Register of Pecuniary Interests of Judges Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeRegister of Pecuniary Interests of Judges Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 25 February 2015. Volume:703;Page:1956. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Register of Pecuniary Interests of Judges BillSecond ReadingDebate resumed from 3 December 2014.ALFRED NGARO (National): I rise to take a call in the second reading of this Register of Pecuniary Interests of Judges Bill. In the debate on the previous bill I talked about how all members of this House have the opportunity and hope of having a member’s bill drawn from the ballot. What that does do is it means that a member of Parliament can champion a cause. Just as we have debated the championing of a cause in the previous bill in regard to paid parental leave Kennedy Graham who drew up this bill intended to champion a cause. So the intent of all members who are honourable members was to ensure that there would be trust and confidence in the judicial system. So the register of pecuniary interests of judges was proposed. I read here from the explanatory note of the bill: “It is a time-honoured principle of Western democracy that public servants of every kind must be beyond reproach”. That is the intent of this bill. We applaud the intent and also the cause that Mr Kennedy Graham was championing.During the 50th Parliament Mr Graham indicated to the Justice and Electoral Committee that he would withdraw the bill. That was because preceding this bill was the Judicature Modernisation Bill which has now been returned to the House. Its withdrawal was on the understanding—and also from hearing some of the submissions it was believed—that the Judicature Modernisation Bill would address the key issues. Also the majority of the submitters were not in support of this bill. It is I suppose somewhat of a disappointment because instead of withdrawing the bill the Greens are now making Parliament in a sense take time on a second reading—even though they know it will not pass because it is with an overwhelming majority that the judiciary and the judicial system believe that this is a bill that is not needed. However we are still here today to continue to debate this in its second reading.I just want to make some background remarks. There may be constituents and others who are listening and are trying to understand how this bill came to pass and what its intent was. Again the intent was true. The bill was introduced after the Judicial Conduct Commissioner’s preliminary examination of complaints in regard to Justice Bill Wilson who had failed to recuse himself from a Court of Appeal case. Justice Wilson had a business relationship with counsel at that time. He resigned before the commissioner could conduct a further preliminary examination. So this was the test case. This was I suppose the intent—to ask questions of the judiciary and to ask whether they could be beyond reproach. The register of pecuniary interests is similar to the one that members of Parliament are having to complete—their own register of pecuniary interests. We have a responsive and effective justice system which is key to our priority of delivering Better Public Services for New Zealand. So again we must ask the question: does the public have trust and confidence in the judicial system?So with that there are just a couple of notes I want to make. National does not believe a register of pecuniary interests is the right mechanism for avoiding conflicts of interest. In fact in March 2011 the Law Commission released an issues paper that examined the possibility of a register of judges’ pecuniary interests. In fact it became an international paper that was reflective of the New Zealand and England and Wales judiciaries and it also described key features of financial registers in the United States India and South America. The Law Commission strongly recommended in its final report that a register of pecuniary interests should not be established in New Zealand. There were concerns that the public register of assets and the financial information could compromise judges’ privacy and in some cases safety and could also expose them to external pressures.We believe as the Government that the current ethical codes and common law around when judges should recuse themselves from cases are satisfactory. Our codes and law are substantially the same as those of Australia England and Wales and Canada. If a judge has a pecuniary interest in the outcome of a case they are automatically disqualified from the hearing. If there is doubt the judge has a duty to disclose this. Failure to disclose this as a conflict can amount to misconduct and can result in a complaint to the Judicial Conduct Commissioner. This is what happened in the Saxmere case. Justice Wilson was accused of bias. He should have recused himself and after complaints were lodged Justice Wilson resigned. That is an example of a test case that shows that the system was working. The checks and balances that were important were in fact in effect and were working.Again I just want to summarise the submissions. Generally most of the submissions did not support the bill. It was noted again that there was a lack of evidence of public confidence. In fact what we saw was quite the opposite. There was confidence in the judicial system and this is reflected again when we look at the system of law—we are really privileged to have the lowest crime rate in 35 years I think. I want to acknowledge the previous Minister of Justice the Hon Judith Collins for her work and her leadership in that regard in order for us to achieve such a result for the safety care and well-being of all New Zealanders.Just in summarising some of my points there were also suggestions that a