Ngaro Alfred: Register of Pecuniary Interests of Judges Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeNgaro Alfred: Register of Pecuniary Interests of Judges Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 25 February 2015. Volume:703;Page:1956. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]ALFRED NGARO (National): I rise to take a call in the second reading of this Register of Pecuniary Interests of Judges Bill. In the debate on the previous bill I talked about how all members of this House have the opportunity and hope of having a member’s bill drawn from the ballot. What that does do is it means that a member of Parliament can champion a cause. Just as we have debated the championing of a cause in the previous bill in regard to paid parental leave Kennedy Graham who drew up this bill intended to champion a cause. So the intent of all members who are honourable members was to ensure that there would be trust and confidence in the judicial system. So the register of pecuniary interests of judges was proposed. I read here from the explanatory note of the bill: “It is a time-honoured principle of Western democracy that public servants of every kind must be beyond reproach”. That is the intent of this bill. We applaud the intent and also the cause that Mr Kennedy Graham was championing.During the 50th Parliament Mr Graham indicated to the Justice and Electoral Committee that he would withdraw the bill. That was because preceding this bill was the Judicature Modernisation Bill which has now been returned to the House. Its withdrawal was on the understanding—and also from hearing some of the submissions it was believed—that the Judicature Modernisation Bill would address the key issues. Also the majority of the submitters were not in support of this bill. It is I suppose somewhat of a disappointment because instead of withdrawing the bill the Greens are now making Parliament in a sense take time on a second reading—even though they know it will not pass because it is with an overwhelming majority that the judiciary and the judicial system believe that this is a bill that is not needed. However we are still here today to continue to debate this in its second reading.I just want to make some background remarks. There may be constituents and others who are listening and are trying to understand how this bill came to pass and what its intent was. Again the intent was true. The bill was introduced after the Judicial Conduct Commissioner’s preliminary examination of complaints in regard to Justice Bill Wilson who had failed to recuse himself from a Court of Appeal case. Justice Wilson had a business relationship with counsel at that time. He resigned before the commissioner could conduct a further preliminary examination. So this was the test case. This was I suppose the intent—to ask questions of the judiciary and to ask whether they could be beyond reproach. The register of pecuniary interests is similar to the one that members of Parliament are having to complete—their own register of pecuniary interests. We have a responsive and effective justice system which is key to our priority of delivering Better Public Services for New Zealand. So again we must ask the question: does the public have trust and confidence in the judicial system?So with that there are just a couple of notes I want to make. National does not believe a register of pecuniary interests is the right mechanism for avoiding conflicts of interest. In fact in March 2011 the Law Commission released an issues paper that examined the possibility of a register of judges’ pecuniary interests. In fact it became an international paper that was reflective of the New Zealand and England and Wales judiciaries and it also described key features of financial registers in the United States India and South America. The Law Commission strongly recommended in its final report that a register of pecuniary interests should not be established in New Zealand. There were concerns that the public register of assets and the financial information could compromise judges’ privacy and in some cases safety and could also expose them to external pressures.We believe as the Government that the current ethical codes and common law around when judges should recuse themselves from cases are satisfactory. Our codes and law are substantially the same as those of Australia England and Wales and Canada. If a judge has a pecuniary interest in the outcome of a case they are automatically disqualified from the hearing. If there is doubt the judge has a duty to disclose this. Failure to disclose this as a conflict can amount to misconduct and can result in a complaint to the Judicial Conduct Commissioner. This is what happened in the Saxmere case. Justice Wilson was accused of bias. He should have recused himself and after complaints were lodged Justice Wilson resigned. That is an example of a test case that shows that the system was working. The checks and balances that were important were in fact in effect and were working.Again I just want to summarise the submissions. Generally most of the submissions did not support the bill. It was noted again that there was a lack of evidence of public confidence. In fact what we saw was quite the opposite. There was confidence in the judicial system and this is reflected again when we look at the system of law—we are really privileged to have the lowest crime rate in 35 years I think. I want to acknowledge the previous Minister of Justice the Hon Judith Collins for her work and her leadership in that regard in order for us to achieve such a result for the safety care and well-being of all New Zealanders.Just in summarising some of my points there were also suggestions that a register would be an unwanted intrusion into the personal affairs of judges and we have seen the impact that could have. The bill does require returns of pecuniary interest from judges and does establish a register for these returns. We believe that this bill will in fact be detrimental to the role that judges play—that is to be impartial. One of the things that I think is also important which came out in the report is that our existing law with its appeal processes its guidelines for judicial conduct its judicial complaints process and its bench protocols is sufficient to address any conflicts that may arise. National is already modernising our courts. National is modernising legislation in order to overhaul our courts and bring the justice system up to speed with the 21st century. In the last 2 weeks we have had the final reading of the Judicature Modernisation Bill before the House to change the legislation governing how New Zealand’s courts are arranged and operate. That bill implements reforms responding to the Law Commission’s report and review of the Judicature Act of 1908 in order to move towards a consolidated Courts Act as well.Our proposals aim to improve the flexibility the responsiveness and the transparency of the New Zealand court system—again adding confidence which we believe has been challenged by this bill. This Government wants to move from a system focused on paper and buildings to one that is focused on victims and customers and that makes the best use of new technology. People can now pay fines online and lodge claims and counterclaims with the disputes tribunals. We have reformed the Family Court including a new family dispute resolution service to support those who need help to solve their parenting and guardianship disputes out of court. We are trialling defendants sitting upfront in the court room not in the dock watching their own case.I stand as a member of Justice and Electoral Committee. I want to acknowledge our chair Scott Simpson who led us ably through the submission process. Again I believe that we came to a fair and amicable result and we felt that we had had negotiation with the sponsor of the bill. So it is with some disappointment that we see the bill continuing on. However it is in its second reading in the House. On this side of the House we do oppose this bill. We feel that the checks and balances that are currently there are adequate enough to meet people’s needs and for them to have trust and confidence in the court system. I say on behalf of the Government that we oppose this bill.