Judges' register of interests possible

Chris Finlayson. Photo / Hawke's Bay Today

The Government could set up a register of pecuniary interests for judges the same way MPs are required to in the wake of the Bill Wilson affair, Attorney General Chris Finlayson indicated last night.

The idea was suggested yesterday in a parliamentary snap debate on the resignation of Supreme Court judge Bill Wilson, by Green MP Kennedy Graham.

Dr Graham has drafted a private member's bill to that effect but at this stage it could be considered by the House only if his bill is drawn from the ballot.

Mr Finlayson said later he had discussed Dr Graham's bill with him.

"And it raises important issues," he said through a spokesman.

"I will consider it very carefully, and there may be an opportunity to look at it in the context of the forthcoming review of the Judicature Act."

Labour MP Charles Chauvel backed Dr Graham's suggestions.

Both he and Dr Graham - both lawyers - paid tribute to the former judge's reputation as a lawyer and a judge; both described the ending of his career as tragic and both were concerned with public confidence in the Supreme Court, New Zealand's newest and highest court.

Mr Wilson negotiated a resignation with the Acting Attorney General Judith Collins, bringing to an end proceedings under the judicial complaints law.

He faced complaints relating to the disclosure of his business interests with a lawyer who appeared before him in the Saxmere case and recently overturned on judicial review an order by the Judicial Complaints Commissioner to set up a panel to look further into the matter.

Mr Wilson's resignation took effect last week and the package included a year's salary of $410,000, taxable, and payment of his solicitor-client costs of $475,000. Mrs Collins reiterated that a higher settlement had been sought which she thought excessive.

Dr Graham said introducing a pecuniary interests register would help protect the judiciary in the future.

"Being obliged under law to declare pecuniary interests that might be relevant to the conduct of a future case in which one is involved would relieve a judge from a repetitive weight of responsibility to make discretionary judgments about his or her personal affairs as each case arises," he said.

Care still had to be exercised to ensure that the final decision was left to the individual judge whether to accept a case.

"There should be no intention of external interference into the self-regulation of the judiciary by the judiciary."

Dr Graham said that Cabinet ministers and other MPs had to declare pecuniary interests and "in both cases careful balance has been struck between transparent public knowledge of an individual's financial affairs and the preservation of personal privacy".

Interests are stated but not dollar amounts.

Mr Chauvel said it would be helpful for the House to see what could be learned from the "sad and tragic circumstances".

"What can be done realistically to enhance our transparency in terms of judicial appointments and judicial tenure and of the interests of judges so that public confidence in the judiciary is maintained and enhanced but in a way that does not drive away the brightest and best commercial and other litigators ..."

Labour MP Trevor Mallard ignored the instructions of Speaker Lockwood Smith who at the outset of the debate asked there be no criticism of the court, saying it was unconstitutional to reflect on or speak disrespectfully of the judiciary.

Mr Mallard criticised Chief Justice Sian Elias for not making a letter she had received from former Appeal Court judge Sir Edmund Thomas about Justice Wilson available to the Saxmere litigants, the original complainants. "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."