Register of Pecuniary Interests of Judges Bill

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.

I seek leave to make a personal statement.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that. Is there any objection? There is none.

I have just come down to the House from my office. I was not intending to be here, having spoken already on the bill. It is not a hugely critical point, but I think it requires a personal statement.

The previous speaker was expressing what he called “disappointment”—I am not sure whether he used any other word—at what he seemed to imply to be an act of bad faith on my part in withdrawing the bill from the Order Paper and then putting it back on the Order Paper for a second reading. I would not have bothered to come down to the House, but it is not the first time that there has been such an insinuation. So I just wish to take the floor and explain to the House the developments that occurred to prompt that action.

During the Justice and Electoral Committee’s deliberations—and I assume that certainly some, if not all, National Party MPs are aware of this, but possibly not. During the committee’s deliberations—I was not a member of the committee at the time—I was visited in my office by the then chair of the committee, who—

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Sit down, please. Just by way of guidance to the member, the member must address his personal statement to specific comments if he believes he has been misrepresented. So he should outline what those particular comments are and then state succinctly his response to that during the course of his personal statement. Carry on.

Thank you. I am quite capable of doing it succinctly. My point was with regard to an expression of disappointment by Mr Ngaro at my putting the bill back on the Order Paper for a second reading. If there is any insinuation of bad faith, then I wish to make a personal statement. If he wishes to get up and say there was no intent of any insinuation of bad faith, there is no need for one.

The point of making a personal statement by a member is to speak to specific allegations that have been made by another member. A member should refer to what those specific allegations are rather than speculating that there may have been some allegation of ill will or bad faith, or such and such. The member needs to confine himself to those specific matters. However, I realise that he has resumed his seat and that we have moved on.

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 Ngaro may 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.

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.

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.

I call James Stewart.

💬 Hon Members: Shaw.

Shaw—sorry.

That is all right, Mr Deputy Speaker. It has been one of those weeks where my name—I was called “Mr Grey” by the Speaker twice the other day, so I am just enjoying the references to “Fifty Shades of Green”. I rise in support of Dr Kennedy Graham’s Register of Pecuniary Interests of Judges Bill, which is a very good, if perhaps doomed, piece of legislation.

This week I sort of filled out my own pecuniary interests register—it did not take a long time, unfortunately; it would have been a more interesting exercise if there had been more to put on it. But it occurred to me that although filling in the register could be seen as onerous and an inconvenience, and although the time it takes to fill out our own pecuniary interests gets in the way of some of the other work we could be doing—

💬 Chris Bishop: Your vast asset wealth—that’s why.

—yes—the register is actually there to protect us. It serves us. It covers our backs, and, in fact, that is the intention of Dr Graham’s bill. It is not designed to make things more difficult for members of the judiciary and it is not designed to get in their way, but it is actually designed to remove from any doubt the perception that there may be conflicts of interest in their judicial role.

We know that New Zealand has a world-class, independent judiciary. The point of the bill is to strengthen the judiciary by further increasing transparency and by strengthening public perception and trust in the judiciary. Last year we progressed the Organised Crime and Anti-corruption Legislation Bill through the House, and as we did so it was noted by a number of speakers on that bill that New Zealand has for many years been in the top three countries—if not the No. 1 country—seen as being free of corruption, according to the Transparency International index. It was also noted that in order to maintain this hallowed position we cannot afford to stand still. We have to continue advancing our standards, and as technology changes and as public expectation changes, we need to maintain our competitive positioning. As a New Zealander living in London for many years and working for one of the world’s leading assurance businesses, I was very aware that I was accorded extra respect because I came from a country regarded as having one of the world’s least corruptible cultures. So we know that we cannot rest on our laurels, and that was the intention behind Dr Kennedy Graham’s bill.

On 1 November last year the Government signed up to the Open Government Partnership, which includes in its declaration the following words: “We acknowledge that people all around the world are demanding more openness in government. They are calling for greater civic participation in public affairs, and seeking ways to make their governments more transparent, responsive, accountable, and effective.” Obviously, this also applies to the arm of Government that is the judiciary. So we acknowledge that open government is a process that requires ongoing and sustained commitment. Dr Graham’s bill adds a dimension to this country’s ongoing quest for ever-greater openness, accountability, and public trust.

