Mallard Trevor: Urgent Debates Declined — Resignation of Supreme Court Judge—Justice Wilson 
Mallard Trevor: Urgent Debates Declined — Resignation of Supreme Court Judge—Justice Wilson 
[Volume:668;Page:14776] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I think there are two other issues that this Parliament should properly debate without getting into the substance of the debate or reflecting on the judiciary. In fact there are probably three points. The first is the role of the Acting Attorney-General in making a decision to spend nearly $1 million of taxpayers’ funds— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member now is getting into detail of the debate and not the issue of order. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: No not at all. I am saying there is a Government decision to do this which has been announced. The Government decision to fund a retirement package was the subject of the announcement by the Hon Judith Collins. So my question is about whether it is a Government responsibility which I think you have mentioned. It clearly has been. It is in the letter that was given to you earlier this morning. 
There are two other matters. One matter—it is fair—concerns not in a general way but in a pretty specific way the integrity of our court system with the indications that were given over the weekend by the current but soon to be former Supreme Court Justice Mr Wilson—the honourable Mr Wilson I presume—that he had given all details to the Chief Justice. There is— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member is straying—[ 
Interruption 
]—no the member is straying dangerously now into saying under a point of order what he may wish to say in a debate. We cannot do that. I believe that the member’s points are raised in good faith; I have no problem with that. I fully accept the way the member has raised them. 
I will deal with the first point of order raised by the Hon David Parker about a case of recent occurrence. I understand why the member posed the question but I have to give him an assurance that this does not set such a precedent. It would be totally unacceptable were the Speaker to rule that an urgent debate could not be held in the House because a matter of recent occurrence had not actually occurred and then to turn round later and say “No it was announced several days ago and therefore it is no longer a recent matter.” That would be totally intolerable. I give the member an assurance that I will not try to rule in favour of that kind of inconsistency for any member because I think that would be totally unacceptable. 
The advice to me though regarding cases of recent occurrence is that this matter does refer to the proposed resignation of a judge and that has not actually occurred. Certainly the reason why I gave the second part to my ruling was to give the member some assurance that applying again would not change the substance of my ruling because it is section 23 of the Constitution Act 1986 that sets out that a judge can be removed from office only by the Sovereign or the Governor-General acting on behalf of the Sovereign acting on an address from this House. There is a proper procedure involving the Attorney-General for this House to resolve to make such an address. It is my view that it would not be appropriate for us to try to circumvent in any way those proper procedures for dealing with the concern about judicial conduct. To suggest that this House have a debate on the conduct of a judge just through the Standing Orders providing for an urgent debate puts under grave threat I think the very important constitutional principle that separates the judiciary from this House. I am conscious that the Hon Trevor Mallard has raised the point of the importance of having confidence in the judiciary and the importance of transparency. But of course this matter is not one that will fester on. This matter is one that is to be resolved because the justice has announced his intention to resign on 5 November so it is a matter that will be dealt with when he resigns. 
It is my considered view—and I looked at this very seriously because I do not consider the issue to be a minor one; I consider the matter a matter of significance and I wanted to make sure I gave it very careful thought—that it would not be appropriate for us to use the mechanism of an urgent debate to try to circumvent the procedures laid out in the Constitution Act and in our Standing Orders for dealing with issues of judicial conduct.