Worth Richard: Judicial Retirement Age Bill — In Committee 
Worth Richard: Judicial Retirement Age Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:637;Page:7645] 
Dr RICHARD WORTH (National) 
: 
 National supports the speedy passage of the Judicial Retirement Age Bill. I would like to add to the comments made by the previous speaker Chris Finlayson by saying that in looking at the division of this bill into parts there certainly is a case for the District Courts Act and the Judicature Act to be brought into closer alignment. It would be a very fitting end I believe to the career of the Minister in the chair the Hon Rick Barker if he were to commence upon such a task as that. 
There is not a lot of substance in Part 2. The only point of substance is to increase the retirement age of judges in the way that is being described. But I would also like to pick up on a comment made earlier that it is appropriate to reflect on the contribution that the judges at all levels of the system make to the legal system. It is a man-made system; it suffers of course from imperfections. But one of its great strengths is the calibre and the intellectual capability of the judges. 
It is often said that being a judge is a difficult task—not so difficult perhaps in terms of its intellectual dimension but in terms of the daily grind. The Minister will be very much aware of pressures emanating from the Auckland High Court district in connection with massive delays in the criminal jurisdiction which have been substantially brought about by the refusal of the Government to transfer a substantial body of work to the lower court. I am speaking about the delays in bringing drug dealers to trial in respect of methamphetamine activity. 
This is an issue that has been raised with the Minister in the chair on a number of occasions. It is very much a hot issue amongst the judges in Auckland and it has a significant consequence in the context of this Judicial Retirement Age Bill. The delays are of such a magnitude that there may be some cases that will see judicial lives flourish until the end of the extended term of 70 years of age without a number of these cases being resolved. I commend the Minister that he look at that particular issue without further delay. 
In the course of the debate on this bill I have made three essential points. Those three points have been these. First there is a clear case for extension of the retirement age. That could be done in a number of ways. It could be done by fixing an age or it could be done by creating a term of years for judges to serve. In the particular instance here the Government has followed a traditional path in extending the retirement age to 70. It could have been 72. As I commented earlier we have made provision in our Supreme Court for acting judges to serve up to the age of 75. So there is no necessary magic in what the age might be. 
The second point which I think is worth noting is that judges are being given tenure akin to the tenure that is given to people like professors at universities. Associated with that there must always be the question that arises when a judge starts to flag when perhaps his or her faculties begin to fail. In 2004 Parliament passed legislation that I think is particularly relevant and significant in that regard and that was the Judicial Conduct Commissioner and Judicial Conduct Panel Act 2004. It was the case that a judge could behave in an errant fashion for many years and not be held accountable. It was seen as a hugely Draconian step for a judge to be removed for misconduct. In the history of New Zealand we came close to doing that only once and it concerned the conduct of Mr Justice Edwards in about 1920. But now we have in place this legislation that deals with judicial conduct and sets up a Judicial Conduct Commissioner and Judicial Conduct Panel Act. So those who are aggrieved who appear as litigants in the courts or as accused persons have a mechanism working parallel with this legislation—the Judicial Retirement Age Bill—to make complaints through the system if that is appropriate. 
The third and final thing I would like to say is that I have expressed concern in the past that this legislation may be a pathway that excites some judges to look again at the prospect of being part-time judges. I hope that the Minister and the Attorney-General will set their hearts firmly against that course because judging is a full-time occupation. It is not to be carried out in association with other trades and hobbies.