Mark Ron: Third Readings — 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Mark Ron: Third Readings — 
[Sitting date: 27 February 2007. Volume:637;Page:7679. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I rise to put on the record that New Zealand First will continue to support the passage of these six bills that have been separated out from the Judicial Retirement Age Bill. Right from the outset New Zealand First believed that it was sensible to raise the retiring ages for judges. I think it would be fair and appropriate to put on the record our support of the question asked by the member who just resumed her seat Kate Wilkinson from Waimakariri. We should possibly be asking that next question of why there should be a mandatory age for retirement at all.  
On reflecting on the member’s question I think there are many of us in this House who can name people who at the grand old age of 85 still have absolute and complete control of all their faculties who are able to reason articulate views analyse and read and who still have an immense knowledge of the area of professionalism they have worked in—some for 50 or 60-odd years. We in New Zealand First have long thought that and I guess we have been criticised for our support for the elderly community of New Zealand. We have often been criticised by members both in National and in Labour for our unswerving support for the elderly because we—unlike those parties—do believe that elderly people still have a major role to play in society.  
The amount of experience and knowledge that people have accrued over 50 years may not be expressed as vocally or as loudly as some of the more junior younger professional people in the field may want to express their opinions but often the contributions of older people contain a great deal more wisdom. There is far more value in the counsel that those older people in the profession have to offer. So it is timely as we pass this legislation through its third reading to not sit and smugly pat ourselves on the back and say we have done good—because we have at this point—but I think it would be right for New Zealand First to express to the House the need for us to ponder the subject a little more deeply.  
I can tell members that on my holidays over Christmas when I went up to Whangaroa—prior to my partner and I going up and spending some time at the Hon Dover Samuels’ place at Matauri Bay—I had occasion to stay at the home of Robyn and Doug Gow and I had the fortune of meeting Robyn’s mum. Let me tell members she is one totally independent lady. She is in her 80s she lives alone and she is able to sit and engage and discuss with me everything that is happening politically. She is extremely well read and well informed. I would suggest that she has a far greater knowledge of political events than many members and she is able to articulate a depth of understanding to a degree that far surpasses that of a large number of honourable members in this House.  
To suggest that a person is no longer capable of expressing a view—or indeed to suggest that a judge who has given long loyal and competent service to this nation is no longer capable of doing that—because he or she is 71 is a nonsense. People should be judged on their merits. It is interesting that when we in this House are out there on the political hustings seeking support from the public for our political parties we often express views that suggest people should be judged as to their merits. People should not be treated simply discarded or ignored simply because they have attained a certain age—or have not attained a certain age. On occasion we seem very long in the rhetoric as to what we believe and very short in the doing.  
I suggest that this is good legislation. It is a step in the right direction. New Zealand First supports it wholeheartedly but we would suggest that possibly it is time to start thinking a little more widely and to start asking questions about how retirement should be determined for the judiciary. Should it be a question of age or should it be a question of capability? I think I already know the answer to that question by looking around the House and seeing the faces of other members right now. We in New Zealand First might suggest that it should be a question of capability as opposed to a question of age.