O'Connor Simon: Register of Pecuniary Interests of Judges Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeO'Connor Simon: Register of Pecuniary Interests of Judges Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 25 February 2015. Volume:703;Page:1966. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]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.