register would be an unwanted intrusion into the personal affairs of judges and we have seen the impact that could have. The bill does require returns of pecuniary interest from judges and does establish a register for these returns. We believe that this bill will in fact be detrimental to the role that judges play—that is to be impartial. One of the things that I think is also important which came out in the report is that our existing law with its appeal processes its guidelines for judicial conduct its judicial complaints process and its bench protocols is sufficient to address any conflicts that may arise. National is already modernising our courts. National is modernising legislation in order to overhaul our courts and bring the justice system up to speed with the 21st century. In the last 2 weeks we have had the final reading of the Judicature Modernisation Bill before the House to change the legislation governing how New Zealand’s courts are arranged and operate. That bill implements reforms responding to the Law Commission’s report and review of the Judicature Act of 1908 in order to move towards a consolidated Courts Act as well.Our proposals aim to improve the flexibility the responsiveness and the transparency of the New Zealand court system—again adding confidence which we believe has been challenged by this bill. This Government wants to move from a system focused on paper and buildings to one that is focused on victims and customers and that makes the best use of new technology. People can now pay fines online and lodge claims and counterclaims with the disputes tribunals. We have reformed the Family Court including a new family dispute resolution service to support those who need help to solve their parenting and guardianship disputes out of court. We are trialling defendants sitting upfront in the court room not in the dock watching their own case.I stand as a member of Justice and Electoral Committee. I want to acknowledge our chair Scott Simpson who led us ably through the submission process. Again I believe that we came to a fair and amicable result and we felt that we had had negotiation with the sponsor of the bill. So it is with some disappointment that we see the bill continuing on. However it is in its second reading in the House. On this side of the House we do oppose this bill. We feel that the checks and balances that are currently there are adequate enough to meet people’s needs and for them to have trust and confidence in the court system. I say on behalf of the Government that we oppose this bill.Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green): I seek leave to make a personal statement.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that. Is there any objection? There is none.Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM: I have just come down to the House from my office. I was not intending to be here having spoken already on the bill. It is not a hugely critical point but I think it requires a personal statement.The previous speaker was expressing what he called “disappointment”—I am not sure whether he used any other word—at what he seemed to imply to be an act of bad faith on my part in withdrawing the bill from the Order Paper and then putting it back on the Order Paper for a second reading. I would not have bothered to come down to the House but it is not the first time that there has been such an insinuation. So I just wish to take the floor and explain to the House the developments that occurred to prompt that action.During the Justice and Electoral Committee’s deliberations—and I assume that certainly some if not all National Party MPs are aware of this but possibly not. During the committee’s deliberations—I was not a member of the committee at the time—I was visited in my office by the then chair of the committee who—Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Sit down please. Just by way of guidance to the member the member must address his personal statement to specific comments if he believes he has been misrepresented. So he should outline what those particular comments are and then state succinctly his response to that during the course of his personal statement. Carry on.Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM: Thank you. I am quite capable of doing it succinctly. My point was with regard to an expression of disappointment by Mr Ngaro at my putting the bill back on the Order Paper for a second reading. If there is any insinuation of bad faith then I wish to make a personal statement. If he wishes to get up and say there was no intent of any insinuation of bad faith there is no need for one.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: The point of making a personal statement by a member is to speak to specific allegations that have been made by another member. A member should refer to what those specific allegations are rather than speculating that there may have been some allegation of ill will or bad faith or such and such. The member needs to confine himself to those specific matters. However I realise that he has resumed his seat and that we have moved on.PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū): It is good to follow the contribution to the debate from the member Alfred Ngaro. I just want to preface my comments by saying that the member has been subject to some fairly harsh things said on Facebook and Twitter recently. You have to acknowledge that actually it took a lot of audacity—quite a bit of chutzpah actually—to march in the Auckland Pride Parade after having voted against marriage equality. That took audacity and I want to acknowledge that in the member and say that I do not believe all those things that were said on Facebook about that member. The word “hypocrisy” was used and I do not condone that. In fact those things that were said about Alfred Ngaromay have been a little harsh. I am sure he means well. I am sure he means well and I am sure that marching in the gay pride parade after having voted against marriage equality is something that will be forgiven by people as time passes. But I really think we should continue with—David Bennett: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think this member needs to focus on the bill. He has not mentioned the bill or done anything about the bill in a whole minute or two and it is just not relevant.Chris Hipkins: The only judge of relevance in a debate is the Speaker and it is in fact disorderly to interrupt a member’s speech to question the relevance. The only person who is allowed to do that is the Speaker.