O'Rourke DenisDENIS O'ROURKE (NZ First): New Zealand First was going to vote against this bill at this stage despite this being a very much-needed piece of legislation and a long time in development. The two reasons were the compulsory retirement of judges provision and also the failure to reaffirm the principles concerning the rule of law and the sovereignty of Parliament. Now that we hear that that latter provision will now be reinserted into the bill it makes it possible for New Zealand First to vote in favour of the bill. So I am pleased to be able to say that because we do think that that matter—the reaffirmation of the principles concerning the rule of law and the sovereignty of Parliament—is extremely important and I am glad to see therefore that they are going to be put back into the bill. Jacinda Ardern quoted from the speech of Sir John McGrath and I just want to add one more quote to that which I think sums it up very well. He said: It means our nation's commitment to the principle that all persons and all bodies whether public or private must comply with the law and are entitled to exercise all rights that it gives them. Upholding this principle is the central role of the Courts." So that for me puts it in a nutshell—the central role of the courts. There is a lot more I would have said about that issue had the Government not indicated that it will support Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 62 but now that it has I can move on to the other issue I want to talk about and that is that New Zealand First does not support clause 132 regarding the compulsory retirement of judges and therefore does support Supplementary Order Paper 61.There are a four reasons for this and the first is it is actually ageism—clearly and unmistakably ageism. The Government should be ensuring that people who are capable and who wish to work beyond the age of 70 are given the opportunity to do so. Secondly under the Human Rights Act discrimination on the grounds of age is in fact unlawful. It is unlawful for employers who may not contract for a fixed age for retirement age. If that is the principle there then it should be the principle everywhere. Thirdly it is an unnecessary provision. Few people carry on when they are actually unable to perform adequately and even if they did the Chief Judge could and should advise and counsel judges in that position and the bill could just have said that instead. Fourthly the age of 70 is not in fact so late in life these days for very many very able people that they are forced to retire at that age. In fact when you think about it the huge experience of judges who reach the age of 70 actually makes them extremely valuable and their expertise should not be lost if they wish to carry on.New Zealand First believes very strongly in this. We oppose clause 132. We support SOP 61 and I call upon the Government to give that a little bit more thought because it is actually not the right thing to do and it should agree with and adopt SOP 61. If it does not do so that would not be sufficient in itself for us to vote against the bill as a whole because it is a very important piece of legislation and one that has been a long time coming and is very much needed in this country. With those comments I will leave it there but I do hope that in addition to adopting SOP 62 the Government will reconsider and will now also adopt SOP 61."