AICD submission on the Registry Stabilisation and Uplift Project – draft legislation consultation

Our submission was strongly supportive of the intent of the project, being to strengthen the reliability and integrity of the Register.  Our submission emphasised that once Director IDs are linked to the Register there is no need for other personal information to be available to the public.

The key points in our submission were:

• The AICD welcomes the 2 February 2026 announcement by ASIC that company extracts purchased through the ASIC website will no longer contain the residential addresses of company officeholders as a first step towards removing director personal information from the publicly accessible elements of the Register.
• It is fundamental that Government addresses the ongoing availability to the public of other director personal information on the Register – primarily dates and places of birth – when the Director ID is linked to the Register.
• The legislation should make it clear that the publicly accessible elements of the Register and company searches will only contain details of an individual director’s name, Director IDs and an address for service – with no ability for members of the public to access residential addresses or dates of birth.
• The AICD opposes the inclusion of the proposed new ‘public interest’ disclosure power in section 1274AB of the Bill, which would allow ASIC to provide and publish information not otherwise available on the Register or through a company search (eg directors’ residential address).
• The AICD believes the draft legislation should be amended to include a clear list of who is entitled to have ‘special use access’ to additional director personal information, as this is the only way to give directors clarity and security.
• In addition to who should have access, the Bill should also specify the precise details of what can be accessed.
• The AICD’s expectation is that the redaction of residential addresses from historical documents will occur as a matter of course where there is an application by a director requesting redaction.  The AICD also believes that redaction of residential addresses on documents lodged after the commencement of the legislation should happen automatically for anyone who has already had their addressed suppressed by ASIC (eg a silent elector).
• The Explanatory Memorandum’s suggestion that community advocates could have ‘special use access’ to a director’s residential address is of major concern. We do not see circumstances where such groups should have such access, noting that the company on which the director serves will have a publicly available registered business address.
• The AICD does not believe all journalists should have access to directors’ personal information. In the AICD’s view, the privacy and physical safety risks associated with disclosing personal information to a large cohort of journalists outweigh any public interest in providing the information.
• The AICD accepts that journalists investigating complex, public interest stories may require residential addresses. Accordingly, the AICD is recommending that journalists be given this information following an application to ASIC to demonstrate the basis of the need for the residential address.