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: And unfortunately the Speaker was distracted at the time. I will listen carefully to the rest of Mr Twyford’s presentation.PHIL TWYFORD: Would you like me to repeat my comments Mr Deputy Speaker?Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: No. I would like you to stick to the matter at hand which is the Register of Pecuniary Interests of Judges Bill.PHIL TWYFORD: OK thank you Mr Deputy Speaker. It is always a pleasure to follow the member Alfred Ngaro in a debate in this House. I want to just really acknowledge the member who made a personal statement Dr Kennedy Graham. He brought a member’s bill to this House with the best of intentions and I think what we can see is the journey of this bill through to the second reading after the Justice and Electoral Committee has according to its report unanimously recommended that the bill not proceed any further. After considering all of the issues after hearing expert submissions it has concluded—I think with the support of all members on that committee—that the bill should not proceed.Labour supported this bill at the first reading. We thought that on the face of it it was worth sending it off to a select committee for scrutiny. I think that the report that has come back from the Justice and Electoral Committee makes the case very clearly that it considered the bill on its merits it heard the submissions and it concluded that legislative intervention—as this bill would do—not only to establish a register of pecuniary interests for judges but to place on the bench the requirement that they submit regularly their pecuniary interests would not be in the interests of the judiciary as a whole and that it would undermine it. I will mention some of the specific concerns that submitters raised but particularly that it would not necessarily aid the cause of transparency.It is worthwhile I think for the benefit of those who may have just tuned in to the debate to recall that it was the Saxmere case that really inspired this bill. That case involved the then Justice Bill Wilson who was found to have failed to recuse himself from a Court of Appeal case Saxmere Company Ltd and others v Wool Board Disestablishment Company Ltd  in spite of being the joint owner of a racehorse with counsel in that case. The judge resigned before the commissioner could conduct a preliminary examination but it was that case that really put the spotlight on whether or not there should be some kind of register of pecuniary interests. MPs live under such a regime. We are now used to the regular annual submission of our pecuniary interests.But I want to just mention briefly the concerns that were raised by submitters: that the bill’s proposed requirement for automatic disclosure might actually result in delays to hearings being undertaken while potential conflicts of interest were investigated; and that it might also limit the ability to recruit and retain top-quality judges to the bench. Other adverse effects that were raised by submitters were that it could also potentially open the door to the abuse of information. Thank you.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I call James Stewart.Hon Members: Shaw.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Shaw—sorry.JAMES SHAW (Green): That is all right Mr Deputy Speaker. It has been one of those weeks where my name—I was called “Mr Grey” by the Speaker twice the other day so I am just enjoying the references to “Fifty Shades of Green”. I rise in support of Dr Kennedy Graham’s Register of Pecuniary Interests of Judges Bill which is a very good if perhaps doomed piece of legislation.This week I sort of filled out my own pecuniary interests register—it did not take a long time unfortunately; it would have been a more interesting exercise if there had been more to put on it. But it occurred to me that although filling in the register could be seen as onerous and an inconvenience and although the time it takes to fill out our own pecuniary interests gets in the way of some of the other work we could be doing—Chris Bishop: Your vast asset wealth—that’s why.JAMES SHAW: —yes—the register is actually there to protect us. It serves us. It covers our backs and in fact that is the intention of Dr Graham’s bill. It is not designed to make things more difficult for members of the judiciary and it is not designed to get in their way but it is actually designed to remove from any doubt the perception that there may be conflicts of interest in their judicial role.We know that New Zealand has a world-class independent judiciary. The point of the bill is to strengthen the judiciary by further increasing transparency and by strengthening public perception and trust in the judiciary. Last year we progressed the Organised Crime and Anti-corruption Legislation Bill through the House and as we did so it was noted by a number of speakers on that bill that New Zealand has for many years been in the top three countries—if not the No. 1 