025 comes into effect, the act would be amended to permit the use of an alternative address for a director who makes an application for safety reasons.
Legislation records showed it was expected to be in effect by November 18 at the latest.
Drysdale, who was a financial adviser before being elected mayor, said he updated his address details as part of the annual return process for several personal directorships and shareholdings.
These were separate from his role as mayor and "no council resources or processes were involved".
"Given incidents around the country that have highlighted the risks associated with holding public office, to protect my family home address in Tauranga from being made public, I used my office address of 90 Devonport Rd, where I can be contacted.
"With my public-facing role as mayor, I am seeking advice with the Companies Office, and will ensure the information is fully compliant, and updated if required once their advice has been received."
He noted the new legislation was due to come into effect, but did not answer a question about whether he planned to apply to use an alternative address for safety reasons.
The mayor similarly did not answer questions in March addressing whether he had received threats or intended to apply to use the council’s newly-approved home security allowance.
He said it was important safety concerns did not discourage people from standing for elected office.
As a former world and Olympic champion rower, Drysdale entered the office in 2024 with a high profile.
He was living in Cambridge with his wife Juliette and three children, and there was intense public scrutiny of when he would complete his election promise to move to Tauranga.
They bought a Pāpāmoa home last year and the family moved in at the start of this year.
Elected members' risks
Elsewhere in the country, elected members have reported being subjected to "horrific abuse", unannounced home visits and, in one case, an intruder with a nail gun.
Local Government New Zealand (LGNZ) chief executive Scott Necklen said over the years it had noticed an increase in elected members being subject to abuse and harassment.
"Last year, an LGNZ poll of council mayors, chairs and chief executives showed that nearly two-thirds had faced aggressive and abusive behaviour online; nearly three quarters (74%) had experienced this behaviour during public, in-person meetings."
He said LGNZ advocated for ways to ensure the safety of elected members, including the 2022 change to the law requiring candidates to publish their residential address on electoral campaign advertisements.
Last year, the Remuneration Authority introduced an allowance of up to $4500 to cover elected members installing and monitoring a security system at home (the same figure as for MPs), plus $1000 annually for maintenance.
"We encourage elected members who are directors of listed companies to list an alternative to their residential addresses if they have safety concerns."
Is using the wrong address a big deal?
If you ask the Companies Office, address compliance issues are "not usually treated as minor" and making a false statement had serious potential consequences, including prison time or a fine of up to $200,000.
"The accuracy of director information is fundamental to transparency, accountability, and the ability to contact directors where needed," Ng said.
The Companies Office took an education-first approach to enforcement, however, only considering prosecution in instances of "intentional or ongoing non-compliance".
"It is our preference to work with directors to attain compliance, meaning our enforcement action is generally proportionate."
It did not track how common it was to use an incorrect address.
Simpson Grierson corporate partner Anastasiya Gamble said a lot of directors used one.
"We often deal with clients who talk about the fact that they’re not comfortable using their residential address because of the feeling of safety concerns," she said.
She said the home address requirement made sense when the act was introduced in 1993, pre-internet.
The rationale was transparency and accountability, and it helped give people confidence in dealing with a company – even if most did not bother to check the physical register.
Now, the details were at anyone’s fingertips.
"While the transparency rationale obviously made sense in the context of the 1993 act, these days, it’s just too easily accessible and presents too many risks."
What's changing – and does it go far enough?
Ng said the new legislation would allow directors, in defined circumstances, to apply to the Companies Registrar to have their residential address replaced on the public register with an approved alternative address, such as the office of a lawyer or accountant, where the director can demonstrate that public disclosure of their home address is likely to result in physical or mental harm.
Directors could only use one alternative address across all their companies.
The kinds of alternative addresses used were restricted and directors must provide other details about them.
Gamble said the amendment would not allow someone to withhold their address simply for privacy reasons, despite widespread concerns about privacy and risks to safety.
"It only gives you very limited grounds on which the address can be withheld."
There would need to be a sworn statutory declaration confirming that providing their residential address on a public register would likely result in physical or mental harm either to them or someone who lived with them.
Making such a declaration falsely carried serious penalties, including a maximum punishment of three years’ imprisonment.
Gamble said the legislation was weighted in favour of transparency rather than privacy.
"The bar is really high. You can’t simply say, 'I’m not comfortable with the idea of having my address listed' ... that’s not enough."
Most people with genuine privacy concerns would not be able to meet the bar, in her view.
A high-profile person, such as a politician, being exposed to potential criticisms or concerns would not be enough.
"It’s going to make it very difficult for most people to be able to rely on it."
She said the firm believed the amendment did not go far enough.
"I query whether the rationale of having people’s residential addresses on the publicly accessible register these days still makes sense."
She wondered if using the director’s lawyer’s address or other professional advisers’ address should be sufficient.
– LDR is local body journalism co-funded by RNZ and NZ On Air.
SHARE ME