So I recognise that this bill is not going to make it through the House, but I do want to recall that when this bill started in its opening stages, there was a great deal of collaboration, both in the Justice and Electoral Committee and between the Greens and National, and the Attorney-General was heavily involved in it. It was sort of widely acknowledged that it has good intentions. So as this bill finds its way to legislative heaven, my colleague David Clendon will be moving an amendment to the Judicature Modernisation Bill in its Committee stage that will bring some of the principles of Dr Graham’s bill forward into that bill as well. So this bill does have good intentions. It is designed to enhance transparency and trust in the judiciary, and we hope that David Clendon’s amendment makes it through in the Judicature Modernisation Bill. I commend this bill to the House.

What a learned contribution by James Shaw. It was an excellent speech—by James “Grey”, I should say. I have to say it was in stark contrast to the disgraceful remarks by Phil Twyford about 10 minutes ago. After the embarrassing month that he has had—being called out for misleading the social housing sector before the election, endorsing the National-led Government’s reforms in social housing and then campaigning against them and criticising them afterwards. He was called out. We found the speech. It was a highly embarrassing month for him. So for him to come down to this House and criticise, on spurious grounds, my good colleague Alfred Ngaro—he talks about chutzpah, ladies and gentlemen; well, he had a lot of chutzpah himself. Phil Twyford should come down here and apologise to Alfred Ngaro, and also apologise to the social housing sector for telling a social housing conference that he agreed with the thrust of what the National-led Government is doing in social housing. I recognise I am straying a little bit far from the bill, but I am only following the lead of Phil Twyford, who started with a disgraceful personal attack.

Anyway, we know that the Greens do not engage in that sort of behaviour, so well done to Mr Shaw for his contribution to the debate. Mr Shaw pointed out quite rightly that it is an interesting time to debate this bill because of the pecuniary interests that we are filling out. I think it is fair to say that Mr Graham did put forward this bill in good faith, and the Government did take a look at it in good faith. It has had a long journey. It was first introduced in 2010. A previous speaker—I think in the first or second reading debate that I was reading before—noted that this was the first member’s bill to prompt a Law Commission paper, or inquiry. That is an achievement, and one day I hope to have a member’s bill adopted. I hope that we will just pass it without a 5-year-long gestation period, and without it being voted down. But I hope that I will also have such achievements in my parliamentary career.

If I could summarise why the Government is not in favour of this bill, it would be for five reasons. Firstly, the Law Commission recommended that it not proceed; secondly, there are legitimate concerns, I think, about the safety and the privacy of judges if there were to be a Register of Pecuniary Interests of Judges; thirdly, and this is important, there was concern about the chilling effect that a pecuniary interests register would have on the incentive for judges to move from commercial practice or the Bar to the bench; fourthly, it is the Government’s belief that the current law is satisfactory, and indeed is actually being strengthened through the Judicature Modernisation Bill, which other members have mentioned; and, fifthly, and finally, there is no evidence, we believe, that there is a lack of confidence or faith in the judiciary.

I want to run through those reasons, starting with the first point about the Law Commission not recommending that a Register of Pecuniary Interests of Judges be required. As I have mentioned, the Law Commission did issue an issues paper in 2011, and Sir Grant Hammond, who is a former President of the Court of Appeal, and his team at the Law Commission put out a thoughtful paper. I am not sure whether our colleague on the Government benches Dr Mapp was on the Law Commission at that point, but I am sure that his expertise and intellectual acuity—

💬 Hon Todd McClay: Wily.

Wily, as my colleague Todd McClay says. I am sure that the discussion of the submissions on the issues paper was considered by Dr Mapp.