country—seen as being free of corruption according to the Transparency International index. It was also noted that in order to maintain this hallowed position we cannot afford to stand still. We have to continue advancing our standards and as technology changes and as public expectation changes we need to maintain our competitive positioning. As a New Zealander living in London for many years and working for one of the world’s leading assurance businesses I was very aware that I was accorded extra respect because I came from a country regarded as having one of the world’s least corruptible cultures. So we know that we cannot rest on our laurels and that was the intention behind Dr Kennedy Graham’s bill.On 1 November last year the Government signed up to the Open Government Partnership which includes in its declaration the following words: “We acknowledge that people all around the world are demanding more openness in government. They are calling for greater civic participation in public affairs and seeking ways to make their governments more transparent responsive accountable and effective.” Obviously this also applies to the arm of Government that is the judiciary. So we acknowledge that open government is a process that requires ongoing and sustained commitment. Dr Graham’s bill adds a dimension to this country’s ongoing quest for ever-greater openness accountability and public trust.So I recognise that this bill is not going to make it through the House but I do want to recall that when this bill started in its opening stages there was a great deal of collaboration both in the Justice and Electoral Committee and between the Greens and National and the Attorney-General was heavily involved in it. It was sort of widely acknowledged that it has good intentions. So as this bill finds its way to legislative heaven my colleague David Clendon will be moving an amendment to the Judicature Modernisation Bill in its Committee stage that will bring some of the principles of Dr Graham’s bill forward into that bill as well. So this bill does have good intentions. It is designed to enhance transparency and trust in the judiciary and we hope that David Clendon’s amendment makes it through in the Judicature Modernisation Bill. I commend this bill to the House.CHRIS BISHOP (National): What a learned contribution by James Shaw. It was an excellent speech—by James “Grey” I should say. I have to say it was in stark contrast to the disgraceful remarks by Phil Twyford about 10 minutes ago. After the embarrassing month that he has had—being called out for misleading the social housing sector before the election endorsing the National-led Government’s reforms in social housing and then campaigning against them and criticising them afterwards. He was called out. We found the speech. It was a highly embarrassing month for him. So for him to come down to this House and criticise on spurious grounds my good colleague Alfred Ngaro—he talks about chutzpah ladies and gentlemen; well he had a lot of chutzpah himself. Phil Twyford should come down here and apologise to Alfred Ngaro and also apologise to the social housing sector for telling a social housing conference that he agreed with the thrust of what the National-led Government is doing in social housing. I recognise I am straying a little bit far from the bill but I am only following the lead of Phil Twyford who started with a disgraceful personal attack.Anyway we know that the Greens do not engage in that sort of behaviour so well done to Mr Shaw for his contribution to the debate. Mr Shaw pointed out quite rightly that it is an interesting time to debate this bill because of the pecuniary interests that we are filling out. I think it is fair to say that Mr Graham did put forward this bill in good faith and the Government did take a look at it in good faith. It has had a long journey. It was first introduced in 2010. A previous speaker—I think in the first or second reading debate that I was reading before—noted that this was the first member’s bill to prompt a Law Commission paper or inquiry. That is an achievement and one day I hope to have a member’s bill adopted. I hope that we will just pass it without a 5-year-long gestation period and without it being voted down. But I hope that I will also have such achievements in my parliamentary career.If I could summarise why the Government is not in favour of this bill it would be for five reasons. Firstly the Law Commission recommended that it not proceed; secondly there are legitimate concerns I think about the safety and the privacy of judges if there were to be a Register of Pecuniary Interests of Judges; thirdly and this is important there was concern about the chilling effect that a pecuniary interests register would have on the incentive for judges to move from commercial practice or the Bar to the bench; fourthly it is the Government’s belief that the current law is satisfactory and indeed is actually being strengthened through the Judicature Modernisation Bill which other members have mentioned; and fifthly and finally there is no evidence we believe that there is a lack of confidence or faith in the judiciary.I want to run through those reasons starting with the first point about the Law Commission not recommending that a Register of Pecuniary Interests of Judges be required. As I have mentioned the Law Commission did issue an issues paper in 2011 and Sir Grant Hammond who is a former President of the Court of Appeal and his team at the Law Commission put out a thoughtful paper. I am not sure whether our colleague on the Government benches Dr Mapp was on the Law Commission at that point but I am sure that his expertise and intellectual acuity—Hon Todd McClay: Wily.CHRIS BISHOP: Wily as my colleague Todd McClay says. I am sure that the