Curran Clare: Register of Pecuniary Interests of Judges Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCurran Clare: Register of Pecuniary Interests of Judges Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 25 February 2015. Volume:703;Page:1963. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]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.