Then what happened was the Law Commission also undertook a review of the Judicature Act 1908. It was actually quite remarkable, in some ways, that the Judicature Act, which is actually a constitutional Act in our unwritten constitution—the foundation stone, in some ways, of judicial review, which provides the mechanism by which ordinary citizens or non-ordinary citizens can hold the Government and the executive to account. The Judicature Act was reviewed. It was, in some ways, remarkable that it had not been reviewed in that time. The Law Commission also reviewed the structure and the framework of our superior and lower courts. I will not use the word “inferior”; that word has fallen out of favour as time has gone on—the superior and the lower courts. They did a review of these. There was a very, very wide scope to that review, and it has ended up in the Judicature Modernisation Bill, which, of course, had its second reading, I think, last week. In that bill there is a recommendation that the heads of the bench develop recusal guidelines. The Government agreed with that submission, and that is reflected in the bill. That is at the heart of why the Law Commission says that, essentially, there is no need for this bill to progress. There are better ways of managing the conflicts that judges may potentially have, and the Government has recognised that.

Secondly, there are real concerns about the privacy and safety of judges. I do not want to overstate those concerns, because, generally, in New Zealand we live in a fairly peaceful country, but there are concerns about people being able to use a Register of Pecuniary Interests of Judges to put the privacy and the safety of our judiciary at risk. That is not something that anybody in this House would want. Those concerns were reflected in some submissions to the Justice and Electoral Committee. I was not on the select committee—unfortunately, I was not a member—but I think it is fair to say, from talking to my colleagues, that there was some cognisance of those concerns. There was some recognition of them, and some agreement. So that is another reason why the Government’s view is that the bill should not proceed.

Thirdly, I think it is important to canvass the chilling effect that this bill could potentially have on the ability or on the incentive for people to join the judiciary. The Attorney-General, in his contribution to the second reading of this bill, noted that we have a very, very good judiciary in New Zealand but that it is sometimes quite difficult to persuade excellent lawyers, either in the commercial field or at the Bar, to move to the bench. One reason for that is that a lot of our very best lawyers—some of our top silks, some of our top commercial litigators—are on a pretty good wicket. They can earn a fair degree of money in the roles that they are in. For some people, going on to the bench does involve a pay cut. That is one reason. There is also a concern about workload, and there are some other concerns—particularly about being a judge who travels around the country a lot. But we do not lack for good judges. We have an excellent judiciary, I believe, and a lot of judges whom I have had the privilege of knowing—a couple—do it, in some ways, out of a sense of duty and in the belief that being a judge is a good way to give back to the legal system; that they have, in some way, a duty to give back, to uphold justice and to dispense the Queen’s justice. But a Register of Pecuniary Interests of Judges is a barrier to judges making that decision to move on to the bench. The Attorney-General expressed concern about that, and I think it would be reflective of the concerns of the profession, and that is fair enough.

The fourth reason is that the current procedures work, and they are being strengthened—I have mentioned that already—through the Judicature Modernisation Bill. If I could just touch briefly upon the suggestion from the Green Party, and I think Jacinda Ardern in her contribution earlier also made mention of this: that perhaps the recusal guidelines that the heads of bench are developing could perhaps be strengthened a little bit by including them in the primary legislation. I think Dr Graham is going to put forward a Supplementary Order Paper in that regard. In my view that would be to tread a little bit too far over that very fine line between Parliament and the judiciary. It is my belief that it would disturb the comity between Parliament and the judiciary, and the recognition of the appropriate lines between those two things. I do not believe that there is a need to put those recusal guidelines into legislation. I believe it is appropriate—and constitutionally appropriate—for it to be left to the judges to do that. We would be treading too far into the realm of the judiciary if we did that.

Fifthly, and finally, just to close my speech on a good note, there is no evidence of corruption in New Zealand. Our judges enjoy high levels of public confidence. I guess one of the good things about this bill is that it has ventilated some of the arguments about transparency and it has ventilated some of those issues over the last 5 years. The bill was advanced in good faith. I think there is general agreement that it will not be proceeding. But well done to Mr Graham for advancing it and to the Green Party for its mature contribution to this debate, unlike the members opposite.

I would like to address my remarks in my contribution to this debate, which has actually had some quite interesting parts to the discussion, broadly around accountability and transparency in our democratic system in a general sense, while obviously concentrating on this bill in hand tonight.