discussion of the submissions on the issues paper was considered by Dr Mapp.Then what happened was the Law Commission also undertook a review of the Judicature Act 1908. It was actually quite remarkable in some ways that the Judicature Act which is actually a constitutional Act in our unwritten constitution—the foundation stone in some ways of judicial review which provides the mechanism by which ordinary citizens or non-ordinary citizens can hold the Government and the executive to account. The Judicature Act was reviewed. It was in some ways remarkable that it had not been reviewed in that time. The Law Commission also reviewed the structure and the framework of our superior and lower courts. I will not use the word “inferior”; that word has fallen out of favour as time has gone on—the superior and the lower courts. They did a review of these. There was a very very wide scope to that review and it has ended up in the Judicature Modernisation Bill which of course had its second reading I think last week. In that bill there is a recommendation that the heads of the bench develop recusal guidelines. The Government agreed with that submission and that is reflected in the bill. That is at the heart of why the Law Commission says that essentially there is no need for this bill to progress. There are better ways of managing the conflicts that judges may potentially have and the Government has recognised that.Secondly there are real concerns about the privacy and safety of judges. I do not want to overstate those concerns because generally in New Zealand we live in a fairly peaceful country but there are concerns about people being able to use a Register of Pecuniary Interests of Judges to put the privacy and the safety of our judiciaryat risk. That is not something that anybody in this House would want. Those concerns were reflected in some submissions to the Justice and Electoral Committee. I was not on the select committee—unfortunately I was not a member—but I think it is fair to say from talking to my colleagues that there was some cognisance of those concerns. There was some recognition of them and some agreement. So that is another reason why the Government’s view is that the bill should not proceed.Thirdly I think it is important to canvass the chilling effect that this bill could potentially have on the ability or on the incentive for people to join the judiciary. The Attorney-General in his contribution to the second reading of this bill noted that we have a very very good judiciary in New Zealand but that it is sometimes quite difficult to persuade excellent lawyers either in the commercial field or at the Bar to move to the bench. One reason for that is that a lot of our very best lawyers—some of our top silks some of our top commercial litigators—are on a pretty good wicket. They can earn a fair degree of money in the roles that they are in. For some people going on to the bench does involve a pay cut. That is one reason. There is also a concern about workload and there are some other concerns—particularly about being a judge who travels around the country a lot. But we do not lack for good judges. We have an excellent judiciary I believe and a lot of judges whom I have had the privilege of knowing—a couple—do it in some ways out of a sense of duty and in the belief that being a judge is a good way to give back to the legal system; that they have in some way a duty to give back to uphold justice and to dispense the Queen’s justice. But a Register of Pecuniary Interests of Judges is a barrier to judges making that decision to move on to the bench. The Attorney-General expressed concern about that and I think it would be reflective of the concerns of the profession and that is fair enough.The fourth reason is that the current procedures work and they are being strengthened—I have mentioned that already—through the Judicature Modernisation Bill. If I could just touch briefly upon the suggestion from the Green Party and I think Jacinda Ardern in her contribution earlier also made mention of this: that perhaps the recusal guidelines that the heads of bench are developing could perhaps be strengthened a little bit by including them in the primary legislation. I think Dr Graham is going to put forward a Supplementary Order Paper in that regard. In my view that would be to tread a little bit too far over that very fine line between Parliament and the judiciary. It is my belief that it would disturb the comity between Parliament and the judiciary and the recognition of the appropriate lines between those two things. I do not believe that there is a need to put those recusal guidelines into legislation. I believe it is appropriate—and constitutionally appropriate—for it to be left to the judges to do that. We would be treading too far into the realm of the judiciary if we did that.Fifthly and finally just to close my speech on a good note there is no evidence of corruption in New Zealand. Our judges enjoy high levels of public confidence. I guess one of the good things about this bill is that it has ventilated some of the arguments about transparency and it has ventilated some of those issues over the last 5 years. The bill was advanced in good faith. I think there is general agreement that it will not be proceeding. But well done to Mr Graham for advancing it and to the Green Party for its mature contribution to this debate unlike the members opposite.CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South): I would like to addressmy remarks in my contribution to this debate which has actually had some quite interesting parts to the discussion broadly around accountability and transparency in our democratic system in a general sense while obviously concentrating on this bill in hand tonight.First of all I want to