Bridges Simon: Register of Pecuniary Interests of Judges Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Bridges Simon: Register of Pecuniary Interests of Judges Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 27 June 2012. Volume:681;Page:3451. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister of Consumer Affairs) 
: 
 This is a bill to establish a register of pecuniary interests for judges. The Register of Pecuniary Interests of Judges Bill was introduced to the House on 11 November 2010. Following its introduction the Law Commission took urgent steps to prepare an issues paper on the subject which was made publicly available in March 2011. The National Party will be supporting this bill through to the select committee stage. It deals with a serious subject—namely confidence in the courts that interpret this Parliament’s laws. However we do have reservations about whether a register of judges’ pecuniary interests is an appropriate mechanism to safeguard that confidence and in particular whether this bill would achieve its stated aims. 
My colleagues will elaborate on these concerns but first I would like to give some background to this matter. The issues paper by the Law Commission helpfully sets out the background to this issue. It describes the position of other jurisdictions. For reference it outlines the features of judicial financial registers that have been established in the US India and South Africa. The Law Commission notes that currently New Zealand judges are subject to ethical codes developed within the judiciary and through the evolution of the common law. This ethical code has recently been confirmed in the Supreme Court judgment in the  
Saxmere 
 case. The commission goes on to say in its paper that any judge in breach of this ethical code can be subject to a formal complaint under the Judicial Conduct Commissioner and Judicial Conduct Panel Act 2004. It is the Law Commission’s view that the substantive law surrounding judicial recusals is well settled and that no legislative intervention is necessary. However it does suggest that the process by which recusal applications are processed could be usefully refined. Since the issues paper on the subject was published the Law Commission has also begun work on a wider review of the court structure. It is its opinion that if a register like the one being considered now should be found to be necessary the proper manner for its implementation would be as a considered component of a new Courts Act. The Law Commission’s final report will be delivered very shortly. 
This bill as I have said raises what are serious matters in a serious fashion that avoids glibness or politicisation. I acknowledge that the bill’s sponsor is Dr Kennedy Graham who is a thoughtful and respected member of Parliament. He has waited a long time for his bill to be brought before the House and it is appropriate that the issues raised in it be explored at the select committee. The National Party will support this bill to the select committee for its consideration. However National also accepts the Law Commission’s opinion that this is an issue that needs to be considered as part of a wider courts review. We would not support the progress of this bill any further unless it was as part of the Law Commission’s recommendation for a wider courts review.