First of all, I want to say that this bill is not a waste of time, which is what one of the previous speakers from the National Party said at one point during tonight’s discussion. I think that is a real shame. I am pleased that Chris Bishop disagreed with him and said that it was not a waste of time, because clearly it is not a waste of time. I really do commend Kennedy Graham for his work in bringing it before the House because I think it has allowed there to be a very useful discussion about transparency around a really important part of our system around how judges operate, and dealing with some of the constitutional issues around that. So it was definitely not a waste of time. There is a high degree of integrity in the intent of this bill.

I did not sit on the Justice and Electoral Committee but I have read the committee’s report and I have looked at all of the previous speeches on this bill and at how this debate has evolved. I am also one of the speakers on the Judicature Modernisation Bill, that weighty tome that we debated last week, and I am looking forward to seeing the Supplementary Order Paper from the Green Party on the matter before us tonight.

The first thing I did was to go and look at what Charles Chauvel said in his first reading speech. He gave great credence to the intent of this bill, which is the principle of the open administration of justice. I do not think you can go past that in the sense of how important it is, but of course he raised the point that there were serious constitutional and other legal issues that the submissions focused on, obviously, when the bill went before the select committee, and the fact that there was no comparable precedent anywhere to show how such a register of pecuniary interests could work in other jurisdictions. Clearly that proved to be problematic.

Then I looked at the speeches at the beginning of the second reading of this bill. I particularly want to refer to Jacinda Ardern’s comments around the alternative proposal around the recusal guidelines, which came out of the select committee, and, to be honest, I do not think there is any disagreement around the House on the fact that that is a better way to deal with it. What Jacinda Ardern pointed out was that if the Law Commission was so clear that those guidelines need to exist in primary legislation then surely Parliament should take some interest in the nature of the guidelines themselves. That is why I think there is more room for debate, and when the Judicature Modernisation Bill comes back to the House for further debate and the Supplementary Order Paper comes before us, I think that we do need to have that discussion.

I do note that in the Hon Chris Finlayson’s speech in response—which was, by and large, a pretty good speech, can I say—he said that this issue was not lightly touched over and nor was it done in a slapdash way. Well, I am not sure that that is the case, and I am not accusing the Government of being slapdash about it. I just think that we have to have a further look at it, so I want to make that point tonight.

Going back to what Jacinda Ardern said in her second reading speech, the other point I will make is to touch on the register of corruption and how parliaments are held to account around corruption. When Transparency International released its latest report on this late last year, New Zealand had slipped from No. 1 to No. 2. On the face of it that does not seem particularly significant, but in reality I think we have to look a little bit beneath it. The other thing that we must do is remain vigilant on any anti-corruption measures and on any accountability measures in all parts of Government and all parts of our system, of which the judicature is an important part.

I want to draw the House’s attention to the fact that there is a measure that New Zealand still has not taken. One of the obstacles to New Zealand leading that index of least corruption is its failure to ratify the United Nations Convention Against Corruption. It is 11 years since we signed it, and in 11 years we still have not ratified it. There are, I think, 10 Pacific nations that have ratified it, and there is always another excuse in this country from this Government as to why we should not ratify it. It would certainly give credence to the perception that New Zealand is taking very seriously the measures against corruption.

In 2013 there was a letter sent by Transparency International to three Ministers of this Government—Murray McCully, Judith Collins, and Tim Groser—asking and pleading for the convention to be ratified. The response came back from Judith Collins in August 2013 saying that she thought it would be advantageous but that there were just a few little rats and mice pieces of legislation that needed to go through in order for us to be able to ratify the convention. Well, we are still not there—we are still not there. It is an important measure and an important index.

Another important index that the House may not know about, which is a measure, again, of anti-corruption against which New Zealand will be judged, is the Government Defence Anti-Corruption Index, which has only occurred once before, in 2013. It is being done again this year and New Zealand is going to be included in it this year. It reviews the corruption risk and vulnerability in defence ministries and armed forces. The 2013 index looked at 82 countries.

💬 Paul Foster-Bell: Nothing to do with this bill.

I put it to you that this is highly relevant—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): To judges—if we can get to judges’ pecuniary interests.

