Chauvel Charles: Register of Pecuniary Interests of Judges Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Chauvel Charles: Register of Pecuniary Interests of Judges Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 27 June 2012. Volume:681;Page:3452. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 I want to begin my contribution by congratulating Kennedy Graham on bringing forward this measure the Register of Pecuniary Interests of Judges Bill and by indicating that the New Zealand Labour Party will support sending the bill to a select committee for further consideration. I think this is probably the first occasion on which a member’s bill has triggered a Law Commission report and that is probably another indication that this is a bill that has significance attached to it. 
The reason that my colleagues and I have decided to support the bill’s referral to a select committee is that we do believe very strongly in the importance of the principle of the open administration of justice. This is especially the case since New Zealand took responsibility for our own final appeals repatriating that jurisdiction from the Privy Council and reposing it in the Supreme Court the court that sits opposite Bowen House today. But having said that we will support the bill’s referral to a select committee it is important to recognise that the bill raises some very serious constitutional and other legal issues. Those issues are going to need to be very carefully canvassed in the select committee and the commitment from the Labour Party to support the bill is to ensure that the discussion can occur in the appropriate forum. 
The Law Commission report set out some of those concerns and I might just mention one or two of them now. First of all there are real problems in conducting a comparative analysis as we would normally do with the jurisdictions that we like to compare ourselves with. There is no comparable register in the United Kingdom in Australia or in Canada and that applies in respect of the federal and state or provincial jurisdictions where that is a relevant factor in those jurisdictions. So there is really nowhere that we can look to in terms of those jurisdictions that we normally like to consider when we think about whether or not a particular intervention would work in New Zealand. 
I think the previous speaker mentioned the United States. There has been an attempt to codify judicial obligations as to disclosure of potential conflicts at the federal level there but that has raised some real problems which we will have to confront when the select committee discussion that I mentioned earlier occurs. Chiefly who polices? “Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?” I think is the maxim. The judges are going to have to themselves take responsibility in the end for the accuracy of any register that might come into being and there have been real problems around the timeliness accuracy and completeness of disclosures under the American system. So that is a warning I think as to the potential fate of a register in a jurisdiction such as ours. 
There are other issues that will need to be considered and they are referred to in the Law Commission report. What should the scope of a register of judicial interests be? Should it apply to full-time judges only or to all the quasi-judicial tribunals that sit part-time across the country? What sort of detail should be required in the register? Should it be as for our Standing Orders or should it be a more scant provision? How often should the register be updated? Should it be on the acquisition of any new assets or should an annual or even a less frequent updating be required? Should it apply to spouses children and related parties or simply to the judicial officer him or herself? 
Finally and most important should we as a Parliament be seeking to impose upon the judiciary these sorts of requirements? My own view is that it would be much better if the courts were to perform this exercise themselves voluntarily. It would be my hope that we could come to a position where this debate encouraged that to occur. To me that would be the ideal position. Meanwhile we look forward to the select committee debate. 
Debate interrupted.