Goff Phil: Register of Pecuniary Interests of Judges Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Goff Phil: Register of Pecuniary Interests of Judges Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 27 June 2012. Volume:681;Page:3456. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill) 
: 
 Labour intends to support the Register of Pecuniary Interests of Judges Bill going to the Justice and Electoral Committee. It is a serious bill. Its purpose is a very proper purpose and that is to quote the bill: “… by requiring judges to make returns of pecuniary interests to provide greater transparency within the judicial system and to avoid any conflict of interest in the judicial role.” 
I think we are generally very well served by the judiciary and there have been very few accusations allegations or even suspicions of corruption in so far as it affects the judiciary. But as my colleague Charles Chauvel pointed out earlier conflicts of interest or perceived conflicts of interest can occur and in the  
Saxmere 
 case that led rightly or wrongly to the resignation of Justice Wilson. I think one concern that you would need to have is that whatever is done in this legislation preserves judicial independence. I am a huge believer in judicial independence not in so far as my former role as Minister of Justice but my former role as Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade. You could judge the quality of the rule of law in a country by the independence of the judiciary and nothing ought to be done that would substantially or in any way undermine the principle of judicial independence. But I do not think that that is automatically the consequence of legislation of this nature. I await with interest the final report of the Law Commission and I think it is going to be a real benefit to the Justice and Electoral Committee to have that final report alongside the legislation when it looks at it. 
It is not really a hugely radical move. I remember back in 1990 it was a Labour Government that first applied the principle of having a register of pecuniary interests to the executive. There are all sorts of things said about that and how undesirable it might be but actually that has turned out to be I think a strong move in the right direction helping New Zealand preserve the very proud record that we have through Transparency International as being regarded as first equal in the countries that have the least corrupt systems in the world. In fact the pecuniary register for the executive has worked so well that again under a Labour Government since 2006 that has applied to all members of Parliament and I do not think there are any members of Parliament here who think that we have been hard-done-by because we have to register our pecuniary interests. I think it is a protection for members of Parliament and it is a protection and a guarantee for the integrity of the system and I could see it having a similar impact in so far as it relates to the judiciary. It is important to note that although judges would have to set out areas where they have pecuniary interests it does not extend to the actual value or the amount so that privacy interests are protected in that way. 
When the Law Commission looked at this issue its preliminary view was that the existing law relating to recusal for financial interests by a judge was adequate rather than any new law being needed. However the commission also noted: “there is a value in transparency because it increases public confidence in the integrity of public officials deters conflicts of interest from arising ensures standards of conduct and integrity remain high and enhances accountability.” I think that that in a sentence sets out the justification and the arguments for a register of pecuniary interests. I am aware also that comparable regimes such as the United Kingdom Australia and Canada do not have it but the United States does have it and it has had it since 1978. 
I will finish with this quote from a very conservative Chief Justice William Rehnquist who was actually appointed under the Nixon administration. He said this of the American system in 2000: “There are legitimate purposes served by the Act.” Among them is “exposing the judges’ financial holdings to public scrutiny which assists judges in avoiding conflicts of interest.” Then he goes on a little later to say that few would argue that there is no need to publicise a list of judges’ holdings for conflicts purposes. To end on another justice of the Supreme Court— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member.