say that this bill is not a waste of time which is what one of the previous speakers from the National Party said at one point during tonight’s discussion. I think that is a real shame. I am pleased that Chris Bishop disagreed with him and said that it was not a waste of time because clearly it is not a waste of time. I really do commend Kennedy Graham for his work in bringing it before the House because I think it has allowed there to be a very useful discussion about transparency around a really important part of our system around how judges operate and dealing with some of the constitutional issues around that. So it was definitely not a waste of time. There is a high degree of integrity in the intent of this bill.I did not sit on the Justice and Electoral Committee but I have read the committee’s report and I have looked at all of the previous speeches on this bill and at how this debate has evolved. I am also one of the speakers on the Judicature Modernisation Bill that weighty tome that we debated last week and I am looking forward to seeing the Supplementary Order Paper from the Green Party on the matter before us tonight.The first thing I did was to go and look at what Charles Chauvel said in his first reading speech. He gave great credence to the intent of this bill which is the principle of the open administration of justice. I do not think you can go past that in the sense of how important it is but of course he raised the point that there were serious constitutional and other legal issues that the submissions focused on obviously when the bill went before the select committee and the fact that there was no comparable precedent anywhere to show how such a register of pecuniary interests could work in other jurisdictions. Clearly that proved to be problematic.Then I looked at the speeches at the beginning of the second reading of this bill. I particularly want to refer to Jacinda Ardern’s comments around the alternative proposal around the recusal guidelines which came out of the select committee and to be honest I do not think there is any disagreement around the House on the fact that that is a better way to deal with it. What Jacinda Ardern pointed out was that if the Law Commission was so clear that those guidelines need to exist in primary legislation then surely Parliament should take some interest in the nature of the guidelines themselves. That is why I think there is more room for debate and when the Judicature Modernisation Bill comes back to the House for further debate and the Supplementary Order Paper comes before us I think that we do need to have that discussion.I do note that in the Hon Chris Finlayson’s speech in response—which was by and large a pretty good speech can I say—he said that this issue was not lightly touched over and nor was it done in a slapdash way. Well I am not sure that that is the case and I am not accusing the Government of being slapdash about it. I just think that we have to have a further look at it so I want to make that point tonight.Going back to what Jacinda Ardern said in her second reading speech the other point I will make is to touch on the register of corruption and how parliaments are held to account around corruption. When Transparency International released its latest report on this late last year New Zealand had slipped from No. 1 to No. 2. On the face of it that does not seem particularly significant but in reality I think we have to look a little bit beneath it. The other thing that we must do is remain vigilant on any anti-corruption measures and on any accountability measures in all parts of Government and all parts of our system of which the judicature is an important part.I want to draw the House’s attention to the fact that there is a measure that New Zealand still has not taken. One of the obstacles to New Zealand leading that index of least corruption is its failure to ratify the United Nations Convention Against Corruption. It is 11 years since we signed it and in 11 years we still have not ratified it. There are I think 10 Pacific nations that have ratified it and there is always another excuse in this country from this Government as to why we should not ratify it. It would certainly give credence to the perception that New Zealand is taking very seriously the measures against corruption.In 2013 there was a letter sent by Transparency International to three Ministers of this Government—Murray McCully Judith Collins and Tim Groser—asking and pleading for the convention to be ratified. The response came back from Judith Collins in August 2013 saying that she thought it would be advantageous but that there were just a few little rats and mice pieces of legislation that needed to go through in order for us to be able to ratify the convention. Well we are still not there—we are still not there. It is an important measure and an important index.Another important index that the House may not know about which is a measure again of anti-corruption against which New Zealand will be judged is the Government Defence Anti-Corruption Index which has only occurred once before in 2013. It is being done again this year and New Zealand is going to be included in it this year. It reviews the corruption risk and vulnerability in defence ministries and armed forces. The 2013 index looked at 82 countries.Paul Foster-Bell: Nothing to do with this bill.CLARE CURRAN: I put it to you that this is highly relevant—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): To judges—if we can get to judges’ pecuniary interests.CLARE CURRAN: —because it is a measure of anti-corruption and transparency and accountability. It is one of the measures that is used and by dismissing this bill tonight and saying that another bill includes a small part that has guidelines for judges’ interests we are still leaving open the question of whether we are as a country putting enough measures in place for anti-corruption for vigilance and for transparency and accountability.So this measure of our defence forces is actually one of those measures and it is new measure that is going to be appearing later on this year. It covers off on appointment processes for the independence of the Defence Force and security establishments. It looks at how top positions such as those in the Government Communications Security Bureau are being appointed and whether or not there is enough independence from the political masters. So that is another very important measure of accountability and transparency in our country.