The Claim
“Added red tape for business by forcing company directors to register for a special identifier through myGovID. This is supposed to make it easier for investors to track company directors as they move between companies. However the name, address, date and place of birth of directors is already recorded in a public database, which will be replaced with this new single 15-digit number. This attempt at transparency actually reduces the amount of information available to the public.”
Original Sources Provided
✅ FACTUAL VERIFICATION
The claim contains several factual elements that require careful examination. The Director Identification Number (DIN) scheme is real and was implemented in Australia [1][2]. Directors were indeed required to register via myGovID, with a deadline of November 30, 2022 for existing directors, and new directors required to apply before appointment [1][3].
However, the core assertion about information being "replaced" is factually incorrect. The DIN scheme does NOT replace existing director information on the ASIC register. According to ASIC's official guidance, director IDs "are not recorded on the companies register" and "you do not need to tell us your director ID when you apply to register a company or make changes to director details" [4]. The public ASIC register continues to display director names, addresses, and other personal details as it did before [5][6].
The scheme was first announced on September 12, 2017 by the Coalition Government, with the concept initially recommended by the Productivity Commission in September 2015 [7]. The legislation (Treasury Laws Amendment Act 2020) passed in June 2020, making it a formal government requirement [8].
Missing Context
The claim omits several critical facts about how the DIN scheme actually operates:
Dual system, not replacement: The DIN is a separate regulatory identifier maintained by the Australian Business Registry Services (ABRS) for government tracking purposes [4]. It does not replace or supersede the information directors continue to lodge with ASIC [5].
Public information still public: Directors' names, dates of appointment, and addresses remain publicly available through ASIC searches and company extracts [6]. The DIN itself is not disclosed to the public—it is a regulator-facing identifier [4].
The purpose was different: The DIN was designed to prevent "false or fraudulent director identities" and to track "director involvement in unlawful practices, such as illegal phoenix activity," not to reduce transparency [1][9].
Compliance mechanism: Rather than reducing transparency, the DIN creates an enforcement mechanism. Directors must apply for one, keep it up-to-date, and face penalties for failing to do so or misrepresenting it (up to 1 year imprisonment for applying for multiple IDs or misrepresentation) [4].
Source Credibility Assessment
The original source ZDNet is a reputable technology news outlet owned by Ziff Davis and provides factual reporting on government digital initiatives [1]. The article accurately reports on the announcement and requirements of the DIN scheme. However, ZDNet does not make claims about transparency reduction—that interpretation comes from the claim author.
The second source (Game of Mates) is a book about political patronage in Australia but does not appear to specifically address the DIN scheme, suggesting it may be cited for general context about government processes rather than specific evidence about director registration.
Labor Comparison
Did Labor propose or implement something similar?
Search conducted: "Labor government director identification scheme accountability"
Finding: The Director ID concept was originally recommended by the Productivity Commission in September 2015, during the Coalition Government period [7]. However, the Productivity Commission is an independent statutory agency making recommendations across government cycles. Labor has not announced a competing scheme to replace the DIN, nor has Labor moved to abolish it since returning to government in 2022 [10]. This suggests bipartisan acceptance of the scheme's core objectives.
Balanced Perspective
While critics argue that the DIN requirement adds regulatory burden to directors, the government's stated justification was legitimate: preventing corporate fraud and illegal phoenix activity (where assets are transferred to a new company while debts are left behind) [1][9]. This is a documented systemic issue in Australian corporate law.
The claim mischaracterizes how the scheme works. The DIN does not replace public information—it supplements it by creating a persistent identifier that tracks individuals across directorships and entities. Directors still lodge the same name, address, and date of appointment information with ASIC, which remains publicly accessible [4][6].
Importantly, the scheme includes safety provisions: directors can apply to suppress their residential address from public view if they believe displaying it could put their safety or family's safety at risk [11]. This actually provides more flexibility for director privacy than existed before.
Key context: The DIN scheme is an accountability mechanism, not a transparency reduction measure. Public information about directors continues to be disclosed; what changed is that government now maintains a verified, persistent identifier to prevent fraudulent directorship claims and track problematic individuals across the corporate landscape.
MISLEADING
3.0
out of 10
The claim misrepresents how the Director ID scheme works. While it is true that directors must register for a DIN, the scheme does NOT replace existing public information about directors. Directors' names, addresses, appointment dates, and other personal details remain in the public ASIC register as they did before the scheme was introduced [4][6]. The DIN is a separate, non-public regulatory identifier used by government for fraud prevention and enforcement, not a replacement for the public register. The claim's assertion that "this attempt at transparency actually reduces the amount of information available to the public" is factually incorrect.
Final Score
3.0
OUT OF 10
MISLEADING
The claim misrepresents how the Director ID scheme works. While it is true that directors must register for a DIN, the scheme does NOT replace existing public information about directors. Directors' names, addresses, appointment dates, and other personal details remain in the public ASIC register as they did before the scheme was introduced [4][6]. The DIN is a separate, non-public regulatory identifier used by government for fraud prevention and enforcement, not a replacement for the public register. The claim's assertion that "this attempt at transparency actually reduces the amount of information available to the public" is factually incorrect.
📚 SOURCES & CITATIONS (10)
-
1
zdnet.com
The federal government hopes a new digital ID for company directors will minimise fraud and illegal activity.
ZDNET -
2
asic.gov.au
Fair, strong and efficient financial system for all Australians.
Asic Gov -
3
abrs.gov.au
Abrs Gov
-
4
sprintlaw.com.au
Explore how to navigate ASIC’s Company Director Search and the DIN regime for enhanced transparency. Our guide provides best practices to ensure governance and accountability within your organization.
Sprintlaw -
5
thecorporatemanager.com
If you need to find out who your company’s directors are, and which address details are listed on ASIC’s records, it can be difficult to know where to look.
The Corporate Manager -
6
asic.gov.au
Fair, strong and efficient financial system for all Australians.
Asic Gov -
7
dwfoxtucker.com.au
DW Fox Tucker Lawyers -
8PDF
DINNov2020
Finlaysons Com • PDF Document -
9
businessknowhow.com.au
Director IDs four years on: Purpose, progress, and what’s next for company directors in Australia
Businessknowhow Com -
10
brightlaw.com.au
If you are a company director or secretary ASIC has issued INFO 5 which explains how company directors or secretaries can apply to have their residential address hidden from public view. A director or secretary can apply to ASIC to suppress their residential address from public view if they believe that their address appearing on... Read more »
Bright Law
Rating Scale Methodology
1-3: FALSE
Factually incorrect or malicious fabrication.
4-6: PARTIAL
Some truth but context is missing or skewed.
7-9: MOSTLY TRUE
Minor technicalities or phrasing issues.
10: ACCURATE
Perfectly verified and contextually fair.
Methodology: Ratings are determined through cross-referencing official government records, independent fact-checking organizations, and primary source documents.