—because it is a measure of anti-corruption and transparency and accountability. It is one of the measures that is used, and by dismissing this bill tonight and saying that another bill includes a small part that has guidelines for judges’ interests, we are still leaving open the question of whether we are as a country putting enough measures in place for anti-corruption, for vigilance, and for transparency and accountability.

So this measure of our defence forces is actually one of those measures and it is new measure that is going to be appearing later on this year. It covers off on appointment processes for the independence of the Defence Force and security establishments. It looks at how top positions such as those in the Government Communications Security Bureau are being appointed, and whether or not there is enough independence from the political masters. So that is another very important measure of accountability and transparency in our country.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): I am just going to interrupt the member for her last three-quarters of a minute and say that the transparency of defence ministries is certainly not part of this bill.

In closing my remarks, I say that New Zealand does have a high reputation for anti-corruption. It is very important that we remain ever vigilant on ensuring that we have measures in place right throughout all of our processes of government and all the parts of government. This bill has not been a waste of time. It has provoked extremely good debate throughout the House tonight and we look forward to seeing the Greens’ Supplementary Order Paper on the Judicature Modernisation Bill, which takes this issue a little bit further. Thank you.

Before I call the next member I think this is the third time today I have called members—in every case, new members—to order. It is not the practice of members to stand in the aisles and talk to other members unless they are the leader of a party, the deputy leader of a party, or a whip. It is actually quite rude.

It must be members’ day if we have speeches like that last one from Clare Curran, which went on for 10 minutes and was completely off track with regard to the bill, but I guess the Labour Party is looking at—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! The member will resume his seat—

It was just an introduction.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): —and the member will not reflect on the Chair and my responsibilities or my predecessors’ responsibilities as part of his speech. He was doing that.

In regard to the Register of Pecuniary Interests of Judges Bill we certainly would not be doing what the last speaker did, which was talk off the topic. We intend to talk on the topic in regard to the relevant issues that are encompassed in such a bill. But it is an unnecessary bill in the sense that it does not achieve any worthwhile purpose.

We have a very strong judiciary in this country. It is part of the rule of law that is the strength of New Zealand and many democracies around the world and to tinker with that through registers of pecuniary interests just so that members of this House can feel that they have some role of importance and can dictate to the judiciary is a sad effect of members’ day. But in saying that, I guess the Green Party members did find some peculiar interest in this bill, probably because they feel that there is a role for Government to control everything in this country and especially our judges, who have a very independent role. As that last speaker failed to see, their role is very, very strong in our communities and something that is sought after and supported through all parts of our community from our police to our judiciary, to our corrections, to our wider community, and to this Parliament as well.

As parliamentarians we need to back our judiciary. We do not need to look at them and say that there are potentially issues there. Our judiciary are fine people who have shown a tremendous commitment to their country over many years and the last thing we need is politicians in this House taking pot-shots at them, in the sense of trying to create their own self-importance.

When we look at registers of pecuniary interests, they are fine for politicians. You know, everyone here has filled—or is filling—one in this week and some may feel that they are an imposition. But, in reality, they are a very, very broad canvas of what a person may have interests in or may have a connection with. The issue with them is not so much what they present; it is the lack of information that is presented, and then other third parties who may wish to interpret them will try to make some definition of what those interests may be. That is the danger when you come to judges and the judiciary—that we have the media or other third parties then making lists of judges and what they may or may not own, lists of judges and their interests in different businesses, and lists of judges and their connections with businesses or community groups or any individuals. All those things can lead to dire circumstances where we are actually questioning the integrity and role of our justice system and the people who put their name forward for those roles. That is the danger. That is the real danger out there.

We have one of the best justice systems in the world. Why would we want to tinker with that? Why would we want to put in a level of exposure, which is not greater exposure? It is not greater exposure for those involved. It creates the opportunity for third parties to make their own interpretations of the judges’ assets and connections with individuals, which does not provide greater exposure, and actually compromises the ability of those people to present and do what they do. So this is not good legislation. It is typical of what the Green Party would put forward, but it is not good legislation and National will not be supporting this bill through the House.