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): I am just going to interrupt the member for her last three-quarters of a minute and say that the transparency of defence ministries is certainly not part of this bill.CLARE CURRAN: In closing my remarks I say that New Zealand does have a high reputation for anti-corruption. It is very important that we remain ever vigilant on ensuring that we have measures in place right throughout all of our processes of government and all the parts of government. This bill has not been a waste of time. It has provoked extremely good debate throughout the House tonight and we look forward to seeing the Greens’ Supplementary Order Paper on the Judicature Modernisation Bill which takes this issue a little bit further. Thank you.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Before I call the next member I think this is the third time today I have called members—in every case new members—to order. It is not the practice of members to stand in the aisles and talk to other members unless they are the leader of a party the deputy leader of a party or a whip. It is actually quite rude.DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East): It must be members’ day if we have speeches like that last one from Clare Curran which went on for 10 minutes and was completely off track with regard to the bill but I guess the Labour Party is looking at—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! The member will resume his seat—DAVID BENNETT: It was just an introduction.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): —and the member will not reflect on the Chair and my responsibilities or my predecessors’ responsibilities as part of his speech. He was doing that.DAVID BENNETT: In regard to the Register of Pecuniary Interests of Judges Bill we certainly would not be doing what the last speaker did which was talk off the topic. We intend to talk on the topic in regard to the relevant issues that are encompassed in such a bill. But it is an unnecessary bill in the sense that it does not achieve any worthwhile purpose.We have a very strong judiciary in this country. It is part of the rule of law that is the strength of New Zealand and many democracies around the world and to tinker with that through registers of pecuniary interests just so that members of this House can feel that they have some role of importance and can dictate to the judiciary is a sad effect of members’ day. But in saying that I guess the Green Party members did find some peculiar interest in this bill probably because they feel that there is a role for Government to control everything in this country and especially our judges who have a very independent role. As that last speaker failed to see their role is very very strong in our communities and something that is sought after and supported through all parts of our community from our police to our judiciary to our corrections to our wider community and to this Parliament as well.As parliamentarians we need to back our judiciary. We do not need to look at them and say that there are potentially issues there. Our judiciary are fine people who have shown a tremendous commitment to their country over many years and the last thing we need is politicians in this House taking pot-shots at them in the sense of trying to create their own self-importance.When we look at registers of pecuniary interests they are fine for politicians. You know everyone here has filled—or is filling—one in this week and some may feel that they are an imposition. But in reality they are a very very broad canvas of what a person may have interests in or may have a connection with. The issue with them is not so much what they present; it is the lack of information that is presented and then other third parties who may wish to interpret them will try to make some definition of what those interests may be. That is the danger when you come to judges and the judiciary—that we have the media or other third parties then making lists of judges and what they may or may not own lists of judges and their interests in different businesses and lists of judges and their connections with businesses or community groups or any individuals. All those things can lead to dire circumstances where we are actually questioning the integrity and role of our justice system and the people who put their name forward for those roles. That is the danger. That is the real danger out there.We have one of the best justice systems in the world. Why would we want to tinker with that? Why would we want to put in a level of exposure which is not greater exposure? It is not greater exposure for those involved. It creates the opportunity for third parties to make their own interpretations of the judges’ assets and connections with individuals which does not provide greater exposure and actually compromises the ability of those people to present and do what they do. So this is not good legislation. It is typical of what the Green Party would put forward but it is not good legislation and National will not be