Twyford Phil: Register of Pecuniary Interests of Judges Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeTwyford Phil: Register of Pecuniary Interests of Judges Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 25 February 2015. Volume:703;Page:1959. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū): It is good to follow the contribution to the debate from the member Alfred Ngaro. I just want to preface my comments by saying that the member has been subject to some fairly harsh things said on Facebook and Twitter recently. You have to acknowledge that actually it took a lot of audacity—quite a bit of chutzpah actually—to march in the Auckland Pride Parade after having voted against marriage equality. That took audacity and I want to acknowledge that in the member and say that I do not believe all those things that were said on Facebook about that member. The word “hypocrisy” was used and I do not condone that. In fact those things that were said about Alfred Ngaromay have been a little harsh. I am sure he means well. I am sure he means well and I am sure that marching in the gay pride parade after having voted against marriage equality is something that will be forgiven by people as time passes. But I really think we should continue with—David Bennett: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think this member needs to focus on the bill. He has not mentioned the bill or done anything about the bill in a whole minute or two and it is just not relevant.Chris Hipkins: The only judge of relevance in a debate is the Speaker and it is in fact disorderly to interrupt a member’s speech to question the relevance. The only person who is allowed to do that is the Speaker.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: And unfortunately the Speaker was distracted at the time. I will listen carefully to the rest of Mr Twyford’s presentation.PHIL TWYFORD: Would you like me to repeat my comments Mr Deputy Speaker?Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: No. I would like you to stick to the matter at hand which is the Register of Pecuniary Interests of Judges Bill.PHIL TWYFORD: OK thank you Mr Deputy Speaker. It is always a pleasure to follow the member Alfred Ngaro in a debate in this House. I want to just really acknowledge the member who made a personal statement Dr Kennedy Graham. He brought a member’s bill to this House with the best of intentions and I think what we can see is the journey of this bill through to the second reading after the Justice and Electoral Committee has according to its report unanimously recommended that the bill not proceed any further. After considering all of the issues after hearing expert submissions it has concluded—I think with the support of all members on that committee—that the bill should not proceed.Labour supported this bill at the first reading. We thought that on the face of it it was worth sending it off to a select committee for scrutiny. I think that the report that has come back from the Justice and Electoral Committee makes the case very clearly that it considered the bill on its merits it heard the submissions and it concluded that legislative intervention—as this bill would do—not only to establish a register of pecuniary interests for judges but to place on the bench the requirement that they submit regularly their pecuniary interests would not be in the interests of the judiciary as a whole and that it would undermine it. I will mention some of the specific concerns that submitters raised but particularly that it would not necessarily aid the cause of transparency.It is worthwhile I think for the benefit of those who may have just tuned in to the debate to recall that it was the Saxmere case that really inspired this bill. That case involved the then Justice Bill Wilson who was found to have failed to recuse himself from a Court of Appeal case Saxmere Company Ltd and others v Wool Board Disestablishment Company Ltd  in spite of being the joint owner of a racehorse with counsel in that case. The judge resigned before the commissioner could conduct a preliminary examination but it was that case that really put the spotlight on whether or not there should be some kind of register of pecuniary interests. MPs live under such a regime. We are now used to the regular annual submission of our pecuniary interests.But I want to just mention briefly the concerns that were raised by submitters: that the bill’s proposed requirement for automatic disclosure might actually result in delays to hearings being undertaken while potential conflicts of interest were investigated; and that it might also limit the ability to recruit and retain top-quality judges to the bench. Other adverse effects that were raised by submitters were that it could also potentially open the door to the abuse of information. Thank you.