Chauvel Charles: Third Readings — 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Chauvel Charles: Third Readings — 
[Sitting date: 27 February 2007. Volume:637;Page:7682. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to follow the previous speaker in commenting briefly and taking a call on the third readings of the legislation deriving from the Judicial Age Retirement Bill. Mr Harawira referred to one Maori judge in particular—the recently retired Justice Eddie Durie—and I join in his tribute in respect of His Honour Justice Durie. His Honour performed fine service on the bench and it is a good thing to have the opportunity to reflect on that service and to reflect that under this legislation had we passed it in time we would have been able to have 2 more years’ service from that judge. I think that demonstrates in a very tangible way what good legislation this is and it is pleasing to see that it has multiparty support from the House. 
Of course we should not single out one Maori judge when we think of the service that has been rendered to the judiciary from Maori judges. In recent years there have been many more judges of Maori ancestry appointed to many different judicial positions at all levels of the judicial system and they are providing sterling service on the bench. One might also note that there have been recent appointments to quasi-judicial positions such as that of Justice Goddard to the Police Complaints Authority. Justice Goddard is from Ngati Kahungunu. It is a matter of great pride that Judge Ida Malosi and Judge Semi Epati from the Pacific communities have been appointed to the bench in recent years. Under this legislation they will have the opportunity to serve a further 2 years of their term on the bench. 
Previous speakers have raised a number of interesting questions including the issue of why we have a retirement age at all for the judiciary and with respect to them that is a good question. It is one that ought to be considered further by Parliament. As Mr Tanczos said the reason why it is a different matter to consider retirement ages on a compulsory basis for the judiciary on one hand and all other employees on the other is that judges are independent. If we do not have a fixed retirement age for the judiciary what do we do when there is genuine incapacity on the part of a judicial officer and that judicial officer does not realise that he or she is in a state of incapacity? We would have the only constitutional option left which is a humiliating address to the Governor-General from this House. 
That is no way to end what would no doubt have been a sterling judicial career simply because incapacity has been reached and the judge has not realised that that is the case. That is a very sad way to end a career. We would not want to see that become a feature of New Zealand constitutional debate I would think. So for my part although in general I do not support the idea of retirement ages in employment I do see that constitutionally there is a case for retaining a fixed retirement age in judicial service where there is constitutional independence and where a head of bench cannot simply require a judge to retire so that we do avoid that unsightly and unseemly spectacle. 
I will comment on a point that was raised by an earlier speaker Dr Worth. He expressed the hope that this legislation by extending the service of judges by 2 years would not lead to the appointment of part-time judges because he said that would be a very bad thing as judging is a full-time occupation. Well I beg to differ with the member. One of the things that I am particularly proud about in terms of recent judicial appointments is that the quality of the bench has been preserved. Anyone who attended the swearing in on Friday of Justice Bill Wilson to the Court of Appeal—as I did as the Attorney-General’s representative—would be able to attest to just how fine the serving judiciary in New Zealand is as previous speakers have mentioned. That quality has been preserved. 
Another good thing that has happened as well in recent years is we have managed to achieve some diversity in appointments to the bench. As I said earlier there are more Maori judges more Pacific judges and more women judges. It is a good thing if on the one hand the bench can retain its expertise and on the other hand it can also look like the rest of the community so that when members of the community appear in court they can have confidence that they are being judged by their peers and not simply by a group of people drawn from a profession that reflects only one demographic in society. If it is the case that moving to some form of part-time judiciary can enhance the diversity of the bench while not diluting the quality of judicial appointment then I would be very supportive of that sort of move. I think it is a shame that the member sought to rule out or condemn that possibility in his remarks to the House. 
As previous speakers have mentioned it was the case in previous years—until 1980 when the Judicature Amendment Act was passed following Sir David Beattie’s landmark report—that some judicial retirement ages for the superior courts were set at 72. The age then went back to 68. We are proposing in this legislation to put the retirement age back to 70. For my part I would be hopeful that this is just a step on the journey. If putting the age back up to 70 works well and I am sure it will—as the rest of the House also seems sure—then we should keep the matter under review. We should look at further advances to the judicial retirement age in future as and when that seems appropriate. 
Bills read a third time.