One very simple thing at the top of my wishlist: ditch the pop-up results frames! Allow us to open results in new tabs (without post-backs)! As you can see I don’t ask much. Also the “watchlist” notification function which I understand is planned will be VERY useful. And while I’m making a list, a historical shareholders function would be useful, albeit of limited use because (unlike changing directors) not every shareholding change is required to be filed.

Best of all (from a tech-perspective) it allows XML web service integration for free, which is brilliant (I have used it, and still do, on several projects, even gratis developer tech support is provided [if you ask nicely]) albeit with the requirement that a confidentiality agreement is signed regarding the XML schema. I don’t quite see why that is necessary (not that I’m at liberty to discuss it…) but perhaps the Open New Zealand initiative will take up the matter. They have also been very active with new media (e.g. on Facebook and Twitter) which is great to see and a model for other agencies.

By contrast, the UK, Australian, and Hong Kong equivalents are terrible (in ascending order of awfulness). The information is there, you just need to pay for it and/or go via a third party. In 2007 I tried talking to a Hong Kong official about automated web-service access to the Hong Kong register… well, the fact their homepage still refers to IE5.0 and Netscape 6.0 gives an idea of the responses I got.

Kudos to the NZ Companies Office, which should be a model for other public sector registers.

At present – as in NZ – directors must disclose their residential addresses, although – unlike in NZ – a director may apply to have that information restricted on the grounds of possible attack. Soon, residential addresses will become “protected information” by default – only disclosable to credit reference agencies and certified authorities. There will also be an option to hide the residential address from even those authorities.

The change is apparently in response to increased privacy concerns and threats of violence against directors.

In New Zealand, the law requires that company directors disclose their residential address (e.g. section 215 of the Companies Act 1993 among other sections). There is no provision for withholding an address. Interestingly, our Companies Act also requires that founding shareholders provide a residential address (section 12(2)(c)), but not subsequent shareholders (section 87 only refers to “the latest known address” which, in the case of a person, could be a non-residential postal or even electronic address. Many companies I have dealt with and managed use a non-residential person-shareholder address).

It is probable that New Zealand will eventually go the way of the UK, although there has not been any call for it yet. Australia has a provision for suppressing directors’ residential addresses which would also be a possible model to adopt.

Is this a good idea? It depends on the purpose of showing a director’s residential address. Why do we really need to know that information? If the answer is to serve documents on a director, that can be easily achieved by allowing directors to be served:

1. At an alternative “address for service” specified by the director (the new UK model); or
2. At the company’s “address for service” which all companies must have anyway.

Provided we have one of the above options, the residential address isn’t really needed and should be able to be suppressed. This would be consistent with the UK and Australia, and also the approach under the Electoral Act 1993. The electoral roll is open for public inspection (though not electronically) and can be used to find a residential address, but with the ability for individuals to request suppression under section 115.

The Privacy Commissioner has guidelines suggesting a model similar to Australia’s, allowing suppression on request, although for some reason its report does not mention the Companies Act at all.

In the meantime, all company records including director addresses are open to full public inspection. Is there some other reason why it should stay? Openness and transparency are always good things, but if it is not necessary to disclose this personal information, should we?