Bennett David: Register of Pecuniary Interests of Judges Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeBennett David: Register of Pecuniary Interests of Judges Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 25 February 2015. Volume:703;Page:1965. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]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.