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:14778] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. There are two or three points that I would like to make the first going to your specific point. It is my understanding that Mr Justice Wilson has resigned effective from a date in the future. If there is a question about whether he has resigned it is my understanding that he did resign as part of an agreement—and I see some nodding from members on the other side of the House. I think going by the Acting Attorney-General’s statement it was following an agreement that she was party to. The question therefore is that having resigned he can take no further part in our system as a judge from the bench. And he has made it clear that it is his feeling that he cannot appear in court. But this decision of his to resign was taken after an agreement with the Acting Attorney-General as to a sum of money of roughly a million dollars which she announced. The question then is what rights Parliament has with regard to someone who is no longer a judge but about whom the Acting Attorney-General in her wisdom has made orders that are effectively a payout. People can debate about whether it was— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member is— 
Hon Simon Power 
: He’s still a member of the Supreme Court. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No a point of order is being considered. The member is now starting by way of a point of order to get into debating material. The Constitution Act and our Speakers’ rulings are pretty clear on the only proper way to bring forward such an issue. This House unquestionably has a role under the Constitution Act but the only proper way to bring such an issue before this House is by way of a notice of motion following certain other procedures being conducted. This particular case does not reach that point because the judge has announced his intention to resign as from 5 p.m. on 5 November. 
I would be deeply concerned as Speaker if my decision today hinged just on this timing issue. I would not wish to deprive members of the House of a debate on a serious issue just on the matter of timing. I think that would be a technical issue that would be somewhat unfortunate although I do not want to breach the conventions in that regard. Still I do not think that would be sufficient to turn down a debate at the appropriate point. The greater concern is this House by way of just an urgent debate debating an issue of judicial conduct. I am troubled that that would seriously threaten the proper relationship between this House and the judiciary. There is a proper way for matters in respect of the conduct of the judiciary to be brought before this House because this House has a definite role in ensuring the accountability of our judicial system. But I think we would be wise to protect that proper procedure and process rather than put the proper separations of power under our constitution at risk through seeking to depart from that tradition and process as laid out in the Constitution Act. That is why I have ruled in that way.