Mallard Trevor: Urgent Debates — Resignation of Supreme Court Judge—Justice Wilson 
Mallard Trevor: Urgent Debates — Resignation of Supreme Court Judge—Justice Wilson 
[Volume:668;Page:15095] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I will make a few points but I start off by saying that this situation is very sad. It is sad for former Justice Wilson. I am not a lawyer—although learned colleagues eminent lawyers are seated to my left and my right—but I know that Justice Wilson had a very good mind and a good reputation as a jurist. So it is sad to lose him. There is also some sadness in my view for the position that the Saxmere Company has been put in as a result of the lack of disclosure in this matter not only on the part of Mr Wilson originally but also subsequently on the part of the Chief Justice and the Attorney-General. 
In this debate I do agree with my colleague David Parker about the inappropriateness of making a payout but I disagree with him in that he focused in particular on the amount of money. My view is that the judiciary and the court system in New Zealand would have been better served by letting this matter run its course because at the moment there is a reflection on the Chief Justice and on the Attorney-General in New Zealand for their involvement. In my opinion that is not a good position to be in and my view therefore is that if a process had been followed things would have been clearer. 
I will make two or three points. I preface them by saying that in the United Kingdom the Attorney-General is not a member of Cabinet; the Attorney-General is independent. In New Zealand in my time in Parliament we have had an Attorney-General who was not a member of Cabinet. Having some sort of independence in that way I think would be useful. I notice that my learned colleague on my left is not very keen on that approach; it might be that he covets both jobs! 
I make the point that on 25 February 2009 the Attorney-General filed a written submission in which he said: “As Justice Wilson’s statement must be authoritative on the matter the Crown adopts his description of those interests.” Chris Finlayson aligned himself with the judge and said that it was a correct position. Subsequently on receipt of correspondence from the Rt Hon Sir Edmund Thomas QC Chris Finlayson became aware of the fact that Justice Wilson’s description of his interests was not accurate but he did not do what was appropriate and file a corrective statement in the court indicating that he was aware of that fact. 
Neither was there a formal approach from the Chief Justice. It is now a matter of public record that the Chief Justice was written to by Sir Edmund and she replied to him that the matter was in hand. We do not know how the matter was in hand or what she did. The problem I have is that a party to the proceedings—Saxmere—was totally excluded from the knowledge that apparently through an informal channel the Chief Justice was putting before justices. She did not do it in a proper manner such that the parties to the case were aware of it. 
She should have done her job properly. The Attorney-General should have done his job properly—in fact he should never have filed the first submission. As he made clear to Mr Colin King and to the Prime Minister he was either a close friend or a friend of Mr Wilson’s. The Attorney-General should not have been involved; he should have asked a colleague to make those submissions. This is not a good day it is not a good period for the judiciary and I hope that the matters can be clarified as soon as possible.