Young Jonathan: Register of Pecuniary Interests of Judges Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Young Jonathan: 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.] 
JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth) 
: 
 Like my colleagues I will be voting that this bill the Register of Pecuniary Interests of Judges Bill be referred to the select committee so that it can be examined and considered more fully. However I share their concerns at what the possible consequences of bringing in a register of judges’ pecuniary interests could be. For that reason this House and the Justice and Electoral Committee must exercise great care in considering this bill. The Law Commission’s issues paper details some of the fears about what such a scheme may lead to. The Law Commission concedes that the judiciary cannot live in a fortress above concerns about transparency. But it is none the less true that great care must be taken to protect the judiciary’s independence from other branches of Government and also to respect the same kinds of principles of good decision-making we would expect from the judiciary itself. 
The member’s bill proposes that the Judicial Conduct Commissioner will maintain and monitor compliance with the register. However as the commission states the Judicial Conduct Commissioner also exercises a quasi-judicial function in relation to the judiciary. Any complaints about conduct will be referred to his or her office. The commission says that conflating this role with the role of policing the register is unusual and in general undesirable. 
Another concern is the effect a register would have on judges’ privacy and related closely to that their security. One fear is that publishing the personal financial details of judges could lead to what an American court described as possible pressure or importuning by family members public and political interest groups and others. The publication of detailed holdings—in particular items such as a judge’s residential address—could also lead to an increased risk of either physical or economic harm at the hands of criminals or disgruntled litigants. These are not imaginary concerns. The Law Commission notes that in New Zealand judges have been subject to threats to their safety. Provision therefore must be made as to how sensitive information could be redacted although the commission also notes that experience in the United States has shown this is more easily said than done. 
Another issue is exposing judges to vexatious litigants. Already we see a flood of complaints to the statutory Judicial Conduct Commissioner each year and the number of outstanding complaints is steadily rising. Most of these complaints are dismissed. Some are clearly vexatious. Making available a detailed register of judges’ interests may perversely empower vexatious litigants to pursue personal vendettas through new litigation raised about issues at bizarre tangents to the original case. This would serve only to further clog up the court system and it does nothing to serve justice. 
These factors impact on not only those we rely on to coolly interpret and apply the law without fear or favour. Anything that affects sitting judges also has an effect on the ability to attract and retain existing judges of high calibre. Many top advocates and lawyers already accept substantial cuts in income in order to sit as judges. If they are confronted with requirements to give up their privacy and possibly expose themselves to more serious problems it will be that much harder to entice first-class candidates on to the bench. With these reservations in mind we will be supporting the bill going to the select committee where these important and timely issues can be more fully examined. Thank you.