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].
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 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].
缺失背景
该 gāi 主张 zhǔ zhāng 遗漏 yí lòu 了 le 关于 guān yú DIN DIN 计划 jì huà 实际 shí jì 运作 yùn zuò 方式 fāng shì 的 de 几项 jǐ xiàng 关键 guān jiàn 事实 shì shí : :
The claim omits several critical facts about how the DIN scheme actually operates:
1. **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].
2. **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].
3. **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].
4. **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].
The original source ZDNet is a reputable technology news outlet owned by Ziff Davis and provides factual reporting on government digital initiatives [1].
该 gāi 文章 wén zhāng 准确 zhǔn què 报道 bào dào 了 le DIN DIN 计划 jì huà 的 de 宣布 xuān bù 和 hé 要求 yāo qiú 。 。
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.
第二 dì èr 来源 lái yuán ( ( Game Game of of Mates Mates ) ) 是 shì 一本 yī běn 关于 guān yú 澳大利亚 ào dà lì yà 政治 zhèng zhì 庇护 bì hù 的 de 书籍 shū jí , , 但 dàn 似乎 sì hū 并未 bìng wèi 具体 jù tǐ 涉及 shè jí DIN DIN 计划 jì huà , , 这 zhè 表明 biǎo míng 它 tā 被 bèi 引用 yǐn yòng 可能 kě néng 是 shì 为了 wèi le 提供 tí gōng 关于 guān yú 政府 zhèng fǔ 程序 chéng xù 的 de 一般 yì bān 背景 bèi jǐng , , 而 ér 非 fēi 关于 guān yú 董事 dǒng shì 注册 zhù cè 的 de 具体 jù tǐ 证据 zhèng jù 。 。
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.
⚖️
工党对比
* * * * 工党 gōng dǎng 是否 shì fǒu 提出 tí chū 或 huò 实施 shí shī 了 le 类似 lèi sì 方案 fāng àn ? ?
**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.
搜索 sōu suǒ conducted conducted : : " " Labor Labor government government director director identification identification scheme scheme accountability accountability " "
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].
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].
The DIN does **not replace** public information—it supplements it by creating a persistent identifier that tracks individuals across directorships and entities.
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.
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].
DIN DIN 是 shì 一个 yí gè 单独 dān dú 的 de 、 、 非 fēi 公开 gōng kāi 的 de 监管 jiān guǎn 标识符 biāo shí fú , , 由 yóu 政府 zhèng fǔ 用于 yòng yú 欺诈 qī zhà 预防 yù fáng 和 hé 执法 zhí fǎ , , 而 ér 非 fēi 取代 qǔ dài 公共 gōng gòng 注册 zhù cè 簿 bù 。 。
The DIN is a separate, non-public regulatory identifier used by government for fraud prevention and enforcement, not a replacement for the public register.
该 gāi 主张 zhǔ zhāng 断言 duàn yán " " 这种 zhè zhǒng 透明度 tòu míng dù 尝试 cháng shì 实际上 shí jì shàng 减少 jiǎn shǎo 了 le 公众 gōng zhòng 可 kě 获得 huò dé 的 de 信息量 xìn xī liàng " " 是 shì 事实 shì shí 错误 cuò wù 的 de 。 。
The claim's assertion that "this attempt at transparency actually reduces the amount of information available to the public" is factually incorrect.
最终评分
3.0
/ 10
具有误导性
该 gāi 主张 zhǔ zhāng 错误 cuò wù 描述 miáo shù 了 le 董事 dǒng shì ID ID 计划 jì huà 的 de 运作 yùn zuò 方式 fāng shì 。 。
The claim misrepresents how the Director ID scheme works.
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].
DIN DIN 是 shì 一个 yí gè 单独 dān dú 的 de 、 、 非 fēi 公开 gōng kāi 的 de 监管 jiān guǎn 标识符 biāo shí fú , , 由 yóu 政府 zhèng fǔ 用于 yòng yú 欺诈 qī zhà 预防 yù fáng 和 hé 执法 zhí fǎ , , 而 ér 非 fēi 取代 qǔ dài 公共 gōng gòng 注册 zhù cè 簿 bù 。 。
The DIN is a separate, non-public regulatory identifier used by government for fraud prevention and enforcement, not a replacement for the public register.
该 gāi 主张 zhǔ zhāng 断言 duàn yán " " 这种 zhè zhǒng 透明度 tòu míng dù 尝试 cháng shì 实际上 shí jì shàng 减少 jiǎn shǎo 了 le 公众 gōng zhòng 可 kě 获得 huò dé 的 de 信息量 xìn xī liàng " " 是 shì 事实 shì shí 错误 cuò wù 的 de 。 。
The claim's assertion that "this attempt at transparency actually reduces the amount of information available to the public" is factually incorrect.