Borrows Chester: Urgent Debates — Resignation of Supreme Court Judge—Justice Wilson 
Borrows Chester: Urgent Debates — Resignation of Supreme Court Judge—Justice Wilson 
[Volume:668;Page:15098] 
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
: 
 It gives me some heart to note the tenor of the debate in respect of the issue currently before the House. It seems to be that the damage to public confidence has been because of the perception of a conflict of interest rather than because any actual corruption has been found. I agree with the previous speaker Charles Chauvel who said we must do all that we can to protect confidence in our court system. 
I want to recall to the House a paragraph from an article in the  
Press 
 that speaks to this issue. It states: “Some erosion of confidence must have already occurred because the primary facts of Wilson’s behaviour—his failure to recognise immediately the extent of his personal and financial connections with a lawyer arguing a case in his court room and to remove himself from the case—raise serious doubts about his judgment. So do his failure to realise the grievousness of his mistake and fully account for his relationship with the lawyer. An offer to resign should have followed.” 
Of course we now know that Justice Wilson’s resignation did follow. It is a shame that it has occurred because by reputation we know that Justice Wilson did a lot of work pro bono for interests groups such as Maori to promote the interests of various iwi. We need to respect him for the fact that he did that as well as for the public appreciation of what he brought to the table in terms of his experience his candour and the gravitas that he brought to his role. 
It is important to make just a couple of points too in respect of speeches that have been made. One is to acknowledge the openness of the Acting Attorney-General the Hon Judith Collins in respect of what occurred and what finally occurred by way of the settlement. She did not seek to hide that and that has been a matter of public record. It is important for the public who are watching on to note that openness and to note what the expenses were to the Crown on behalf of the taxpayer. The other point that needs to be made is in respect of comments made by the Hon Trevor Mallard I think who said submissions should not have been filed by the Attorney-General and the Attorney-General should have had another colleague file them for him. For the sake of clarification it is important to point out that the submissions that were made were prepared by the Solicitor-General. They stated the Crown’s position on this matter and they were filed only nominally by the Attorney-General as a party to the proceedings. 
It is important to note that in these legal processes the law is an unusual sort of environment for lay people to get their heads around. It appears that when there is a conflict of interest or it appears that there may be a conflict of interest lay people are very quick to make leaps in their decision making as to whether there is an element of corruption. In other words they are prepared to say that if something is smelly there is definitely something wrong. In fact the different arms of Government under the separation of power are loath to point the finger at one another because it is important that confidence remains for the people who have to live under the law: under the adjudication of one branch of the law and under the laws created and enforced by the other two branches of the law. 
I see no reason to go much further in this speech other than to say this is a sad day for New Zealand because of the loss of an esteemed member of the judiciary. At the same time I recognise the need for that to happen in order to preserve the perception of openness. Maintaining integrity within our judicial system involves making sacrifices for the sake of the greater good. The public perception that our legal system is above reproach is something that we must jealously guard and work strenuously as a House to protect in the future for the good of all New Zealanders. Thank you. 
The debate having concluded the motion lapsed.