O'Rourke Denis: Register of Pecuniary Interests of Judges Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
O'Rourke Denis: Register of Pecuniary Interests of Judges Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 27 June 2012. Volume:681;Page:3455. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First supports the Register of Pecuniary Interests of Judges Bill. Some events in recent years have shown that legislation to ensure transparency in respect of judges’ interests and to provide a means to avoid conflicts of interest for judges is now appropriate. 
There has been something of a hands-off attitude for judges as public servants when standards relating to conflicts of interest and transparency measures in respect of conflicts of interest have been long accepted by members of the executive since 1990 members of Parliament since 2006 and also on a voluntary basis by local government members who often volunteer to do this. So there is no reason I can see why these standards and such measures should not also be applied to the judiciary. I do not mean at all that judges are generally remiss in avoiding conflicts of interest. The opposite is in fact the case. Almost always they behave well in this respect. They stand down when there is any hint of a conflict of interest but some recent events have shown that there can be exceptions rare though they may be. This bill does not remove the responsibility of judges to assess for themselves if they have a conflict of interest. It actually adds to transparency however by the use of a register and it enhances the principle of avoidance of conflicts of interest and provides judges with an opportunity to be transparent in line with now accepted practice. So it should be welcomed by them. 
One concern I would have though is in clause 5 which provides the definition of a judge. I believe it should include disputes tribunal referees since they make decisions in a wide area especially in the area of consumer law and they decide significant-sized claims now. They are no longer anything like the old small claims tribunals. So they should be included as well. 
It is important however in principle that all people with significant decision-making powers who hold public office whether elected or appointed need to give up a degree of privacy in return for the means to ensure public confidence in respect of avoidance of conflicts of interest. It is to achieve the objective of transparency that it is necessary for that to be legally required for judges as well as for others such as those I have mentioned. So there does need to be I think a properly structured register as provided for in this bill. So I would disagree with Simon Bridges in what he said. I believe we need to show an effective means of avoiding conflicts of interest for judges and most particularly for the reason of public perception. I do not see how that could be achieved without legislation of this kind for a register despite the report of the Law Commission in its paper. 
When looking at the bill in detail it seems to me to be well drafted. Clause 9 sets out a comprehensive list of interests and I note also clause 10 in respect of the interests of judges in relation to personal relationships being exempted. That seems to me to be a good balance. Finally as to enforcement I note the provisions of clause 22 and the use of the Judicial Conduct Commissioner as a means of enforcing the provisions of the bill and that seems to me—