I would just also like to give my support to my colleague Alfred Ngaro on whom Phil Twyford made a needless attack when speaking on this bill. The Labour Party has failed to stick to the knitting of the bill and that is a disappointment, but it shows their lack of understanding of the judiciary, I guess, in this case. In essence, this is something we do not need to do. It will create more problems than advantages and the National Party will not be supporting this bill.

Before I begin, if I can indulge the House, I would like to mark the passing of Dame Thea Muldoon. As the MP for Tāmaki I am very conscious that Sir Robert looms large still, and those of us who have followed politics, or knew him, would know that Dame Thea played a significant role in his life, in the life of Tāmaki, and in politics in New Zealand. In doing so, I acknowledge that early on, of course, she was Lady Thea but then took on a knighthood—or in her case she became a Dame—in her own right. She ended her days peacefully in Ōrākei, in Tāmaki, at 87 years of age, and I would hope the House would join with me and others as we just pass on our condolences to her family.

It is a pleasure to turn now to speak for this short call on the Register of Pecuniary Interests of Judges Bill. I want to acknowledge Kennedy Graham from the Green Party who put this forward. I think that all members genuinely and with great enthusiasm do put forward ideas in the House. Members’ day is an opportunity once every 2 weeks to articulate views and ideas that are important to us. Dr Graham and I would probably disagree on many things, this bill included, but he has taken it through the Justice and Electoral Committee and it is back here now for a second reading in the House. Like other colleagues I do not support the bill. I am sure the intention is right but the bill itself is not really where Parliament needs to be.

First and foremost, Chris Bishop in his contribution talked about comity—that is the balance, if you like, between the judicial and the parliamentary wings of our constitutional structure. There does come a point where we as Parliament do not need to unnecessarily engage and interfere—if you like—with the judiciary. I think that—as I have read what the select committee has come up with in its report—from the feedback I was getting from judges, lawyers, and constituents of mine, they do not see this as a necessary bill. There are, in fact, a whole range of activities already that enable judges to recuse themselves where necessary. In fact, it is just being part of civil society, in its very basic structure, that any of us who have a competing interest, a conflict of interest, would declare that and step back. As David Bennett mentioned in his oration earlier—

💬 Hon Member: Who?

—yes, a very good oration—

💬 Hon Member: It was very generous.

It is amazing. What he was saying was that, actually, as politicians there is a right place for us, to declare our pecuniary interests. But I would say that even as politicians we can understand the dynamics that come with this. I think that, fundamentally, the judges of New Zealand do not require a pecuniary interest register. The main reason is, as I said, there are already avenues for this and the other reason is ultimately around control. It is the fundamental problem. Something we do not want in the judicial system is control that is not needed.

First and foremost, we do not need our judges and judicial workers having to spend an enormous amount of time filling out forms and then try to defend themselves from the various accusations, perceived or otherwise, around their interests. That is not helpful and not a good use of their time. There is that great principle that justice delayed is justice denied and I think it came out very clearly from the select committee that the register was not something that was needed.

The other element—and I mention again the word “control”—is that it is very easy to take documents like this and to have the vexatious, the litigious, starting to “have a crack at” people, to use the non-technical phrase. We do not need pecuniary interest registers for judges to, basically, be used by third parties, as David Bennett was saying, to attack judges, to then try to influence, or to have a say, or to change the outcome of a court proceeding by attacking the judge or the bench on a whole range of perceived issues. It is just not helpful.

I do have to say, in a much broader sense than just this particular bill—and it does primarily come from the left but not always—that, again, there is that desire to control. It is always put under the notion of transparency, but really it is: “We want to know about you, how you are funded, whom you talk to, who your friends are, and where your family go, so we can ultimately have a crack at you. We’re not going to ever argue the rational or substantial point; we’re just going to have a crack at you emotionally.” If you want a quick analogy of that, you only need look at the initial attack from Mr Twyford on Alfred Ngaro tonight: “Why talk substance when, actually, we’ll just identify an issue and emotionally have a crack at you?”. That is not what we need in a good, transparent democracy.

I will finish by saying that New Zealand should be very proud of its transparent system. It does not come from signing meaningless UN documents; it comes from having a constitutional structure that works well. Thank you.