Chauvel Charles: Urgent Debates — Resignation of Supreme Court Judge—Justice Wilson 
Chauvel Charles: Urgent Debates — Resignation of Supreme Court Judge—Justice Wilson 
[Volume:668;Page:15096] 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 I want to make four points in my contribution to this debate. The first one is by way of tribute to Mr Bill Wilson QC because New Zealand has been extremely fortunate to have had his service first in the Court of Appeal and then in the Supreme Court. His service in those capacities was all too short. Bill Wilson as has been recorded rightly by some speakers in this debate already was an outstanding member of the commercial Bar and he was a highly regarded company director—including I recall on the board of Air New Zealand. Prior to that he was an extremely well-thought-of partner and a senior partner in one of New Zealand’s most illustrious law firms Bell Gully a firm that is rightly known to have contributed some of the country’s leading lawyers to the bench to the Bar and even to this place—I speak of course of the historical precedent of Dillon Bell a former Attorney-General and others who have come from that firm and become members of Parliament. 
It is apparent from any reading of any of Bill Wilson’s judgments that he brought a degree of commercial acumen to the senior reaches of the New Zealand judiciary that must have been welcomed by any objective observer of these matters. But more than his commercial acumen—because there are many people who will attest to that—I think it is appropriate to also record that Bill Wilson brought to the task of appellate judging a liberal and humane approach that we certainly want to see more of in the senior reaches of judicial decision-making. 
The second thing I want to say on the record because an error has been made already as far as at least one speech that we have heard in the House is concerned is that Bill Wilson has been found to have committed no wrongdoing in his time on the bench. The complaints against him were found to be lacking in substance by the investigator appointed by the Judicial Conduct Commissioner; and on judicial review despite the carefully worded speech we heard from the Acting Attorney-General the full court of the High Court granted Bill Wilson’s judicial review application. It sent the matter back to the Judicial Conduct Commissioner and directed the commissioner to reconsider his decision to recommend that a judicial panel should be convened to investigate Mr Wilson’s conduct. 
So although discussion on this matter has proceeded in public on the basis that Mr Wilson’s resignation is some sort of admission of guilt it is not; and it is important in my view that this should be reflected in the record on this debate. 
I said I would make four brief contributions. The third point I want to make is that having pointed out that Mr Wilson was found guilty of no wrongdoing I am not standing in this House today to pretend that it might not have been wise to give full disclosure of the matters complained about. But that is a reflection more of the mores of the times more of the fact that we are in a transitional phase from the way things used to be done for want of putting it in a better or more elegant fashion at the bench and the Bar to a more open more divisive more litigious society that demands and requires transparency particularly now that we have repatriated the right of appeal from a foreign court and decided that those rights should be exercised here in Wellington—a decision I wholeheartedly support. 
Transparency is important; no one should deny that. What would be helpful for this House to now do is to take up the exhortation that we heard from Kennedy Graham and from other speakers in this debate and think about what can be learnt from the circumstances the sad and tragic circumstances that we currently find ourselves in. What can be done realistically to enhance transparency in terms of judicial appointments and judicial tenure and of the interests of the judges so that public confidence in the judiciary is maintained and enhanced but in a way that does not drive away the brightest and the best commercial and other litigators at the Bar in universities and other places from where we want to draw appointees to the Court of Appeal and to the Supreme Court—to our highest courts—because there is an excessive level of transparency or scrutiny imposed on them such that it is discouraging to want to take on high judicial office? We have an excellent legal profession in this country and the last thing we should do is make judicial office unappealing to people who are eminently qualified for it. 
Fourthly and finally having sat here and heard the contribution made to the debate by the Acting Attorney-General Judith Collins I say that I think we have lost an opportunity here to protect the reputation of our new Supreme Court and to make it clear to the public that there is every reason that they should continue to have the utmost confidence and respect in and for the New Zealand judiciary its independence and its lack of corruption. We are so lucky to live in a country where we do not have to worry about graft in these institutions at these levels because we do not. Here there is an allegation of the appearance of conflict. As I say it has never been made out; it is an issue of appearance. That is the worst that can be said about the allegations that are being dealt with here. We are lucky that this is as bad as it gets in New Zealand. This is something the Acting Attorney-General should be celebrating. It should be made very clear to the public that there is every reason to continue to maintain the utmost confidence in the judges of New Zealand. 
Instead the Acting Attorney-General failed to protect publicly the independence and the integrity of the judiciary. She maintained that she did not know why Mr Wilson resigned when it is obvious that she has had the facts all along. After his resignation she welcomed it and said: “It was the best thing for the judiciary.” Well that will have a chilling effect on judges and judicial candidates for office who think they are entitled as they are under our constitution to the full protection from the Attorney-General of their independence and their integrity when they are accused but not yet found guilty of any wrongdoing. 
I conclude by saying that perhaps Mr Wilson would have been better advised to disclose his business relationship with Mr Galbraith; he did not. Perhaps there should have been some consequence but should that consequence have been the forfeiture of his office? Should it have been at the price of being hounded from that office in a hail of bad publicity with no real public opportunity to put his side of the case? Should it have been at the price to New Zealand of the loss of an extremely able judge 6 years before his retirement was due by statute? I think that puts into context the opportunity cost point that was rightly made by Mr Quinn earlier. 
This matter has been poorly handled. It has left the judiciary and the new Supreme Court damaged. It has left Mr Wilson without a career and it has made becoming a judge in New Zealand noticeably less attractive to the many excellent barristers we have in practice here. If we do nothing else as a result of this fiasco we need to learn the lessons and put some remedies in place so that we do not find ourselves in this situation again.