supporting this bill through the House.I would just also like to give my support to my colleague Alfred Ngaro on whom Phil Twyford made a needless attack when speaking on this bill. The Labour Party has failed to stick to the knitting of the bill and that is a disappointment but it shows their lack of understanding of the judiciary I guess in this case. In essence this is something we do not need to do. It will create more problems than advantages and the National Party will not be supporting this bill.SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Before I begin if I can indulge the House I would like to mark the passing of Dame Thea Muldoon. As the MP for Tāmaki I am very conscious that Sir Robert looms large still and those of us who have followed politics or knew him would know that Dame Thea played a significant role in his life in the life of Tāmaki and in politics in New Zealand. In doing so I acknowledge that early on of course she was Lady Thea but then took on a knighthood—or in her case she became a Dame—in her own right. She ended her days peacefully in Ōrākei in Tāmaki at 87 years of age and I would hope the House would join with me and others as we just pass on our condolences to her family.It is a pleasure to turn now to speak for this short call on the Register of Pecuniary Interests of Judges Bill. I want to acknowledge Kennedy Graham from the Green Party who put this forward. I think that all members genuinely and with great enthusiasm do put forward ideas in the House. Members’ day is an opportunity once every 2 weeks to articulate views and ideas that are important to us. Dr Graham and I would probably disagree on many things this bill included but he has taken it through the Justice and Electoral Committee and it is back here now for a second reading in the House. Like other colleagues I do not support the bill. I am sure the intention is right but the bill itself is not really where Parliament needs to be.First and foremost Chris Bishop in his contribution talked about comity—that is the balance if you like between the judicial and the parliamentary wings of our constitutional structure. There does come a point where we as Parliament do not need to unnecessarily engage and interfere—if you like—with the judiciary. I think that—as I have read what the select committee has come up with in its report—from the feedback I was getting from judges lawyers and constituents of mine they do not see this as a necessary bill. There are in fact a whole range of activities already that enable judges to recuse themselves where necessary. In fact it is just being part of civil society in its very basic structure that any of us who have a competing interest a conflict of interest would declare that and step back. As David Bennett mentioned in his oration earlier—Hon Member: Who?SIMON O’CONNOR: —yes a very good oration—Hon Member: It was very generous.SIMON O’CONNOR: It is amazing. What he was saying was that actually as politicians there is a right place for us to declare our pecuniary interests. But I would say that even as politicians we can understand the dynamics that come with this. I think that fundamentally the judges of New Zealand do not require a pecuniary interest register. The main reason is as I said there are already avenues for this and the other reason is ultimately around control. It is the fundamental problem. Something we do not want in the judicial system is control that is not needed.First and foremost we do not need our judges and judicial workers having to spend an enormous amount of time filling out forms and then try to defend themselves from the various accusations perceived or otherwise around their interests. That is not helpful and not a good use of their time. There is that great principle that justice delayed is justice denied and I think it came out very clearly from the select committee that the register was not something that was needed.The other element—and I mention again the word “control”—is that it is very easy to take documents like this and to have the vexatious the litigious starting to “have a crack at” people to use the non-technical phrase. We do not need pecuniary interest registers for judges to basically be used by third parties as David Bennett was saying to attack judges to then try to influence or to have a say or to change the outcome of a court proceeding by attacking the judge or the bench on a whole range of perceived issues. It is just not helpful.I do have to say in a much broader sense than just this particular bill—and it does primarily come from the left but not always—that again there is that desire to control. It is always put under the notion of transparency but really it is: “We want to know about you how you are funded whom you talk to who your friends are and where your family go so we can ultimately have a crack at you. We’re not going to ever argue the rational or substantial point; we’re just going to have a crack at you emotionally.” If you want a quick analogy of that you only need look at the initial attack from Mr Twyford on Alfred Ngaro tonight: “Why talk substance when actually we’ll just identify an issue and emotionally have a crack at you?”. That is not what we need in a good transparent democracy.I will finish by saying that New Zealand should be very proud of its transparent system. It does not come from signing meaningless UN documents; it comes from having a constitutional structure that works well. Thank you.A party vote was called for on the question That the Register of Pecuniary Interests of Judges Bill be now read a second time.Ayes 16Green Party 14; Māori Party 2.Noes 104New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 32; New Zealand First 11; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Motion not agreed to.