Parker David: Urgent Debates Declined — Resignation of Supreme Court Judge—Justice Wilson 
Parker David: Urgent Debates Declined — Resignation of Supreme Court Judge—Justice Wilson 
[Volume:668;Page:14779] 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 There is one further point. It seems to me that if the judge concerned had gone through the full process had been found to have erred and then had been subject to the motion this matter would be discussed by the House. Can a judge avoid that scrutiny in Parliament in the face of those allegations by resigning? If that is the case then that would suggest that we should be able to debate these things in the face of a resignation. You might be right as to the timing—5 November—but I would suggest that you reserve your position until 5 November in respect of the underlying issue. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I appreciate the contributions of the honourable members. I have found all of them to be particularly helpful. This is an important matter and that is why I have been prepared to listen to points of order on it. I appreciate the point raised by the Hon Gerry Brownlee that this convention should not prevent a Minister making decisions from facing scrutiny around those decisions. I think the Hon Trevor Mallard mentioned having a proper process for this House especially the Opposition perhaps to raise issues of concern. It may be a matter that the Standing Orders Committee could look at and contemplate further because the Speakers’ rulings that I referred to are very old; they go back to the turn of the century. There has been an issue of a notice of motion raised in this House if I recollect correctly but again that was a long time ago. That shows the infrequency of these issues and it shows the respect that this House holds for the separation of powers under our constitution. 
Members have all made perfectly valid points. To me as Speaker what I would feel more comfortable with is a notice of motion procedure rather than simply an application for an urgent debate although I accept that that is somewhat different from this situation because it may be that a notice of motion procedure that was not initiated by the Attorney-General could arise where nothing was being done about a situation that a member of this House was very very deeply concerned about. 
So in terms of the transparency of the judiciary there are mechanisms for this House to deal with that via the proper process of the judicial complaints authority—by the process of a panel and then by the Attorney-General putting a motion to this House. There is that possibility of a notice of motion being raised in the House but I do not think that an urgent debate is the way to deal with these issues. 
That is why I have raised this matter—because I do not want my decision to turn purely on the date of resignation. I do not think that that would be very appropriate. I think there are deeper issues here. The fact that a judge is resigning on 5 November means that that issue has been dealt with. The issues involving the Acting Minister who is open to scrutiny on those issues as Minister as the Leader of the House has pointed out can be dealt with. 
So I remain comfortable with my ruling today. I accept that it is an important issue. I do not want to deny the rights of this House on the rare occasion to address these issues but I believe that proper procedures should be followed for doing that and I do not believe that an urgent debate is the proper procedure for doing that.